1 / 35

Zoning Prohibitions of High-Impact Activities

Zoning Prohibitions of High-Impact Activities. Association of Towns – Marcellus Shale Workshop June 24, 2011 Helen Slottje, Esq. & David Slottje, Esq. Community Environmental Defense Council, Inc. CedcLaw.org hslottje@cedclaw.org . Overview.

hei
Download Presentation

Zoning Prohibitions of High-Impact Activities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Zoning Prohibitions ofHigh-Impact Activities Association of Towns – Marcellus Shale Workshop June 24, 2011 Helen Slottje, Esq. & David Slottje, Esq. Community Environmental Defense Council, Inc. CedcLaw.org hslottje@cedclaw.org

  2. Overview • Disclaimer: Educational – Not Legal Advice • What are towns authorized to protect? • What form of actions can towns take? • Answers to some typical questions.

  3. Restrictions on Local Power • A municipality cannot adopt local laws that are inconsistent with the State Constitution or any general law of the State. MHRL §10(1)(ii) • Preemption may be express or implied. • “ When dealing with an express preemption provision, as we do here, it is unnecessary to consider the doctrines of implied or conflict preemption. Instead, the resolution in this case turns solely upon proper statutory construction of TILA’s credit card application and solicitation preemption provision. People of the State of New York v. Applied Card Service, 11 N.Y.3d 105 (2008)(citing Frew Run, citations omitted).

  4. Preemption New York State Oil & Gas Law, ECL §23-0303(2): “The provisions of this article shall supersede all local laws or ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas and solution mining industries ; but shall not supersede local government jurisdiction over local roads or the rights of local governments under the real property tax law.”

  5. Requirements for Local Actions • Consistent, Rational. • Determination must have a rational basis – not arbitrary and capricious. • Ordinance must be designed in good faith to accomplish the general public good for which the ordinance is adopted. • Courts cannot inquire into motives inducing legislative act (absent fraud/corruption) but will consider purpose. • Consider problems presented and reasonable and uniform provisions to deal with them, that tend to promote the general community welfare (as compared to individuals).

  6. What are some impacts from gas drilling? “ There are issues with drilling wells, but they don’t come from fracking. . . . We can tear up a road, we can be noisy, we can create dust, we can hurt somebody, and sometimes there is a lack of transparency about operations. All those are legitimate concerns, but fracking is not the story.” Chesapeake CEO Aubrey McClendon on April 8, 2011. http://sabew.org/2011/04/mcclendon-to-business-journalists-get-the-story/

  7. Can we protect our towns against these kinds of impacts?

  8. Public Health, Safety & Welfare • An ordinance regulating property use will therefore be upheld unless it is “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, moral, or general welfare.” Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (1926)

  9. Lack of Adequate Infrastructure • May use zoning to prevent uses for which the physical and financial resources of the town are inadequate. Golden v. Town of Rampano, 30 NY2d 359 (1972)

  10. Character and Value of Residential Property • Therefore it seems to us quite in accordance with the decisions and principles to which we have referred that zoning authorities should have the right in a residential district to promote these purposes [the safe, healthful, and comfortable family life rather than the development of commercial instincts and the pursuit of pecuniary profits] and to protect the people desiring to enjoy these conditions …. to say nothing of other things such as the destruction of the character of the district as a residential one and the impairment in value of property already devoted to private residences. • Wulfsohnv. Burden, 241 NY 288 (1925)

  11. Traffic Congestion • Zoning Ordinances may be “designed to lessen congestions in the streets.” Town Law § 263, Village Law § 7-704, City Law §20(24) • The interest of the government in preserving comparative tranquility in residential areas is unquestionably legitimate and protects quiet places where motor vehicles are restricted. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 US 1 (1974) • Local government may consider and respond to health and safety concerns from diesel exhaust, truck accidents, dangers to pedestrians.

  12. Destruction of Highways • Public highways are available for “ordinary use, transportation, and traffic in any reasonable manner…. the [government] has the right to consider the convenience of the great majority of the citizens and the burdens that may be imposed upon them by taxation for construction and maintaining highways. It has the power and right to exclude from the use of the highways persons using vehicles constituting a danger… to the integrity of the highway itself. ... [These restrictions are] intended to protect and preserve for ordinary and common use the improved highways constructed at great expense. (con’t next slide) Town of Waterford v. LB Brockett Lumber Co., 237 NYS 436 (3rd Dept. 1929)

  13. Peace and Quiet “Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order-these are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not delimit it.” Berman v. Parker, 348 US 26 (1954) May exclude industrial uses from residential, commercial and agricultural districts. Village of Belle Terre, 416 US 1 (1974)

