Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healy Ford Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen board hears expansion, setback and landscaping requests for Healy/Sealy Ford truck repair
Summary
An applicant seeking to expand an existing truck-repair facility asked the zoning board for variances to build within the 100-foot stream setback, to leave an existing high impervious coverage level unchanged, and to interpret whether rear inventory counts as a parking lot subject to landscaping rules; the public hearing closed and the board continued final action to a future meeting.
The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday heard a presentation and public comment on a proposed expansion to a truck-repair facility identified in the agenda as Healy/Sealy Ford, during which the applicant sought three forms of relief: an area variance to place a building within the 100-foot stream setback, a variance related to existing impervious-surface coverage, and an interpretation whether the rear inventory area should be classified as a parking lot (triggering landscaping requirements) or as outdoor storage.
The applicant—s representative told the board the proposed addition would be located over existing paved area and would not change the site—s current impervious coverage (about 78.5% of a 24-acre parcel), and said the expansion is sited where it is because other locations on the parcel would also require the same 100-foot setback relief. The representative asked the board to consider whether the inventory spaces behind the building function as "outdoor storage"—an accessory use not subject to parking-lot landscaping rules—rather than a conventional parking lot with daily ingress/egress and pedestrian circulation.
Resident Chris Ealy, who identified himself during public comment, urged the board to apply the more restrictive code interpretation if there was any doubt. "If it looks like a parking lot," he said, "I agree with you. It's a parking lot." Ealy also raised flood-risk concerns near a neighboring food-processing facility with an above-ground lagoon septic system and said the applicant should have a plan to move vehicles in the event of flooding.
At least one board member expressed concern about the applicant—s approach of seeking piecemeal variances across multiple applications, saying that repeated, fragmented requests limit the board—s ability to evaluate cumulative impacts. The applicant—s attorney replied that the inventory area is not designed for day-to-day ingress/egress and lacks the access aisles and pedestrian elements that the town code associates with parking lots.
The board closed the public hearing and voted to adjourn final action on the required five-factor variance test to a later meeting so members could review materials that arrived the day of the meeting and consider the broader context of the applicant—s other submissions. No variance was granted or denied at the meeting.
