On July 1 the Lloyd Town Board granted a variance from the town’s moratorium to the Village of the Hudson Valley that will allow them to move their Assisted Living Facility proposal forward to the Planning Board for site plan review. The vote was 3-2, with Supervisor Fred Pizzuto and Councilpersons Claire Winslow and Lenny Auchmoody voting yes and Mike Guerriero and Joe Mazzetti voting no.
The resolution was read aloud by Lloyd’s land use attorney Rob Stout. In one section, he stated that the applicant (Mark Sanderson), “has applied to the Town Board for amended relief from the moratorium in order to seek development approvals for an Assisted Living facility proposed for construction on NYS Route 9W on lands comprised of a portion of the following (6) tax parcels: 95.12-1-15.100/95.2-2-10/95.12-1-1/ 95.12-1-5/ 95.2-2-3.210 and 95.2-2-9, the Project.”
The Assisted Living Facility appears that it may use the first two parcels of the six listed above, which together totals 6.7 acres. It is unclear why the other four parcels were part of this resolution because project attorney, John Furst has repeatedly stated that his client has scaled back the original project and is only seeking approval to build the Assisted Living facility. That original proposed project, sited on 53 acres, included a 4 story Assisted Living facility, an Urgent Care center and medical offices, 219 independent housing units, including two multi-family structures, a clubhouse, a pool house, tennis courts and a community garden.
Upon closer analysis, the other four parcels listed in the resolution are critically important to this earlier, larger project. Parcel 95.12-1-1 is a single-family home located at 11 Apple Lane. The record shows that Sanderson purchased this home on May 24, 2019 for $399,500 from the present homeowner, who bought it in 2016 for $295,000, that may be proposed as access to his 16.3 acre bordering parcel [95.2-2-9], also part of the earlier development proposal. When Apple Lane was originally built, a stipulation was attached stating that the end of this road could not be altered, thus the importance of having access to the bordering parcel through 11 Apple Lane.
Parcel 95.12-1-5 is a 2 acre flag-lot located at 12 Mayer Drive that sits between #10 and #14 Mayer Drive and could serve as a possible emergency entrance/exit to the previously proposed development project.
Parcel 95.2-2-3.210 is a 27 acre lot, located at 188 Vineyard Ave, and is the lot where most of the senior cottages were proposed for the earlier project. Project Surveyor Patti Brooks has previously pointed out that access from Vineyard Avenue to this 27 acre parcel may not be possible because of a wetland area on the far western side of this lot.
Project Attorney John Furst issued a statement on why all of the lots may have been included in the resolution that was approved.
“I believe the Town’s resolution was listing all 6 parcels for historical reference to show where we started and how we ended up where we did,” he wrote. “Right now our goal is obtaining site plan and special use permit approval for an Assisted Living Facility. That is all the town is allowing us to move forward on; and that is the only thing in play at this time. The town’s resolution makes that pretty clear.”
In a subsequent phone interview Furst said the Assisted Living facility may utilize slightly more than 6.7 acres and incorporate a portion of parcel 95.2-2-9, “something that will depend on the Planning Board process.”
Furst acknowledged that Sanderson, “at some point in the future he’s gonna look to develop those other portions of the property like he originally did a year ago. It’s so uncertain at this point; we’re waiting to see what the town does with the rezoning.”
Furst clarified the size of the Assisted Living Facility; the map of March 2019 was for a four story building with a 29,850 sq/ft footprint while the April 2020 configuration calls for a two story building with a 52,000 sq/ft footprint.
Furst explained that when he said the developer was, “scaling back the project,” it was from the original project that covered most of the 53 acres.
Furst said he is hoping that the town, in particular, would modify their setback proposal that for every 100 feet in length, a structure would have to be setback 100 feet. He noted that the Ulster County Planning Board thinks the town’s setback proposal is, “way too big and say they don’t make sense. They’re saying the same things that we’ve been telling the town for months, so it’s not just a “greedy” developer who is making these arguments, it’s an independent, third party panel of experts that agree with us and are proposing substantial modifications to the town’s proposed zoning regulations. We’d love to have the opportunity to work with the town and try to reduce those to a manageable, workable requirement.”
To view any of the parcels listed in this story, go online and type in Ulster County Parcel Viewer and then the tax parcel identifying number in the box in the upper left hand corner.