The Village of Montgomery board, picking up where it left off in February, held a public hearing on the proposed Hanover Development during its March 17 meeting. After listening to the developers’ presentation and residents’ concerns, the board ultimately approved the project, allowing it to move forward in the planning process.

Ross Winglovitz, P.E. of Engineering & Surveying Properties, represented the applicant and opened the public hearing with a presentation. He recapped the project’s timeline, explaining that the village planning board has been reviewing this proposal since September 2021. The applicant, after receiving endorsement from the village, applied for the New York Forward grant in Summer 2024 and received funding in May 2025. Over a year later, the planning board approved the project’s negative declaration and granted preliminary site approval in December 2025. Winglovitz noted that the current plans are consistent with the ones presented during the village’s NY Forward process.

“In Fall 2023, we hired a new architect and came in with new plans. At the same time that we developed those, the village was applying for their New York Forward grant. Soon after, we were solicited by members of the village who said ‘hey, this is a project that could be endorsed by the New York Forward grant,’” Winglovitz said. “New York wants to do downtown revitalization, and mixed-use buildings are a large part of that equation. We applied for that grant in Summer 2024, after the village was granted $4.5 million from the state.”
“In May 2025, the state awarded the grants to the different projects in the village. This project being one of them, which was noted as a transformational project for the village. At that point, we went back to the planning board to finalize our site plan approval. During that process, there was another public hearing held, and the board did another coordinated review,” he continued. “There were no other comments provided to the planning board from any of the agencies, and the planning board went ahead and declared themselves the lead agency. In December 2025, the board declared a negative declaration under SEQR and granted preliminary site plan approval.”

Winglovitz then responded to comments and questions that residents made during the village’s January 24 and February 24 board meetings. He explained that the planning board, through its SEQR process, determined that the project would increase traffic trips, impact any existing transit access and pedestrian bicycle accommodations, or have an adverse impact on the environment. Regarding parking concerns, Winglovitz stated that the village building inspector determined that the project would not need any parking-related variances or waivers.

“‘Does parking meet the code?’ was one of the questions. It does, it was a determination of the building inspector that indicated it meets the code. There’s an automatic waiver in his opinion for any commercial portions of projects,” Winglovitz said. “This has a total of 13 residential units, so under his interpretation, we would need 26 parking spaces and none for commercial use. We do have parking for commercial use, and as part of coming back to this board with this plan, we’ve added nine additional parking spaces.”

Attorney John Cappello, added that the Hanover Development would go toward the village’s downtown revitalization and emphasized that the project already received funding from the state.

“I’ve been here and before your boards representing other types of projects, and what people say is that they want downtown revitalization,” Cappello said. “This is exactly what we are all calling for, which is why I believe your village put this as part of the grant application and why the state funded this application.”

Following an intermission, the board approved the project with a 4-1 vote; Mayor Mike Hembury voted against the development. Trustee Stephen Imbriani was unsure about the legality of turning the project down, as the applicant already went through the planning process and did everything they needed to do. He suggested that the planning board look into a variance that would maintain resident parking spaces during the day.

“I would suggest that, if it passes and goes back to the planning board, they should try to look into some sort of variance as far as those permanent resident parking spaces being available during the day, that we open up another 10 parking spaces in this,” Imbriani said. “Which, during the day, would resolve that part of the traffic, and people would have places to park at night.”

Trustee Randi Picarello suggested that the board should immediately look into addressing village procedure and communication regarding projects like the Hanover Development, as she felt there were a lot of “misses” during this process.

During the meeting’s public comment, a few residents who live near the project site criticized the board for approving the project. They reiterated their concerns from the previous meetings, including impacts to business and offsite parking, traffic congestion, and questionable decisions made by the planning board and building inspector. They also felt that the board approved the project to avoid a lawsuit from the applicant.

“I thought the presentation was excellent, and it just shows the embarrassing level that the village planning board has fallen to over the past two decades, whether it’s the board themselves or the building inspector himself,” said Resident Jason Doce. “The board finds that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact on traffic and transportation. And that’s ridiculous, we know it will.”