Goshen ZBA adjourns Solar Liberty project hearing after residents cite short notice and access concerns

The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned the public hearing on a proposed Solar Liberty/Solar Energy Partners solar project following a lengthy public comment period in which nearby residents said they received inadequate notice and raised concerns about access, scenic overlays and potential impacts on village water resources.

Attorney Ari Goldberg, representing the applicant, described the proposal as a multi-array solar facility over roughly 58.9 acres and said the variance requests are limited to an internal subdivision line between two co-located arrays. Goldberg explained the rationale tied to a 2021 Public Service Commission clarification: "The state caps rewards at 5 megawatts," he said, and having separate tax parcels for each array can permit two 5 MW arrays to qualify separately for awards. Goldberg and the applicant said all other code setbacks and fence distances meet the requirements except where the new internal lot line creates a 0-foot setback.

Residents who spoke at the public hearing raised multiple concerns. Kim Loring (16 Storms Road) objected to what she described as inadequate notice: "We've received less than 24 hours notice of this meeting," she said, and requested an adjournment to allow time to review materials and seek counsel. Several other residents echoed that they received certified mailings only hours earlier (some noting first-attempt delivery that day) and asked the board to adjourn so neighbors have a fair opportunity to review plans and ask detailed questions.

Other public comments raised site-specific concerns: one speaker argued that heavy equipment and truck access would affect a reservoir that supplies the village; another said scenic-overlay protections should preclude an installation that affects ridgeline views. A resident at 14 Storms Road argued large solar arrays should not be sited in residential areas and asserted equipment "emits radiation," a claim staff directed to other forums and legal authorities because the ZBA's role is limited to zoning/variance application of the code.

Town staff and the town attorney explained procedural channels for these concerns: the Planning Board is the lead agency for SEQRA on this project (staff said a negative declaration was issued under SEQRA and county referral recommended local determination), building-department staff can answer technical permit questions, and the town website hosts the application documents. Town attorney Rory Brady and staff invited residents to submit written questions to facilitate detailed responses between meetings.

After considering the public comments and the holiday calendar, the board voted to adjourn the hearing to Feb. 3, 2026, at 7:30 p.m., and encouraged the applicant to re-notice neighbors and provide written answers to submitted questions in advance of the next session. Applicant counsel said Solar Energy Partners owns the property, that the project life is typically around 25 years, and that a decommissioning bond would be tied to removal obligations if an owner cannot be located at end of life.

The adjournment leaves the variances unresolved; the Planning Board and the ZBA will both continue to process related approvals and any additional questions from the public will be addressed at or before the rescheduled hearing.