Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250907 75 Clinton St Area Variance Legal CorrespondenceWHITEMAN OSTERMAN Ei HANNA LLP Attorneys at Law Ir2rir. II"012. coil/ One Commerce Plaza, Suite 1900 Albany, New Yorl< 12260 518.487.7600 phone 518.487.7777 fax May 7, 2024 VIA EMAIL City Council 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Robert A. Stout Jr. Partner 518.487.7730 phone rstout@woh.com RE: Repeal of Ordinance Entitled Vehicle and Traffic — Schedule XIV.- Trucks over Certain Limits Excluded Dear Council Members: Our firm represents a number of residents associated with the Van Dam and Church Neighborhood Association of Saratoga Springs, New York ("VDCNA"). On behalf of our clients, we respectfully submit this letter in support of the City of Saratoga Springs' (the "City") continued authority to regulate truck traffic on Van Dam Street and in opposition to any request to repeal the City's December 5, 2023 ordinance prohibiting trucks on Van Dam Street. I. Background As you know, on December 5, 2023, the City Council of the City of Saratoga Springs adopted an ordinance to amend Chapter 225, Article IX, Section 225-79 of the Code of the City of Saratoga Springs, NY entitled Vehicle and Traffic — Schedule XIV.- Trucks over Certain Limits Excluded (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance amends City Code Schedule XIV to add Van Dam Street (from Church St. to Route 50) to the list of streets prohibiting trucks that weigh in excess of 5 tons (except where such trucks are picking up or delivering materials on such streets). On or about January 2, 2024, the New York State Department of Transportation ("NYSDOT") wrote to Mayor John Safford informing him that "Van Dam Street is listed as an access highway between Route 50 and Church Street in the Official Description of Designated Qualifying and Access Highways in New York" and that, therefore, NYSDOT "do[es] not believe the city's 5-ton weight limit may supersede the federal regulations." NYSDOT requested that the weight limit signs be removed from the section of Van Dam Street designated as an access highway. May 7, 2024 Page 2 On or about March 25, 2024, City Attorney David Harper wrote to Commissioner Tim Coll stating that he agreed with the reasoning set forth in NYSDOT's January letter and that the listing of the street as an access highway was done in accordance with Federal criteria. As set forth below, the City's adoption of the Ordinance was a valid exercise of its authority. II. The Ordinance is not Preempted by State Law It is well settled law in New York that municipalities possess the general power to regulate local vehicle traffic. See, e.g., Tilcon New York, Inc. a Town of Poughkeepsie, 125 A.D.3d 782 (2015) ("The general power of a municipality to enact a reasonable ordinance to control the weight and size of vehicles on streets `is beyond all doubt"') (quoting Bakery Salvage Corp. u Lackawanna, 24 N.Y.2d 643, 645 [1969]); see also White Plains Automotive Supply Co. v City of Peekskill, 115 A.D.2d 728 (2d Dep't 1985); Peconic Ave. Businessmen' Assn. a Town of Brookhaven, 98 A.D.2d 772 (2d Dep't 1983). In fact, New York Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") § 1640(a)(20) provides as follows: The legislative body of any city or village, with respect to highways ... in such city or village; subject to the limitations imposed by section sixteen hundred eighty-four may by local law, ordinance, order, rule or regulation... [e]xclude trucks, commercial vehicles, tractors, tractor -trailer combinations, tractor -semitrailer combinations, or tractor -trailer -semitrailer combinations in excess of any designated weight, designated length, designated height, or eightfeet in width, from highways or set limits on hours of operation of such vehicles on particular city or village highways or segments of such highways. Such exclusion shall not be construed to prevent the delivery or pickup of merchandise or other property along the highways from which such vehicles or combinations are otherwise excluded (emphasis added). The referenced §1684 limits this authority as follows: No local authority shall place or maintain any traffic -control device on any state highway maintained by the state, or at any location so as to prohibit, restrict or limit the movement of traffic proceeding along, entering or crossing such highway, nor shall any ordinance, rule or regulation affecting traffic or stopping, standing or parking on state highways maintained by the state be effective unless or until approval in writing has been obtained from the department of transportation, and the department of transportation may at any time rescind or modify such approval (VTL § 1684) (emphasis added). Although Van Dam Street has been designated an "access highway" by NYSDOT pursuant