Goshen zoning board continues hearing on variance for two floodplain lots at Glenwood/Gumwood Drive

The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals on the evening reopened public hearings for two lots at the end of Glenwood Drive and voted to continue the hearings to May 6 to allow the board time to review additional legal arguments and photographs submitted by the applicant's counsel.

The applications, submitted by a builder working under the name Hardest Estates LLC (listed in the hearing materials), seek relief from a provision in town code—identified in the public discussion as section 9725(c)—that requires both new buildings and the roadway serving them to be above the flood elevation or demonstrated by engineering to be safe for first responders. Counsel for the applicant, Charlie Bezidl, told the board the request is limited to the roadway requirement so the applicant can then obtain planning-board site-plan approval and a building permit to raise two houses above the flood elevation.

The variance petition affects two undeveloped lots described in the record as part of an older subdivision. Bezidl said the lots were platted many years ago, that curb-cut permits were already issued by the highway superintendent, and that the applicant holds a DEC buffer permit for development in the wetland buffer. He told the board the expense or feasibility of raising the existing town road to meet the code standard makes the roadway requirement effectively impossible for these two lots, and argued the parcels are unique because they lie at the end of an existing built road surrounded by other raised homes.

Neighbors who live adjacent to the parcels urged caution. Resident Holly Kolb said the property has been empty for decades and that the roadway and lots flood in heavy rain; she said her household pays flood insurance because the bank required it when the property last changed hands. Another resident, Chris Haley, said he had been inclined to support the variance until hearing legal concerns that the change could alter the town code's application more broadly. Joe (identified in the record as a resident and town supervisor) reminded the board that nearby Lindenwood Drive properties were previously purchased by the town because of recurring flooding and that most lots along that road were intended to remain undeveloped.

Board members and legal commenters questioned whether the zoning board has authority to waive the roadway requirement, noting that section 9725(c) was adopted by the town board and that the board should also review the zoning-board powers in section 9769 (administration and enforcement). The record also includes a recently submitted advocacy letter from another counsel present (identified in the hearing as Mr. Healy) that members said they needed time to review.

After discussion, a motion to reopen the public hearings for the two items was made and carried; later the board voted to extend (continue) the public hearing to 7:30 p.m. on May 6 to permit review of the additional materials and legal arguments. The hearing was recorded and participants were told the recording is available via the town's posted video archive.

Next steps: the board asked the applicant's counsel to provide the requested engineering and floodplain extent information to the planning and highway staff, and said the board's counsel would review the legal question of whether the zoning board may grant the requested waiver of 9725(c) before the continued hearing.

Details from the record: the applicant intends to build two homes on existing lots; the applicant had obtained curb-cut approval and a DEC buffer permit; town code sections 9725(c) and 9769 were cited repeatedly in the hearing; a recently submitted advocacy letter and photos were presented and will be considered at the continuation.