Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply And Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears water‑supply tests for proposed Route 17M lodging project; town requests clearer report
Summary
Developers of an 8.6‑acre lodging project on Route 17M presented a hydrogeologic pumping test showing the site can meet the project's water demand, but town consultants asked for a rewritten, standalone report and additional analyses before the board advances the Part 3 environmental review.
The Town of Goshen Planning Board on a March meeting heard detailed results of a pumping test and related monitoring for a proposed lodging facility on about 8.6 acres along New York State Route 17M filed by Golden State and Primrose Realty LLC. Tom Cusack, vice president and senior hydrogeologist at WSP, told the board the Orange County Department of Health approved a project water demand of 12 gallons per minute and WSP conducted the pumping test at 14 gallons per minute.
Cusack said the team "demonstrated the stabilization criteria" during the test and completed a 180‑day drawdown projection based on the final six hours of the test. He also described an offset well monitoring program that included 14 off‑site wells and twice‑average‑demand pumping for 72 hours. Cusack said most off‑site impacts were minimal ("2 feet, 1.2 feet, no non detect") and that the test parameters met drinking‑water standards, while noting limited impacts in five monitoring wells on the adjacent Tivoli site.
The board's town hydrologist, Bob Miller, said the team conducted a robust monitoring program and that he concurs with the technical conclusions, but asked the applicant to resubmit a stand‑alone report that includes the stabilization criterion number and other baseline details so future reviewers can verify the results. "They went and did a nice job in my opinion," Miller said, but he added the documentation should allow an independent reader to see exactly how rates and drawdowns were calculated and to compare pre‑, during‑ and post‑pump water levels.
Planning staff corrected one technical item in the applicant's Part 3 materials: review of the proposed wastewater treatment facility will be performed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), not the Orange County Department of Health. Town consultants and the applicant also discussed other Part 3 requirements, including a potential viewshed analysis and vantage‑point photo renderings if the board elects to require them.
Traffic consultant comments were noted; the driveway and DOT permitting will be handled with the applicant and the town's traffic reviewer, John Cannon. Cannon's memo will inform whether the board needs a required fair‑share or developers agreement for road improvements. Town staff asked the applicant to return with a revised Part 3, a clarified pumping‑test report that includes the stabilization number, and any viewshed work the board requires. No formal vote on the project was taken.
Next steps recorded at the meeting: the applicant will revise the hydrogeologic report to address Miller's presentation requirements, provide the traffic study materials and prepare an amended Part 3 EAF for the board's review; the DEC will continue with required permitting for wastewater review.
