Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicants present revised EAF for Goshen‑area subdivision; board authorizes draft negative declaration
Summary
At a hearing on a proposed small subdivision near Sarah Wells Trail in the Village of Goshen, the applicant presented a revised Part 3 EAF and an aesthetic control plan; the board asked for inspection schedule clarifications, confirmed no herbicide use, flagged emergency vehicle access concerns, and authorized staff to prepare a draft negative declaration.
The Town of Chester Planning Board reviewed an expanded Part 3 Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and an aesthetic control plan for the proposed Wood subdivision, a small‑scale subdivision on about 27.2 acres in the Village of Goshen.
Wyman, representing GS Engineering, told the board that the layout has not changed and described the new sheet as an “aesthetic control plan” and additional construction entrances and a soils stockpile. "What we're looking for tonight is just for the planning board to adopt the part three EAF um and for a negative declaration," Wyman said.
Planning staff told the board that the applicant revised the SWIP based on soil testing and submitted it to the town engineer on Dec. 8, 2025, but the town is still awaiting review. Board members pushed for clearer language on inspection frequency in the SWIP and confirmation that no herbicides will be used on the site; a representative confirmed that herbicides will not be used.
Members also raised a substantive concern about an area where the road narrows near Army Corps wetlands and whether the pinch point provides adequate emergency vehicle access. Staff said the fire department and village officials will weigh in separately and that a negative declaration would not itself relieve outstanding access or fire‑code concerns.
The applicant also asked the board to consider waivers for street tree planting in heavily wooded portions of the site; the board said any final waiver would follow a full approval and field inspection. Board members pointed out typographical errors (two instances of "oval" where the form should read "overall") and mismatched sheet numbering to be corrected before final submission.
After discussion, the board voted to direct staff to prepare a draft negative declaration and the related materials for formal adoption at a future meeting; board members noted that unresolved issues such as emergency access would be addressed through agency referrals and subsequent review steps.
Next steps: staff will draft the negative declaration for the board’s agenda and the applicant will correct plan numbering, clarify inspection schedules in the SWIP, confirm no herbicide use in writing, and follow up with fire‑code comments.
