Court Orders Deerfield to Approve PathStone Housing Project

A State Supreme Court judge has overturned the Town of Deerfield’s decision to block a controversial 65-unit workforce housing development near SUNY Polytechnic Institute, ruling the Town Board’s reasons for holding up the project were not supported by the record.

Oneida County Supreme Court Justice Louis P. Gigliotti annulled Deerfield Town Board Resolution 60-2025 in a 30-page decision filed August 5. Gigliotti also ordered the town to authorize the permit for PathStone Development Corporation’s proposed Deerfield Apartments project within 30 days after the decision is formally served with notice of entry. 

The ruling is a major victory for PathStone after more than a year of public meetings, opposition from some Deerfield residents and questions over whether the rural property is the right location for a large affordable housing project.

But the decision goes well beyond the usual zoning dispute.

Gigliotti examined how the town reached its decision, what evidence board members had when they voted, comments made about low income housing and even a private gathering attended by three members of the five member Town Board just days before the project was rejected.

In the end, the judge concluded Deerfield could not stop PathStone from building based on concerns about other development that might, or might not, happen sometime in the future.

What PathStone Plans to Build

PathStone wants to construct a three story, 78,500 square foot building with 65 workforce housing apartments and a 7,800 square foot childcare center.

The development would sit on approximately 6.8 acres at the southwest corner of Mulaney Road and Horatio Street. Financing includes federal low income housing tax credits and a grant from New York State Empire State Development. 

The housing component has been at the center of the controversy.

PathStone has said the development is designed as workforce housing, with rents tied to income eligibility. Information previously supplied by the developer indicates potential residents could include seniors on fixed incomes, hospitality and food service workers, and people employed in entry level manufacturing and administrative jobs.

The project also includes a childcare component, an issue supporters have pointed to as another need in Oneida County.

This Started as a Much Larger Development

The history of the property turned out to be extremely important in Gigliotti’s ruling.

In December 2023, ARCN Land Development applied to rezone three parcels from commercial zoning classifications to Planned Development Extraordinary, a more flexible mixed use designation.

The original concept was much bigger than an apartment building.

Plans showed workforce or supportive housing on the northern parcel. The southern property was envisioned for a hotel, restaurant, convenience store with fuel and a drive through restaurant. 

The Deerfield Town Board unanimously approved the zoning change on January 13, 2025.

There was one important detail.

The Planning Board had recommended that the Town Board establish a timeline for phased development, including infrastructure and both residential and commercial construction.

The Town Board never did.

No timetable was adopted. There was no requirement that the hotel or restaurants be built before the apartments. There was also no condition requiring construction on the southern property to occur along with PathStone’s housing project. 

Eleven months later, that became a serious legal problem for the town.

PathStone Spent Months Going Through the Process

Once the zoning was changed, PathStone began working its way through the approval process.

According to the court decision, the developer spent about six months in preliminary site plan review and appeared before the Deerfield Planning Board nine times between May and October 2025.

Plans were revised three times to address comments from Town Engineer Alan Swierczek.

The Mohawk Valley Water Authority approved a draft water main and service layout in August. In September, the Oneida County Department of Planning recommended approval of the project. 

On October 8, the Deerfield Planning Board issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and granted preliminary site plan approval with conditions.

The Planning Board specifically found PathStone had met the requirements for preliminary site plan approval. 

There was concern, however, about what could happen when the rest of ARCN’s property was developed.

Water and sewer capacity for that future development became a major issue.

Picente Supported the Development

Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente Jr. was among those who supported the PathStone project.

Gigliotti noted that the official record included letters of support from SUNY Polytechnic Institute, Oneida County government, the Oneida County Childcare Taskforce and the County Planning Department. 

That could become especially relevant following the court decision.

Picente has repeatedly made housing and workforce development part of the county’s economic development discussion. The PathStone property is also close to SUNY Poly and within the larger economic development corridor stretching toward Marcy.

A question for Picente now is whether the court decision reinforces the county’s original position.

