Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Local Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ghent board tables Local Law No. 1 after business owners, members seek more review
Summary
The Ghent Town Board opened a public hearing May 21 on Local Law No. 1 (zoning definitions for lot coverage), heard business-owner concerns that the draft would restrict commercial development, and voted to table the law and refer it for further review by the county and the town's ZRC.
The Ghent Town Board held a public hearing May 21 at Ghent Town Hall on proposed Local Law No. 1 of 2026, which would amend Town Code chapter 190 §190-2B to add definitions for lot coverage and related dimensional regulations. The hearing produced several public comments from property owners who said the draft language could constrain commercial development on parcels split between commercial and residential zones.
"I don't really like the new local law way written up," said Conrad, a Ghent property owner, arguing the change had grown beyond a simple definition fix and could reduce what owners can build on mixed parcels. He warned the proposal could force businesses to redesign projects and raised concerns about shortened timelines for approvals and permit conditions.
Town officials and board members discussed whether the proposal simply corrected a clerical error or effected a substantive change to how lot coverage is calculated. Dan, who led the board discussion, said the amendment was intended to clear an inconsistency that had left planners without a clear rule for assessing compliance: "If we don't do this now, the error still exists in the dimension table," he said, while also recommending the town reconstitute its zoning review committee (ZRC) to study broader policy changes.
Board members disagreed on timing and scope. Some favored advancing the definition fix and later addressing percentage limits; others urged more outreach, concrete examples of the law's impact and a county planning review. A motion to table the local law and send it back for county and ZRC review carried by voice vote with one member recorded in opposition.
The board also noted procedural points about county referral: staff said the Columbia County Planning Board referral requirement had been met because the county did not meet on the specified date, but the board retained the option to solicit county comment before final action.
Next steps: the board will send the draft back for additional review, ask the ZRC for more detailed analysis of business impacts and work to provide clearer examples of how the definitions would apply to mixed-zone parcels. The board indicated the matter will return to a future agenda after those steps.
