ERB weighs limited role on state‑owned Mid Hudson psychiatric center subdivision

Goshen ERB · January 15, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The ERB reviewed a state‑led subdivision at the Mid Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center and flagged long‑term concerns about water/sewer capacity and documenting restrictions on future reuse of vacated buildings, while acknowledging the town’s limited authority over state properties.

The Goshen ERB discussed a state‑initiated subdivision for the Mid Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center on Jan. 14, prompted by a utility rule that prevents two meters on a single parcel. Speaker 1 summarized that the state intends to create three lots so the new unit can have a separate meter; the older facility would be left vacant with no immediate reuse plans.

Board members acknowledged the town’s limited jurisdiction over state property but expressed concern about long‑term implications. Speaker 3 asked whether the site’s existing water and sewer capacity can support separate lots, noting the state has its own treatment and that town inspectors typically do not exercise oversight on state projects. Speaker 1 said the planning‑board attorney and staff would need to confirm whether the town can require proof of water/sewer supply for the subdivided parcels or instead record deed notes limiting future changes in use.

Several members recommended proactive documentation to avoid future problems if the state sells or repurposes the old buildings. Speaker 3 suggested the town either require proof of adequate water/sewer now or add a clear deed notation that the old lot is not approved for other uses until utilities are demonstrated. The board stopped short of imposing conditions it lacks the authority to enforce, but asked staff for clear guidance on what regulatory leverage the town has for state properties.

Next steps: staff to consult the planning‑board attorney on whether conditions or deed notes can be required, and to report back on what the town may lawfully record or request as part of the subdivision review. No vote was taken.