Log in Subscribe

Woodridge annexation from Fallsburg withdrawn

Patricio Robayo
Posted 6/16/26

SOUTH FALLSBURG — A proposed annexation of land from the Town of Fallsburg into the Village of Woodridge for a 130-home development is no longer moving forward after the applicant withdrew the …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Woodridge annexation from Fallsburg withdrawn

Posted

SOUTH FALLSBURG — A proposed annexation of land from the Town of Fallsburg into the Village of Woodridge for a 130-home development is no longer moving forward after the applicant withdrew the application shortly before a June 10 joint public hearing.

Town of Fallsburg Supervisor Nathan Steingart said the town board did not support the current proposal and that no vote would be taken.

“The proposal is dead. There is no annexation,” Steingart said during the brief meeting.

The application, represented by attorney Jacob Billig, sought to annex three parcels owned by entities managed by developer Sam Charach of Brooklyn into the Village of Woodridge. The project had been the subject of a March 17 joint public hearing at the Senior Center in South Fallsburg, where residents raised concerns over water, sewer, traffic, environmental impacts and whether Fallsburg would lose tax base without receiving a clear benefit.

At that hearing, Billig said the development would include approximately 130 homes and that the annexation would allow the project to connect to municipal water and sewer services in Woodridge. He also said any needed infrastructure upgrades would be paid for by the developer and that the project would still undergo environmental review if the annexation were approved.

Steingart said on June 10 that Fallsburg officials had discussions with the applicant and Woodridge officials early on, and that the town understood the proposal would be different from what was ultimately submitted.

He said there had been discussion that the annexation would be reduced to one parcel and include “forever wild” land and potential parkland.

“I think there was, at that point, consensus on both of our boards that it would be something to consider,” Steingart said. “But the deal was very different when it was actually formally proposed.”

Steingart said he would have voted against the application and believed the Fallsburg Town Board also would have opposed it.

“As supervisor, I believed it was incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed annexation would provide a clear and tangible benefit to the Town of Fallsburg,” he said. “Based on the information that they presented, I did not find that to be the case.”

The Democrat reached out to Billig for comment but did not hear back by presstime.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here