Two public hearings on a proposed annexation and zoning change tied to a 163-lot residential subdivision are scheduled for Nov. 16. The Maybrook Village Board is unlikely to be ready to act on either one that night, the village attorney said at its Nov. 2 meeting.

The hearings begin at 7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 16, at the Maybrook Senior Center, 2 Senior Way. The first is a joint hearing by the Maybrook Village Board and the Town of Montgomery Town Board on a petition to annex a 16.38-acre vacant parcel from the town into the village. The second is a village hearing on Introductory Local Law No. 5 of 2026. It would create a zoning district for the annexed land, which the applicant has proposed as R-4 residential, and correct an inconsistency between lot frontage and lot width requirements in the village’s residential zoning district.

The petition and maps are available for inspection at the town and village clerks’ offices during regular business hours. The proposed local law is available at the village clerk’s office.

Village Attorney Elizabeth Cassidy said the board cannot approve the annexation, the zoning change or the subdivision until it finishes its state-required environmental review and adopts a negative declaration. That is a formal finding that the project will not have a significant environmental impact. Even if both hearings close Nov. 16, she said, the board will not be able to act.

“I don’t think we’re going to be there on the 16th,” Cassidy said, citing comments from the village’s engineer and consultants.

John Fuller, representing the applicant, Yuan Fa Da Inc., told the board the project includes annexing the 16-acre parcel. He said construction could begin in the second half of 2027, though early 2028 is a more realistic estimate, depending on approvals.

Mayor Dennis Leahy said the environmental review is lengthy because it protects residents by examining a project’s impacts on the community. He acknowledged the village has been criticized for how long projects take.

Gaps in environmental review
Village Engineer Sean Hoffman said the applicant’s expanded environmental assessment form was missing several items the board requested when it adopted a review outline. They include:

• Potential effects on police and fire services, including estimated calls for service.
• A fiscal analysis of expected tax revenue.
• Wastewater costs, including sewer tapping fees.
• A habitat assessment, including for the Indiana bat.

Cassidy also asked that the form describe the proposed frontage change and state that no variances are anticipated if the local law is adopted. She also asked that it list all required approvals from the village Planning Board and outside agencies.

Fuller said the plans include a stormwater collection system and several stormwater ponds. Under the applicant’s initial proposal, those parcels would be dedicated to the village, which would maintain them. Hoffman noted the village currently maintains only catch basins and stormwater piping, and said he had asked for an estimate of the cost. Alternatives discussed include a homeowners association or a drainage district that would assess property owners for maintenance.

Fuller said an area has been reserved for a possible well to supplement the village water supply. He said its location was based on fracture-trace analysis.

Parkland and road access
Cassidy said two proposed roadways appear to extend onto village-owned land to the north that her research indicates is parkland. Parkland generally cannot be sold, leased, given away or encumbered with an easement without approval from the state Legislature, she said.

“Access should not be planned through that parkland,” Cassidy said, adding that it should not be implied either.

Fuller said the original plan included a second access to Greening Place, but the expanded project now has multiple entrances from Homestead Avenue. He said the applicant may be able to show the Greening Place link is unnecessary and end that road in a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround that leaves open a future connection.

Hoffman recommended the board require the applicant to study all reasonable alternatives now. Otherwise, he said, the village could be forced to restart the environmental review if the state Department of Transportation declines to issue permits for two entrances. “You want to analyze everything at one time,” he said. Cassidy also asked the applicant to check fire code requirements that multiple entrances be spaced apart.

Traffic concerns
John Canning of Kimley-Horn, the village’s traffic consultant, said the applicant’s study followed industry standards. He asked for more information on:
• Sight lines.

• Peak hours.
• The assumed north-south split of traffic on Route 208.
• Construction traffic, including its effect on school buses.

He said the study’s assumption that all homes would be built by 2028 is not realistic. He also said it did not include any traffic from the Galaxy development, and that some portion of that project should probably be considered.

Canning said state DOT policy generally calls for a left-turn lane when more than five vehicles turn left from a state highway in the peak hour. The subdivision could trigger that at Route 208 and Homestead Avenue. The DOT will make the final determination through its permit process, he said.

Board members questioned whether there is room for a turn lane and raised concerns about added maintenance, snow removal and striping costs.

Cassidy said the applicant will revise its submissions to address the comments, and the village will review them before taking any action.