Lloyd clarifies density in retirement communities

By Mark Reynolds
Posted 10/28/20

The Lloyd Town Board approved a local law that amends the zoning code, especially concerning Planned Residential Retirement Developments [PRRD].

A section of new local law F touches upon the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Lloyd clarifies density in retirement communities

Posted

The Lloyd Town Board approved a local law that amends the zoning code, especially concerning Planned Residential Retirement Developments [PRRD].

A section of new local law F touches upon the allowed Maximum Density [F (4)] in these types of projects - “the ratio of independent living units to rooms in a PRRD shall not exceed 1.5 to 1.” Developer Marc Sanderson is proposing about 130 beds in his Assisted Living facility and the town was initially considering a limit of the number of cottages to 50% of the 130 beds, or 65 independent living units (cottages). Under the new code Sanderson will be allowed up to 195 cottages (130 x 1.5 = 195), however, he has indicated that he will build about 174 cottages. This is where the triple figure came from that was previously reported in this paper.

Building Department Director Dave Barton acknowledged there was consideration given to limiting the number of cottages to the 50% figure but after additional research he concluded that number was based upon, “fairly unenlightened thinking about how this type of facility needs to work.” He explained that the cottages act as a feeder to the nursing home.

“What we’re not doing here is we’re not creating a neighborhood or subdivision [but] we’re creating a medical facility,” he said.

Councilman Joe Mazzetti said Woodland Pond in New Paltz is a very tasteful and beautiful project but worries that will not be the case for the proposed Assisted Living facility and the eventual full build-out of the 53 acre parcel, located across from Bridgeview Plaza on Rte 9W.

“My fear is that this is going to be an albatross of houses filling the mountainside and is also going to create a huge traffic situation,” he said.

Barton tried to focus the discussion away from the larger build-out up the hill, which developer Marc Sanderson said he intends to pursue, but to the language in the new code governing PRRD projects.

Lloyd’s land use attorney Paul Van Cott, however, brought the discussion right back to PRRD projects, with an eye for what would make it practical for the developer. He noted that facilities like these range from a high of 4 to 1 – where there are four independent cottages to one room in an Assisted Living facility – to the lower amount of 1.5 to 1.

Van Cott said the most stringent restriction at the 1.5 level would, “still allow for a viable business to occur.” He said the county urged the town, “to look at the density differently than has been done in the past and differently than what was originally proposed by the town.” He said the county focused on the town’s density and setback proposals because they would, “essentially not allow for a viable retirement community to occur in the Town of Lloyd.”

Van Cott said the new code amendments require that all of the cottages be clustered. A residential cluster development generally means grouping residences in such a way that leaves a significant percentage of land for open space, recreation or for agriculture. A review of the Villages most recent layout, however, appears to show cottages that fill nearly the entire parcel.

Van Cott described the wording in the new local zoning law as a “huge sea-shift” from what exists in the current code. He said presently a developer wishing to build a retirement community would go before the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit and if it meets all of the stated criteria, the permit is approved and issued. The new process requires that a project, such as this, must first go to the Town Board for their review. Van Cott stressed that the Town Board, “has the absolute legislative discretion to look at a project that is being proposed and say is it going to fit where it’s proposed, is the density too much, are the heights of the buildings too tall [and] is this what the town really wants for this parcel of land.” He has stated many times that the decision on whether to allow a large PRRD project, such as the Villages, to move forward rests with the Town Board.

Mazzetti asked whether the Town Board can grant a waiver if a developer of a retirement community wants to exceed the stated density requirements. Van Cott said yes, leading Mazzetti to add, “My concern about all these laws is that they’re ‘loosey-goosey’; they’re not tight and the developers come and they don’t say [their project] is a range between this and that, but they go right for the jugular, for the maximum amount. They do all this work and come to us and say you didn’t stop us and now we’re going to sue because we spent all this money. That’s why I wanted it tighter because then they come to this board and we decide if the project is worthwhile and meets the [needs of] the community. I don’t believe this project [Villages] no way, no how is in the right location for the town.”

Councilwoman Winslow disagreed, saying the new zoning changes are appropriate.

“I think you have to work with the county [planning board]. You can’t just say I’m not going to work with you and I’m going to do what I want because in the end the county is looking at the big picture for the county and for the towns. They look at everything and don’t just say Highland will stay here and never grow; it’s about growth, it’s about change,” she said.

Winslow said the new zoning amendments now allow the Town Board to cut the density of projects.

“We didn’t have that before and that’s huge for us,” she said.

Mazzetti pointed out that the county planing board is an advisory board and their recommendations can be overridden by the Town Board with a super majority vote of at least 4 members. On many occasions in the past the Town Board has voted by a super majority to not follow required recommendations from the county planning board.