In late June, Lloyd Town officials received recommendations from the Ulster County Planning Board [UCPB] after reviewing a local town law that is proposing to amend the process and standards for retirement communities.

The UCPB noted that, “the law repeals the special permitting standards and locational standards for Continuing Care Retirement Communities [CCRC] and is replacing it with a new Planned Residential Retirement Development [PRRD] overlay district that floats throughout the community. The amendment significantly reduces allowable density and revises the bulk standards in the Highway Business District [HBD] to increase setback requirements and decrease building coverage.”

The County noted that CCRC’s are defined by the state as residential alternatives for adults, “that offer under contract, an independent living unit (an apartment of cottage), residential amenities and access to a continuum of long term care services, as residents’ health and social needs change over time.” The UCPB also stated that the need for these types of facilities is increasing as the population ages in the Hudson Valley

The UCPB pointed out that the success of zoning, whether through specifically permitted uses or creating floating zones, is in the standards, “as they relate to both community needs and the economic reality of the cost of the facility and the ability to move these projects through the planning process with both speed and certainty.” The County believes that the proposed floating zone model, “has punishing density provisions that are inconsistent with other housing options provided by the town,” and has asked to town to reconsider their approach.

“The first being the need for a special floating zone versus a special permitting process or even a hybrid where the special permitting process remains for certain areas of the town but floats for others; and the second being a closer look at the density provisions of the floating zone as proposed. Key in our minds is the commitment of the town to meet the needs for these facilities.”

The UCPB notes, “that the proposed local law does not link to specific goals that are with the town’s Comprehensive Plan” and that while the new zoning seeks reductions in density, the Comp Plan calls for allowing higher density in and around the town center, “to make appropriate use of the infrastructure investment and enhance the vibrancy of the community.”

The County pointed out that “the proposed law, instead, appears to do the opposite, particularly in the Highway Business District zone south of the hamlet, which given the presence of water and sewer have it targeted as part of the town’s growth area.”

The Required Modification section of the county’s comments states that Lloyd’s proposed law on zoning, “should link to specific goals in the [Comp] Plan, citing precisely how it is advancing those goals while not detracting from them.” In addition, the county is requiring that the provisions of the Affordable Housing Regulations be included in whatever standard they adopt concerning retirement communities.

The County points out that the town is looking to create another layer of review than what the Planning Board already handles, “based on a pre-defined set of standards that includes the location where CRRC’s are allowed.” The County stated that this additional layer of review for CRRC’s, “should be considered about where in the community it is allowed.”

In a required modification, the UCPB stated that, “Special permitted uses are best regulated when a clear set of standards necessary for the use to be sited is provided, and accordingly, offer a more focused approval process than site plan approval.”

The UCPB observed that the town is proposing significant reductions in density for projects in the Highway Business District, including CRRC projects [such as] changes to the side and rear yard setbacks and a reduction of the allowable maximum building coverage on a site.

“The new standards are in stark contrast to design standards required in the town’s center and Walkway/Gateway district that encourages mixed-use development with a focus on walk-ability and interconnected properties,” they wrote.

The County added that the Highway Business District amendment moves development away from mixed use and affordable housing goals of the Comprehensive Plan that results in reducing the area for development.

The UCPB indicates that “the new calculation, for no apparent reason, limits 30% of the square footage in upper floors of mixed-use buildings to housing requiring 70% be left for commercial use.”

In determining the buildable acreage in a PRRD project, steep slopes, wetlands and floodplain areas are subtracted from the available area for density calculations, stipulations the UCPB noticed that are not contained in the town’s other planned unit style developments. While the UCPB does not oppose calculations aimed at net buildable acreage, they encourage the town to apply this standard universally within the zoning code. In addition, the UCPB pointed out that the proposed PRRD zone has other provisions on parking, buildable coverage and open space, “that substantially impact the build-out potential of retirement communities.” They go on to add that, “the proposed setbacks for both the PRRD and the HBD districts are inconsistent, in the extreme, with the other setbacks in the statute and are not supported by the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Coupled with the 30% housing restriction for mixed-use properties they effectively reduce the ability of the town to meet its housing needs. The town should review its setback requirements for consistency with its design goals and setbacks for other uses and adjust them accordingly.”

The UCPB believes that to meet the demand, the 30% housing restriction in the upper floors in the HBD district “should be rejected.” They believe that using the upper floors for housing in mixed use structures, “is both green, sustainable, connected directly to the town’s goal to create density in its urban areas and offers the ability to provide affordable housing. Alternately, the Planning Board should be given the power to waive this restriction.”

The UCPB advised the town to conduct a town-wide survey on where it would be appropriate to site a PRRD and “whether these types of development should be restricted to accessing a state or county road only or should be allowed on local roads of all types as well.”

In a required modification, the UCPB noted that due to the difficulty of the “floating” zone surrounding the establishment of a PRRD process, an 18 month sunset provision is too “onerous.” They believe that an action of the Town Board is needed to “extinguish” the floating zone around town and should not occur automatically.

“On the other hand, if the special permit process remains and includes a time frame, the applicant should be allowed to request an extension of approval to the Planning Board.”