Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen board closes public hearing, defers decision on Healy Ford expansion and parking interpretation
Summary
The Zoning Board closed the public hearing on an expansion to Healy Ford truck repair and deferred action after hearing public flood‑risk concerns and questions about whether on‑site inventory parking counts as a 'parking lot' under town code. The board will resume a five‑factor variance review at its next meeting.
The Goshen Zoning Board closed the public hearing on a proposed addition to the Healy Ford truck repair facility and postponed a decision so members can review late materials and legal memos.
The applicant sought three forms of relief: a variance from the 100‑foot setback to a stream (the closest proposed corner would be roughly 48.2 feet from the top of bank), an impervious‑surface variance on a parcel the applicant says already measures about 78.5% impervious, and an interpretation of whether large areas used for dealer inventory constitute a parking lot (which would trigger landscape‑island requirements) or ‘‘outdoor storage’’ accessory to the dealership. The applicant’s representative told the board the proposed building would be sited where existing parking already exists and therefore would not increase impervious coverage.
Resident comments raised safety and environmental concerns. ‘‘If it looks like a parking lot, I agree with you — it’s a parking lot,’’ said Goshen resident Chris Ealy during the public comment period, urging the board to apply the town’s more restrictive requirements to protect neighbors. Ealy also flagged a nearby food‑processing facility with an above‑ground lagoon septic system that flooded during Hurricane Irene in 2011 and warned of contamination risk in heavy storms.
Board members questioned the piecemeal nature of several applications from the same applicant across adjacent parcels and said that separating relief into multiple hearings makes it harder to evaluate cumulative impacts. Members asked for time to review a counsel memo and the applicant’s statutory five‑factor analysis before making an interpretation about whether inventory parking is subject to parking‑lot landscaping standards.
The board voted to close the public hearing and hold off on the five‑factor variance determination. Staff and the applicant agreed to circulate the late materials to members; the board intends to consider the item at a subsequent meeting after members have had an opportunity to review the submission.
No final variance was granted or denied; the board’s action left open the interpretation on parking vs. outdoor storage and reserved its five‑factor finding for a later date.
