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. Whether it would attract primarily students or a broader mix of community renters remains to be seen.
The potential for a massive apartment complex in the village might be reason enough for town officials to take interest, but it’s the location of the sprawling proposal that brought the planning boards together in a more official capacity for the September meeting. There may be a need for a land annexation between the two municipal entities.
Village planning board attorney Emily Svenson said that upon completion of the FEIS (final environmental impact statement) and a subsequent climate statement, the site plan review process would get underway.
“We’ll have to decide on annexation,” Svenson said. “The land is obviously in the town right now. Before it can proceed as a project, it would need to be annexed to the village. So that would be the first big review period with both the town board and the village board making that decision. And if that proceeds, then it would come back around to the village planning board once it’s actually in the village to review the subdivision and site plan…If it doesn’t get annexed, (the proposal) would have to be reworked.”
Jane Schanberg, a member of the town planning board, said that when the project was first proposed a few years ago, even with the vast majority of the property falling within the village, it was felt that the town and village might be co-lead agencies on the project Approving the annexation would put the ball squarely in the village’s court.
Adele Ruger, chair of the town planning board, shared concerns about how affordable housing was being interpreted by developers.
“One of the things the applicant states is that they received information from the county that the generally proportioned away for board affordable housing is 70 percent for one bedroom, 20 percent for two bedrooms, 10 percent for the three or more bedrooms,” said Ruger. “That is not what New Paltz needs. I don’t know that those were data statistics but New Paltz needs family housing…We should probably get 70 percent two bedroom, 20 percent three or more bedrooms and 10 percent one bedrooms.”
Ruger added that in the FEIS, the applicant used a broad definition of family — “Which is fine, because there is no standard family anymore where you may or may not be people related by blood” — yet by applying a one-person-per-bedroom standard to the project, they might be cutting families out of the equation.
“They say that a few times, ‘One person per bedroom,’” Ruger said. “That does not make for family housing.”
Ruger added that as she understood the application of affordable housing parameters, there is meant to be equity in the types of materials or appliances used in all units, not the number of people per bedroom.
Village planning board Chair Zach Bialecki said the village had discussed the same issues, but pushed back on Ruger’s claim that family housing was most in need in New Paltz, citing statistics pulled by Mike Baden, director of planning, zoning and code enforcement.
“The current need is for single-bedroom affordable units,” Bialecki said. “Of the affordable housing list which was provided to me minus names, I just saw numbers 75 percent on the waiting list are one-person households. That’s the hard data of the list.”
Ruger countered that the data lacked nuance.
“When people go for affordable housing, many of them are discouraged when they find out there’s a list of 70 and 80 people ahead of them,” Ruger said. “Many families, probably they don’t put in those applications especially if it’s a family who needs housing soon. Single people often can wait longer. I don’t think that that list is necessarily the most effective way of looking at that.”
While they might presently disagree with the numbers, village planning board member Rich Souto said the affordable housing feedback from both the community and within the village planning board aligned with a lot of what was covered during the joint meeting.
“I don’t think any of us should have the impression that if we don’t work out every detail right now, they’re not going to be accepted in an application which is going to be a long detailed process,” Souto said.
Svenson agreed.
“I just want to make sure we’re oriented to the fact that the stage we’re in right now is the environmental impact statement,” she said. “So we’re looking at major environmental impacts you know you’ve done these and things that need to be mitigated. I think a lot of these comments would be really well submitted during the site plan process because that’s when we’re going to be getting into the details of the actual units and arrangement on the site and everything. That is really a conceptual plan that we’re looking at right now.”
Held at village hall, the September 17th meeting was strictly between the village and town planning boards. No developers or other representatives of the proposed complex were in attendance.
New Paltz Apartments isn’t going to appear overnight. In addition to completing the environmental study, the scope of the project itself will take time to come to fruition. And should an annexation occur, both planning boards would have to adopt a local law allowing for that to happen, and as with many stages in the residential development process, that would only happen after numerous public hearings.
Join the family! 
