local news

The Wilmington Town Board meets on Tuesday at the Wilmington Community Center. From left, Deputy Supervisor Laura Dreissigacker Hooker, Supervisor Tim Follos, Council Member Forest “Randy” Winch and Council Member Darin Forbes. Not pictured is Council Member Hanna Cromie.
(Enterprise photo — Chris Gaige)

WILMINGTON — The Wilmington town board voted at its Tuesday meeting 4-1 to adopt Local Law No. 1 of 2026, which contains a set of proposed zoning ordinance amendments.

The law’s intent is to give the town Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals more regulatory authority compared to the current zoning rules, according to town Supervisor Tim Follos, who has been pushing for these changes since he first ran for the town board in 2021.

“This is a milestone,” he said. “This is the first time we’ve tightened our zoning code in a long time, and it’s been a long time coming.”

Follos said that, as far as he recalled, the last time one of Wilmington’s boards took action to significantly tighten its zoning code was 1988, and that much of those regulations were undone in a 2013 code overhaul. Since then, Follos felt things had been heading in the wrong direction. Local Law No. 1’s zoning amendments were a cornerstone of his 2025 town supervisor campaign.

“Our zoning code that was passed in 2013 really significantly loosened the standards that were adopted in ’88,” he said. “It was intentionally designed to spur commerce throughout the township, not only in the hamlet but all throughout Wilmington, and some of the effects of that loose zoning code, the town’s people have been unhappy about.”

It wasn’t until the town elections in November that there was a board majority backing these amendments.

The local law implements retail building size restrictions; visual impact, screening and setback requirements for retail projects and changes the guidelines for how site plan approvals and special use permits can be considered.

“At least this is a step in the right direction,” Follos said. “It’s not a perfect solution to every conceivable hypothetical any person can dream up, but it’s a lot better than what we have currently. It’s a giant step forward.”

The passage came after a contentious board discussion. Council Member Darin Forbes opened that by saying the law that was originally presented on Tuesday was different than what the board had seemed to agree on at the end of its Feb. 25 workshop, where it was discussed at length.

Forbes said it was his understanding, at that meeting, that while the law would forbid new individual retail trade buildings to be in excess of 6,000 square feet of floor area, unless granted a variance from the town’s planning board, but, crucially, that this floor area limit would only pertain to “retail floor space,” and building features such as offices, storage and parking would not count toward it.

Forbes said he only supported the 6,000 square-foot cap provided that it only applied to “retail floor space.” However, Section 3 Part C of the law that was presented on Tuesday stated that “For the purposes of the size limits set forth herein, floor area shall include floor area or floor space of any sort within the building, as well as exterior space used for the sale or storage of merchandise.”

In other words, a more expansive definition.

“I feel like either I was extremely misled, or this wasn’t intended to be there or something’s gotten changed since we had our (Feb. 25) discussion” Forbes said. “I brought this up several times and was assured that it was for retail area only.”

Follos and Deputy Supervisor Laura Dreissigacker Hooker said the law’s text on Tuesday was what had been proposed all along, to which Forbes agreed with — and reiterated that was, indeed, his concern.

“Basically you’re saying it doesn’t matter if I brought it up at the last meeting, ‘it was there before and that’s just the way it is?’” he asked.

Forbes added that another part of the law had been changed since the Feb. 25 workshop. Section 3 Part A, the actual square footage cap independent of the definition of floor area, had been lowered from 8,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet following a 4-1 board vote to do so.

Forbes was the lone dissenter there, but stipulated that his opposition was based on the set of amendments not being broken up into individual laws and votes, not the square footage change.

“We changed it at the last meeting, and then gave people the wrong information of why we were changing it to 6,000,” he said. “This was not what was presented at the public hearings because at that point it was 8,000 square feet. So I just want to go on record and state that these are the changes and this is different than what’s been discussed previously.”

Follos acknowledged the text’s discrepancy between meetings but said it was inadvertent. He added that he confirmed with legal counsel that the 8,000 to 6,000 square feet change — now a moot point — could be made without needing to restart the public hearing process, given its limited scope.

Dreissigacker Hooker said she regretted the contradiction between the Feb. 25 discussion and how that section of the law was written for Tuesday’s vote.

“The last meeting just sent everything into a tizzy, and unfortunately, this is the fallout from it. I definitely see your side, Darin, (and) I see Tim’s side,” she said. “When you talk about something so long, so many times … and you have so many opinions, everything gets muddied.”

Dreissigacker Hooker suggested the board change the 6,000 square feet back to the original 8,000, while keeping the more expansive definition of floor space. The board voted unanimously in favor of that change — a procedural vote to return back to the original discussion and final vote on adopting the law, resulting in the final vote.

Forbes said he was happy with the 8,000 square feet, and felt the smaller cap could have posed a detriment to small businesses in the town.

“I felt at that point 6,000 (square feet) was too small, and Wilmington really could be doing a detriment to itself,” he said. “In these times, you have to walk a fine line between development and not wanting big box stores and stopping all development within the town. We may not want huge box stores and stuff, but we also don’t want to (discourage) small businesses to come in.”

Similar to his Feb. 25 opposition, Forbes said he voted ‘no’ on the local law’s final passage because he didn’t agree with all of its amendments being lumped into a single vote.

“I agree with the 8,000,” Forbes said. “The reason I didn’t vote ‘yes’ on that is because the resolutions were all lumped together. … It included the 8,000, it included the screening and setback, it included some other things all in the same local law, and there were some other parts of it that I didn’t necessarily agree with.”

Just before the final Local Law No. 1 vote at Tuesday’s meeting, Follos floated voting on each section separately. Town Clerk Dawn Stevens cautioned that would constitute a material change, resulting in the board having to restart the procedural process for adopting a local law. With that likely reset, Follos retracted the idea.

The final law included an at least 40-foot setback of natural vegetation “in its natural or improved state” adjoining any public road or property with a different owner. Following public comment, this figure was extended from an originally-proposed 30 feet. The law also gives the town Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals the discretion to “require additional measures to provide suitable screening, such as additional setbacks, planting and fencing.”

Forbes took issue with this section of the law, stating that he supported a more restrictive language to include “or suitable screening,” along with the natural vegetation. His worry was that it would lead to its uneven application between properties that have an already existing woods or denser natural screening barrier, versus a property with an already-existing field or similar landscape where the natural vegetation would not provide much of a screen.

“If it’s good in one area, it should be good for every area and they wouldn’t go along with me on it,” Forbes said.

With Local Law No. 1 now on the books, Follos was confident it won’t be the last time this board makes changes to the town’s zoning code.

“This is not the end,” he said. “It’s sorely overdue. We accomplished it and we are going to continue. I expect us to make additional improvements to our zoning code. That is what the town voted for and that’s what the town will get.”