Kelly Lybolt, of KRC Planning, recently gave a summary to the Lloyd Planning Board on the current status of the Village in the Hudson Valley Assisted Living/Senior Housing project that is slated to be built on the west side of Route 9W, opposite the Bridgeview Shopping Plaza.

Lybolt said her client, developer Owen Marc Sanderson, has applied to the Town Board for a zoning change of the property to a Planned Residential Retirement Development [PRRD]. She said the Town Board previously referred this application to the Planning Board for a complete review in order to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. She said once the Planning Board completes this review, the project ‘ping-pongs’ between the Town and Planning Boards.

“Assuming the Town Board favorably rezones the property to a PRRD, then we come back to you for site plan approval,” she told the Planning Board.

Lybolt pointed out that the Planning Board completed a ‘fairly lengthy’ SEQRA review of the property in the 2020-21 time frame and in April 2021 issued a Negative Declaration on the project, which closed the SEQR process. A Negative Declaration means that the Planning Board determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and does not require the preparation and filing of an Environmental Impact Report.
Lybolt said in 2021 there were 120 beds proposed for the Assisted Living Facility [ALF] and 178 senior cottages, while the current application calls for 119 beds in the ALF and 197 cottages. Lybolt said initially they were planning for 179 cottages but added 18 units of affordable housing. Project representatives have also stated that the cottages will be from 1,000 sq/ft to 1,400 sq/ft and would be set 10 feet apart.

Lybolt responded to a letter from Van Cott that summarized the chronology of the project over the last few years.

“The Planning Board approved the Negative Declaration for the ALF and then the conceptual PRRD, which is what we are before you [now],” she said. “So when this board issued the Negative Declaration, you recognized that the PRRD at the time may change and there may be details that weren’t necessarily included in that particular review...So a few months ago your attorney concluded there were specific issues that this board needed to review now when we resubmitted.”

Lybolt said the developer went ahead and prepared a complete application on the project, especially highlighting the steep slopes of the land, a new map and an engineering report with cross sections for comparison analysis and context.

Lybolt said water and wastewater issues are covered in the Developer’s Agreement which, “outlines the developer’s commitment to the town on the improvements that they’re going to make to the water and wastewater system in the Town of Lloyd.” These include new infrastructure in front of the property, some improvements to down-stream sewer pipes and also some upgrades to the pumps at the pump station.

Lybolt said their architect removed some of the cottages and a significant amount of storm water surface improvements from the steep slope areas. They also lowered the site by 4 feet in an effort to lessen any possible visual impacts of the project.

The amount of Open Space the project will preserve is still being considered and legal language will soon be agreed to by the town and the developer’s attorneys.

On traffic, Lybolt said they have made headway with the Department of Transportation on the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 9W and Mayer Drive as well as the additional proposed sidewalks, also along Route 9W. She said they are very close to receiving a permit from the DOT and further stated there will be no additional impacts from 18 more cottages, characterizing this as a “nominal increase.”

Lybolt provided a detailed, down-lighting lighting plan for the project that includes photometric data and shows they are in compliance with the town code.

Lybolt said they retained a firm to create a soil management plan, “to provide more specifics about mitigation measures to avoid human contact with contaminated soils.” The site had been an apple orchard for decades and the town has asked the developer to show how off-site disposal of contaminated soils would occur. The developer, however, has devised a five part construction phasing plan that shows the build-out and that the contaminated soils may be placed under roadways and buildings on the site.

Planning Board member Carl DiLorenzo said he was not sure how much soil remediation needed to be done and to what depth once construction began. Lybolt said the contamination of the soil in the area of the Assisted Living Facility was deeper but in the area of the proposed cottages, “most of it is on the surface or within the first 6 or 11 inches and the plan is to utilize that underneath the roads and in some of the landscaping berms, which will be capped with topsoil.” She stated that the contamination in the berms will be below threshold levels and will not be a health risk to the general public.

Town engineer Christian Moore suggested that, “at a minimum,” a pre-soil management plan be prepared by the developer for all of the excavation activity based upon the final site plan approval. He also asked that a more detailed storm water plan be provided by the developer to show that the soil can handle the anticipated volume of water runoff that’s, “going underground without causing some problems somewhere else,” such as on a neighboring property.

Lybolt clarified that the new building that is in front of the property is a sales office. She said the building will stay until they start the construction of the Assisted Living Facility, after which it will be moved to the upper portion of the property. It is not a model for the cottages.