Planning board flags safety, turning-lane concerns for Cannon Hill Drive flex building

The Goshen Planning Board on an unspecified meeting date debated a proposed flex building near Cannon Hill Drive and Route 17M, with several members saying the town should not approve the project until safety concerns at the Route 17M intersection are addressed.

Board members said the projectwould add tractor-trailer traffic to an intersection where turning movements already force trucks into opposing lanes. One planning board member said the state acknowledged the intersection has a problem but indicated it would only address the issue "when they get to it." That member added: "I can't see the town approving this project as planned without first having the 17 M, dealt with." (Planning board member, 1632.305)

Why it matters: Board members framed the issue as a public-safety question rather than a streetscape or aesthetics dispute. Several members said that if the town allows the building and the state delays intersection improvements, the town could face liability or public outcry if crashes result.

Key facts and debate - The project site is adjacent to Route 17M (also referenced as "17 M") and Cannon Hill Drive, near an old airfield and a bus-storage garage; board members said morning bus movements could worsen the conflict with trucks. (transcript comments: 341.63) - A turning-movement analysis was on file dated 08/12/2024; board members said that analysis still shows trucks crossing into the opposite lane to complete turns and that a more recent analysis was expected but not provided. One member said: "I have not seen a new one. I thought they were going to give us a new one." (1107.45) - The state DOT reportedly told the town the intersection "justifies a dedicated turning lane" and that the state would address it "when they get to it." Board members discussed whether the town can require intersection improvements before approving a site plan, and cited past precedent where an applicant paid for or constructed roadway improvements as part of approvals (LEGOLAND cited as an example where the developer funded major traffic work). (430.245, 1990.93) - The applicant reportedly offered a contribution of $25,000 toward DOT studies/engineering; some board members said that sum seemed small for design and construction but could be used to pursue DOT review. (1896.955) - The design of a required berm that screens the building from Route 17M was debated: members noted the berm could later be removed if the state needs that land for a turning lane, which would defeat the intended screening. Members urged planning staff and the applicant to assume the state might need the berm area and design accordingly. (591.295, 753.44)

Options and suggestions raised by the board - Delay formal approval until the applicant supplies an updated turning analysis and DOT indicates a plan or timeline. (1120.115) - Require an easement, land reservation, or explicit commitment from the applicant to allow the state to use the berm area if needed, or to contribute to construction when DOT reaches the project. (734.6, 1273.72) - Consider temporary or interim measures: increased signage, altered truck routing, or a temporary turning lane if the state and property owners can agree on use of front parcel land. (1643.34, 1283.48) - Explore alternatives such as dedicated right- and left-turn lanes, larger corner radii, or roundabouts (though most members said a roundabout would be impractical for tractor-trailers on Route 17M). (983.905, 1055.77)

What the board asked staff/applicant to provide - Updated turning-movement analysis that includes tractor-trailer inbound and outbound maneuvers for Cannon Hill Drive. - Clarification in writing about any applicant financial contribution (the $25,000 figure was discussed) and whether other adjacent property owners would contribute to a combined fund for DOT design or improvements. - Confirmation from DOT, or evidence of DOT review, about whether right-of-way or property will be needed for a dedicated turning lane and whether the state can or will require modifications to the berm. (591.295, 734.6)

Bottom line: Board members expressed a consensus that safety concerns at the Route 17M/Cannon Hill Drive intersection are a substantive constraint on approving the flex building as currently designed. Several said they would prefer either a clear DOT plan or stronger commitments from the applicant and neighboring property owners before recommending approval.

Next steps: Planning staff was asked to obtain a new turning analysis (if available), document the applicant's $25,000 contribution and the intended use of those funds, and seek clarification from DOT about design needs and right-of-way. (1107.45, 1896.955)