The Housing Shortage Question
A housing shortage is the stated justification for the largest development proposal in Penn Yan's modern history. No formal study has ever been conducted to establish what kind of shortage exists, at what scale, or at what price points.
The Village's 2017 Comprehensive Plan stated that the housing market could not be fully understood without a formal housing study. As of June 2026, that study has not been commissioned. Last reviewed on this page: June 2026.
The Unstudied Housing Question
Penn Yan has a housing shortage — the claim recurs across Village planning materials, economic-development presentations, and the public justification for the proposed Route 14A development at the McFetridge Farm site. It is repeated often enough that it is widely treated as settled fact. As a characterization rather than a sourced finding, it appears here without quotation marks; the adopted record's actual language on housing demand is examined below.
The public record does contain real signs of housing pressure. The most recent adopted figures show a rental vacancy rate below 1 percent and more than 200 people on waiting lists for affordable units. Those are genuine indicators, and this page does not dismiss them. What the record does not contain is the formal study needed to determine what kind of shortage exists, at what scaleHow large the shortage is — for example, how many homes or apartments are needed, and over what period of time., in which geographyWhere the shortage exists — Village, Town, countywide, lakefront, non-lakefront, or a specific site., for which tenureWhether the need is for owner-occupied homes or rental housing — the basic own-versus-rent split, which also shapes related needs like senior or subsidized housing., and at what price pointsWhat the housing would cost — sale price or rent — and whether local households could actually afford it. — the specifics that turn a general impression into a basis for public decisions.
The distinction matters, because the assertion is being used to justify decisions with permanent consequences: annexation of farmland, expansion of municipal utility obligations, and the proposed use of eminent domain.
The Village's own planning record acknowledges the gap. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan stated plainly that the extent of the Village's housing market could not be fully understood without the completion of a formal housing study. The Plan then recommended that a countywide housing study be conducted. Nine years later, no such study appears in the public record.
This page does not argue that a housing shortage exists, or that one does not. It inventories what the public record actually contains, examines why the numbers in that record — including the figures behind the often-cited need for around 500 new homes — cannot yet support conclusions, and lists the specific research elements that would be required before anyone — the Village, the Town, the County, a developer, or a resident — can draw an intelligent conclusion.
What the Public Record Asserts
WHICH PUBLIC BODIES ARE INVOLVED?
Four institutions appear in this story, each with a different role. The Village of Penn Yan adopted the planning documents — the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and the 2022 Housing Addendum — that contain the housing findings. The Town of Milo controls the land-use process for the McFetridge Farm site, which lies outside the current Village boundary, and acted on the proposed eminent domain acquisition. Yates County is the geography the Addendum's 500-home demand figure describes — a countywide number being applied to a single Village-edge site. The Yates County Industrial Development Agency, doing business as the Finger Lakes Economic Development Center (FLEDC), owns the McFetridge Farm parcel and is the entity advancing the project. No individuals are named on this page; the analysis concerns institutional documents and institutional actions.
Two adopted Village documents and one active development justification make housing-shortage claims. Here is what each actually says — and what evidence each cites.
The 2017 Comprehensive Plan (adopted March 2017)
The Plan's housing-market analysis (page 20) identified three pressure points: a shortage of affordable units (defined as homes under $120,000 or rents under $750 per month), a shortage of middle-market single-family homes ($120,000–$200,000), and a shortage of high-end renter or owner units. The Plan's evidence base was explicitly informal: preliminary discussions with the Keuka Housing Council, observations from local real estate agents and developers, and Census-derived community-profile data. The Keuka Housing Council reported more than 200 people on waiting lists for affordable units at that time. The Plan itself characterized the extent of these pressures as unknown and conditioned full understanding on a formal study that was never commissioned.
