Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County planning staff explain GML §239 referral process; committee debates moratorium review
Summary
Staff reviewed General Municipal Law §239 referral procedures, the county’s in-house planning agency process, and why certain local laws—including moratoriums—are referred for county review; committee members discussed whether moratoriums should be exempt.
Washington County planning staff briefed the Agricultural Planning & Tourism & Community Development committee on General Municipal Law §239 (GML 239) and the county’s role in reviewing municipal planning-board referrals.
Staff said the county operates an in‑house planning agency that reviews local board referrals for matters that may have intermunicipal impact. The agency compiles packets, solicits departmental input where relevant, and produces recommendations that may include approval, suggested modification, comments (nonbinding), or disapproval. Staff explained the county review is a state requirement and that failure to follow the referral process could expose local actions to legal challenge under Article 78.
Pamela was credited with preparing a summary “cheat sheet” of the statute for local officials, and staff said the county issues a four‑year exemption list identifying project types that are deemed matters of strictly local concern and do not require review. Staff noted the planning agency’s voting membership is limited: the committee chair, the county’s senior planner and the deputy director of public safety act as the voting members on the agency; additional departmental reviewers are consulted as needed.
Committee members raised questions about moratorium local laws. Several members said moratoriums—temporary pauses on particular development types—feel like a purely local governance tool and asked whether they should be exempt from county review. County counsel and planning staff replied that moratoriums fall under “adoption or amendment of a local law,” which appears on the referral list; sending such actions to the planning agency is the safer legal approach unless a municipality is explicit about an exemption.
Staff and members discussed practical examples, including projects on county roads, commercial developments in agricultural districts and past referrals such as the Cumberland Farms site plan where state and county comments about traffic and safety differed. Planning staff said most referrals raise minor, local concerns; occasionally projects require more intensive review or raise issues that could affect county infrastructure.
Staff encouraged municipalities that have not engaged the county for planning presentations to accept the offer—Pamela and Laura have been contacting municipalities to explain the process and available support—and reminded boards that referring items to the county protects the local board from process-based legal risk.
