Town Board approves developer agreement tying RDM 2602 project to $90,000 traffic mitigation contribution

The Town of Goshen Town Board on June 12 authorized the supervisor to sign a developer's agreement for the RDM 2602 project that records a $90,000 developer contribution to a town traffic mitigation fund.

The agreement accompanies a previously approved planning-board site plan for a roughly 300,000-square-foot warehouse/distribution facility known as RDM 2602. Charles Gottlieb, land-use counsel for 2602 Route 17 Developers LLC, told the board the contribution reflects a Kimley-Horn memorandum dated June 9 and that the applicant had amended the developer's agreement to match that memo.

Why it matters: The vote clears one of the town conditions required before a building permit can be issued, but board members pressed whether the $90,000 fairly reflects the project's share of required improvements along Route 17M and nearby intersections if other proposed projects in the corridor move forward.

Board discussion centered on how the town and planning board calculated a fair-share figure and whether the amount locks in the applicant's contribution even if future projects increase the total mitigation cost. John (planning consultant) summarized the planning-board approach: “You’re supposed to mitigate your significant adverse traffic impacts,” and explained the planning board treated some improvements as significant and others as non-significant impacts that nonetheless merited a fair-share contribution.

Charles Gottlieb warned that rejecting the agreement tonight would simply mean the town would not receive the $90,000: “By taking an adverse determination this evening, the town is simply not accepting $90,000 to improve these roadways.” Other board members and the applicant’s representatives described a multi-step permitting and inspection process with outside agencies — including state DOT, DEC and the Department of Health — and noted the applicant must post a construction bond tied to DOT permit conditions.

Several board members asked for more analysis of how two other nearby, previously proposed projects (referred to as 2659 and 2675) were included in the fair-share calculations. The applicant’s team and the planning consultant said the traffic studies for the corridor had been modeled to include the potential trips from those properties; the consultant said the applicant’s contribution was calculated as a share of the estimated improvement costs based on projected trip generation.

Board members also pressed the applicant about timing and what the town would receive before a building permit is issued. Counsel for the applicant said the $90,000 would be delivered in cash (not a bond or letter of credit) and indicated the money would be required before a building permit could be pulled.

The board approved the motion by roll call with all members voting in favor; the board did not record any no votes during the roll call. The authorization allows the supervisor to sign the developer's agreement after final attorney review.

What’s next: The applicant must still satisfy additional planning-board conditions before the issuance of a building permit; DOT and other outside agency approvals and consultant inspections are required for the roadway improvements and the project’s bond will not be released until DOT signs off on as-built plans.

Clarifying details and open questions from the meeting include the precise allocation of the town’s traffic-mitigation fund if some pipeline projects do not move forward and whether future planning-board reviews for adjacent projects could change the town’s overall need for roadway work and the fair-share apportionment.