The 2022 Housing Addendum (adopted December 20, 2022)
The one-page Addendum — the only formal amendment to the 2017 Plan — made the strongest quantitative claims in the Village's planning record. Its Finding 5 stated that the average price of a single-family home in Yates County was almost $700,000, that the county faced a dire shortage of renter housing, and that demand indicated a need for around 500 new owner-occupied homes in Yates County. The Addendum cites no source, study, or methodology for any of these figures. A full analysis of the Addendum is on its dedicated subpage.
The Route 14A / McFetridge workforce-housing justification
The economic-development case for the proposed Route 14A development — advanced by FLEDC — rests on a workforce-housing argument: that local manufacturers cannot attract workers because housing is scarce. No wage-alignment study — an analysis showing that proposed units would be priced within reach of local manufacturing wages — has been located in the public record reviewed for this page. Full coverage is on the Route 14A page.
The Numbers Problem: Stale Data and Unsourced Figures
Even taking the public record's claims at face value, two problems prevent them from supporting conclusions.
The data is old. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan's housing analysis rests on 2013 data: 2,254 housing units in the Village, a 95 percent occupancy rate, a rental vacancy rate below 1 percent, and a renter-occupancy share of 41 percent (versus 23 percent countywide). The Plan's housing-condition analysis used 2015 property-tax assessment data. Those figures are now 11 to 13 years old. Household formation, short-term rental conversion, remote-work migration, and post-2020 price movements have all occurred since — none of it captured in any adopted Village document.
The newer figures have no stated source.The 2022 Addendum's headline numbers — the almost-$700,000 average home price and the 500-home demand estimate — appear without citation, methodology, or underlying data. The price figure also diverges sharply from other published measures: the 2017 Plan reported a 2013 median home value of $118,200 for Yates County and $99,600 for Penn Yan. An average can legitimately exceed a median — particularly in a county with high-value Keuka Lake shoreline property — but the public record contains no analysis explaining the figure, its date, its data source, or whether it includes high-value lakefront sales. Without the underlying data, the figure cannot be independently verified.
TWO NON-COMPARABLE FIGURES IN THE PUBLIC RECORD
$118,200
Yates County MEDIAN home value
2013
Source: U.S. Census data as reported in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan
~$700,000
Yates County AVERAGE single-family price
2022
Source: none cited in the 2022 Housing Addendum
These figures measure different things (median vs. average), at different times (2013 vs. 2022), with different documentation (sourced vs. unsourced). They cannot be directly compared — which is itself the problem: the public record contains no analysis that reconciles them.
The 500-home estimate is the foundational figure."Demand indicates a need for around 500 new owner-occupied homes in Yates County" — Finding 5, Addendum to the Village of Penn Yan 2016 Comprehensive Plan, adopted December 20, 2022 — is the single most consequential sentence in the Village's modern planning record, yet the Addendum states it as a bare assertion: it cites no demand study, no methodology, and no data source for the figure. What demand data? Measured how? Over what period? At what price points? The Addendum does not say.
500 Homes, 500 Units: Are These the Same Thing?
The 2022 Housing Addendum found a need for around 500 new owner-occupied homes in Yates County. The proposed Route 14A development at the McFetridge Farm site is described in the public record as approximately 500 residential units.
The numerical match is striking, and it invites an obvious question: are these two figures being treated as a matched problem and solution — a documented need met by a proposed supply? The public record reviewed for this page does not show the two figures being formally linked in any adopted document, and it does not establish that they describe the same kind of housing.
The match would hold only if the two figures describe the same kind of housing. The Addendum's finding is specific: owner-occupied homes, for young working families and seniors, at affordable price points. The Route 14A proposal's proportion of rental versus owner-occupied units, its unit types, and its price points have not been located in the public record reviewed for this page. No wage-alignment study has been located showing what the units would cost relative to local manufacturing wages, and no legally binding affordability mechanism appears in any public filing reviewed for this page.
If the proposed units differ in type or price from the Addendum's specified need, they would not address the documented finding — they would address a different need that no adopted Village document has quantified. The point is not that one need is real and the other is not. The point is that the public record currently lacks the data to distinguish between them, because the underlying research was never done.
