At a recent Lloyd Planning Board public hearing for a proposed Assisted Living Facility [ALF], the subject of soil contamination on the property was raised. The hearing was for a 120,000 sq/ft, 135 bed facility in the town’s R-1/2 zone on the west side of Route 9W, opposite the Bridgeview Shopping Plaza.

This building is part of the much larger project known as the Villages in the Hudson Valley. Developer Owen Mark Sanderson has stated that in addition to the ALF building he will eventually seek approval to construct 162 cottages and 8 duplexes across a 60+ acre parcel.

During public comment, Dr. Anthony Pascale said he is worried that his dental practice property, which borders the proposed project, will be “gravely impacted” by the facility. He pointed out that the ALF is being proposed on a former orchard that has a number of underground French drains and blind ditches that stretch across the property.

“You can’t find them until you hit them with a backhoe or excavator and they open up like somebody turned on a fire hose,” he said.

Dr. Pascale said of far greater concern is the presence of chemicals, such as arsenic, and pesticides like DDT in the soil because of the long history of apple farming on the property. These elements have already been identified in a Soil & Materials Management Plan, dated January 2020, that was done by Partridge Venture Engineering [PVE] and commissioned by the developer.

At a March 22, 2021 Planing Board meeting, project representative Kelly Libolt said that PVE took 26 soil samples across the site, “and only a few had contaminations.” She noted that any suspected contaminated soil would be set aside for further testing to determine if it can be reused on another part of the site and covered over with fresh clean soil or whether the contamination is so significant that it has to be removed; the latter action being far costlier.

PVE’s report states that they viewed historical aerials of the site from 1956 to 2015 to evaluate the extent of the orchard operations. Contrary to Libolt’s statement that only a few samples showed contamination, PVE discovered that all 26 samples taken at the site showed varying levels of contamination.

The report concluded that, “Arsenic, lead and/or mercury were detected in each of the 26 soil samples collected and submitted for analysis. Twelve (12) of the twenty-six (26) soil samples contained concentrations of metals exceeding Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objectives [UUSCO]. Arsenic was detected in twelve (12) of the soil samples and lead was detected in one (1) of the soil samples at concentrations exceeding the Restricted Residential Soil Cleanup Objectives [RRSCO].”

“Eleven (11) of the twenty-six (26) soil samples collected contained concentrations of metals exceeding Ulster County Department of Health [UCDOH] guidance values.”

“Pesticides were detected in sixteen (16) of the 26 soil samples collected and submitted for analysis. Fifteen (15) of the seventeen (17) soil samples containing pesticides detected at concentrations exceeding UUSCOs [but] no soil samples contained concentrations of pesticides exceeding RRSCOs or USDOH guidance values.”

PVE noted that contaminants in the surface soil in the proposed development area, “are present at concentrations exceeding RRSCOs.” They recommended the preparation of a site-specific Soils and Management Plan for the handling, placement/capping and/or disposal of contaminated soils from the proposed development area in accordance with applicable regulations.

Pascale said he likes the concept of the Assisted Living Facility but characterized the size of the proposed project as “over development.”

“I don’t think it is appropriate for the site but I don’t own it and I am relying on you gentlemen [Planning Board] to protect me just as you would give consideration to anybody else, that my property won’t be damaged either through runoff [or] drainage,” he said.

Pascale said after reading all of the legal documents on the project, he questions that reviewing the Assisted Living facility separately from the future cottages may be a violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act.

“Sometimes there is a fine line between what is legal, what is ethical and what is moral,” he said, adding that some legal advice he has received says the Planning Board may or may not have conducted a segmented review. “The only way to find out is to take out an Article 78, which I don’t want to do.” He asked the Planning Board to consider the entire project as one, saying that the Assisted Living Facility cannot be separated from the housing element of the overall project. Ultimately, he believes that approval of this project appears to have already been decided.

Pascale said he is also worried about the impact of dust on the dental practice because construction of the ALF is projected to take a year.

Pascale said taking away the decision from the Planning Board on the number of cottages the town will allow and handing that over to the Town Board was a purely political act.

“Mr. Sanderson is not going to build this [Assisted Living] facility and risk millions and million of dollars and a year and a half from now the Town Board says you’re going to get zero cottages; that’s not going to happen,” Pascale said.

Planning Board attorney Paul Van Cott has repeatedly said publicly that the application presently before the Planning Board is only for the Assisted Living facility and it is not known at this time if anything will ever be built farther up on the property. Van Cott’s continuing comments run counter to Sanderson’s stated intent that he will later seek approval to build the cottages.

The Ulster County Planning Board has reviewed the proposed ALF building and made a number of recommendations for the Planning Board to review: confirm if the DOT has approved a traffic light at Mayer Drive; install a sidewalk from Mayer Drive to the ALF building as well as a sidewalk connection through the Bridgeview property; identify pick up and drop locations for Para-transit/Transit areas; ensure onsite monitoring of the storm water system by the town, with reviews of the erosion and inspection controls; check that the detention ponds can handle larger unforeseen storm events and that the design brings water away from the buildings; require that the average lighting levels should not exceed the requirements of the Illuminating Engineering Society and the International Dark Sky Association; have the applicant produce an energy conservation plan and actively reduce the carbon footprint of the facility and conduct a life cycle cost benefit analysis.

The UCPB also suggested that the project employ alternatives to fossil fuels for heating, such as geothermal, and the use of heat pumps. Additionally, the county urged the developer to install solar panels on the roof, explore porous pavement in parking areas, install bio-swales in its storm water management plans and set up electric charging stations on the property.

The UCPB received the soils study by PVE as part of a submittal package, but made no mention of the company’s findings on contamination or remediation methods in their recommendations back to the Lloyd Planning Board.