WESTERLO — One of the final loose ends of Westerlo’s successful endeavor to abolish its planning board came to a close this week, after a lawsuit filed against the town by former planning board members was dismissed by a state Supreme Court justice because they lacked proper standing. 

The combined-action lawsuit sought to reverse the town’s decision to abolish the planning board — handing its duties over to a hybrid planning/zoning board — and have the former members reinstated. 

In her determination on Jan. 21, Associate Justice Susan M. Kushner said that the former members — Angela Carkner, Richard Kurylo, and Gerald Boone — did not sufficiently prove that their appointments were guaranteed in any way by the 2007 law that had created the planning board in the first place, meaning that even though it was inarguable that they lost compensation, they did not have “some legal right to it.” 

“Local Law #1 of 2007, the Local Law creating the Planning Board, was not intended as employment legislation guaranteeing employment to the Planning Board members,” the decision reads. “It was intended to benefit the Town of Westerlo as a whole, to provide a comprehensive land use plan and to provide a mechanism to follow that plan or deviate from it when appropriate. Planning Board members were appointed by the Town Board, and while each was appointed for a specific term, it appears to the court that the Town Board having the power to appoint Board members also had the power to remove them when necessary.”

Kushner goes on to say that, even if the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law that abolished the board, the court would only “be rendering an advisory opinion as to its validity.” 

Attorney Andrew Brick, who represented the former planning board members, told The Enterprise that he was disappointed and confused by the judgment. 

“If the people who lost their position and their stipends can’t bring a lawsuit to challenge that action, then who can?” he asked. 

He said that, because the suit was dismissed over standing, the plaintiff’s arguments about why the law was invalid have gone unaddressed.

Despite this, Brick said it was unlikely that they would file an appeal. 

“Angela, Gerry, and Rich deserve better than the way they were treated, and everyone in town knows it, but I don’t think they’ll put town taxpayers through the high cost of an appeal,” he said. 

In response to the decision, Supervisor Matt Kryzak, meanwhile, said he was “not at all surprised by the court’s decision.” 

“I am disappointed that a frivolous Article 78 cost the Westerlo tax payer $14,296.35 to date in legal fees,” he said. “The court decision says it all. The creation of a planning board was not intended as employment legislation to benefit the planning board members. It was intended to benefit the town of Westerlo as a whole. 

“The merging of the planning and zoning responsibilities to a single board in local law #3 benefits the town as a whole,” he went on. “Both financially and systemically. That is the intent of the law. Nothing more and nothing less.”