The Lloyd Planning Board met on March 21 and found out that representatives of a mixed-use project, called the Views at Highland, had contacted the board via email at 2:30 pm that afternoon requesting a third extension of their project, claiming they were not aware that $52,500 in recreation fees had to be paid before the Planning Board Chairman could affix his signature to their site plan. The site plan approval was due to expire two days later, on March 23.

 

The developers of the project, which was approved in 2021 but has not been built, have been trying to sell the parcel for several years. They were already granted the maximum number of extensions, one in 2022 and a second in 2023.

 

Planning Board attorney Paul Van Cott stated that the developer has run out of extensions, but characterized the issue as a ‘misunderstanding’ of what was required by the developers.  

 

“So in order for them to avoid having to reapply for approval of the same project, what we suggested to them is that we would recommend to the [planning] board a minor amendment to the site plan approval and grant them 90 days to pay their recreation fees before the site plan can be signed by the chairman,” he said.  

 

Chairman Scott McCarthy interrupted Van Cott, saying that not being able to cut a check for the amount on time, “is one thing but learning that your time is up at 5:30 of 2:30 in the afternoon the day of the [Planning Board] meeting; is nobody checking and are they not aware?” He said he was hesitant about granting this request, saying that he has been hard on everybody else that comes before the board, but he then threw it out to the full Planning Board for comment; “If the board wants to entertain it, it’s up to the board.”

 

A representative of the project claimed that a year ago they had completed everything needed except for paying the recreation fees. McCarthy said the board feels blindsided when something comes in at 5:30 pm the day of a meeting, making it difficult to decide.

 

“We don’t want to hurt somebody, we’re here to help, but we can only help those who help themselves,” he said.  

 

Board member Franco Zani pointed out that the developer has the property for sale with a notice that it has an approved site plan.

 

“That’s not true. You have [site plan] approval but it is not signed,” he pointed out.

 

Building Department Director Dave Barton said that what he and attorney Van Cott, “are recommending is purely a procedural matter” that grants the developer time to collect the money and pay the recreation fees.

 

Van Cott stated that this is not an extension, but is part of other required items from a developer.

 

“Our assessment at the staff level is that rather than put the applicant and the board through an entirely new application and approval process for a procedural glitch, it would be appropriate to amend the site plan approval to grant 90 days for the applicant to pay the recreational fees and get the site plan signed.”

 

Board member Gerry Marion said that the board got this at 5:30 without any correspondence and the board does not really know what they are voting on; pointing out that “it’s not our fault.”  

 

Chairman McCarthy said he would not want to do this application over, “but at the same time I think every applicant knows how we run the board and as President, you give me something the same day, it’s very hard for me to understand and come up with a good basis on why it is that we should or shouldn’t do something when it’s is being thrown at me now. This is something they [developers] should have known way prior to this meeting.” He said if the board does not grant the developers more time, “It kind of screws up their sale of the property that has not been approved and [it] would have to be redone all over again. It’s grueling on our end and grueling on their end but we’re the ones sitting here trying to make something happen in an hour and half.”

 

Both Van Cott and Barton said granting 90 days is an amendment to the prior approval, likening it to a grace period, however, Chairman McCarthy disagreed, pointing out that while the language is calling this an amendment, it really amounts to an extension.

 

Voting yes to grant the 90 days were Fred Pizzuto (alternate in the absence of William Meltzer), Lambros Violaris, Franco Zani, Scott McCarthy and Carl DiLorenzo. Gerald Marion was the sole no vote and Charley Long was absent.  

 

The Planning Board also approved three consulting firms by a simple motion for the Falcon Ridge residential project. The proposed project is slated for a 520 acre site located on the north side of town, off of Upper North Road. Developer Dan Gueron is seeking to build 166 homes, each on. .33 of an acre, or 14,378 sq/ft.

 

Gueron initially told the Planning Board that he would pay for a sewer line from his site and run it south on Route 9W to tie into the town’s system at Grand Street. He has since changed his plans and is seeking approval from the town to build a sewer plant on the property; a proposal the town has never allowed and some Town and Planning Board members have stated publicly that they do not support. Previously, a former Town Board member had suggested that each lot should be larger in order to accommodate wells and septic systems, however, the developer said this would negatively impact his bottom line.    

 

The Planning Board’s attorney Paul Van Cott said the consultants, “are to help the board review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project.” Van Cott highlighted the three firms: George James is a visual consultant; Hudson Cultural Services would review cultural resources and the Aston Environmental Group will focus on wildlife and wetland issues. The Planning Board approved all three with board member Franco Zani recusing himself from the vote on the Hudson Cultural Services since his son is employed by the firm.