Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016

Home

April 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 7 Zoning Bulletin ing requirements, the New York State Commission of Correction (the "COC"), in 2006, ordered the HCJ to close its inmate housing unit. As of 2016, Herkimer County (the "County") was expending approximately $1.7 million per year to house inmates at various correctional facilities outside the County. The COC rejected proposals to renovate or expand the existing HCJ or to house inmates outside the County on a perma- nent basis. Ultimately, the County sought to construct a new jail facility. Eventually, the County chose a site in the Village for the proposed jail facility. The site that was selected was selected because it was "in close proximity to the County Courthouse"; "[was] accessible from a main road and would allow for reuse of a site that ha[d] remained vacant for many years"; was "located in an area with mixed commercial and industrial use with screening from residential uses (allowing the facility to not impact the community fabric) and ha[d] accessibility to infrastruc- ture for municipal water and sewer that [wa]s already in place." In the meantime, the Village amended its zoning laws to prohibit cor- rectional facilities within the Village boundaries. In support of that ban, the Village cited the following factors: locating a jail in the Village would change the character of the Village; taking a large parcel for a jail would violate the Village's Strategic Economic Plan; in most coun- ties the jail is located in a remote area, unlike that proposed here; a jail takes property off the tax roll, thereby increasing the tax burden on residents; and an overwhelming number of residents opposed having a new jail in the Village. The County filed a legal action in court, asking the court to, among other things, declare the zoning law that excluded correctional facilities from locating within the Village to be null and void. The County Supreme Court ruled that under the state preemption doctrine, any local ordinance that resulted inthe exclusion of correctional facilities and jails from the state -approved location was null and void. The Village appealed. The Appellate Division ruled that the zoning ordinance was not null and void under the pre-emption doctrine. However, the Appellate Division found that the County may be im- mune from zoning law's ban on correctional facilities nevertheless. The Appellate Division remanded the case back to the Supreme Court for a determination on the issue of immunity. DECISION: Judgment for the County. The Supreme Court, Herkimer County, New York, held that the County was immune from the Village zoning law's ban on correctional facilities. In determining whether the County had immunity from the zoning law, the court explained that such a determination involved a "balanc- ing of public interests approach," with the weighing of the following factors: "the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity"; 10 © 2016.Thomson Reuters