ALBANY — Last Friday, the lawyers for Rensselaerville Farmland Protection and the town of Rensselaerville argued in court.  The citizens group is suing the town to preserve farmland. 

Christopher Langlois of the Albany law firm of Girvin and Ferlazzo represented RFP.  He sought to invalidate Rensselaerville’s new zoning law on three grounds.  The crux of his argument was that the town didn’t follow its own comprehensive plan when drafting new zoning laws.

The plan calls for a lower density requirement — 20-acre lots — in the agricultural district and the zoning law sets the minimum at five acres. 

In January, the farmland protection group filed an Article 78, used by citizens challenging their governments, against the town over its new zoning law adopted in December.  The group is led by Vernon Husek, who chaired the committee that designed the town’s comprehensive plan.

In December, after it had polled residents in the fall on the density requirement in the agricultural district, the Rensselaerville Town Board held its second public hearing in a 20-month planning process.  After the hearing, it adopted new zoning laws, including a density requirement of one house per five acres in the town’s agricultural district. 

Judge John C. Egan Jr. heard the arguments last week in the state’s Supreme Court, the lowest-level court in a three-tiered system.

Preservation of farmland was among the goals in the town’s comprehensive plan, which recommended two districts be formed — a rural residential district and an agricultural district — so that different tools could be used in the districts, Langlois said.  The problem, he said, is that the town followed half of the recommendation only and that the town failed to make different or more restrictive guidelines for the agricultural district.   Langlois said the town wasn’t free to disregard its own comprehensive plan when doing its zoning laws.  “The choice,” he said, “has to be consistent.”

Egan asked if that’s what the law says and if there are prior cases to support it.

Langlois cited a state Supreme Court case — EMB Enterprises versus the town of Riverhead — that said the town wasn’t free to disregard its comprehensive plan.

“Didn’t they just leave it as it was?” Egan asked, referring to Rensselaerville’s keeping the same zoning requirement in the agricultural district.   

Langois said the town created a “separate, stand alone” district and that the town “had to come up with new guidelines for the new district.”  The town’s comprehensive plan, he said, was adopted “only nine months earlier.”

Joseph Catalano, Rensselaerville’s town attorney, told the judge, in New York State, the only requisite for a zoning law is that it must be in accordance with the comprehensive plan — not an exact duplication.  “Here, I think that it is in accordance,” he said.

Catalano cited language in the town’s plan, and said it doesn’t have “shalls” and “musts” but that it has “shoulds” and “recommendations.”  He said the comprehensive plan sets “parameters” and “broad policy goals.”  Catalano called the 20-acre density requirement in the agricultural district “a suggestion” and cited tools other than zoning to protect agriculture — transfer of development rights and conservation subdivisions.  He said of farmers, “Their savings and retirement are in the land itself.”

If the zoning law and comprehensive plan were “mirror images,” there would be no need for two documents, Catalano said.  “It would be one and the same,” he said.

Catalano called the five-acre zoning requirement in the agricultural district “a pretty low density.”  Jon Kosich, the town’s deputy town attorney, said there are a lot of tools for protecting agriculture and asked of a five-acre zoning requirement, “Why is that not considered low density?”

Egan asked how many farms and acres of farmland are in the town.

Kosich said he believes there are 14 individuals in the town with agricultural exemptions. 

Meeting notice

Langlois said three of the petitioners of Rensselaerville Farmland Protection did not know that the board would be voting on new zoning laws the night the December hearing was held. 

Rensselaerville lawyers said sufficient notice was given to the public and three people not knowing of the meeting is “a position that’s untenable.”  Catalano said that state’s Open Meetings Law says officials cannot conduct business “in private or outside of the public eye.”  On the night of the hearing, he said, the board went right on to the meeting following the hearing.  “There was no break in the action at all,” he said. 

Egan asked how the town’s residents are notified of meetings and when the hearing was held. 

Catalano said the regular meetings are on the second Thursday of each month and notice is given for those meetings once a year, at the town’s re-organizational meeting.  When holding hearings and special meetings, the town publishes notices in its official town newspaper seven days in advance.  In December, when Rensselaerville held the public hearing on new zoning laws, its official newspaper was The Greenville Press.

Egan requested lawyers both sides provide him with public notices. 

Decisions are due within 60 days of a hearing, said the court’s clerk.