[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6675024,"mediaKeyId","2173515-1a1020ec079428d62361c4824d873b9a","parentId",2173515,"title","Goshen planning board extends Silhouette Farm approval, approves McGowan lot-line adjustment and schedules hearing for Bachman carriage house","audioSeconds",334,"startMs",416000,"endMs",750000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173515-1a1020ec079428d62361c4824d873b9a&start=416&end=750","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173515-1a1020ec079428d62361c4824d873b9a/thumbnail_416000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6675024/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Goshen-planning-board-extends-Silhouette-Farm-approval-approves-McGowan-lot-line-adjustment-and-schedules-hearing-for-Bachman-carriage-house","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675024-952a38c512a433ca4f35efdcc5432017/orig.mp4?Expires=1771193656&Signature=g6fWANJ9umUB2WebFN5qGy1wig6xBmAjAkW--Vgi4QgSlxytCu970jR84VMYcUY32BBuiM2YWerdsNqa9JIUTdjKHH5pwvRyWC14tG3tdBJ9BB6Pj2lT1IGFb~f0pgvXsIcwGve0lEorHSYcPQ61OWrtOTxg7c7PsW~P0BvZA6msFJwRGpmhWh5T3n6mpa1h8NbyF4o6tydhgRCELX875nMCAKXo3MkkW6a9xDDA8XnxtNqiVycHAWEw-yLw23wBcnoM0dNMDSOxidAhft6zTA0J5Ae95EPM7ZL88zZ5MNE9xMENEc~qJkH8wdMS-EHSIZ2w0Eydaw2BqYpBtbbSNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Goshen, NY","date","2025-01-03T06:17:24.317Z","article","The Goshen Planning Board took several procedural land‑use actions during the meeting: it approved a one‑month extension for the Silhouette Farm subdivision approval, granted conditional preliminary and final approval for a lot‑line adjustment for Brian and Chelsea McGowan, and agreed to assume lead agency and schedule a public hearing for an amended site plan application (Bachman — carriage house) to be heard on Feb. 6, 2025.

Silhouette Farm: Planning staff reported that preliminary and final subdivision approval for the Silhouette Farm (two‑lot subdivision) had been issued on Jan. 6, 2022, and extended previously. Staff said the applicant had not submitted a written request to proceed; the board voted to extend the conditional approval to Feb. 6, 2025 to allow staff to re-contact the applicant and await the required written confirmation.

McGowan lot‑line adjustment: The board reviewed a lot‑line adjustment application on Millburn Road in the RU zoning district with AQ‑3 and Reservoir Watershed overlays. Staff summarized conditions: compliance with the town engineer’s December 13, 2024 memorandum, filing of a map with Orange County Real Property Tax Service and Clerk’s offices, consent to file from affected property owners, and accurate dimensional/area data on the resulting parcels. The board discussed and confirmed that a prior potential easement issue would be resolved by the adjustment. The board then approved the resolution for conditional preliminary and final approval for Brian and Chelsea McGowan (voice vote, all in favor).

Bachman carriage house: For the Bachman application (2.065‑acre site, amended site plan for a carriage/garage structure), staff and counsel advised that the project likely required a new subdivision map and SEQR (environmental) review. The planning board voted to assume lead agency for SEQR, authorized staff to complete SEQR Part 2 and prepare a negative declaration if appropriate, and set a public hearing for Feb. 6, 2025. The board also authorized drafting the required resolution in advance of that hearing.

Votes at a glance:
- Silhouette Farm (preliminary/final subdivision): motion to extend conditional approval to Feb. 6, 2025 — outcome: approved (voice vote).
- Lot‑line adjustment for Brian and Chelsea McGowan: resolution of conditional preliminary and final approval — outcome: approved (voice vote).
- Bachman carriage house (13‑1‑6.2 amended site plan): planning board assumed SEQR lead agency; authorized SEQR Part 2 and negative declaration (as appropriate); set public hearing for Feb. 6, 2025 — outcome: motions approved (voice votes).

What this means: The McGowan lot‑line adjustment may proceed to recording after compliance with engineering and county filing conditions. The Bachman application will be returned to the planning board for public hearing and SEQR completion on Feb. 6, 2025; if SEQR yields a negative declaration and the applicant meets filing and engineering conditions, the board will then proceed with final determinations.

The board closed its meeting after taking the above actions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town of Goshen Planning Board Meeting January 2, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","The board extended a subdivision approval for Silhouette Farm, approved a lot-line adjustment for Brian and Chelsea McGowan, and set a February 6, 2025 public hearing and SEQR actions for an amended site plan for a carriage house at the Bachman property.","taxTitle","Goshen, Orange County, New York","taxId",55277,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6675028,"Goshen planning board weighs broad changes in proposed short-term rental law",3801,792000,4593000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173515-1a1020ec079428d62361c4824d873b9a&start=792&end=4593","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173515-1a1020ec079428d62361c4824d873b9a/thumbnail_792000.jpg","/articles/6675028/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Goshen-planning-board-weighs-broad-changes-in-proposed-short-term-rental-law","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6675028-743c510d246a31c1c8367cbeac5933c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771193656&Signature=RIhvTJVY0DFq096T~PH7ucUcUNq5aOA6ngDV65Xf2NZ1gX0kIcKvVkHvzPrkByBNGS~pdAxr99-iABWEdO4HXQ6DhblALLpnHrT1zRHwuvZhHWihgAe~H7MNS9W~KsdePdQPr0-g5ulhNEwmsFLJRiXpCCkod34W~jWSXDBNFNTrkzm6vLev01OxDXnY7DWeo6Ugr4P7YT00wXPunt78AEO9pkP78t236hJkaz8g6gmvf~vH5ze1UjT-qEGLXP694jTwqmPSru1oVxS9BDksKOnycQAbtgCUI446tJvq3-roblC9YmaSEKCxG~bwrOa3uGy7m6Kmq55mM0UU0iMCkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Goshen Planning Board members and staff spent the bulk of a meeting reviewing a redlined draft local law meant to regulate short-term rentals, focusing on definitions, on-site safety and utilities, limits on occupancy and parking, and enforcement and notification procedures.

