Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board says Giddens Garden warehouse application lacks key details; requests SHPO sign-off and site specifics
Summary
The planning board reviewed a proposal for a new warehouse/repacking facility on a site near Pulaski Highway (referred to as Giddens Garden). Members said the application lacked a narrative of proposed uses, clarity on water/sewer and septic, confirmation of existing onsite structures, and sign-off from the State Historic Preservation Office and
Goshen Planning Board members told the applicant for a proposed warehouse and repackaging facility (referenced as "Giddens Garden") that the submission lacked essential narrative and technical detail. The board requested a clearer project narrative, confirmation of existing on-site structures and wells/septic, SHPO clearance for an area identified as archaeologically sensitive, and mitigation steps for two species flagged in the environmental review.
What was on the plan and what board members said - The application calls for construction of a warehouse (listed dimensions: 84 feet by 272 feet) and a sewage disposal system. The filing lists the project as an agricultural/produce repackaging facility with an anticipated water use of about 225 gallons per day. (3331.1099, 3588.095) - Several board members said the application lacks a project narrative describing the specific uses (repacking only versus processing/washing), the expected tenant mix, and the anticipated number of truck movements. One member: "It'd be nice to hear from the person's mouth exactly what they're gonna do." (3103.48) - The board noted existing accessory structures on-site that are vacant and "not part of this application," and said the submission should account for these buildings because they could affect environmental and infrastructure reviews. (3470.905) - The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) sign-off was requested because the project site was marked as "sensitive for archaeological sites" in the environmental forms; the board asked staff to secure SHPO clearance. (3955.82) - The environmental form flagged at least two species of concern (identified in the record as the northern harrier and a short-eared/"shorthaired" species). Board members said seasonal work windows or other avoidance measures may be required. (4113.4053)
Infrastructure, traffic, and public-safety questions - The applicant reported modest truck traffic (5 to 6 trucks per day) and asserted trucks would use a town road (Winski/Winsky Road) for access rather than Pulaski Highway; the board asked planning staff to confirm the road can safely accommodate anticipated truck traffic and whether pavement sections and right-of-way (33-foot right-of-way cited) are adequate. (3765.67, 4262.53) - Members questioned whether the proposed septic and water arrangements are adequate for the proposed use and asked for clarification about whether accessory buildings share wells or septic. (3879.2) - Several members said they would expect repackaging only to result in low water demand (225 gpd cited) but that processing or washing would materially change infrastructure needs and possibly require a sprinkler or other systems. (3588.095, 3634.69)
Requests to applicant/staff - A clear project narrative specifying exact use(s): repackaging only, or processing that requires washing/processing water, estimated truck types and frequency, tenant expectations, and staffing levels (the plan lists 15 employees in one narrative line). (3432.3, 3522.09) - SHPO sign-off to resolve archaeological sensitivity questions and a wetlands/floodplain confirmation if relevant. (3955.82, 3971.9949) - Clarification of existing buildings on site, well/septic locations and capacities, and whether vacant accessory structures will be reused. (3470.905, 3914.095) - Confirmation from the town highway department about whether the suggested truck route (Winski/Winsky Road) can safely handle the expected truck traffic and axle loads. (4228.115)
Bottom line: Board members expressed general openness to a repackaging/warehouse use on the site but said the current application is "thin" and must supply additional technical information — particularly SHPO clearance, a project narrative about processing versus repackaging, and water/septic details — before the board will advance an approval recommendation.
Next steps: Applicant to provide narrative, clarify infrastructure and existing-structure status, secure SHPO sign-off, and provide confirmation on truck routing and road capacity from highway staff.
