Public hearing opened on proposed trucking terminal at 349 Maple Avenue; board delays decision pending county review

The Goshen Planning Board opened a public hearing on a site-plan and special-permit application from 349 Maple Avenue Renew LLC seeking to operate a trucking terminal and perform limited truck maintenance at an existing 2,800-square-foot metal building on a 2.8-acre parcel in the AI zone.

An applicant representative described the plan as primarily parking and light maintenance: employee parking in the side yard, truck parking behind the building, one ADA space, screening plantings, and no new impervious surface. The application limits operations to no more than eight box trucks or similar vehicles on site, and the owner, Thomas Walsifer, described “minor” repairs as tire changes, light and electrical fixes, grease and oil changes, with major repairs sent to an off-site shop.

The building inspector’s prior determination that the proposed use qualifies as a trucking terminal requiring special approval was noted; staff told the board that under current town code nonresidential applicants may be required to submit well-testing plans on a case-by-case basis. The applicant stated the proposed use would withdraw roughly 120 gallons per day, comparable to a one-bedroom dwelling, but staff reminded the board that the code requires a well-test plan before signing site plans in similar cases.

Public comments focused on environmental and emergency-access risks. Chris Hely, a Goshen resident, urged tighter safeguards for an on-site fuel tank near the Walke River and recommended double-containment or a “bathtub” enclosure to prevent a catastrophic leak reaching waterways. Hely and Neil Howerin, chairman of the town’s environmental review board, also urged that parked trucks not impede emergency responders’ access to the rear of the property and said the front parking should be limited to passenger vehicles.

Board members discussed adding conditions to the resolution to specify which repairs qualify as “minor,” require inspection or certification of the existing fuel tank before occupancy, and require a well-test plan prior to issuing a building permit. Staff also noted that county planning review remains outstanding and that action cannot be taken until that review period is complete; the item was therefore slated for the board’s May 21 agenda.

The board opened the public hearing and took public comment; later the board closed the hearing but did not vote on the underlying site plan or special permit because the county referral and required documentation were not yet complete. The board indicated several potential conditions it would include if it proceeds — defining allowable maintenance activities, requiring certification of the fuel tank’s integrity, ensuring emergency access to the rear parking, and limiting on-site trucks to eight at any one time — and set the application for future consideration after the outstanding county review and submission of a well-test plan.

The Planning Board recorded no final approvals at the meeting; the matter will return to a future agenda once the outstanding county comments and required studies are received and the applicant has updated the resolution and plans.