Tracking the proposed 500-unit development on McFetridge Farm — annexation status, regulatory review, and what it means for Penn Yan and Milo residents.
ACTIVE LITIGATION & EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING — Last updated April 2026
The Town of Milo held a formal Public Hearing on February 23, 2026 under Article 2 of the New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law, proposing to acquire the 72.76-acre parcel at 2442 Old Route 14A from the Yates County IDA. Approximately 150 residents attended. Two acquisition options were presented: (1) an agricultural conservation easement limiting the land permanently to farming use, or (2) a full fee taking by the Town plus a conservation easement.
As of the March 16, 2026 Town Board meeting, no vote to proceed has been taken. Board members are reviewing public comments and awaiting a stenographic transcript of the hearing. Supervisor Church confirmed the Town and the IDA met the week of March 9, 2026. A request for a public referendum was denied — under General Municipal Law, eminent domain proceedings cannot go to referendum.
Taxpayer legal costs have exceeded $100,000 with only $25,000 budgeted for 2026 legal expenses. The FLEDC annexation appeal and the Town's counter-suit both remain pending in the Appellate Division. The annexation and any construction are frozen pending resolution of this proceeding. PennYanCitizens.com is tracking every step.
Five stages must be completed before annexation can proceed. The project is currently moving through early stages.
Petition filed with Village and Town of Milo. Joint board required under NYS General Municipal Law Art. 17.
Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) not yet ordered. Short-form FEAF submitted with blank sections reported.
Cannot proceed until SEQRA complete. Village Planning Board is lead agency.
Sewer, water, and electric capacity studies not yet completed. FOIL requests pending.
Final annexation approval requires Village Board vote after all reviews complete.
The property at 2442 Old Route 14A, known as McFetridge Farm, was acquired by the Yates County Industrial Development Agency through its economic development arm, led by Executive Director Steve Griffin. This is not just a private real estate proposal — a public economic development agency is playing a central role in moving it forward.
The public has heard figures ranging from about 250 to 500 housing units for this site, but the maximum buildout has never been clearly defined in the public record. Without a fixed number, residents cannot fairly judge the likely impact on roads, utilities, taxes, schools, or the environment.
The farm is in the Town of Milo, where Agricultural Residential zoning is meant to protect farmland and preserve the town's rural character. Milo officials have publicly opposed the project, saying it would permanently remove productive farmland and does not fit the purpose of that zoning.
Instead of moving ahead under Town of Milo zoning, the project is being pursued through annexation into the Village of Penn Yan. The Village has a Planned Residential zoning category that allows higher-density development through site plan review, so annexation would place the property under a different set of local rules.
The EDC says the project would help address workforce housing needs. But the public has not been shown a study demonstrating that the planned homes would actually be priced within reach of the workers being discussed. If the homes are not affordable to local workers, that raises an important unanswered question about whether the project matches its stated purpose.
If the property is annexed, the Village would take on long-term responsibility for services such as water, sewer, electric, police, fire, and roads. Because that kind of decision is difficult to undo, residents are right to ask whether the studies needed to judge whether the Village can handle that added responsibility have been made public.
Current Town of Milo zoning provides independent oversight that would be lost upon annexation.
| Protection | Town of Milo (Current) | Village of Penn Yan (Post-Annexation) |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-family density | Not permitted in AR zone | Permitted in PR zone |
| Agricultural protections | Explicitly preserved in Milo zoning code | Less explicit — farmland context changes |
| SEQRA lead agency | Town Planning Board — independent of Village | Village Planning Board — same body approving project |
| Infrastructure review | Independent analysis required | Village self-certifies — owns the utilities |
| Approval bodies | Town Planning Board + ZBA + Town Board (3 bodies) | Village Planning Board + Village Board (both appointed by same Mayor) |
Sources: Town of Milo Zoning Law Ch. 350 (2021, updated 2024). Village of Penn Yan Zoning Code Ch. 202 (updated 2025). March 2026.
Before a development of this scale can responsibly proceed, sixteen categories of study are required across infrastructure, environment, and fiscal impact. Residents should be able to see each study, the assumptions behind it, and the backup data. As of March 2026, none of the following have been made public. Every item below is a public record once it exists — request any of them under New York Freedom of Information Law.
If the sewer system is already under pressure, residents deserve to know what adding hundreds of new units would mean. The Village wastewater treatment plant experienced repeated equipment failures, emergency repairs, and over $1M in interceptor sewer work in 2024-2025. No certified capacity analysis has been submitted showing peak flow headroom under full buildout.
The public record should include: a written flow model, I/I assumptions, upgrade scope and cost, and a binding developer contribution commitment.
Request documents →Before a project this large moves ahead, residents should know whether there is enough water pressure for daily use and fire protection. No hydraulic model or fire flow study has been completed for full buildout conditions. Inadequate water pressure or storage capacity reduces fire safety margins for all Village residents.
The public record should include: fire-flow test results, hydraulic model, upgrade scope and cost allocation, and escrow for required capital work.
