Developers outline Big Sky Farm plan in Goshen: 55+ community, hotel and utilities; board declares lead agency
Loading...
Summary
Big Sky Farms LLC presented a conceptual plan for a 47.2‑acre development with a 55+ planned community and a proposed 160–200‑room hotel; the board declared intent to be SEQR lead agency and classified the project as a Type I action, triggering fuller environmental review and agency referrals.
Developers of Big Sky Farms LLC presented an initial concept to the Town of Goshen Planning Board on Dec. 18 for a mixed project on approximately 47.2 acres along NY‑17M: a for‑sale, planned 55+ residential community and a conceptual hotel/conference facility. Engineering and Surveying Properties (Ross Wendel) and applicants Ron and Mary Swarovski described open‑space preservation, retention/rehabilitation of a barn, and on‑site wells and a treatment plant to serve the development.
The residential component would be a for‑sale planned adult community with one‑ and two‑bedroom units, many with accessibility design in mind. The hotel concept was described as a larger‑scale facility (applicants referenced almost 200 rooms in conceptual materials) paired with event space to fill a regional gap in conference capacity. Applicants emphasized potential tax revenue and a regional multiplier effect and said they are exploring sustainable technologies such as rooftop solar and geothermal systems.
Board members and staff focused feedback on utility capacity (applicants reported multiple test wells and an estimated standby storage tank), phasing (residential first, hotel later), road‑dedication requirements (town acceptance required before building occupancy) and a potential pedestrian connection to the Heritage Trail. Board staff advised early outreach to the local utility company to confirm capacity for the project’s expected electrical loads and recommended clarifying code interpretations for split‑zone access and special‑permit requirements.
Procedurally the board voted to declare its intent to act as lead agency under SEQR and to classify the Big Sky Farm application as a Type I action, which requires a more detailed EAF and involved‑agency referrals. Both motions were seconded and carried by voice vote. Staff told applicants to return with more detailed EAF responses and utility/traffic capacity confirmations.
What’s next: Applicant to provide expanded EAF detail, traffic and utility information, and firm phasing plans; the board will coordinate involved‑agency referrals now that the project is a Type I action.
