Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 20 conflicting with this title [Title 11 of the Public Authorities Law] or any rule or regulation of the [MTA] . . . shall not be applicable to the activities or opera- tions of the [MTA] . . . or the facilities of the [MTA] . . . except such facilities that are devoted to purposes other than transportation or transit purposes." Here, the court found that, insofar as the application of the City's laws governing sign placement would result in a loss of revenue to the MTA from outdoor advertising, the City's laws were "in conflict" with Public Authori- ties Law § 1266(8). In other words, the court found that "the loss of revenue from compliance with the local laws and regulations at issue would interfere with the accomplishment of the MTA's function and purpose of, among other things, generating revenue to fund public regional transportation." Finding a conflict existed, the court next had to determine whether the MTA facilities at issue were "devoted to purposes other than transportation or transit purposes." The City had argued that the MTA facilities were not devoted to transportation or transit purpose because the outdoor signs on the facilities were not about transportation or transit. On the other hand, the OACs had argued that generating revenue for the MTA was, in itself, a "transportation or other transit purpose" under Pubic Authorities Law § 1266(8). The court found that "[t]he outdoor signs did not render the railroad facilities here unusable as railroad rights of way, trestles, and overpasses; [those] facilities continue[d] to function as part of a system for moving trains and transit equipment." Thus, the court found that it could not be said that the MTA facilities at issue were devoted to purposes other than transportation or transit purposes. Accordingly, the court concluded that the MTA facilities at issue—i.e., the railroad rights-of-way, railroad trestles and overpasses upon which the 13 subject signs were affixed or erected—were not facilities devoted to purposes other than transportation or transit purposes. Therefore, the court held that those MTA facilities were exempt, from the city's zoning laws regulating sign placement. Accordingly, the court concluded that the DOB's rejection of the sign registrations for those 13 signs and the BSA's resolution as to those 13 signs must be vacated and annulled. With regard to CBS Outdoor's signs on CSXT property, the court determined that the BSA's determination, which upheld the DOB's rejection of the registration of those outdoor signs, must be vacated to permit the DOB to consider whether those signs had the status of legal nonconforming use. Moreover, the court rejected CSXT's cross claim. The court found that the ICCTA preempts all state laws that may reasonably be said to have the effect of managing or governing rail transportation, but permits the continued ap- plication of laws having a more remote or incidental effect on rail transportation. Disagreeing with CSXT, the court held that zoning regula- tions barring advertising signs located on railroad rights-of-way or over- passes, which consequently limit the raising of advertising revenue for a commuter train system, do not have the effect of "managing or governing rail transportation," and cannot be said to have an effect, if any, on "the movement of passengers or property, or both, by rail." Thus, the court concluded that the local laws and regulations with respect to outdoor advertising on CSXT property or rights of way were not preempted by the ICCTA. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7