Request documents →If a large new development pushes the Village beyond its lower-cost power supply, existing residents could end up paying more on their electric bills. Penn Yan Municipal Electric purchases low-cost hydropower through a NYPA allocation. No load study has been submitted showing substation or feeder capacity, hydro allocation impacts.
The Village issued new electric debt and extended long-term financing in 2024-2025. Who pays for required upgrades?
Request documents →Residents should not be asked to guess what hundreds of new homes could mean for traffic, safety, and backups on Route 14A. A Traffic Impact Analysis is required by NYSDOT for any large development on a state highway. No TIA has been submitted to the Village, the Town, or NYSDOT.
Village road records document subgrade failures due to shale and groundwater. Road damage bonding required.
Request documents →More homes mean more trash, more hauling, and more wear on local equipment and services. 250-500 occupied units generate significant ongoing solid waste volume. A multi-year construction project generates substantial debris requiring permitted disposal.
No waste generation estimate or disposal pathway has been submitted.
Request documents →When farmland is covered by roads, roofs, and pavement, residents deserve to know where the water will go. No stormwater runoff model, outfall identification, or downstream impact analysis has been submitted.
A full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required, along with a long-term maintenance entity and enforceable operations covenant.
Request documents →What happens on this site does not stay on this site — runoff can affect the wider watershed and lake health. The McFetridge Farm site drains toward the Keuka and Seneca Lake watershed system. Increased impervious surface raises nutrient loading that degrades lake water quality.
No watershed analysis or receiving-water impact study has been submitted.
Request documents →Once productive farmland is built over, the community does not get it back. The McFetridge Farm property sits within NYS Certified Agricultural District No. 1, Yates County, protected under Agriculture & Markets Law Article 25-AA. Annexation may trigger required notification to the NYS Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets.
No farmland impact assessment has been submitted or made public.
Request documents →The look of this area matters to the people who live here and to the local economy that depends on it. The Keuka Lake basin is a defining visual and economic asset for the region. No visual impact study, lighting plan, or community character compatibility analysis has been submitted.
SEQRA requires evaluation of aesthetic impacts. Visual simulations from key viewpoints have never been produced.
Request documents →Even before the first resident moves in, neighbors could be living next to months or years of noise, dust, truck traffic, and disruption. A project of this scale involves 18-36 months of active construction including blasting in shale geology, heavy trucks, grading, and drainage disruption.
No construction management plan, blasting protocol, noise and dust mitigation, or complaint response procedure has been submitted.
Request documents →Residents deserve to know whether this project would truly pay its own way or leave existing taxpayers covering the difference. A net fiscal impact model shows whether new development generates enough revenue to cover actual service costs: schools, roads, DPW, police, fire, EMS, administration, and long-term capital replacement.
No such model has been submitted or made public.
Request documents →If this project is being sold as workforce housing, residents should be shown whether local workers could actually afford to live there. The EDC says the project would address workforce housing needs for local manufacturers. No wage-alignment study has been submitted showing that proposed units would be priced within reach of local manufacturing wages.
Without that analysis, the workforce housing claim is an assertion, not a documented fact.
Request documents →For many homeowners, school taxes are the biggest part of the bill — so enrollment and cost impacts matter. Adding 250-500 residential units generates students, and more students mean higher staffing, transportation, and facility costs.
No independent student generation analysis or school fiscal impact study has been submitted. No binding developer commitment to offset school costs exists in the public record.
Request documents →Before previously undisturbed land is heavily developed, residents should know whether any cultural or archaeological resources could be affected. Under Section 14.09 of the NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, a Phase IA/IB archaeological survey is required for any state-involved action affecting undisturbed land.
IDA involvement likely triggers this requirement. No survey has been submitted to or accepted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Request documents →IDA projects commonly include PILOT agreements that reduce tax revenue while service costs begin immediately — residents should know whether that applies here and on what terms. A Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) reduces school district and municipal revenue during an agreement period.
The gap between full assessed-value taxes and what is actually paid is foregone revenue — absorbed by existing taxpayers. No PILOT terms, cost-benefit analysis, or clawback provisions have been made public.
Request documents →Residents should be able to see whether the environmental review fully examined the real impacts before major decisions are locked in.
Under SEQRA, a development of 250 or more residential units is a Type I action — carrying a presumption that a Full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. Instead, the Village filed a short-form environmental assessment form, used for smaller projects, with critical sections left blank.
Treating connected decisions as separate to avoid cumulative impact review is known as SEQRA segmentation — and it creates a vulnerable public record. The environmental review that should have required most of the studies on this page was never completed.
Residents should be able to see every study, the assumptions behind it, and the backup data. Here is how to engage:
Village Planning Board
3rd Tuesday, 7:00 PM, Village Hall, 111 Elm Street
Town of Milo Board
2nd Thursday, 7:00 PM, Milo Town Hall
Ask on the Record
"Has this study been completed? Where is it in the public record?"
The responsible sequence is: complete all studies, publish all findings, then decide on annexation — not the other way around.
Comprehensive overview of the annexation proposal and its implications.
Understanding the legal process for property boundary changes.
New York's environmental review process and what it requires.
Access public records and track pending document requests.