Developer seeks extension of Goshen water and sewer district to Youngs Grove subdivision

RH Craigville LLC asked the Town of Goshen on May 22 to extend the Town of Goshen consolidated water and consolidated sewer district to include the company's Youngs Grove (also transcribed as Youngs Grove/Young Grove) Residential Subdivision, a proposed development of about 105 single‑family lots on roughly 354 acres.

Attorney Neil Alexander, identifying himself as a partner at the law firm named in the record, told the board the extension would allow the developer to be a co‑applicant with the state permitting agency to secure a water withdrawal permit and to route wastewater to the village wastewater plant. "Step 1 is just right now is we'd like to put our property in your districts," Alexander said. He said the developer would build the on‑site infrastructure and then dedicate the public portions to the town when complete.

The petition is a preliminary step, Alexander and board members said. Alexander described efforts to avoid creating a temporary "transportation corporation" solely to hold permits before transferring utility assets to a public entity. He said his firm and the project's engineer had been discussing coordination with the state permitting agency and with village officials so the town would not need to host a short‑lived, private corporation to receive a permit.

Board members pressed for clarification about legal exposure if the town served as a co‑applicant. One member expressed concern about possible liabilities and whether being listed on a DEC application would make the town fiscally responsible if the project did not proceed. "I can't see why we wouldn't be held responsible as an as an as an approved applicant on this project because we're a part of this project now," a board member said during the exchange. Alexander suggested an indemnity or a letter of intent might address some agency requirements and offered to seek lower thresholds with the permitting agency.

Supervisory and planning details were discussed but not decided. Board members asked for written clarification of the town's potential obligations and for the developer to return with more information. The town noted that a final transfer of any public water and sewer infrastructure would typically be accompanied by planning‑board conditions such as performance bonds or irrevocable letters of credit to secure completion of work before the town assumed maintenance responsibility.

Village concurrence emerged as a key next step. Alexander and board members said the Village of Goshen must confirm capacity and approve access to its wastewater system; the developer indicated it had been trying to get on the village agenda and believed the village's next meeting was in early June. Alexander said some earlier correspondence indicated village approval in prior years, but board members asked the applicant to confirm current capacity and any conditions required by the village.

Board members also suggested examining a developer's agreement to spell out fair‑share costs, maintenance and inspection responsibilities, and any indemnity or insurance assurances. The board did not vote on the petition at the May 22 meeting; members asked for additional documentation from the applicant and recommended further coordination with DEC and the Village of Goshen before returning the item to the board.

Next steps: the applicant will provide the town with more detailed answers about DEC co‑applicant requirements, any proposed indemnity language or letter of intent, and confirmation of village capacity/approval. The board indicated it would consider developer agreements and planning‑board conditions before any final district extension or acceptance of infrastructure.