David Shepler, a partner in Zero Place — the net-zero energy building on North Chestnut Street in New Paltz — came before the Village of New Paltz Planning Board last week to discuss proposed subdivision changes to the under-construction, six-unit net-zero townhomes on Cooper Street.
“It dawned on me recently, sort of a bit of a eureka, that I should have probably applied for this in the beginning,” Shepler said during the Tuesday, October 7 meeting of the planning board. “It’s a subdivision so that I don’t have to resort to the very cumbersome construct of a condominium here for the future owners of these units.”
The current project complies with municipal zoning codes and has already received approval from the planning board as a condominium development covering three lots (6, 8 and 10 Cooper Street). Shepler said that situation is not ideal for future homeowners, as it necessitates their involvement in a small condominium association, which adds unnecessary costs and administrative challenges.
To facilitate the change, developers are applying for variances to permit zero side-yard setbacks on each of the three lots, which would enable them to subdivide the property into individual parcels. Developers are simultaneously seeking approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA); without that approval, the planning board could not move the plan forward.
Under the proposal, each of the two-unit buildings would be subdivided into their own properties, at 6, 8 and 10 Cooper. According to Shepler, each of the lots would have 7,000 square feet, nearly double the 3,630 required in the R-3 zone. Mike Baden, the village’s director of planning, zoning and code enforcement, confirmed the plan met all zoning standards, with the exception of a setback, which is currently before the ZBA.
Shepler acknowledged that it was up to the developers to “come up with the legal construct that allows this to work,” with regard to what eliminating the planned condominium distinction for all three buildings would mean for future owners who’ll share a wall with neighbors and might need answers to other future maintenance projects, like roof repair or replacement.
“This is certainly not new territory,” Shepler said. “There are abutting townhomes all over the world that are independently owned…But certainly we would need to do something that works and our attorneys would figure that out.”
Planning board chair Zach Bialecki asked how that would apply to the solar energy planned for the townhomes, but Shepler said those are already specifically linked to each unit.
“The panels themselves sit entirely on the section of the roof of the individual unit,” he said. “And the inverters are within the unit themselves, so there’s no shared ownership of any of the energy features, the geothermal system and the solar panel system are all independently owned and it’s entirely contained within their individual parcels.”
Baden said that the planning board would only have to wait for the ZBA approval before rendering their own decision, but that shouldn’t otherwise prevent board members from reviewing the proposal.
“You can take it as far as you would like up to the point of final approval,” Baden said. “But you wouldn’t give any final approval resolution both until they had approved the variance, because without the variance this doesn’t meet our code.”
Baden asked Shepler for a limited subdivision plan from a licensed surveyor, which would not need to include structures, landscaping, drainage or other elements of a more comprehensive study.
The Net Zero proposal was on the ZBA’s agenda for Tuesday, October 14, but it was unclear whether they would be able to make any determination. Their next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 11.
The next meeting of the planning board is scheduled for Tuesday, October 21.
Join the family! 