  14. Negative Impacts on Neighbors “Applicable case law draws a dichotomy between those regulations that directly relate to the physical use of land and those that regulate the manner of operation of a business or other enterprise. In the first group are regulations relating either to the use of such land or to the potential impact of land use on neighboring properties. Courts generally uphold such regulations, including those directed at physical externalities such as light, air quality, safety, population density, traffic, and even less tangible externalities such as property values, aesthetic, or environmental values.” LouhalProperties, Inc. v. Strada, 743 NYS2d 810 (Nassau Cty 2002), aff’d 763 NYS2d 773 (2nd Dept. 2003)

  15. Community Rights • “A municipality is not obliged to permit the exploitation of any and all natural resources within the town as a permitted use if limiting that use is a reasonable exercise of its police powers to prevent damage to the rights of others and to promote the interests of the community as a whole.” Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668 (1996)

  16. What form of action can we take?

  17. Moratorium • May be adopted as a “stop gap or interim measure where it is reasonably designed to temporarily halt development while the municipality considers, inter alia, comprehensive zoning changes.” Cellular Telephone v. Village of Tarrytown, 624 NYS2d 170 (2nd Dept. 1995) • Enactment of moratorium requires following same legal procedures as had to be followed when the legislation that it suspends. • Moratorium is a Type II Action and is exempt from SEQRA • 6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(30)

  18. Stand Alone Police Power Law • With or without zoning • “The local law (prohibiting waste disposal facilities within the town) is not a zoning ordinance; it does not involve a comprehensive or master plan for dividing the community into zones where specified uses are permitted but rather is directed at one particular activity no matter where in the town it is carried out.” Niagara Recycling Inc. v. Town of Niagara, 443 NYS2d 939 (2nd Dept 1981)

  19. Amendment to Zoning • Amendments that make it clear that all non-permitted uses are prohibited. • Amendment to specifically prohibit all gas drilling and/or related industrial activities. • Amendment to prohibit high-impact industrial uses.

  20. Typical Questions

  21. Must we Update the Comprehensive Plan? • Appellants first maintain that the statements of purpose in the zoning ordinance and Master Plan relating to the establishment of a conservancy district are too “generalized” to sustain the legitimacy of the amended ordinance as applied [in this case]. Specifically, they complain that “[p]rohibition of the extraction of stone is not even suggested by the Master Plan to be related to this purpose (or to any other).” They seem to say that, in order for the prohibition of quarrying … to be related legitimately to the City's stated aims of maintaining flexibility regarding future land use, the Plan or the zoning ordinance must have given explicit reasons for that particular prohibition.

  22. No – Broad Objectives Work • We reject this contention. Although the zoning ordinance, as applied to [this case], must substantially advance legitimate interests of the City, the federal constitution does not require it to contain a specific explanation for each prohibition against a particular land use within the district. No such requirement was placed on the City of Tiburon, California, in Agins, supra. … The [Supreme] Court accepted as sufficient the general purposes underlying the Tiburon zoning ordinance which, like the Saratoga Springs designation of conservancy districts, “will discourage the ‘premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses.’ Comparable broad objectives have been repeatedly upheld as adequate in the past.Pompa Construction Corp. v. City of Saratoga Springs, 706 F.2d 418 (1983)

  23. What if we require a special use permit for an activity ? • Special uses are allowed uses – their inclusion in a zoning code is equivalent to a legislative determination that they are proper for the zone. As a general matter, a town cannot deny the application on the ground that it is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of zoning. A reviewing board is thus required to grant the permit unless there are significant negative impacts. North Shore Steak House Inc. V. Board of Appeals of Incorporated Village of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238 (1972) • Allows heightened level of review, may impose mitigating conditions.

  24. Can we really just prohibit an activity?

  25. Prohibition of Transfer Station Upheld • “The exclusion of commercial solid waste transfer stations from the schedule of permitted uses contained in the town’s zoning ordinance does amount to a complete prohibition. However, such a prohibition is not per se unreasonable; the ordinance must be scrutinized to determine whether it is ‘clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. To the extent that this ordinance prohibits transfer stations, it is sufficiently related to the town’s concerns with the effect that garbage, rubbish and refuse kept, even temporarily, on private lands within the town would have on the public health, safety and welfare. … Nor can the ordinance be said to unduly burden interstate commerce.” • Town of LaGrange v. Giovenetti Enterprises, 507 NYS2d 54 (2nd Dept. 1986)

