RENSSELAERVILLE —  The latest skirmish in a court battle between town residents opposed to a proposed emergency-communications tower site  on Edwards Hill, and the town, the county, the sheriff, and the owners of the land where the tower would be built has ended with a ruling in favor of Scenic Rensselaerville, the residents’ group.

But the final outcome of the battle has yet to be decided.

On Friday, Judge Gerald Connolly  in Albany’s State Supreme Court denied a motion by the county and the sheriff  to dismiss the  Article 78 petition  by Scenic Rensselaerville, the citizens’ group that court papers describe as having 170 members, many of them artists.

An Article 78 proceeding can be undertaken by citizens who seek to reverse a decision by a public body — in this case the town planning board.

The petition by Scenic Rensselaerville claims that the town planning board failed to abide by the town’s own zoning laws and comprehensive plan when it approved the tower site on Edward’s Hill.

Victoria Polidoro, the attorney with Rodenhausen Chale of Rhinebeck representing Scenic Rensselaerville, told The Enterprise, “This is a great decision and affords so many members [of the group] standing.”

“It also recognized,” she said, “the importance of the viewshed to local artists.”

Jeanette Rice, a member of Scenic Rensselaerville and a leader in the fight against the Edwards Hill site, said, “We won this round. I’m pleased that the court ruled in favor of Scenic Rensselaerville and the issue will be decided on the merits.”

She believes that “if the planning board had done its job, the county would have their tower or towers by now.”

She said Scenic Rensselaerville  stays in touch with residents of Berne who have been engaged in a similar battle against a site that was approved by that town’s planning board in July.

Polidoro says  it’s too late for the Berne opposition to join the suit now working its way through the courts, “but they could file an amicus brief, which might be useful to the judge in making his final decision.”

The Albany County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment on the ruling.

The motion by the sheriff and town to dismiss  the Scenic Rensselaerville petition had been  made on several grounds.  One was that  Scenic Rensselaerville does not have “standing”  to initiate an Article  78 proceeding.  Another was the contention that the whole matter is moot because the project and tower are immune from town regulation.

Standing in a case means  the person or group bringing the action can demonstrate how it  might be harmed by the action it seeks to stop or reverse.

In his ruling, the judge concluded that  all but two of the individual petitioners have standing, including two persons who  own  property near the proposed tower site and claim potential loss of its value if the tower is built, and five artists and photographers who claim  their present unspoiled views of the Catskill Mountains and Edwards Hill are vital to their work and livelihood.

Connolly  noted that a stated purpose of the town zoning law is to “protect significant resources” and concluded that the “asserted interests” of the artists and photographers “fall within the ‘zone of interests’ to be protected.”

He further concluded that Scenic Rensselaerville has standing as an organization because at least seven of its members have standing as individuals.

Immunity is a complex issue. The Albany County Legislature unanimously passed a resolution without discussion in February, stating that towers for the sheriff’s system would be “immune from local regulation.”  That resolution specifically exempted the sheriff’s proposed new towers — in Coeymans, Berne and Rensselaerville — from local town regulation and zoning.

Polidoro said of the legislation at the time, “They never used the Monroe balancing test.”

In his ruling, the judge placed his discussion squarely within- the context of  the “balancing of public interests.” Citing a case in which two public entities — the city of Rochester and Monroe County — had conflicting interests in connection with an airport expansion, he outlined the many factors in that case that had to be weighed by the court in its decision in favor of Monroe County.

He acknowledged the sheriff’s belief that the same factors argue in favor of the county’s immunity from local town zoning,  “particularly in light of the [Albany County] legislative resolution on February 8.”

Scenic Rensselaerville maintains that that resolution came too late,  almost four months after the planning board decision they seek to nullify.  In addition, it contends that “the balance of  public interests” standard was not observed by county authorities; no alternate sites were given sufficient consideration, and neither the county legislature nor the town planning board invited adequate public comment on the issue of immunity.

Connolly’s ruling sidestepped the immunity issue for now, saying, “It would be premature to determine whether the proposed project is, in fact, immune from local resolution.”

But his  ruling said the court is not persuaded that the “petition should be dismissed as moot solely based on the county legislature’s belated resolution that the project is immune from local regulation. An applicant’s legislative grant of authority is but one factor to be considered when conducting the balancing of public interests.”

The ruling suggests the judge will consider — and balance — a range of factors and interests in making his final decision.

Attorney Polidoro said the case will now “be decided on the merits” rather on the narrow grounds of the county resolution. However, she said she expects the county to ask for a summary judgment — dismissal without a hearing —  as to whether the county is subject to local zoning laws in this instance. She said earlier that these challenges are costly for the citizens group, which is self-funded.

Connolly’s ruling orders the county and town to respond to the Scenic Rensselaerville petition within 20 days.