Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Moratorium Milburn topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen hearing on solar moratorium draws developers, unions and residents; board extends comment period
Summary
At a public hearing on proposed local moratorium language for certain solar uses, the developer of the 10 MW Milburn Road project and several unions urged the board against a moratorium, citing job creation, local procurement and community benefits; residents raised concerns about scale, wetlands, PFAS and compliance. The board extended the public hearing for further review.
The Town of Goshen heard lengthy public testimony April 9 on Introductory Law 1‑2026, a proposed moratorium on certain solar energy uses. Developer representatives, union leaders and residents presented opposing views before the board voted to extend the public comment period.
John Hurley, who said he directs operations at Solar Energy Partners, described his Milburn Road project as community‑scale solar and said his company buys and invests in properties, plants native grasses and screening trees and intends to use local labor. Hurley stated the project would plant about "797 trees" and deliver what he characterized as community benefits including tax revenue and screening measures. He also emphasized co‑location to limit land consumption.
Union representatives urged the board not to impose a moratorium. Todd Diorio, representing the Hudson Valley Building and Construction Trades Council, said the Milburn Road proposal would use local union labor and estimated a peak construction workforce of 50 to 80 workers, more than $11 million in direct and indirect labor investment, and up to $300,000 in a host‑community agreement. Dean Tamborri of Laborers Local 17 and representatives from Operating Engineers Local 825 also urged the board to exempt the project or oppose a blanket moratorium.
Several residents urged caution or more time to evaluate the town’s approach to large solar developments. Speakers raised concerns about a project’s scale, requests for variances from the existing solar law, impervious‑surface and drip‑line runoff effects, potential PFAS concerns on arrays, and the potential for developers to seek pilot tax agreements instead of paying full property taxes.
After public comment the board voted to extend the hearing/ comment period (the transcript records motions to extend the public hearing and to reconvene at a future board meeting). No moratorium was adopted on April 9; the board will consider additional written comments and materials and hear further testimony at the continued hearing.