to VTL § 1627, it is neither a "state highway maintained by the state" nor a location which would "prohibit, restrict or limit the movement of traffic proceeding along, entering or crossing" a state May 7, 2024 Page 3 highway. Van Dam Street is considered a local highway (see NYSDOT Local Highway Inventory — 2022 Local Roads and Streets, pg. 625, available at https://www.dot.ny.2ov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds- respositorv/NYSDOT 2022 LHI Local Roads and Streets Saratoga County. df). In addition, according to NYSDOT's Roadway Inventory, Van Dam Street has a "jurisdiction" designation of "04 City or village" not "01 NYSDOT." In Saratoga Springs, the latter jurisdiction designation is used for roads such as NY 29, NY 50, and US-9—state highways maintained by the State (see NYSDOT Roadway Inventory 2017, Saratoga County, available for download at https://www.dot.nv.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hi hwa. services/inventory-listing). Van Dam Street is not a state highway and it is our understanding that Van Dam Street is, and always has been, maintained by the City. Therefore, Van Dam Street is very clearly not "a state highway maintained by the State." The fact that Van Dam Street has been designated as an "access highway" by the State does not impact the City's authority to act pursuant to VTL § 1640(a)(20). In Tilcon v Poughkeepsie, the Appellate Division, Second Department held that a local law which prohibited the access of trucks weighing in excess of five tons during certain nighttime hours on a State designated access highway was constitutional and not preempted by VTL § 1640 (see 125 A.D.3d at 783). The Court reasoned that, although VTL § 1660(a)(28)1 "provides that an ordinance restricting truck traffic may not prevent local deliveries, the statute also sets forth that a town board may set limits on hours of operation of trucks" (id.). Accordingly, a "plain reading" of the statute indicates that the power to set limits on hours of operation includes local deliveries and thus there is no conflict with the local law (id.). The same is true here, where the statutory directive in VTL § 1640 is clear. Had the Legislature intended that the right of cities and villages to regulate traffic within their localities be limited by NYSDOT's authority over access highways, it would have included such limitations within the language of the statute. Although in A.J. Baynes Freight Contractors, Ltd. v Polanski (90 A.D.3d 1630 [4th Dept 2011]), the Appellate Division, Fourth Department found that NYSDOT's authority to designate access highways acts as a limitation on the authority of municipalities to regulate truck traffic, that case is easily distinguishable from this one. The local ordinance at issue in that case established a "system of truck routes" pursuant to VTL § 1640(a)(10) without also ensuring a "suitable connection" with all state routes entering or leaving the locality, as "any such system of truck routes" requires. Here, no such system of truck routes is being established, and accordingly no "suitable connection" inquiry is appropriate or necessary.2 Thus, the only remaining inquiry is whether the Ordinance can be construed as affecting traffic on state highways; however, given that Van Dam Street does not provide the only access to the various state highways in question, the only possible conclusion is that it does not. The 1 VTL § 1660 is the "town" equivalent of VTL § 1640 for cities and villages; thus the scope of § 1660 and § 1640 is the same for purposes of any preemption analysis. z We note that, even if the "suitable connection" requirement pertaining to the establishment of a "system of truck routes" in VTL § 1640(a)(10) could somehow be read to attach to every numerated right of cities and villages to regulate traffic set forth in § 1640, the City's removal of Van Dam Street as one possible route does not prevent trucks entering the City from making "suitable connection" with all other State routes within the City limits. May 7, 2024 Page 4 Appellate Division, Third Department (the Court in which Saratoga County is located) addressed this very issue in King Rd. Materials, Inc. v Town Bd. of Town of Rotterdam, Schenectady County (37 AD2d 357 [3d Dept 1971]). In that case, the Court held that a local ordinance prohibiting the operation of all motor vehicles weighing in excess of eight tons, except for local pickup and delivery purposes, on certain roads in the Town did not violate section 1684 merely because it provided one particular means of access to a state highway (id.). The Court reasoned that any other interpretation "would effectively render the delegation of power provided by section 1660 meaningless and would be tantamount to requiring department approval in practically all instances of