It’s the biggest project to be considered by New Paltz Village Planning Board members in recent memory: Zero Place. Aspects of this proposed mixed-use building on the edge of the historic zoning district have gotten the attention of proponents and opponents alike. The promise of developer David Shepler is a structure that will produce more energy than is used and become the anchor of a walkable, modern business district in the village. The fears articulated by members of the Friends of New Paltz focus on the fact that it will be far taller than any off-campus building, with traffic and noise issues that will spill over into adjacent neighborhoods including Historic Huguenot Street, a gem in the community.
Accounts of the many planning board meetings at which this project has been discussed have not, in the view of some village residents, included a full and accurate depiction of the concerns raised about the project. To that end, developer Shepler and members of the Friends of New Paltz agreed to answer the same set of questions in the hope that all views would be fairly represented; those questions were provided to all parties on December 17. Ultimately, members of the latter group declined to respond; representative Cara Lee explained their reasoning thus: “We have conferred and concluded we will not be able to provide responses this week. We have also concluded that as issues are unfolding, we don’t feel that the questions are the most relevant to our thinking and concerns. An option might be for us to provide a few questions.” The option of interview subjects providing the questions has been declined on First Amendment grounds.
While an invitation to members of the Friends of New Paltz to be interviewed remains open, Mr. Shepler (together with his professional consultants) did prepare answers to the questions. It is hoped that a substantive discussion with members of the Friends of New Paltz will be forthcoming, and further the fair and balanced coverage of this complex issue.
A number of aspects of this project have raised concerns for community members. As the project stands right now, what do you believe are the three most problematic, and why?
Allow us to address three of the most commonly voiced concerns made by the Friends of New Paltz, a group that mostly consists of residents of Huguenot Street. It’s important to note that our community is diverse with many more expressing support for Zero Place than those who oppose it, as documented in [New Paltz Times]. The public should not get the impression that it is somehow Zero Place vs the community.
(1) The building is too big for New Paltz: While the building is a departure from what exists on 32 North currently, that’s the whole point of the new zone, to transform a village corridor with taller buildings pushed to the street, framing an outdoor “room” (as [James Howard] Kunstler would say), that encourages community gathering. Consider the inviting corridors in Hudson, Rhinebeck and downtown New Paltz when you think about Zero Place, and not just a standalone building.
(2) Parking is inadequate: Our soon-to-be-released plan includes voluntary modifications to Zero Place and a comprehensive analysis of comparable developments which demonstrates that we have more than sufficient parking for all days of the week and all times of day.
(3) Impact on our historical resources: Rather than resulting in a detriment to these resources, an attractive 32 North streetscape that draws pedestrians will only serve to enhance the community of New Paltz and welcome tourists to our village and interest in the history and preservation of Huguenot Street. The current state of 32 North is far from beneficial to the neighboring district. Furthermore, the NY State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation issued a letter on 28 April 2016 stating [that] the Zero Place project “will have no impact on archaeological and/or historic resources listed in or eligible for the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places.”
Zero Place is expected to actually produce more energy than its users consume. Should that matter to residents of New Paltz when considering the big picture of the project? Why or why not?
We would certainly hope the community cared about this. According to the DOE and U.S. Green Building Council, buildings are the single-largest source of CO2 emissions, exceeding even transport. Although building codes have generally increased standards regarding energy efficiency, we know that buildings can be made even better. We think New Paltz deserves a building that has our collective futures in mind and lives up to the larger vision of the new NBR (neighborhood-business-residential) zone. We are committed to providing 100% of the energy needs of the residential tenants through onsite solar production while also addressing the significant shortage of quality housing that is putting development pressure on our farmlands and encouraging sprawl.
What is one aspect about this project that you believe residents of New Paltz fail to fully appreciate, either due to inadequate reporting, lack of interest or any other reason?
In the ongoing detailed discussion, it is easy to lose sight of the big picture. The 32 North corridor from Salvation Army to BOCES (the new NBR zone) is unsightly and fails to serve our community well by just about any measure (aesthetic, economic, tax base, etc.). The new zoning is meant to change that, but if the more vocal minority of our community succeeds in thwarting the efforts of any developer who steps up to help the village realize its vision, the stagnation of the Route 32 North corridor will continue. It is easy to say “no” to everything. It’s time we encourage locally-minded, sustainability-focused teams and respect the wishes of the majority of New Paltz and the vision passed by our democratically-elected village board. Instead of looking for every reason why not to do something, why don’t we look for reasons to say yes?
Zero Place complies with all aspects of the NBR code, and requests no variances (note: parking lot landscape buffers to be addressed in upcoming revisions). I ask all community members to keep in mind that the building is the first to begin to build out the NBR vision. Hopefully the building will not long sit in isolation but alongside a new streetscape of buildings, street trees and benches and more with investment in the community at large. I believe some of the resistance to the building springs from the difficulty those in opposition have in envisioning a new street that is aesthetically inviting and vibrant with life. They see the car-centric, dilapidated industrial strip of today and struggle to make the leap.
The vision represented by the NBR and by extension Zero Place is something we should support as an investment in a better future: one that is less dependent on the personal automobile and more conducive to a vibrant community, focused on energy efficiency and urban density.
The ideas built into the NBR zone appear to be inspired by James Howard Kunstler as a way to fight suburban sprawl and preserve small-town America, as he laid out in a 1996 article in The Atlantic. Is this a laudable goal, and if so, do you believe the NBR zone in the village will help achieve it? Why or why not?
Kunstler’s voice is certainly an important one, reminding us of the sprawl pressures that have pushed developments into farmlands and created vast expanses of soulless big box stores surrounded by parking lots. We must encourage the forward-thinking vision of the NBR zone and fight the impulse to resist change. Remember, there were community members who were very vocal in their opposition to the rail trail, and many of those same folks now applaud the rail trail as a treasure. We are certain that Zero Place will be the same. It will breathe life into both the northern section of the rail trail and more broadly to the northern village corridor, which for far too long has remained unattractive and lacking in both community gathering space and retail options.
In some ways, it appears that the Friends of New Paltz and the developer of Zero Place have different visions of New Paltz. Do you believe that to be true, or is there a middle road forward? What specifically would you be willing to compromise upon to reach that path?
We believe the Zero Place team’s vision is the same as that of the village board when the NBR zone was created. The Friends of New Paltz has begun a petition calling for the zoning to be “revisited.” We believe changing the zoning does a disservice to the village government and the rest of our community, which invested years of planning efforts, public hearings and reviews to arrive at the NBR.
To be frank, we have not seen much in the way of compromise from the Friends. Instead, the group is questioning the whole NBR zone. We have already compromised a good amount and are preparing even more changes to be released in coming weeks. As a reminder, here are a few highlights of changes we’ve made to date: (1) reducing the visual height of the building by half a story (now more than five feet below what code allows), (2) multiple redesigns of the facade to add brick, stone, fenestration and other features more consistent with local forms, (3) moving the roof terrace to the 32 North side to reduce noise and visual impact to neighbors, (4) eliminating the loading dock and head-in parking on Mulberry Street, and (5) adding more foliage, street benches and widening of the sidewalk along 32N.
We firmly believe the vast majority support both the community’s vision and our project. Nevertheless, we are prepared to continue to compromise where reasonable to make the best project possible.
Join the family! 