CURRENT STATUS — AS PUBLICLY REPORTED
The Route 14A process is active. The Town of Milo's vote on the eminent domain acquisition was publicly reported as occurring on May 18, 2026, with the EDPL § 204 Determination and Findings process in motion. The official minutes and formal determination documents had not been located in the public record reviewed for this page as of the review date in the footer. For current procedural status and source documents as they become available, see the Route 14A page.
The Evidence Wall — The Study That Was Never Done, and What It Would Contain
The research elements below are what professional planners, housing economists, and state agencies use to establish whether a housing shortage exists, what kind, and at what price points. As of June 2026, none of the following has been located in the public record for the Penn Yan area. Each card carries a status chip: NOT CONDUCTED marks the one study the Village's own Plan formally recommended and that no public body appears to have commissioned; NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORD marks analyses that may exist privately or in agency files but have not been located in the records reviewed for this page. Each study, once it exists in a public body's hands, is a public record — and can be requested by any resident under New York's Freedom of Information Law.
This wall isolates the housing-need question. The broader development-review package for Route 14A — infrastructure capacity, traffic, sewer, water, fire flow, fiscal impact, and more — is tracked separately on the Route 14A Due Diligence Wall.
For a chapter-by-chapter breakdown of what a complete study contains, see Anatomy of a Housing Study.
TIER 1 — THE CORE STUDY
Countywide Housing Study
NOT CONDUCTEDThe 2017 Comprehensive Plan itself recommended a countywide housing study, noting that housing supply and demand cross municipal boundaries. Nine years later, no such study appears in the public record of the Village, the Town of Milo, or Yates County. Everything below is a component a credible version of this study would contain.
What it would establish: The actual scale and geography of housing demand across the county — the foundation every other claim depends on.
TIER 2 — COMPONENT ANALYSES A CREDIBLE STUDY WOULD INCLUDE
Housing Needs Assessment (Current Data)
NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORDEvery adopted figure in the Village's planning record rests on 2013–2015 data. A needs assessment using current Census ACS data, county sales records, and rental listings would replace 11-to-13-year-old baselines.
What it would establish: Current unit counts, occupancy, vacancy, tenure split, and price distribution — the present-day facts.
Wage-to-Housing-Cost Alignment Study
NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORDThe workforce-housing justification for Route 14A asserts that local employers cannot attract workers because housing is scarce. A wage-alignment study matches actual local wage distributions against actual housing costs to determine what price points the workforce can afford.
What it would establish: Whether proposed units at proposed prices would be reachable by the workers the project claims to serve.
Vacancy and Tenure Analysis
NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORDThe most recent adopted vacancy figure — a rental vacancy rate below 1 percent — dates to 2013. Vacancy is the single most direct shortage indicator, and no public document reviewed for this page remeasures it in the 13 years since.
What it would establish: Whether the market is actually tight today, and in which segment — rental, owner, or both.
Seasonal and Short-Term Rental Conversion Analysis
NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORDYates County's 2013 vacancy rate of 29 percent was driven substantially by seasonal lakefront housing. No public analysis located for this page quantifies how many year-round units have since converted to seasonal or short-term rental use around Keuka Lake — a conversion that removes housing stock without any construction or demolition appearing in permit records.
What it would establish: Whether the area's housing problem is a supply shortage, a stock-conversion problem, or both — which lead to very different policy responses.
Price Methodology and Affordability Gap Analysis
NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORDThe 2022 Addendum's almost-$700,000 average-price figure has no stated source and diverges sharply from prior published medians. An affordability-gap analysis would document actual sale prices, distinguish median from average, separate lakefront from non-lakefront sales, and match the result against local income distributions.
What it would establish: What housing actually costs here, for whom it is out of reach, and by how much.
Subsidized and Senior Housing Demand Audit
NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORDThe 2017 Plan cited more than 200 people on Keuka Housing Council waiting lists — a figure now roughly a decade old. No current audit of subsidized-housing waitlists, senior-housing demand, or Section 8 utilization has been located in the public record reviewed for this page.