Board members said the draft must make clearer where short-term rentals would be permitted, whether they should require site-plan review or special permits, and whether stricter rules should apply in small‑lot residential areas. The board voted to authorize its attorney to prepare a letter and the board’s suggested redline for the Town Board’s consideration.

The discussion moved line by line through the draft. Staff and counsel described the version under review as a zoning‑level local law that would establish permit and operational requirements for properties used for short-term rental occupancy. Several members said the town board — not the planning board — is the legislative body that can decide whether to allow short-term rentals in particular zoning districts, but the planning board said it would send detailed technical and policy comments.

On definitions and scope, members asked the drafters to explicitly distinguish between “bed-and-breakfast,” “lodging/boarding house,” “hotel/motel” and a short-term rental and to add or relocate definitions so the provisions are clear and self-contained. One member recommended adding a cross-reference or copying definitions from chapter 97 so readers do not have to look in multiple chapters.

On evidence and presumption of use, board members debated whether the presence of a vehicle or an unoccupied owner’s unit should be treated as presumptive evidence of short-term rental activity. Counsel and staff recommended treating such facts as “factors” rather than automatic presumptions.

Safety and utilities drew sustained attention. The draft requires applicants to submit floor plans that show bedrooms, egress, smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors and the locations of utility shutoffs. The board asked the draft to be explicit that any conversions or living spaces used for sleeping must meet building and fire‑safety code egress and alarm requirements. Members also suggested removing or narrowing a proposed allowance for counting “full‑size convertible sleeping accommodations” (sleeper sofas) toward permitted occupancy, saying such furniture should not be a substitute for legal bedrooms.

The board worked through the draft’s maximum‑occupancy language and landed on a formulation the board agreed it would recommend to the Town Board: occupancy must not exceed the limits imposed by the New York State building code and, in any event, no more than two people per permitted bedroom shown on the submitted floor plan and a hard cap of 12 people per short‑term rental unit. The board also recommended posting the maximum occupancy on the premises and in application materials.

Members pressed for clearer water and septic language. The draft required private well owners to meet applicable water quality standards. Planning staff and board members noted that New York State does not specify a single well‑testing suite for private residences; the board asked that the law require certified‑lab testing (for example, a New York State–certified laboratory) on permit issuance and periodically thereafter, with the Town Board to adopt a specific test schedule (for instance, every four years) by resolution.

Parking, access and nuisance control were central topics. The draft would require applicants to show on‑site parking areas “improved with asphalt or other suitably improved surface.” Board members recommended clarifying that parking must be on a defined impervious or prepared surface (pavement, gravel, similar) and not on lawns; they discussed whether additional parking expansions should require permit review or amended site‑plan review, and whether the code enforcement officer should be able to approve limited, properly permitted driveway expansion under performance rules. Members noted that the town already has a prohibition on parking on town streets and that, while police currently do not strictly enforce the rule absent signage, signs in limited locations could enable enforcement.

Enforcement, emergency contact and response times prompted debate. The draft requires an owner or designated agent reachable by phone to be available 24/7; members insisted the rule must allow for faster responses to certain complaints (garbage in public right‑of‑way, parking obstructing traffic, hazardous conditions) and suggested the law require an on‑site or locally based agent able to respond within an hour for emergencies and within a shorter timeframe than the general 24‑hour standard for non‑emergencies. The board discussed remedies including fines, permit suspension and revocation and recommended that the draft clearly state that failure to allow inspections or to comply with enforcement orders could be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation.

On notice and neighbor input, the board recommended standardizing notifications to nearby property owners. The draft would require the applicant to notify property owners within 500 feet of the proposed short‑term rental by certified mail; board members endorsed that radius as consistent with notice used for other local reviews and asked that neighbors be given 30 days to submit objections that would be forwarded to the Town Board if an administrative appeal or a special permit is required.

Board members also proposed policy options for the Town Board to consider: restricting short‑term rentals to commercial or Hamlet zoning districts, requiring site‑plan or special‑use review for conversions of single‑family dwellings, adding minimum lot size or lot‑area thresholds, and clarifying rules for accessory structures, tents and RVs. Several members said those are legislative policy choices for the Town Board rather than technical edits for the planning board.

At the end of the meeting, the planning board voted to authorize its attorney to prepare a letter and a redline version of the draft local law for submission to the Town Board, along with a list of the planning board’s technical and policy comments.

What happens next: the Town Board will receive the planning board’s comments and a redline and may schedule further public hearings, revise the draft, or pursue an outright ban in certain districts if it determines a ban is legally defensible. The planning board emphasized that many of the remaining decisions — permitted districts, use classification, and whether short‑term rentals require a special permit — are policy matters for the Town Board to resolve.","The Goshen Planning Board spent more than two hours reviewing a redlined draft local law to regulate short-term rentals, debating definitions, safety requirements, parking, maximum occupancy and enforcement tools before voting to send comments and a draft to the Town Board for consideration.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Goshen planning board extends Silhouette Farm approval, approves McGowan lot-line adjustment and schedules hearing for Bachman carriage house

Goshen planning board weighs broad changes in proposed short-term rental law