Developer seeks subdivision and variances for two 5 MW battery storage systems at 114 Hartley Road

The Town of Goshen heard an initial application to subdivide a 31.2‑acre parcel at 114 Hartley Road and to install two battery energy storage systems (BESS). Applicants said each system would be rated at 5 megawatts AC and would be sited in the town’s Battery Storage Overlay District; because Orange and Rockland requires a separate tax identification number for each system, the applicant seeks subdivision approval and several internal setback variances to create two new lots of just over one acre each.

Alclad, attorney for the applicant, told the board the parent parcel is used by TAM Enterprises, a construction and materials company, and the battery systems would be placed behind existing buildings with access from Harvey Road. “They’re each gonna be 5 megawatts AC,” Alclad said, describing the project as a leasehold development that requires separate tax IDs to receive payment from the utility.

Engineer representatives from Creighton Manning and developer Aaron Nolan of New Leaf Energy described site constraints that led to variance requests, including existing gravel storage, a septic leach field and a vegetated swale along the proposed lot edge. The applicants said the systems are relatively compact — roughly 10,000 to 15,000 square feet per system — but could not be located on separate one‑acre parcels without creating internal setback issues given existing site features.

Board members and staff focused on three technical issues: whether the subdivision line could be drawn to reduce the number or magnitude of variances, stormwater and drainage impacts, and fire‑safety/service access. Several planning board members suggested the applicants examine alternate lot lines that might eliminate some variances by incorporating an existing vegetated swale or other nonusable areas into the new lots. The applicants agreed to evaluate alternate lot‑line configurations and discuss with the property owner whether the move would be practicable given existing access, septic and storage operations.

On stormwater, the applicants said the project falls near the one‑acre disturbance threshold for DEC review and that the planning board will require a full stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP/SWIFT) and a hydrologic analysis. The civil engineer told the board the project would result in a net reduction of paved area on the site and that post‑construction runoff is intended to be less than pre‑development runoff. The town’s building inspector and planning staff said they would expect a full SWPPP and town‑engineer review before any vote.

Applicants described operational and safety protocols for the lithium‑ion battery systems and said they had engaged the fire department for outreach and pre‑application safety discussions. The developer said the systems would primarily discharge during summer peak events and estimated, for context, that each system could provide power equivalent to serving “up to 5,000 homes” for a roughly four‑hour window when active; applicants said the systems will be charged off‑peak and dispatched to reduce summer peak demand. The applicant indicated the facility would be unmanned and would have no onsite water demand.

No final vote was taken by the town board at this meeting. The planning board noted the application is subject to coordinated review and that the planning board will conduct a full technical review; members discussed a tentative July 1 meeting for further consideration and suggested the possibility of a joint hearing with the town board and planning board. The applicants agreed to supply additional materials, including full grading, erosion‑control, stormwater and lot‑line alternatives, before the next hearing.