He could also be asked whether Oneida County can continue trying to attract new employers and workers without creating additional housing options for people who work in manufacturing, hospitality, health care and other industries.

Those are questions worth asking following the ruling. They should not be presented as comments from Picente unless he responds.

Opposition Grew as the Project Moved Forward

Public opposition increased as PathStone moved through the approval process.

The court record provides a revealing look at some of what was happening behind the scenes.

On May 7, 2025, Town Supervisor Gregory Sacco wrote to PathStone about Councilman Daniel Fusco and said Fusco was “really stirring the pot” with residents and possibly providing false information that was creating fear.

At a June meeting, Fusco said there was no apparent support for low income housing and encouraged PathStone to consider making the development age restricted senior housing.

The decision also references comments Fusco made on social media and radio comparing this type of housing to a “rash” and a “wildfire.” 

The town argued in court that statements from one council member could not legally be attributed to the entire Town Board.

Gigliotti agreed with that point.

Still, he said the larger record could not be ignored.

Then Came the Sewer Question

This is where Deerfield’s case began to unravel.

Following the Planning Board’s recommendation, the Town Board asked its own engineer to examine sewer capacity.

Swierczek responded in writing on October 28.

His conclusion was that the sewer system could handle PathStone.

The bigger question involved the southern parcels, where the hotel, restaurants and other commercial development had originally been envisioned.

There were no actual projects to evaluate.

No tenants had signed on. No site plans had been submitted. Without knowing what might eventually be built, the engineer couldn't calculate how much sewage those future developments would generate.

His recommendation was to deal with that issue when development actually occurred. 

The Mohawk Valley Water Authority also issued a water will serve letter for PathStone on November 5.

Then came Supervisor Sacco’s deposition.

Under questioning on March 27, 2026, Sacco acknowledged that the PathStone project itself did not have a sewer capacity or water capacity problem. 

That admission became an important part of the judge’s decision.

A Denial Was Already Being Discussed

The ruling also details what was happening before the Town Board's eventual December vote.

On November 10, Sacco emailed the town attorney and asked him to prepare language for a statement and resolution that would not approve PathStone.

Sacco later acknowledged in his deposition that by that date he had decided he would vote against the project.

Later that month, Fusco sent comments concerning the draft resolution and suggested adding language involving the Town Master Plan. 

Then came December 5.

Three members of the five member Town Board met at Supervisor Sacco’s home, Sacco, Councilman Philip Sacco and Councilman David Kolek.

Three members represented a quorum.

According to the court decision, the gathering began around 5 p.m. and included discussion about what assurances the town wanted concerning the development.

ARCN principal David Christa joined the group by telephone at about 6 p.m. After that call ended, the board members continued discussing the assurances and the agenda for the upcoming December 8 meeting.

There was no public notice of the gathering and the public did not have access. 

That caught the judge's attention.

Deerfield Says “Not Yet”

The Town Board held its regular meeting three days later.

The original agenda handed to people attending the December 8 meeting did not list the PathStone resolution.

A revised agenda did.

Gigliotti found that neither the proposed resolution nor Sacco's prepared statement appeared to have been posted on the town website or otherwise made available to the public before the meeting. 

Sacco then read a prepared statement.

The Town Board's position was that it wasn't saying “no” to PathStone. It was saying “NOT YET.”

Resolution 60-2025 withheld authorization until the remaining portions of ARCN's larger development were more fully developed and shown to be viable from financial and engineering standpoints.

The problem, according to the court, was that PathStone had no control over any of that.

Judge Finds No Evidence of an Infrastructure Problem

Gigliotti determined the December vote was an administrative permitting decision, which meant the board's action could be reviewed under Article 78.

Then he looked at the evidence.

The Planning Board approved PathStone's preliminary site plan.

The town engineer said the sewer system could handle the apartment project.

The Mohawk Valley Water Authority issued a water will serve letter.

The Town Supervisor admitted the project itself didn't have a water or sewer capacity problem.

