Lloyd oks building moratorium

By Mark Reynolds
Posted 1/22/20

Last week the Lloyd Town Board passed a temporary building moratorium by a vote of 4-1. The moratorium’s stated intent is to allow the town, “time to evaluate and update its comprehensive …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Lloyd oks building moratorium

Posted

Last week the Lloyd Town Board passed a temporary building moratorium by a vote of 4-1. The moratorium’s stated intent is to allow the town, “time to evaluate and update its comprehensive plan and zoning laws (which is in progress) in furtherance of the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community.” Councilman Lenny Auchmoody was the sole no vote.

The moratorium is for a six-month period, with the possibility of two, three month extensions, if justified by the Town Board. The moratorium temporarily suspends, “all action on pending applications currently before officials or boards of the Town of Lloyd for such development approvals and no decisions would be made, either approving or denying such applications during the period of the moratorium.”

The Town Board pointed out that the moratorium does not apply to, “applications for residential subdivisions involving less than ten lots and applications for building permits for approved lots or structures to be used for residential purposes, including two family dwellings, accessory apartments, accessory buildings and manufactured homes and additions.”

Language in the moratorium also allows the Town Board to “vary or modify” an application if they believe that it, “would impose practical difficulties or extraordinary hardships” upon an applicant and that their proposal would not harm the health, safety and welfare of the community.

Auchmoody explained his no vote.

“I am totally against this [and] I’m sorry for everybody that we’ve led along for a year and more time than that, with these projects and now all of a sudden we’re going to try to stop you in your tracks and hold you up for six months and then change the rules and regulations,” he said. “I’ll say this publicly, and I don’t care who I upset, we’re going to end up in lawsuits and lawsuits cost money, whether you win or not, it doesn’t matter, it’s going to cost us money. If this resolution was to stop everything from now forward, slow the projects down that are on the books and have faith in our Planning Board, have faith in our Building Department, I would go along with it. But as it is written the Ulster County Planning Board [UCPB] has suggested that we need to make changes [but] it’s been decided not to do that. I could go on for an hour but there is no reason for it because this is a case where one vote does not count.”

Auchmoody was referencing required modifications that were made by the county planning board: the town must demonstrate the need for a moratorium; must make a “credible effort” to review and change the Comprehensive Plan and outline of the steps the town will take moving forward. In addition, the county stated that the town should reduce the “breadth” of the initial moratorium by exempting certain districts, such as the Blue Point Overlay District, Traditional Neighborhood Development, Mixed-Use Development Overlay Districts and the Walkway Gateway District as well as solar facilities and blighted/underutilized areas.

The UCPB stated if a moratorium is approved that projects currently before the Planning Board should be allowed to proceed, “at their own risk,” especially if they are in “alignment with the goals of the town’s proposed zoning amendments...This offers the opportunity to receive shortened decision times once the moratorium lifts.”

The board’s 4-1 vote, however, represents a super majority and they do not have to implement any of the required modifications as outlined by the UCPB.

In addition, town attorney Sean Murphy has publicly stated on several occasions that developers who do not have approvals or a “shovel in the ground,” would not prevail in a lawsuit against the town.

The resolution notes that the Comprehensive Review Committee will submit their proposals for amendments to the Town Board at its March 18, 2020 meeting.

The approval of a moratorium was met with criticism by representatives of developers whose projects are before the Planning Board.

Land Surveyor Patricia Brooks, who represents the Village In The Hudson Valley, said the Town Board did not give a presentation to explain some of the moratorium’s provisions. Town Land Use Attorney Rob Stout said the board’s reasoning is stated in the resolution itself.

Brooks also asked if the board was going to state how they have dealt with comments that were made at the November 20, 2019 Public Hearing. Stout said the initial moratorium that was introduced on October 16, 2019 has not been modified by the Town Board. The board’s response will be sent to the UCPB to, “explain what it has done to address those comments that the UCPB was not aware of at the time the [county] letter was issued and why certain comments were not incorporated.”

Stout further clarified the board’s stance on projects that have been before the town.

“The board will not be entertaining applications during the dependency of the moratorium,” he said. “There is an exception process that all applicants are welcome to take advantage of that was built into the original moratorium, so I expect the board to encourage all applicants to apply for that exception if they feel that it is merited.”

Attorney Alec Gladd, of Cuddy & Feder, represents The Views, a 44 unit mixed-use development project, located near South Chapel Hill Road, Mayer Drive and Route 9W. He said the project is, “fully compliant, as-of-right development subject to Planning Board review only and it is in the Highway Business District [HBD].” He said since the introduction of the moratorium, the Town Board, “has failed to supply any response to the county and the members of the development community. New York’s highest court has specifically made the point that public outcry is not a lawful basis for instituting a moratorium.”

Gladd said projects that are pending before the Planning Board should be allowed to continue at the applicant’s risk.

“This is a first for me, seeing just a cold stop on everything in the town for six months,” he said.

Gladd disputes the validity of imposing a moratorium.

“We ask that the moratorium be withdrawn because there is not a legal basis for it or at the very least you consider some amendments to the language to allow it to at least have Planning Board process or have exemptions for applications that are in the pipeline, have started SEQR, are less than 50 units and are in the HBD zoning district,” he said.

Attorney John Furst represents The Village In The Hudson Valley, a Mixed-Use, Continuing Care Retirement community, proposed for the western side of Route 9W, opposite the Bridgeview Shopping Plaza.

Furst said the reason for the moratorium has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

“It is “overly broad, its too vague [and] it doesn’t address the county’s comments. It’s still based on general concerns throughout the town. What is it about the Comprehensive Plan, what is it about the current zoning that you guys are concerned about, that you guys need to adopt this moratorium to address? What is the dire necessity, what is the emergency that has not been explained by this board?” he asked. “There is not one specific issue or concern that has been raised by this board other than generalized community concerns; there is not a factual basis to any of it and I don’t see in the resolution how it is spelled out. I think it would be irresponsible to pass the resolution as is.”

The Town Board closed the Public Hearing on the Moratorium, followed by a reading of the resolution and passed the measure by a 4-1 vote.