LIBERTY — After receiving letters  and comments en masse in opposition to the proposed alterations to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) law, Supervisor Frank DeMayo suggested holding off on voting to reexamine the changes as part of the town’s Comprehensive Plan. However, Board member Vince McPhillips sped up the process and moved to put down the proposal right then and there.

“I think it’s pretty obvious for the past three meetings that the public is not for the PUD. I have read all the comments and there’s over 27 from the residents of our town,” McPhillips said.

With town officials citing the wave of both vocal and written pushback from town residents, the motion to dismiss the changes listed in “Local Law #2 of 2025” passed 3 to 1 on Monday. Those who squashed the proposed changes were McPhillips, and fellow board members John Lennon Jr. and Bruce Davidson. With board member Dean Farrand absent Monday night, DeMayo was the sole vote against complete dismissal. 

DeMayo said that he voted against the motion because he wanted to take a closer look at the changes as a part of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan’s revision, as he said some members of the public had asked for the further discussion on the topic. 

Members of the public were given until April 7 to submit their thoughts as part of the extended public hearing, beginning on March 3. Even on the final day, DeMayo said eight more letters were handed in to the Town Clerk’s office. 

“Thank you to the public, the comments were very useful,” DeMayo said.

Although the changes were dismissed, the original 1980’s-PUD law is still standing. During public comment at the Town Board meeting on April 7 just after the vote took place, public commenter and town resident Nancy Levine expressed her desire to have that law also struck down. Additionally, town resident Yvonne Gomez asked for an extension of the recent moratorium on PUD’s, which lasted for 15 months.

According to Local Law 2’s filing notes, one of the changes that were shot down would have had only required a PUD to produce only a minimum of 15 percent of open space, as compared to the currently required 25 percent.

Another change within the proposed law was the alteration of the definitions of “affordable housing” and “age-restricted housing” as listed in Article II, 147-4 in the Town Code.