Town of LeRay v Village of Evans Mills
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 16, 2016
Supreme Court, Jefferson County
Town of LeRay, Petitioner-Plaintiff,
against
Village of Evans Mills and Village of Evans Mills Planning Board, Respondents-Defendants.
2016-1049
Mark G. Gebo, Esq., Hrabchak & Gebo PC for plaintiff
Kevin R. McLeod Esq. and Brody Smith, Esq., Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC, for defendants
James P. McClusky, J.
The Town of LeRay (hereinafter the Town) brought this petition seeking a determination that the Village of Evans Mills zoning laws do not apply to the Town's plan to modify it's existing highway facilities (hereinafter the project). The Village of Evans Mills (hereinafter the Village) opposes the petition and seeks an Order determining the project is not immune from the Village's zoning requirements.
The Court held two days of hearings on December 13, 2016 and December 16, 2016. Each party submitted post trial briefs which were received by the Court on January 27, 2017.
The Village of Evans Mills is situate wholly within the Town of LeRay. The Town has had it's highway facilities within the Village for over sixty years. There is no dispute that the facilities are in need of an upgrade. The anticipated changes have raised some issues that the Village believes should be handled through their zoning procedure.
When one municipality is conducting land use activities in another municipality the Courts have held that the former may be immune from the land use rules of the latter. In Monroe County v.City of Rochester, 72 NY2d 338 (1988) the Court of Appeals established a test wherein certain factors are to be balanced. These factors are:
The nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity.The kind of function or land use involved.The extent of the public interest to be served.The effect local land use regulations would have on the enterprise concerned.The impact on legitimate local interest.The applicant's grant of authority.Alternative locations for the facility.Alternative methods for providing the needed improvements.Intergovernmental participation in the project development process.No one factor controls and the factors need not be given equal weight. See also Herkimer v. Herkimer, 109 AD3d 1166 (2013).
The Village believes the legitimate local concerns overshadow all other factors. The issues regarding the proposed Willow Street entrance lies at the heart of these concerns.
The Court finds the factors weigh in favor of the Town being immune from the zoning rules as to the construction of the highway barn. The entity seeking immunity is doing so for a governmental function that is one of the most important functions a Town handles. It is of such great importance the State of New York has determined it should be run by an official separately elected by the Town residents. The Town seeks to use the property in a similar fashion as it has been used for at least sixty years. If the Town were to build its new building at a separate location it would have to return to this site for its sand, salt and fuel. The Village does not present any meaningful objections to any part of the project except the entrance on Willow Street.
The Court further finds the construction of a new entrance with curb cuts into Willow Street is a separate and distinct project. No proof was presented by the Town that this entrance is an essential aspect of the project. The testimony was clear that this new entrance was being constructed as a convenience. Currently Town trucks must pull out of the garage, go towards the back of the property (where the new building is proposed) and load with salt, sand, dirt, etc. and then exit onto Factory Street.
The Village has presented sufficient legitimate concerns over this project to tip the factors in favor of the Village and require its zoning regulations to apply over any entrance/exit on Willow Street.
Dated: December 16, 2016
Hon. James P. McClusky
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