What it would establish: The current, documented depth of need at the income levels the 2022 Addendum says are most underserved.
Demographic and Household Projection Update
NOT LOCATED IN PUBLIC RECORDThe 2017 Plan projected a large share of the community reaching retirement age over two decades. No updated projection of household formation, aging-in-place demand, or population trend has been adopted since — meaning the demand side of every shortage claim rests on pre-2017 projections.
What it would establish: How many households, of what size and age, the area should actually expect to house over the planning horizon.
Any of these studies, once produced or commissioned by a public body, becomes a public record. Residents can ask whether any have been commissioned, completed, or received by filing a Freedom of Information Law request with the Village, the Town of Milo, Yates County, or the Yates County IDA.
What a Credible Housing Study Would Establish
The 2017 Comprehensive Plan itself framed the three questions a countywide housing study should answer: What is the appropriate balance of housing tenure? What gaps exist in the provision of housing stock? What impact do housing conditions have on the market?
A study meeting professional standards would answer those questions with named data sources, stated methodology, and reproducible findings — the three things every housing claim currently in the Penn Yan public record lacks. It would distinguish rental demand from ownership demand, year-round demand from seasonal pressure, and affordability gaps from absolute unit shortages. And it would give residents, boards, and developers a shared factual baseline instead of competing assertions.
Until that study exists, the honest answer to "does Penn Yan have a housing shortage?" is: the record shows signs of housing pressure, but it does not yet contain the evidence needed to determine the shortage's type, scale, geography, tenure, or price points — and the Village's own Comprehensive Plan has said so since 2017.
For what such a study contains, section by section, see Anatomy of a Housing Study.
The Housing Topic on PennYanCitizens.com
This page is the landing page for the Housing topic. As coverage expands, new subpages will be added here — planned areas include senior housing, affordability and wage alignment, rental and short-term rental trends, and countywide housing demand. Current coverage connects to four existing pages:
The 2022 Housing Addendum
The one-page document containing the 500-home finding — what it says, what it doesn't update, and the gaps in its adoption record.
The 2017 Comprehensive Plan
The Plan whose own text conditioned understanding of the housing market on a study that was never commissioned.
Route 14A: McFetridge Farm Development
The active development proposal whose primary public justification is the housing shortage examined on this page.
Comprehensive Plan Hub
How Penn Yan's planning framework works and what New York State law requires of it.
Anatomy of a Housing Study
A chapter-by-chapter breakdown of what a real housing study contains — what must be evaluated, and how to read one critically.
Suggested path: this page → the Route 14A record for the active case → the Addendum and the 2017 Plan for the source documents → the FOIL guide to request records yourself.
Sources & Disclosures
Sources
- Village of Penn Yan 2016 Comprehensive Plan (adopted March 2017), pp. 17, 20, 30, 52–53 — housing market analysis, existing housing stock, and Countywide Housing Study recommendation
- Addendum To the Village of Penn Yan 2016 Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the Village Board of Trustees on December 20, 2022 — Findings 1–5 and Conclusions 1–4
- U.S. Census Bureau / American Community Survey data as reported within the 2017 Comprehensive Plan (2013 baseline)
- Keuka Housing Council waitlist figure as reported within the 2017 Comprehensive Plan (p. 20)
- Route 14A / McFetridge Farm public record as documented on this site's Route 14A page
Disclosures
- This page summarizes and analyzes adopted public documents; it does not reproduce them.
- No figure on this page originates with PennYanCitizens.com; every number is traced to the adopted document that contains it, including documents that do not cite sources for their figures.
- "Not located in the public record" means the item was not found in the records reviewed for this page as of the review date below; it does not assert that the item does not exist.
- PennYanCitizens.com takes no position on whether the proposed Route 14A development should proceed. This page addresses the state of the evidence, not the merits of any project.
Page reviewed: June 2026
Factual data current as of: June 12, 2026