By Mark Reynolds
Previously, the Lloyd Town Board approved a Planned Residential Retirement Development [PRRD] zoning change for the Villages property in a 3-2 vote along party lines. The project is now before the Planning Board for site plan review.
Developer Marc Sanderson is proposing an Assisted Living Facility [ALF] that will be in two parts and front directly onto Route 9W, opposite the Bridgeview Shopping Plaza. In addition, the Town Board’s zoning change of the property will allow Sanderson to build 197 independent living units, in a mix of 1,000 to 1,400 sq/ft, each set about 10 ft apart, for seniors 62 and up.
The developer’s attorney John Furst recently participated in a conference call with representatives from the Department of Health [DOH], Lloyd’s Land Use attorney Paul Van Cott, Lloyd Building Department Director Dave Barton and Town Supervisor Dave Plavchak. Furst said the Department of Health confirmed that, “what we are calling the upper section of the ALF, does not require a license from the DOH, so that issue has basically been put to bed.”
Kelly Libolt, of KACR Planning Consultants, updated the board on their interaction with the Department of Transportation [DOT], saying that, “Supervisor [Plavchak] is on all of the communication back and forth” with the DOT. She said a final submission has been sent in to the DOT on a few outstanding issues.
Town of Lloyd Engineer Andrew Learn, of CPL, wants to see detailed site and utility plans, “to clarify how the phases are going to be built out, so there is continuity with the water and sewer services as well as drainage and storm water. There is going to be some storm water management practices that will overlap with those phases, but we need to make sure they all work properly.”
Learn said grading will have to be phased, “particularly the emergency access road [that] needs to be graded out to see before the full phased build-out.” He said it is important to coordinate with the fire department to make sure the proposed surface of the emergency road is acceptable to them.
Learn also discussed phasing of the Assisted Living Facility.
“If the upper section is built first, how [in the lower section] that wall is going to be constructed and how the foundation of that lower building is going to be constructed,” he said. “We’re going to need some pretty detailed plans on how that’s gonna work to make sure that when it comes time to build out, the lower foundation of that building doesn’t undermine that wall.”
Libolt said they will provide to the board the number of affordable independent living units that will be included in each phase of the project, but to date none have been sold. She indicated that construction of these units will come first, followed by the Assisted Living Facility, and she will be speaking with the contractor to determine a plan on the best way to move from one phase to another.
Attorney Van Cott touched upon the Department of Health license.
He urged the board to be clear, “about what’s being done with respect to the lower building [of the ALF] that will require a DOH license before that license is obtained.”
Dave Barton urged the board, “to think through the phasing plan; does it work and what number of units will work, moving forward.” This is the first time the issue of the proposed 197 independent living units has been raised. The Planning Board has not brought this up in any meaningful way, despite being previously told by attorney Van Cott that the Planning Board, during site plan review, has the authority to limit the number, size and placement of structures for this project.
Board member Sal Cuciti questioned the plan to build the independent living units prior to the ALF and the project still calling itself a Health Care community.
“How is that going to work without the Assisted Living there?” he asked, pointing out that the ALF building and the independent living units are part of one overall project.
“That’s how the zoning works; it depends on being part of a community with a contract,” Cuciti said.
Cuciti said he does not see how they can operate without the ALF being built first, otherwise the independent living units are only stand alone houses that are not part of a Health Care community.
Cuciti recalled the Villages was going to operate under a Life Care Contract.
“So if there is nothing there [no ALF], then what are they? There’s no contract there and they don’t meet that definition [of Life Care Community],” he said.
Furst conceded that Cuciti was right, but said, “when we originally appeared before the Planning Board four years ago, the code at that time talked about a CCRC, where there was a contract.” He insisted that designation is no longer in the code, however, but acknowledged that some of the past language about the CCRC remains concerning a contract stipulation.
Furst said residents in the units have the option to work with home care service providers that are licensed by the Department of Health and a second option of availing themselves of a concierge doctor that the developer will introduce to the community; “a doctor that will make house calls.”
When asked by Cuciti, Furst confirmed that Apple Lane will only be for emergency access and will not be a main entrance, but there will be a water line installed to increase water flow in that area. On the Villages layout map, however, Apple Lane is depicted as a through roadway that is directly connected to the project site.
Cuciti also said the length of the roadways on the site is an issue.
“They are all going back to one point and the length is too long [by code requirements]. I thought it was going to be a circulation system,” he said, pointing out that the length of the roadways on the site from the entrance on Health Care Center Drive through the project and out onto Meyer Drive, “has 197 houses on a 3,000 foot cul-de-sac.” Furst indicted that he will provide documentation to the board on past road measurements that shows it meets the code requirement.
Cuciti asked the developer to provide all of the front and rear elevations of the Assisted Living Facility. He also requested a detailed map of the steep slopes on the site for the board’s review.
Cuciti questioned the lot line that divides the ALF section from the independent living units of the project.
“There seems to be a lot of effort to separate these two pieces of land that work together. There’s a strange property line up and down and a lot of easements and it makes me think that it can be separated, so somebody can sell it. So that means the ALF can be sold off and the independent living units would be owned by somebody else, another scenario that I’m worried about.” McCarthy agreed with Cuciti, saying the lots have to work together according to the town code.
Furst admitted that the lots are already under separate ownership but “are owned by the same person with different entities already.” He did not explain why the division of the properties was made, nor anything about the legal entities, but said this was done because the ALF building has to be on a separate parcel from the independent living units,” due to licensing regulations. He did not back up this claim with documentation for the board.
Chairman McCarthy told Furst and Libolt that the board needs some time to review all of the information that was brought up at the meeting.