New Paltz Apartments, a 248-unit student housing proposal, was back before the Village of New Paltz Planning Board for a public hearing last week. The project, which has generated considerable feedback from the local community, has now become part of a larger conversation: Consolidation.
Last month, both the Town of New Paltz and Village of New Paltz held a joint meeting to discuss a draft resolution to use a state Local Government Citizens Re-Organization Empowerment Grant to fund an update to a 2011 study on the wisdom of consolidating the two entities. In an early January email, village mayor Tim Rogers suggested that there were different paths toward a mutually agreeable consolidation.
“A coterminous town-village can be created in several ways,” Rogers wrote. “The most democratic way for New Paltz would be for both the existing village and town governing boards to vote on whether to endorse a joint consolidation agreement followed by public hearings and then a referendum where all registered voters in New Paltz could participate.”
Under state Village Law Article 2-200.2 and state General Municipal law Article 17-A, the consolidation would create a single municipal government with one leader — mayor or supervisor — and a single board of elected trustees. The move would also combine different municipal offices and departments.
Theoretically, a referendum on consolidation could go before the public in November of this year, and at least one member of the village planning board last week wondered if it might be beneficial for the New Paltz Apartments project to hold off until at least then, and beyond.
“We have a lot of consolidation meetings that are going to be happening, and in the consolidation study, there’s going to be an independent, thorough study of water and sewer usage in our village and in our town,” said board member Amy Cohen during the Tuesday, February 6 planning board meeting. “And I think for this project to go forward, we’re going have to make sure that we are able to supply the water and that this is going to happen.”
The New Paltz Apartments project, proposed by Commercial Street Partners, is for a 248-unit, 724-bed student housing campus unaffiliated with SUNY New Paltz consisting of townhouse and cottage-style apartments on what is currently two parcels totaling 129-acres located along Route 32 South and Cross Creek Road. The project, dubbed New Paltz Apartments, is also slated to include a clubhouse, fitness center, swimming pool, patio area, a nature trail and associated parking.
“This is a very consequential project,” Cohen said. “I mean, it’s huge. It’s the size of a new town inside of our town, so they’re going to be requiring a lot of water.”
Cohen, who attended the meeting remotely, posited an idea she stressed was her own and not a directive of the planning board.
“I’m thinking that perhaps this developer (might) take a step back for 18 months or two years,” she said. “And my reasoning behind that is because an independent study of the water and sewer system is extraordinarily costly, and this is going to be done in the consolidation study. So this would be something that they wouldn’t have to do.”
Cohen added that there is the “very complicated and costly” process of annexation necessary for the project to proceed. The plans would require the annexation of parcels from the Town of New Paltz to the Village of New Paltz, and then the rezoning and subdivision of the parcels to four separate R-3 lots; New Paltz Apartments would be built on a single 60-acre lot, with the remaining lots either remaining vacant or as currently developed with single-family homes.
Planning board member Rich Souto said he believed the New Paltz Apartments project and the consolidation discussion should be separated.
“I don’t recommend that we consider this application in the context of whether the town and village will move toward a consolidation at this time,” Souto said. “I think we have to be pretty intentional about the law and the zoning and the code and the process that governs this applicant and this application. So I think it would make for a pretty complex scenario or maybe a more simple scenario if there were to be a consolidation, but I don’t think it’s this board’s responsibility to consider that alongside of this application process.”
Cohen also suggested that the public hearing remain open to allow for further comments, particularly in light of the relatively small turnout at last week’s meeting. Souto disagreed.
“I think this has been publicized significantly, and it’s been open for three months with multiple public opportunities, in-person opportunities, for comments to be submitted,” Souto said, adding that there have been numerous written comments received and could continue to be received even after the public hearing was closed. “I feel as though the only way we can proceed with our diligence on this project is if we close this public hearing and move forward. And I don’t believe any of the things that have come in the past two hearings actually are raising substantive new comments about the considerations for this project.”
Attorney Michael Moriello, who is part-owner of the property and also a lawyer representing the developer, agreed, saying there would be more public hearings at various steps of the process. He added that the next time the project was before the planning board, the plans were likely to be reduced in the number of units and other facets.
The public hearing was closed by a vote of 3-1.
Join the family! 
