GUILDERLAND — By a unanimous vote on March 4, the town board here adopted a four-month building moratorium while it reviews an update to its two-decades-old comprehensive plan.

The board can extend the moratorium for four months or in two two-month segments. The local law goes into effect once it is filed with the secretary of state.

No new applications will be accepted for developments of five or more single-family lots, for an apartment building with 25 or more units, or for an assisted living or independent living facility or a nursing home of 50 units or more.

The board can grant an exception for “extraordinary hardship,” the new local law says.

Only two residents — Robyn Gray and Joan Mckeon — spoke at a public hearing on the moratorium before the board adopted it.

Gray, who chairs the grassroots group Guilderland Coalition for Responsible Growth, had pushed the board for the first moratorium last year as a committee of volunteers worked with a consultant to update the plan; that initial moratorium was adopted in May and ended in November.

In January, Gray pushed the board for this second moratorium.

“I think the moratorium is great,” Gray told the board on March 4.

However, she noted that the planning board had discussed just part of the update draft at its February meeting and it could be some time before the final planning board recommendations reach the town board.

Supervisor Peter Barber said at the end of the meeting, “We’d probably keep the public hearing open until the planning board’s comments are received by our board.’

Gray was also concerned that the town’s zoning and planning boards are “basing some of their decisions on what the proposed zoning is going to be, not what the zoning actually is in the old plan.”

Gray suggested that the moratorium should be extended until the new zoning changes are ready to go into place.

“Otherwise,” she said, “You’re going to be caught in between here. You’re going to have people rushing in to say, ‘Oh, gee, we don’t like those new changes. We better get our stuff in now because there will be a break.’”

Gray concluded, “My concern is that the zoning changes should be in place before the moratorium ends.”

Mckeon said, “I’m all for the moratorium.”

She moved to Guilderland several years ago but said she would have moved elsewhere had she known “you were going to wipe out all the trees and put in a bunch of junky apartment buildings.”

Mckeon expressed concern that the town pool would be overrun. She asked, “Are there plans to build new pools, a new library, after you let all these people in? Not to mention traffic issues that I’m very concerned about the air quality.”

Mckeon also asked, “Is this what the people of Guilderland wanted in the comprehensive plan?”

Supervisor Peter Barber responded that a second public hearing on the updated plan will be held on March 18 “if you want to address those concerns at that time.”

The first hearing on the plan, at which only four residents spoke, was held on Feb. 4.

Resident Iris Broyde also wrote to the board in support of the moratorium. She did, however, express concerns that development in town could strain water resources and that the draft needed to be finalized after the public hearings and after the planning board and the town board itself have weighed in.

 “Frankly,” Broyde concluded, “the assumption of rubber-stamped acceptance of this document is presumptuous. It behooves the board to enact a moratorium on residential development to ensure that what goes forward is consistent with our future vision and within the capability to be supported by our infrastructure.”

The town board also heard from the Albany County Planning Board on the proposed moratorium, which said just that it would “defer to local consideration.”

After the board approved the moratorium, Deputy Supervisor Christine Napierski asked about forming a committee to make sure that the recommended zoning changes are actually put into effect.

Barber responded that the plan “talks about, you know, doing a check on the process and making sure that the recommendations are being followed —  so, yes, there’ll be a committee.”

“It’s just something I think would be a good idea to keep things on track,” said Napierski.