LIBERTY — Fifteen months ago, the Town Board of Liberty instituted and thrice extended a moratorium on any Planned Unit Developments (PUD) within the town. With the block now dissolved, a public hearing was held Monday night to introduce a new, altered version of a PUD local law – one which rekindled town residents’ opposition.

Opening the public hearing on Monday, March 3 at 6 p.m., nearly 20 opinions were shared over the course of an hour and change; all against Local Law #2 of 2025. The speakers shared a number of their concerns regarding the proposed law. 

Those included worries of water and sewer usage and capacity, cites of conflicts with the town’s Comprehensive Plan and New York State Town Law, already existing burdensome taxation and overutilization of other town resources and natural preservation, among others.

The law introduces itself noting that the purpose of a planned unit development (PUD) district is to “foster excellence in neighborhood design and further the goals and objectives of the Town of Liberty Comprehensive Plan.” 

It goes on to state that “these ‘floating districts’ promote creative site layout and architectural design and secure the advantages of large-scale site planning for residential, commercial or professional office developments, or certain combinations.”

The law goes on to argue that the “flexibility granted to projects in a PUD District comes with a commitment to include three features beneficial to the local community, such as but not limited to open space and parkland, public recreation, and public infrastructure.” 

The law in its entirety can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/Liberty-PUD-Law-2025.

One of the speakers, Cora Edwards, resident of Swan Lake and long-time critic of PUD-based law, addressed the packed Liberty Senior Center with a brief recollection of the history of PUD’s in Liberty. She said that the project that inspired the PUD law to be created in the first place never even came to fruition. This shares a similar characteristic with that of the PUD that was proposed in Swan Lake last year, which was denied by the Town Board in mid-December last year by a failed 2-3 vote.

“This should be a wake-up call,” Edwards said. “If this zoning amendment PUD law is not rescinded in its entirety, all nineteen pages, we would face a very different community without the natural resources that we are trying so hard to preserve and protect.”

No official action was taken by the board Monday night. Additionally, the public hearing was recessed by the Town Board to continue once more on April 7. Supervisor Frank DeMayo encouraged those with further comments to share them with the Town Clerk via email at l.dutcher@townofliberty.org until then, where discussion will continue.

“[Over] eighteen people spoke, none in favor [of the PUD law,]” Board Member Vincent McPhillips said as a closing thought during board discussion in the meeting directly following the public hearing. “I just hope the board listens to the residents of the town of Liberty. That’s all I’ve got.”

No other Board Members spoke either in favor, against or in any relation to the PUD law during Board Discussion.

What are the changes?

According to the local law’s filing notes, “a PUD District created by a floating zone brings inherent differences with the requirements of the underlying zoning district. PUDs provide the town with an opportunity to utilize the unique characteristics of a parcel of land in ways that benefit the community, make efficient use of land, and provide an alternative to sprawl development.”

One notable change among a few others would only require a PUD to produce a minimum of 15 percent of open space, as compared to the formerly required 25 percent.

Another factor of change within the proposed law is the alteration of the definitions of “affordable housing” and “age-restricted housing” as listed in Article II, 147-4 in the Town Code. The former sets the new definition as the occupant paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, and the latter noting senior citizen housing as for individuals 62 and over.

County lends critiques

A letter from Sullivan County Division of Planning Commissioner Heather Brown on February 28 noted that the County’s review of the local law, also known as a GML-239, prompted the suggestion of a few amendments, noting that “the proposed zoning amendments do not adequately define important elements and lock information about enforcement,” Brown wrote.

These include the nailing down of definitions of “community or public” and “affordable housing”, enforcement and an update to the SEQR (State Environment Quality Review Act) to reflect potential impact and propose mitigation tactics.

Other county departments also offered comments. The Department of Public Works (DPW) said they wished for a clarification of the review process, including a flow chart and adjustments to the language to “facilitate understanding and improvement of the SEQR language.”

The Farmland Protection Board noted that they recommend limiting the denser uses out of the less dense AG zoning districts, specifically the AC (Agricultural Conservation) and IC (industrial commercial) districts. Additionally, they wanted specificity in the PUD’s increase priority usage and lead to traffic increases, which seems to conflict to “add more intense use developments to rural and ag conservation districts.