The Goshen Planning Board spent the longest portion of its Dec. 4 meeting on a proposed 31.2‑acre Tier‑2 battery energy storage system at 114 Hartley Road, focusing board attention on noise levels at the Heritage Trail, potential groundwater and surface‑water impacts from a fire, and visual screening.

The applicant’s team — including engineer Travis Rosencrantz and consultants Zach Longo and Dallas Blatt — said the latest submission reduced the number of poles/holes from nine to seven, added DEC‑required stormwater signage and no‑parking signs, and included a revised digital visual simulation. The team also said it will submit an August 2025 safety report and other supporting documents in the next filing.

Board members asked for hard copies of the referenced reports, pressed the team for more detailed noise modeling tied to how long trail users would be exposed to levels above the DEC guidance, and sought clarification about what constitutes a “sensitive receptor.” “I would like to see that report,” one member said, urging the applicant to place the August 2025 report in the project file rather than relying on a link.

Members noted the DEC’s guidance that an increase of up to 3 dBA above ambient can be acceptable but that anything greater near sensitive sites should trigger mitigation. Board discussion identified the Heritage Trail as a place of frequent quiet recreation and asked the applicant to quantify how many linear feet of trail would experience increases above the 3 dBA benchmark and to propose mitigation where appropriate.

Questions also focused on fire and contamination risks. Staff referenced a New York State interagency report and the applicant reported a 2023 summary memo linking to a 2023 interagency report on three battery fires that found no detectable contaminants in those case studies. The board asked the applicant to submit the complete 2023 and the applicant’s intended August 2025 safety report to the planning office for review before the board’s next substantive action.

Several members suggested mitigation options including acoustic fencing or berming and asked the applicant to consider quieter equipment models, fan and HVAC noise reductions, and physical barriers (bollards) to protect on‑site cabinets. The applicant said the visual simulation modeled units at 10 feet in height and that the units would be placed on concrete pads surrounded by gravel.

On procedural next steps, a motion to authorize preparation of the next submission (the board’s requested additional technical material and mitigation options) was made and seconded. The motion passed by voice vote with multiple members in favor and two recorded oppositions.

The board also discussed the effect of a potential town moratorium the town board is considering; staff said the planning board can continue processing applications while the moratorium is pending, but if a moratorium is adopted it could halt processing for applicants covered by that local law.

The planning board asked the applicant to supply: (1) the August 2025 safety report and the previously cited 2023 interagency report in hard copy to the planning office; (2) a linear‑foot analysis showing how much of the Heritage Trail would be above the 3 dBA threshold; and (3) mitigation options (acoustic fencing, berms, quieter equipment, bollards for cabinets). The applicant said they will return with those materials for further review.

The board’s authorization to prepare the applicant’s next submission does not represent final approval of the project and the members left the record open for the next set of technical filings.