Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Silo Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Goshen board upholds building inspector’s interpretation that 'silo' references agricultural structures, affecting 75-foot silo request
Summary
On July 21, 2026 the Town of Goshen Zoning Board considered an appeal of the building inspector's interpretation about whether industrial concrete silos are covered by the code's silo/height exemptions; after extended legal argument the board voted on the inspector's interpretation and the motion to accept the inspector's reading carried, meaning the applicant will not need a ZBA variance and must proceed through planning-board review.
The Town of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals heard hours of testimony on July 21 over whether concrete storage silos at a proposed ready-mix facility qualify under the town code's exemptions for “silos” and other agricultural structures, a determination with direct consequences for height limits and setback calculations.
The applicant’s attorney argued the code language is ambiguous and urged the board to resolve any ambiguity in favor of the property owner, citing New York case law. "Where zoning regulation is susceptible to two different interpretations, the regulation is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the applicant," counsel told the board and offered dictionary and industry definitions to show cement silos fall within the ordinary meaning of "silo." The attorney added the proposed silos would be attached to the building, within setback requirements, and well below site-specific clearance requirements.
Building inspector Frank summarized his prior determination and said his reading of the code limits the unbounded height exemption to agricultural silos and similar agricultural structures; he said he would limit silo heights to the code's usual maximum building height (45 feet) absent a different code allowance. "I felt that you would have to limit the height of that silo ... to 45 feet," Frank said when asked to summarize his interpretation.
Board members debated whether the term "silo" in Goshen's code reasonably includes industrial cement silos. Some members said the town's historical and local context suggests a silo is agricultural; one member stated, "This is Goshen, a historically agricultural town ... if you say, 'where's the nearest silo?' you point to the barn." In contrast, other members and the applicant's counsel pointed to broader dictionary and industry definitions and cited precedent that ambiguities must be resolved for the property owner.
After discussion the board took a motion to accept the building inspector's interpretation that the town code's references to "silos" are read in the agricultural sense and therefore the Salomon (ready-mix concrete) application would not receive height-exemption treatment under that provision. The motion was moved and seconded and carried. Board members and counsel discussed next steps: because the interpretation eliminates the need for certain ZBA variances, the applicant was told to proceed with the planning-board review and to re-notice neighbors and the public as required for that process.
The decision narrows the ZBA's role on this application to code interpretation and means any design or aesthetic conditions would be handled by the planning board when the project is reviewed at that level. Applicant counsel said the firm will take the ruling under advisement and continue through the planning-board process.
Authorities cited in the hearing included Town of Goshen code provisions discussed in the record (sections cited during argument: 97-40(d), 97-42, and 97-47(e)) and case-law passages offered by counsel as interpretive support.
