New Paltz village trustees are comfortable with approving annexation of land south of campus in support of the New Paltz Apartments project, but for that to be a simple process then the town council members will also have to vote in favor by the September 15 deadline. Otherwise, the project — already under review for four years — may be further delayed as the question is contested in court.
Mayor Tim Rogers, who as a town planning board member at the time, was not in favor of a private dormitory project in the same part of town. He has been clear on how this proposal differs from the infamous Park Point project. Rogers provided additional details at the August 27 village board meeting, with the deadline for action just weeks away and in light of a number of documents submitted by supervisor Amanda Gotto to the developers’ attorneys in June, and to which they strenuously objected.
A Pilot is not being pursued
If approved in its present form, New Paltz Apartments would result in an additional 612 available beds for rent in townhouse-style units, which will be marketed to students. The Park Point project would have had dormitory-style housing constructed, and those plans were denied specifically because the developers pursued tax breaks through the Ulster County Industrial Development Agency. No such relief is sought in this case, leaving the main question being whether increasing student housing would benefit the community overall.
This project is on land that is outside of the village but, like every square inch of village property, is within the town itself. Michael Moriello, one of the landowners, is also an experienced land-use attorney, as well as a lifelong resident. Determining that a project of this size would need to rely on village water and sewer, which by local ordinance can’t be hooked up to properties outside of the village line, Moriello and partners declared their intention to request annexation right from the start. With that in mind, they brought their application before members of the village’s planning board for review.
With a global pandemic disrupting every public process, the environmental review was only finally completed earlier this year. Under state law, an action of this scope requires a lead agency, and planning board members widely circulated the notice to assume that status. Any agency from which a permit is required is deemed “involved,” and authorities from involved agencies have the right to dispute which agency gets to lead the review. In this case, the list of involved agencies included the town’s planning board. This may have been out of an abundance of caution, since annexation would eliminate any need for action by that body. In any case, there were no objections to the lead agency determination, and it appears that no comments about the environmental review were received from members of that planning board.
It wasn’t until after that environmental review was complete that the June 5 public hearing on annexation was held.
‘Really smart planning”
Rogers believes that supporting this project will indeed be good for the community, in part by supporting the governor’s push to provide more housing overall. Concentrating housing in a central area makes it easier to protect open space on the edges, the mayor said, which is in keeping with the “very special magical area” that is New Paltz. The project will support the ongoing success of the university, where many in the area are employed. Village code ensures that 15% of the units will be marketed at affordable prices, according to a complex formula based on the average adjusted gross income in the region. Overall, Rogers feels that this “is really smart planning” for those reasons. In addition, hooking this into municipal water and sewer is a more environmentally sensitive approach than attempting to drill wells and build septic systems.
Only after the annexation process is approved, the mayor notes, will the actual site plan be reviewed. That entails looking over all the details about where buildings are to be placed, along with parking and access points; members of the public will have another opportunity to weigh in during that time.
Impacts on policing
The documents submitted by Gotto on June 16 include information about the potential impacts to police service from the chief of that town department, and a draft of an environmental findings statement. In a June 26 letter Michael Sterthous, attorney for the developers, objected to several of the documents Gotto submitted being included in the record of the hearing, including those. One of the objections was that most of the documents were not about the question of annexation, and therefore are not relevant. Another was that the documents listed as being tied to the town’s planning board were neither dated nor signed. Finally, the findings statement — a document that is generated as part of the environmental review — is seen as completely inappropriate because, in effect, that ship has sailed.
Why a findings statement was written seems to be the idea that, should the village be dissolved, town planning board members will have to take up the slack and finish with the project review. While it’s true that the impacts were evaluated based on conditions and zoning codes within the village, the belated call for village planning board members to yield lead agency status may be problematic in part due to its timing. The environmental review is complete, for one. Additionally, the proposal to turn two governments in New Paltz into one has been actively pursued since January, 2024. What’s more, the pivot from village dissolution to consolidating the two governments was announced on May 14, 2025, which means that the town’s planning board members should have been aware of that fact well ahead of the June 5 annexation hearing.
Sterthous additionally notes in the letter of objection that the findings statements contain red-line edits, which appear to have been made by Gotto — who is neither a planning board member, nor a consultant hired to advise on planning matters. Michael Baden, who is presently overseeing building and planning in the village, has served as both town supervisor and chair of the planning board in nearby Rochester. According to Baden, who has written and edited a number of findings statements, the typical practice is that only the members of the particular board, their consultants, or perhaps consultants for the developer write or edit such statements. While irregular, to Baden’s knowledge this would not be illegal.
The letter that Sterthous initially provided didn’t contain any of the documents submitted by Gotto, and on August 29 Gotto was sent an email asking if those documents could be furnished for press review without submitting a formal freedom-of-information application. Such requests were routinely complied with by the prior supervisor. Monday morning Gotto responded to questions about the draft findings statement, particularly the concerns about its timing and scope, and the focus on dissolution as a justification for a request to shift the lead agency. The supervisor was also who authored the statement, and whether it was discussed at public meetings.
Gotto’s reply, in full, was, “My understanding is that an involved agency can either accept the findings of a lead agency or determine their own. As for written comments submitted during the public hearing process, the [t]own was designated the recipient and shared what was received. There was no judgment just as there was none during the oral portion of the public hearing. I expect an equally fair and impartial report from the press.”
Adele Ruger, who is the chair of the town’s planning board, was also emailed an inquiry on August 29. Rugers was asked to confirm if any votes have been taken the draft findings statement, as access to video of public meetings was curtailed due to a porn attack at the beginning of August. The chair was also asked to confirm whether Gotto participated in the writing or editing of that document. Ruger did not respond by press time.
Mayor Rogers also took exception to the idea that impacts on policing are relevant to annexation, correctly noting that this project would be in the town regardless, and thus under the purview of the town’s police regardless. “We can talk about police, but that has nothing to do with annexation,” he said. ‘Whether police is raised during the review of the site plan remains to be seen.
Here comes the judge
If this annexation petition is not approved by town council members, then what would happen next is a village vs town court case asking a judge to decide. When this was discussed at a joint town-village meeting held on March 10, 2021, legal action appeared unlikely as members of both bodies seemed supportive. Present council members haven’t indicated a preference either way, but will likely discuss it on September 4 if they have interest in voting at all.
Join the family! 
