Village of Tannersville

TANNERSVILLE BOARD ILLEGAL, JUDGE RULES:

A judge has found Tannersville in violation of a state law requiring villages to have a Village Board consisting of a mayor and four trustees, and a separate Zoning Board of Appeals.

In a ruling dated July 10, acting state Supreme Court Justice Cathryn M. Doyle ordered the village to "take whatever steps are necessary to bring both the Board of Trustees and the Zoning Board of Appeals in compliance with New York State Village Law."

The Tannersville Village Board currently consists of a mayor and two trustees who also serve as the Zoning Board of Appeals.
...
Doyle wrote that the state's Village Law requires each village to have a mayor and four trustees unless a permissive referendum is held to change that number. She said the defendants did not produce any proof that the village was in compliance with the law.

Village Law also prohibits trustees from simultaneously serving on a Zoning Board of Appeals. She said the mayor is obligated to appoint a separate zoning board, subject to the approval of the Village Board.

"Here, the record is clear that the Village Board of trustees has also been acting as the Village Zoning Board of Appeals contrary to statute," Doyle wrote. "By reason of the foregoing, the village's actions are unlawful."

Attorney Matthew Tully, whose firm Tully, Rinckey and Associates represented Hangarter, said the original permit granted to Hangarter was based on a zoning law written and adopted by two village trustees. He said the zoning law should have been adopted by a majority of the Village Board, but because the village operates with less than the requisite number of trustees, that didn't happen.

Additionally, Tully said, the reviewing agency is supposed to be a separate body.

"And it's our position that this has invalidated all prior village laws," said Tully, who has also filed a civil rights suit in U.S. District Court in Albany on Hangarter's behalf.

Rut-ro. It boggles my mind that this problem could have been allowed to continue for so long in flagrant contravention of law. This is not a dispute about interpretation. Not even close to one. According to its website- the design of which I rather like, by the way- the village has an attorney. I'd be curious to know what his arguments were here.