GOSHEN, N.Y. — Town planning-board members and nearby residents challenged RDM's revised warehouse proposals during a public meeting, saying the projects as drawn could undermine neighborhood buffers, increase heavy-vehicle traffic on Route 17M and require technical information the applicant has not yet provided.

The board focused earliest on site "2659," which the applicant reworked into a single-story building with a larger footprint. Speaker 4, an environmental-review-board participant, said the applicant's filings showed a smaller interior square footage but a bigger footprint and that the submission lacked the comparative numbers and elevation drawings the planning board requested. "The applicant is asking for a variance that essentially makes that entire parcel highway commercial," Speaker 4 said, arguing the combined square-footage and height requests would change how the land functions next to residential lots.

Why it matters: the applications seek area variances for size and height that opponents say create an incompatible edge between commercial/mixed-use zoning and adjacent RU (rural/residential) parcels. Multiple members emphasized that meeting the letter of the code's 100-foot setback requirement is not the same as satisfying the code's purpose when the site sits far below nearby backyards. "The 100 foot buffer...gives you a visual buffer. It gives you a noise barrier," Speaker 4 said; several homeowners said recent plans remove or reduce that buffer.

The board identified technical gaps it expects the applicant to fill before any approval. Among the requests were building elevation drawings and renderings showing the finished roof and finished-floor elevation (FFE); a clear demonstration that the stated 100-foot wooded buffer will be provided as continuous screening where required; and proof of legal access or easement for a proposed secondary/emergency driveway that currently traverses neighboring property.

Water and fire protection were prominent concerns. The applicant's environmental assessment lists municipal commercial water as the service source, but that district does not yet exist in the form the application assumes. Board members noted the sprinkler/water demands for a building of this size may trigger on-site pump houses, fire pumps and standby water storage. Speaker 1 told the meeting that applicants must either show they can be served by municipal supply or demonstrate feasible on-site wells or a privately funded water/sewer district before the board can find the project ready for final approvals.

Traffic and queuing: the filings include a high peak-hour truck figure — about 71 trucks in the peak hour in one scenario — and 120 semi-trailer trips per day in another. Residents and board members worried trucks could queue along the township's access roads and on Route 17M; several speakers said road upgrades (left-turn lanes, additional lanes) will require state approval and that applicants have at times proposed to fund those improvements. The board asked for a combined, cumulative traffic analysis that includes nearby RDM parcels and other proposed warehouses (including a separate site across the street and other projects the board said are pending) so impacts on 17M are not evaluated in isolation.

Environmental, stormwater and wetlands questions persisted. The applicant's plan shows new stormwater ponds and significant tree removal; board members asked for hydrologic grading calculations, exact pond sizes and a wetlands assessment because disturbances above 0.1 acre would require mitigation under state/federal permitting (DEC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were discussed). Several speakers said current drawings lacked sufficient grading detail to determine whether required stormwater infrastructure can fit on the parcel without expanding disturbance onto neighbors.

Other operational details flagged include lighting pole heights (applicant notes 15 30-foot poles), waste-generation estimates presented at roughly 14 tons per month, proposed trailer-storage and loading-dock counts (documented in the submission) and whether battery-powered equipment or reefer units would create off-site noise and disposal concerns. The board also pressed the applicant to reconcile employee/shift counts with the large number of parking spaces shown (167 parking stalls vs. roughly 130136 employees estimated across three shifts in the filings).

No vote or final decision was taken. Chair Speaker 1 summarized outstanding items staff and the applicant must provide — renderings and elevations, exact height and finished-floor information, proof of water service or wells, legal documentation for off-site drive access, and refined traffic and stormwater studies — before the board will take action on variances or a special-permit finding. The board also discussed the town board's authority to consider a moratorium on particular land uses, noting that a moratorium's scope and effect are for the town board to decide.

Speakers and attribution: direct quotations used in this article are attributed to individuals identified in the meeting transcript by speaker numbers; the planning board record does not provide full professional titles for every speaker on the audio transcript. The planning board meeting and all supporting materials are posted on the town planning office record and streaming archive.

What's next: the planning board requested supplemental materials from the applicant and said it will not proceed to final approvals until key technical issues are documented. If the town board chooses to pursue interim zoning or a moratorium, that action would follow separate town-board procedures.