Goshen planning board grants area variance for 6 Gumwood Drive; 8 Gumwood moves forward for review

The Town of Goshen Planning Board voted to grant an area variance for 6 Gumwood Drive, allowing the applicant to return to the planning board for site‑plan review. The board also took up a related variance request for 8 Gumwood Drive; after discussion the transcript indicates members expressed support and the matter will proceed back to the planning board for engineering and site‑plan review, though a final roll‑call tally for 8 Gumwood was not recorded in the public transcript.

The variance for 6 Gumwood was approved after the board applied the statutory five‑factor test required under local law and state land‑use standards. The board recorded a 3–2 outcome on the 6 Gumwood request after a line‑by‑line consideration of neighborhood character, alternatives, substantiality, environmental impact and whether the difficulty was self‑created.

Applicant counsel Charles (who asked the board to call him Charlie) told the board the two vacant lots at 6 and 8 Gumwood Drive could not be used without relief. “Without this variance, these lots have no value whatsoever,” Charles told the board, saying the lots could only be developed if houses were elevated two feet above the mapped flood elevation and a waiver to the access standard was granted. The applicant also said it had secured a wetlands permit from the DEC to work in the 100‑foot wetland buffer and supplied plot plans showing the houses and driveways would avoid wetlands.

Neighbors raised concerns about flooding and drainage. John Donato, a resident who said he lives at 2 Gunwood Drive, showed photographs of street flooding after a four‑inch rain and asked whether filling or raising lots could push water onto existing yards and basements. “If you raise something, it’s going to push it back, and it’s going to push it back to us,” Donato said. Building inspector Frank told the board that the applicant would need engineering to show the work would not increase flood impacts on neighboring parcels and that any plan would be reviewed by the town’s engineer.

Board members debated precedent and the practical limits of mitigation. Chris Hilly, a longtime Goshen resident, urged the board to deny a variance on precedent grounds, citing a prior case in which the board required a developer to relocate a road to meet town standards. Members noted, however, that previous lot approvals and subdivision history can make individual applications unique and that the planning board review and engineering work would address many technical concerns.

Procedure and next steps were clarified in public. The board closed the public hearing on the Gumwood applications, performed the five‑factor analysis on 6 Gumwood and voted to grant the variance. The applicant was reminded that the variance does not constitute site‑plan approval; the applicant must return to the planning board for engineering review, stormwater controls and building permits. The applicant said it would be willing to relinquish lot 10 as a voluntary condition if that influenced the board, but board counsel cautioned that the board could not impose a condition that the applicant itself had not formally accepted; any such stipulation would need to be documented and reviewed.

The meeting record shows the board’s decision allows the applicant to proceed to the next steps of the local approval process, including a detailed engineering review to demonstrate that the proposed houses would not worsen flooding for neighbors. The transcript does not show the planning board’s subsequent engineering review or final site‑plan outcome.

Details from the record that remain to be completed include the engineering reports and any plan modifications required by the planning board, and whether the applicant will formalize the offer regarding Lot 10.