The Goshen Planning Board on Nov. 7 reviewed revised site plans for two proposed warehouse distribution facilities and directed staff to prepare a Part 2 Environmental Assessment Form as the next step in the town's environmental review.

Justin Bates, a representative of Colliers Engineering and Design, presented changes to two projects: 26 59 17M LLC, a single 20.7-acre parcel proposing a one-story, 200,000-square-foot warehouse with about 167 parking spaces, 33 loading docks and 28 trailer-storage spaces; and Goshen 26 75 17M LLC, two parcels to be merged into a 25.7-acre lot proposing a 229,776-square-foot single-story warehouse with 22,440 square feet of office, 120 parking spaces, 40 loading docks and 24 trailer-storage spaces. Bates said both proposals reduce building height and overall floor area compared with 2023 submissions while requesting variances for building height within the CO (commercial-office) district, roof pitch requirements, building coverage limits and setbacks adjacent to the RU (rural) district.

The board's planning consultant, Sean, told members he had circulated a written memo combining the two applications and highlighted items that need clarification before the board completes SEQR review. Sean said applicants plan to tie into future municipal water and sewer mains in the Route 17M corridor but noted that Department of Health approvals for water-main extensions will cover on-site extensions and that separate rights-of-way work is a different project. He also said the applicants' proposed secondary emergency access to an adjacent property will need an owner's endorsement or could require a variance under an updated fire code taking effect Jan. 1.

Board members pressed for detailed supporting materials. Concerns repeatedly raised included:

- Noise: Member Bill requested fuller noise-data backing, including generator and backup-beeper testing frequency, forklift and truck noise levels, and whether white-noise alternatives meet OSHA requirements for worker safety. He asked the applicants to reconcile their noise study with environmental performance standards and daytime/nighttime adjustments suggested in DEC guidance.

- Traffic and trip-generation methodology: Several members questioned a large drop in predicted AM/PM peak trips after the redesign (applicants reported reductions of about 412 trips in peak hours). Applicants said the modeling used ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) industrial/warehouse rates, which are driven by square footage; the board asked the traffic referral consultant to review methodology and requested clarification on how dock counts, employee shifts and queuing were accounted for.

- Visual and height impacts: Members requested full elevation drawings, section profiles and visual renderings (including rooftop mechanical screening) because the revised single-story footprints are larger and grading changes raise finished-floor elevations in places. The board asked for maximum wall heights at loading-dock elevations and for balloon-test equivalents or renderings to show how building massing will appear from Route 17M and nearby residences.

- Groundwater/dewatering and grading: Sean and board members asked the applicants to confirm whether dewatering remains necessary, provide estimated volumes and describe where dewatering would discharge. Applicants said finished-floor elevations were raised in part to avoid shallow groundwater but agreed to supply profiles and calculations.

Bates summarized what the team described as reductions from the earlier proposals: lower overall building height, fewer planned truck docks in one design, smaller land-disturbance areas in both designs, and reduced wetland disturbance on the 2675 parcel (applicants now show zero wetland disturbance on that site). He said stormwater and other utility improvements are planned on-site and that applicants would update studies to support a negative declaration if the board moves forward.

After discussion, a board member moved and a second was recorded to authorize counsel and the town engineer to prepare the Part 2 Environmental Assessment Form for the projects; the board approved the motion by voice vote and directed staff to refer traffic materials to the town traffic consultant and to request the additional studies and detailed plans described above.

The applicants and staff were given a list of follow-ups to provide at the next hearing: revised noise modeling and raw data that support the noise study conclusions; full elevation drawings and visual renderings showing rooftop screening and parapets; complete traffic methodology and ITE worksheets; retaining-wall and grading profiles; confirmation of any required dewatering and its management; and documentation or owner endorsement for proposed emergency access to adjacent property if that access is required by fire code.

The board did not grant variances or final approvals at the Nov. 7 meeting. Rather, members said they welcomed the reductions proposed since 2023 but need clearer evidence on noise mitigation, traffic and visual impacts before taking any final land-use action.