Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2018

Home

February 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin In so holding, the court acknowledged that schools do enjoy some immunity from zoning regulations. The court said this was the case where New York's Education Law explicitly requires Education Department oversight of local school boards, such as with: the selection of building sites and erection or de- molition of buildings on those sites (see Education Law §§ 401, 407, 408); the sale or acquisition of property (see Education Law §§ 402-405); health or safety conditions within the school (see Education Law §§ 409-409-1); or any use of a school building (see Education Law § 414). However, the court explained that the immunity School Districts have from local zoning regula- tions is "not so broad and absolute as [the School District] contend[ed]." Where local zoning regulations do not encroach on a state agency's authority, they are authorized and applicable to School Districts, held the court. Here, the court found that the Education Department did not require review of sign placement, and the School District had not requested any Education Department review of its electronic sign placement. Hence, the court concluded that there was "no duplication of review —nor the possibility of conflicting determinations —by state and local entities," and there was no "encroachment by the Town or the ZBA on a state agency's authority." Having concluded that the School District was not immune from the Town's zoning ordinances, the court next looked at whether the ZBA had properly denied the School District's request for a variance. The court concluded that the ZBA had properly denied the variance given that: the Town and the ZBA had not refused the School District the opportunity to install any sign, but just an electronic message center sign, which was prohibited in the Town and which also failed to comply with at least three additional size and location requirements of the signage provisions of .the Town's zoning ordinance; and the ZBA had "provided rational reasons for its determination, including a concern for traffic safety due to the sign's brightness and potential to be more distracting and hazardous to passing motorists than an ordinary sign." See also: Cornell University v. Bagnardi, 68N.Y.2d 583, 510N.Y.S.2d 861, 503 N.E.2d 509, 37 Ed. Law Rep. 292 (1986). Case Note: The School District had argued that, alternatively, it was entitled to immunity from lo- cal zoning laws in light of the " `balancing of public interests' test." The court rejected that argument, stating that the balancing of public interests tests was generally applied in the case of competing localities and was "not necessary in relation to schools." Rather, with regard to schools, the court said that "the controlling consideration must always be the over-all impact on the public's welfare." Case Note: Because the county Supreme Court had not made a declaration, the appellate court modified the judgment by declaring that the School District had not shown itself to be immune and exempt from the Town's zoning law in these circumstances. 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters