Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011

Home

September 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 17 Zoning Bulletin four challenged amendments all increased regulatory review for certain activities within the Adirondack Park. The municipalities had asserted that the challenged amendments af- fected them in their governmental capacity. More specifically, they had asserted that the amendments "directly [stole] ... their legislative capacity for enacting land use controls." The Supreme Court determined that the municipal petitioners lacked the capacity to sue on all claims except that related to the alleged vi- olation of their home rule powers. As to that issue the Supreme Court found the municipalities' arguments lacked merit and dismissed their claim. The municipalities appealed. DECISION: Affirmed as to that issue. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York, held that the APA's 2008 rule making did not violate municipal home rule powers. In so concluding, the court first reiterated the lower-court's conclusion that the municipal petitioners lacked the capacity to sue on all claims other than that alleging a violation of their home rule powers. The court noted that it was "well settled" that municipalities "cannot contest the actions of the state which affect them in their governmental capacity or as representatives of their inhabitants." The municipalities had argued that rule did not apply to the actions of state agencies (as compared to the actions of the state). The court rejected that argument, noting that, to the contrary, the rule applied "with equal force to the actions of state agencies: 'a municipality lacks the capacity to challenge a state agency's interpretation of statutes and regulations where ... the result impacts the municipality in its governmental capacity." Next, the court acknowledged that the municipalities did have the ca- pacity to raise the claim that the 2008 amendments violated the home rule protections contained in article IX of the New York Constitution. However, the court found the claim lacked merit. The Act "addressed an issue of substantial [s]tate concern": the "comprehensive zoning and planning program for all of the public and private lands with the [Ad- irondack] [P]ark." The Act related to a "matter reserved to the state," as it was not related to the property, affairs or government of a local gov- ernment. Accordingly, the court found the 2008 amendments did "not impermissibly infringe upon the home rule powers of municipalities with the Adirondack Park." See also: County of Oswego v. Travis, 16 A.D.3d 733, 791 N.Y.S.2d 189 (3d Dep't 2005). See also: Town of Black Brook v. State, 41 N.Y.2d 486, 393 N.Y.S.2d 946, 362 N.E.2d 579 (1977). 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters