Environmental issues face Villages

By Mark Reynolds
Posted 3/24/21

On Tuesday, March 16 members of the Lloyd Town and Planning Boards met in a joint meeting to discuss the Village in the Hudson Valley project that has been proposed by developer Mark Sanderson for …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Environmental issues face Villages

Posted

On Tuesday, March 16 members of the Lloyd Town and Planning Boards met in a joint meeting to discuss the Village in the Hudson Valley project that has been proposed by developer Mark Sanderson for the western side of Route 9W, directly across from the Bridgeview shopping plaza.

The Village project consists of a 120,000 sq/ft Assisted Living facility with 135 beds, a 7,000 sq/ft Aquatic Therapy Center and a 5,000 sq/ft Primary Care Center. In addition, 162 single family cottages and 8 duplexes are part of a conceptual Planned Residential Retirement Development [PRRD] community that will run up and across the 62+ acre parcel.

Planning Board Chairman Scott McCarthy said the purpose of the meeting is to, “get a better understanding of what has been missed, if anything, and where we stand with the project to date.”

Lloyd’s Land Use Attorney Paul Van Cott said Sanderson has submitted an application to the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit for the Assisted Living facility but has not formally submitted anything for the PRRD. Van Cott said at this point it is not certain if an application for this part of the project will ever be made, however, the record does not back Van Cott’s claim. Developer Sanderson and his attorney, John Furst, have both stated, on the record at several meetings, that the intent is to seek approval to build the entire project – the Assisted Living facility and its ancillary buildings followed by the cottages/duplexes.

Van Cott said the Planning Board has to consider both the Assisted Living facility and the PRRD senior community at the same time in order to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act [SEQRA] and that the project is not being segmented.

Van Cott said it is up to the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, to determine if there are any significant adverse environmental impacts. If they determine there are, the applicant will have to compile an Environmental Impact Statement [EIS]. If the board, however, decides that the project presents no significant environmental impacts, as the developer contends, there would be no EIS required and the Planning Board would continue to review the Special Use Permit and the site plan for the Assisted Living facility.

Van Cott said the first step in the PRRD senior living phase of the project is that it would go before a special board consisting of members of the Town, Planning and Zoning boards for a preliminary look. A recommendation would then be made to the Town Board and it would be up to them, “on whether to entertain an application for a PRRD or not.” He cautioned that in this process, “there is always a test of reasonableness associated with SEQR review. You don’t ask for things outside of the reasonableness scope of what the impacts related to the project would be.”

A week prior to the joint meeting and before the Town and Planning Board members had a chance to discuss any possible environmental impacts, a memorandum written by Building Department Director Dave Barton, Town Engineer Andrew Learn and attorney Van Cott was sent to members of both boards, concluding that the Assisted Living facility and the conceptual PRRD, “would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts.”

One key factor discussed is whether the project is inconsistent with the existing community character. Board member Sal Cuciti said on one level the project is consistent because large commercial projects do exist along Route 9W.

“I have one impact that ricochets through this and I can’t let it go because the [Assisted Living] building is 385 feet long and the total rise of the building is like 60 feet. It’s a big site and it can handle this building but the building is only 200 feet away from a single family residence and that to me rang as a bell that this is an impact here.” he said.

Fellow board member Carl DiLorenzo also contends that this project will have adverse environmental impacts, which should trigger an EIS.

Van Cott said at the next meeting the board should discuss the meaning of Part III of SEQR and about the options available to the Planning Board on how to proceed.

“Just because on Part II you say there are moderate to large impacts that doesn’t necessarily mean that those are significant adverse impacts that would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement,” he said. “One of the things you would be looking at is significant impacts to land from this proposed action but the applicant has proposed mitigation measures as part of the project to address those impacts.”

Cuciti took issue with Van Cott assertion, “but we all live here in Highland so I doubt it very much that we’re going to sign off and certify every single impact but that leaves us with Part III of SEQR. So what if he [Sanderson] has to do an EIS; we’re not sending him to jail. It just is what it is, not a big deal. It happens every day.”

Attorney Furst summarized what the board wants him to provide at the next meeting: a letter from Central Hudson regarding the expected energy use of the project; the timing sequence of the traffic lights at Argent and Meyer Drives with Chapel Hill Road; an updated report from a biologist on possible protected species on the property, such as the Indiana bat and more information on the visual impacts that residents and visitors will see on the hillside while coming into Highland, especially off the Mid Hudson Bridge and while driving on Route 9W and from other public vantage points. A 3D rendering of the project was requested by Planning Board member Franco Zani that would allow for a proportional, in-depth visual review.

Cuciti said, “this is a big, complicated project and there are a lot of things I want to see discussed in detail so we know everything is right. For me it probably is an Environmental Impact Statement.”

Van Cott continued to offer information to the boards that is not backed by facts in the record. He maintains that the project’s PRRD is, “something that is proposed on a conceptual level at this point and the applicant has not indicated that he is really prepared to do the detailed work for analysis and that is reflected in the submission...Wouldn’t it be more prudent and more protective of the environment, in a legally defensible way, to ensure that once an application comes in for that residential development on the top of the hillside that a full SEQR analysis, [that] gets to the points we’re talking about tonight, is done.”

Cuciti said in this process the Planning Board should not, “worry about the applicant having to do these reports and I don’t think we should in the context of this discussion. Instead, the discussion should be about protecting our town, making sure this thing is explained forward and backward. It’s big, it’s complex and we just went through a million things. Our focus should be on protection of the community and making sure this is right and not worrying about the cost to the applicant.”

The next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 25 at 7 p.m. See townoflloyd.com on how to attend via webex.