That left the judge with a fairly direct conclusion.

“There is, in short, no evidence anywhere in this record that the project the Town Board was asked to authorize presents any infrastructure difficulty.”

Instead, Deerfield was concerned about infrastructure for projects that didn't yet exist.

Those projects would also be located on property PathStone neither owned nor controlled.

The practical result, Gigliotti found, was that PathStone could satisfy every requirement placed on it and still be prevented from building because another property owner had not moved forward with completely separate development. 

The judge ruled that was arbitrary.

Was Infrastructure the Real Reason?

PathStone went further in its lawsuit.

The developer argued that the infrastructure issue was a pretext and the real reason for blocking the project was opposition to income restricted housing.

Gigliotti did not need to decide that issue to overturn the Town Board's action.

He did, however, spend several pages discussing it.

The judge pointed to the public opposition, questions about who would live in the apartments, discussions about turning the development into senior housing, Sacco's November request for a denial resolution and efforts to obtain additional water information after the December vote.

Taken together, Gigliotti wrote, the facts “suggest that the infrastructure rationale was a pretext to support a decision already reached rather than derived from the record.” 

That's a significant statement.

But there's an equally important distinction.

The judge did not rule that Deerfield intentionally discriminated against low income residents. The court didn't need to reach that question because the town's stated reason for withholding approval already failed under Article 78 review.

What About That Meeting at Sacco's House?

The lawsuit also accused the Town Board of violating New York's Open Meetings Law.

Again, Gigliotti stopped short of formally ruling that a violation occurred.

But he didn't ignore it.

The judge noted that three members of the five member board were together at Sacco's home, which constituted a quorum. They discussed a pending town matter, participated in a telephone call with the property owner and talked about the upcoming Town Board agenda.

No notice was published.

The public wasn't there.

Gigliotti wrote that the December 5 gathering was “difficult to characterize as anything else” than a meeting under the state's Open Meetings Law. 

He nevertheless made no formal finding of a violation.

By that point, Resolution 60-2025 had already been thrown out on separate grounds, making a ruling on the Open Meetings Law claim unnecessary. 

PathStone Didn't Win Everything

There was one clear victory for Deerfield in the decision.

PathStone had accused the town of failing to properly respond to a Freedom of Information Law request submitted December 5.

Gigliotti rejected that claim.

The Town Clerk acknowledged the request on December 8 and documents were ultimately provided January 12.

The court found the time period reasonable considering the amount of material requested. The judge also found that PathStone failed to pursue an administrative appeal before bringing its FOIL claim to court. 

The Mistake That Ultimately Cost Deerfield

In the end, much of this case comes back to the January 2025 rezoning.

Deerfield knew housing was planned for the northern parcel.

The town also had the ability to impose conditions requiring the residential and commercial portions of the larger development to proceed according to a certain schedule.

The Planning Board even recommended establishing a timeline.

The Town Board didn't do it.

Gigliotti acknowledged Deerfield had a legitimate reason to want the entire development completed. Town officials didn't want to approve a rezoning based on plans for apartments, a hotel, restaurants and other commercial development, only to end up with the housing and acres of undeveloped property.

The judge didn't dismiss that concern.

He said the town addressed it too late.

The time to require phasing, sequencing or infrastructure milestones was when the Town Board rezoned the property. Once the board approved the zoning without those conditions, it could not impose them 11 months later by withholding PathStone's permit. 

PathStone, meanwhile, had done what Deerfield asked.

The Planning Board approved the project. The town engineer found adequate sewer capacity. The Water Authority found the project could be served. And Sacco acknowledged under oath that PathStone itself did not have a water or sewer problem.

Resolution 60-2025 was annulled and vacated.

Now, unless the legal situation changes, Deerfield has been ordered to authorize the PathStone project permit within 30 days after the decision and order is served with notice of entry. 

And after more than a year of meetings, arguments and legal filings, that could finally clear the way for the controversial Deerfield housing project to move forward.