town imposed truck weight restrictions since practically every road, either directly or indirectly, can be considered as providing access to a state highway") (id. at 359). Accordingly, "[a] more substantial and immediate [e]ffect upon traffic on the state highway is required before Department of Transportation approval must be obtained" (id.). The same is true here, where Van Dam Street "merely constitute[s] one particular route or means of access" (id.). Finally, any local ordinance which is valid on its face carries with it a strong presumption of constitutionality. See Elmwood —Utica Houses v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 65 N.Y.2d 489, 495 (1985); Lighthouse Shores a Town oflslip, 41 N.Y.2d 7,11 (1976); Nicholson a Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 112 A.D.3d 893, 894 (2d Dep't 2013); American Ind. Paper Mills Supply Co., Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 A.D.3d 1173, 1175 (2d Dep't 2009). To the extent that NYSDOT or any other entity believes the Ordinance to be unconstitutionally preempted by State law, it "has a heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the ordinance has no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or general welfare" (see Tilcon v. Poughkeepsie, 125 A.D.3d at 784). No such showing has been made here by any party. III. The Ordinance is a Valid Exercise of the Municipal Home Rule In addition to the Ordinance constituting a valid legislative action of the City pursuant to VTL § 1640(a)(20) and the various court decisions interpreting it, the Ordinance is expressly permitted pursuant to Municipal Home Law § 10, which provides as follows: In addition to powers granted in the constitution, the statute of local governments or in any other law, (i) every local government shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or not inconsistent with any general law relating to its property, affairs or government and, (ii) every local government, as provided in this chapter, shall have power to adopt and amend local laws not inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution or not inconsistent with any general law, relating to the following subjects, whether or not they relate to the property, affairs or government of such local government, except to the extent that the legislature shall restrict the adoption of such a local law relating to other than the property, affairs or government of such local government: A county, city, town or village: [t]he acquisition, care, management and use of its highways, roads, streets, avenues and property. May 7, 2024 Page 5 (emphasis added) As shown above, the Ordinance is not inconsistent with the constitution or any applicable general law, and clearly relates to the management and use of streets within its own jurisdiction. IV. NYSDOT Has Failed to Demonstrate that the Ordinance is Preempted As referenced above, in its January 2, 2024 letter, NYSDOT indicated that it does not believe the City had authority to adopt the weight limit and further requested that the weight limit signs be removed from the section of Van Dam Street designated as an access highway. Additionally, we are also in receipt of a letter from NYSDOT dated May 61h, 2024, which letter concludes that posting weight restrictions on a city street designated as an access highway "is not enforceable against truck operators or lawful." However, the analysis that follows in the letter is circular in nature and does not support that conclusion. The NYSDOT letter goes on to discuss the original designation of Van Dam Street as an access highway. Our analysis contained in this letter assumes (without conceding) that Van Dam Street was properly characterized, and remains, an "access highway." As demonstrated above, that designation does not negate the powers conferred on cities by VTL § 1640(a)(20). Rather than directly addressing the authority contained in VTL § 1640(a)(20), the NYSDOT letter references VTL § 1683, which provides, in relevant part, that local ordinances are not effective "until signs or markings giving notice thereof are posted...". Stated differently, NYSDOT seems to be taking the position that the City lacks authority to adopt and enforce a weight restriction because it lacks the proper signage — which signage the City previously removed at NYSDOT's request. Beyond the predicate requirement for signage, the NYSDOT letter, which represents its second attempt to challenge the City's action in writing, offers no basis whatsoever to refute the notion that the City has authority to regulate its streets pursuant to VTL § 1640. V. Conclusion Based upon the foregoing, the City's adoption of the Ordinance was a valid exercise of its authority, and accordingly should not be repealed. Very truly yours, /Q/ Rakat ,4 .Moot Robert A. Stout, Jr.