  26. Prohibition of Hotel Upheld • Zoning code provision upheld that prohibited and excluded operation of hotel. The “goal of the amended zoning was to provide for future needs for office space and to promote an office park environment…The impact on residential districts was to be minimized by providing uses that would not generate traffic in the evenings or weekends.” The Court found that there was a “reasonable relationship between the ends sought to be achieved by the regulation and the means adopted to achieve that end” and thus “constitutes a valid exercise of the village’s police power compatible with due process and a legitimate zoning purpose.” Mindelv. Village of Thomason, 541 NYS2d 526 (2nd Dept. 1989)

  27. Prohibition of Storage of Hazardous Goods Upheld • A Town’s zoning code provision only allowed warehouses to store nonpolluting and nonhazardous manufactured goods. Petitioners desired to use land for a warehouse for storage of lubricating oil and grease. The ZBA interpreted the zoning code to exclude the storage of petroleum. The Court upheld the ZBA’s finding and rejected the petitioner’s argument that the town’s prohibition against was expressly and impliedly preempted by the Petroleum Bulk Storage Code. The Court found that the zoning ordinance “did not pertain to the installation, maintenance and abandonment, or storage of petroleum. Rather, as interpreted by the ZBA, the zoning ordinance categorically prohibited the use sought by the petitioners. . . . Moreover, the interest of the Town in preventing water pollution is not inconsistent with the underlying purpose of article 17 of the ECL, which is, in part, to prevent water pollution arising from petroleum spills and leaks. JIJ Realty Corp. v. Costello, 658 NYS2d 92 (2nd Dept. 1997)

  28. Denial based on traffic Planning Board denied a special use permit for a mine, finding: “substantial traffic congestion and safety hazards would be created by trucks….. with no feasible alternatives presented…” “trucks necessary for the operation of the mine” would create safety problems travelling through Main Street in the Village. “heavy volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic existed at school campus by which the truck route would have to pass.” Court upheld the denial and found that the mining company’s promise to correct or mitigate problems later, if so directed by NYS DOT, was reasonably found to be inadequate in light of the impact on the community. R.J. Valente Gravel Inc. v. Town of Kinderhook, 673 NYS2d 265 (3rd Dept. 1998)

  29. Are some uses special? • “[E]ven religious [and educational] institutions [must] accommodate to factors directly relevant to public health, safety or welfare, inclusive of fire and similar emergency risks, and traffic conditions insofar as they involve public safety [citations omitted]” Cornell University v. Bagnardi, 510 NYS2d 861 (1986) quoting Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue v. Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Harbor, 379 N.Y.S.2d 747, [Breitel, Ch.J., concurring] ).

  30. What about exclusionary zoning? • Exclusionary Zoning Defined: “Exclusionary zoning may occur either because the municipality has limited the permissible uses within a community to exclude certain groups or has imposed restrictions so stringent that their practical effect is to prevent all but the wealthy from living there. It is a form of racial or socioeconomic discrimination which we have repeatedly condemned.” Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch, 72 NY2d 121 (1988) (internal citations omitted).

  31. Are industrial uses like disadvantaged people? • The rule against exclusionary zoning, however, does not apply “to prevent the exclusion of industrial uses.”Gernatt Asphalt, 642 N.Y.S.2d at 173, 664 N.E.2d 1226. Thus, plaintiff's allegation that it was barred from establishinga superstore in the Town does not state a claim. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Town of East Hampton, 997 F.Supp. 340 (1998)

  32. Is an industrial use like an adult use? • Nor is it significant that definitions of adult uses in the Amended Zoning Resolution are based in part on the content of the entertainment offered rather than exclusively on the age of the businesses' clientele. The test under both Islip and Renton is not whether the regulated establishments are defined without reference to content but whether the ordinance's goal is unrelated to suppressing that content. That test is plainly met here. • Stringfellow’s of New York Ltd v. City of New York, 91 NY2d 382 (1998) • Adult uses are protected from content regulation as free speech.

  33. Is a land use prohibition a taking? • “As the United States Supreme Court has noted, ‘the submission that [a property owner] may establish a taking simply by showing that they have been denied the ability to exploit a property interest that they heretofore had believed was available for development is quite simply untenable.” Briarcliff Associates Inc. v. Town of Cortlandt, 534 NYS2d 215 (quoting Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 US 104.)

  34. What about equal protection? • As a general rule, “legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality.”Accordingly, this Court's cases are clear that, unless a classification warrants some form of heightened review because it jeopardizes exercise of a fundamental right or categorizes on the basis of an inherently suspect characteristic, the Equal Protection Clause requires only that the classification rationally further a legitimate state interest. Nordlingerv. Hahn, 505 US 1 (1992)

  35. THANK YOU Community Environmental Defense Council, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public interest law firm and is funded entirely by charitable donations/grants. Online at Cedclaw.org

More Related