Zero Place, the net-zero-energy building on North Chestnut Street in New Paltz, is being converted to condominiums, raising questions for members of the affordable housing board.
This is the first time that there will be such a conversion that involves units subject to the village’s affordable housing law. It will also result in the first time that any such units will be owned, not rented. The law does have allowances for that, but they’ve never been needed until now.
Affordable housing board members Dylan Moscoso and Adele Ruger raised questions when David Shepler — the public-facing partner in the building’s construction and management — noted that the full market rate of each of the units will be included in the offering plan. Even though it remains understood that the units designated as affordable will have the price capped and buyers limited to those on the list of those who qualify for that break, Ruger expressed concern that anyone qualifying for affordable housing might not also qualify for a mortgage.
According to Shepler, tenants in those units will be allowed to remain — assuming that they continue to pay their rent, and continue to qualify under village code. “We have to maintain them regardless,” Shepler said at the March 12 village board meeting.
When Ruger suggested that providing voluntary assistance to help with a purchase, such as holding the note, Shepler pointed out that Ruger is not privy to the financial condition of Zero Place, and added, “I find it a bit presumptuous for you to ask me.”
The choice to convert the building to a condominium is not subject to review, Shepler noted. The developer also expressed that they care about these tenants,” and that “they can stay as long as they like,” providing they continue to qualify.
Once the process is complete and the units have been sold, management will be overseen by a homeowners’ association. Residents of affordable units would be eligible for election into leadership positions on the association’s board.
Resident complains about “frankly crappy landlord”
Pete Calandra brought to the New Paltz Village Board meeting of March 12 some longstanding concerns about a “bad landlord,” who owns 37 Millrock Road. Calandra told trustees that “unacceptable activity” — which allegedly include seven police cars responding to a stabbing and a threat of some kind by a tenant to Calandra — were driving homeowners to move out of town, because the landlord — whom Calandra identified as “Sam” — regularly disregards concerns raised by Calandra and other neighbors about tenant behavior.
According to the Ulster County parcel viewer, the property at 37 Millrock Road is owned under the name Prospect Estates LLC, with an address in Milton. A profile on linkedin.com for “Sam Serdah” shows that individual as president of “Prospect Estates.” According to a HV1 reporting from April 30, 2024, the principal of Prospect Estates is one Bassam Serdah, whose address matches the one for the LLC. On that date, Prospect Street residents complained to planning board members and characterized Serdah’s properties there as a “tenement yard” frequently characterized by piles of garbage, and speculated that an illegal number of people lived inside.
Calandra reported “feeling like we have no protection” against the hostile atmosphere on Millrock, and having fear about leaving a spouse home alone when traveling to Columbia University to teach. “I like college kids,” Calandra said, but this has been a “wild roller-coaster ride” and “a nightmare.” The professor reiterated, “I’m not the only one who feels this way.”
Trustees promised to research ways to address Calandra’s concerns that homeowners are not sufficiently protected in situations such as the one described.
—Terence P Ward
Simplify the planning process with this one weird trick
Mike Baden would like to get rid of a cumbersome process in Village of New Paltz code. The planning director pointed out to trustees at their March 12 meeting that in New Paltz, moving a line between two lots is defined as a subdivision. That’s true in both the town and village zoning codes, but it’s not that common elsewhere in the county, where the process is typically one of certifying that the change doesn’t trigger other problems before getting the official maps updated.
When this process is deemed a subdivision, it triggers a need for certain level of environmental review, as well as a public hearing. That review under the state’s environmental laws has, in Baden’s experience with these village applications, always resulted in a determination that no further steps need be taken to analyze impacts. The public hearing for a subdivision can also be waived, but all in all, Baden said that the process is “cumbersome” in these cases. Thus far, Baden has had to manage five lot-line revisions, and “one legitimate subdivision,” as there are few lots in the village large enough to cut up into smaller parcels.
Changing the code would require a public hearing before trustees vote on the modification.
—Terence P Ward
Join the family! 
