The Village of New Paltz Planning Board has compiled a list of concerns about the proposed 248-unit New Paltz Apartments, including whether the project is being designed solely for students of SUNY New Paltz.
The New Paltz Apartments project, proposed by Commercial Street Partners, is a 248-unit, housing complex 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 is also slated to include a clubhouse, fitness center, swimming pool, patio area, a nature trail and associated parking.
Developers are currently considering feedback from the public, as well as officials from both the village and town as they attempt to hone in on a project that will pass muster. At a meeting of the village planning board held on Tuesday, March 5, concerns were raised about what exactly New Paltz Apartments was supposed to be.
“I’ll be honest with you, certainly the part of the (DEIS, Draft Environmental Impact Statement) report that caught my eye right away was this ambiguity about, is this a student housing project or isn’t it?” said board member Terry Dolan. “We had a verbal presentation from someone on the corporate side that said, no, no, no, it’s not only students. But let me just quote to you something in the DEIS, which we didn’t write, the developer wrote this: ’The objective of the project sponsor is to develop student housing to benefit SUNY New Paltz.’ Period. That’s what it says.”
Dolan added that a paragraph or two later, the report says, “The objective of the project sponsor is to develop safe and affordable student housing and affordable housing in order to benefit SUNY New Paltz, the village and the town.”
“It can’t be both,” Dolan said. “It’s one or the other. I think it’s blatant obfuscation. They’re not really telling us what they’re gonna do here. Well, tell us. Put it on the table, and then we can react to it. I’m having a hard time reacting to this proposal because I’m not sure what it is.”
Planning board chair Zach Bialecki said it was clear from the public comment period that a strictly student-oriented complex was not favored.
“I think it would be appropriate for us to ask for some way of mitigating that through affordable housing, accessible housing, or maybe different configurations of units, some with more bedrooms that are more appropriate for families,” he said. “I don’t want this to really only be viable for SUNY students.”
Board member Amy Cohen agreed, asking that the developer present a detailed plan to include affordable housing in its proposal.
“We have nothing,” she said. “I don’t really understand if it was built for students in this type of a way that they had proposed, how any family could have dignity living in a home like that. I don’t think it’s built for families with kids. It’s just not appropriate. I’m sure that they heard that from the community, and I’m sure that in the new plan, there may be some way that families with kids can live in this community. And hopefully there’ll be some affordable housing, not just for college students that need affordable housing, but for village in town of New Paltz, residents, seniors and people with children that need housing, and single people too. Working people who work in our community who need homes.”
Board member Rich Souto suggested the developer might have to come up with an “innovative response” to the issue of designing a complex that works for both students and other members of the community.
“There have to be examples in our country of properties that have been developed that take into account the various needs of a community and integrate them into a single model,” Souto said. “Like for example, meeting a need for student housing and affordable housing, or potentially families on one campus … But then it would be a whole ‘nother overhaul because we know that’s not possible for affordable housing to be in a quad with three students. That’s not the way it’s going to work.”
Dolan said that the developers have no legal choice but to tackle the issue of affordable housing.
“A local requirement for affordable housing is not common in America, and in a village this size it’s probably very uncommon,” he said. “So they have a real challenge on their hand to do this … We have over 100 families right now on the list waiting for affordable housing and not one of those families is a student. Not one. And the priority listings that are in that ordinance are not to the benefit of students at all. And we cannot jump over people on the list just because the property is built for students. We can’t do that. We have to pick people based on their priority on the list.”
Dolan added that the likelihood of a fully, or at least largely student-populated complex could also strain local emergency services, and suggested that the developer’s assessments are understated.
“Their premise is, well, it’s only 400 more people into the village,” he said. “Well, that may be true. But it’s not 400 people spread out over ages zero to 80, it’s 400 people in a specific age cohort. And experience tells me that that cohort generates disproportionately number of fire calls, and I’m speaking as a part of the senior (fire department) staff in Syracuse for over 20 years. The vast majority of fire calls we had in that city was the student housing. We had a whole fire station staffed 24/7, the only place they went was to the university. Those 400 new souls are not going to generate calls the way the 7,500 people in the village do. Across all demographics, across all age groups, it’s going to be more, in my opinion, than they present to us. It’s probably going to be more ambulance calls than they presented.”
Village officials did not offer a timetable for the developer to respond to their questions and concerns.
Join the family! 
