on code changes; November

referendum for firefighters

by Carolyn James

Saying that a section of its code violates the Village’s regular procedures, and effectively gives a veto power over Village decisions to residents, the Village Board will hold a hearing Monday to consider rescinding the law.

But according to local attorney Richard Handler, who brought the code to the Village Board’s attention as a result of a legal challenge he is bringing against the Village on behalf of local residents, the code protects the Village from a proliferation of auto garages and is in conformity with other Village codes and regulations.

The issue was raised when residents living on Richmond Avenue and Riverleigh Place opposed an application by Richmond Auto Body for an extension there for auto repairs and painting. The Board of Appeals approved the request but Handler, on behalf of the residents filed a legal challenge, called an Article 78, against the decision. As part of that challenge, Handler pointed to a local law that states that public garages and gasoline service stations built or altered within 200 feet of a Residence District must get a separate approval from the Board of Trustees as a pre-condition to a special exception or use variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. In addition, the law states that any residents living within that 200 foot limit can oppose the measure, defeating it.

"We were surprised when this law was brought to our attention as a result of the lawsuit because it effectively gives a veto power over something clearly within the (jurisdiction) of the Zoning Board," said Amityville Village Attorney Bruce Kennedy. "We don’t know where this law came from nor why it was put on the books, but we do know that it has not been enforced and we have a legal obligation to either enforce it or repeal it."

Kennedy said a review of Village records shows that many applications similar to that of Richmond Auto Body over recent years have not had to meet the requirements of the law.

The property owners adjacent to Richmond Auto Body feel that maintaining the law is in the public’s interest because it gives the Board of Trustees additional opportunities to evaluate applications of this type when they border on a residential district, said Handler. "While the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board in the Village has its own considerations, that of the Board of Trustees is different in that the Trustees often take a global viewpoint and consider the impact of the use on the entire Village," he said.

Kennedy said the larger issue is whether the law should have been on the books in the first place because it is in conflict with what the Village has been doing for many years.

"When you consider the tremendous impact of intensified car painting operations on the residents and the environment, it is clear to me at least why this was on the books," said Handler.

In the event the board repeals the law, both attorney’s agreed that it would not only have an impact on future applications but that of Richmond Auto Body, as well.

"There is a considerable body of law that says the court has to follow the law at the time the case is decided," said Kennedy. "If they (the Village Board) repeals this section of the law, then the court is going to have to treat the law as no longer being in effect."

In other business, the Village Board will hold a hearing to consider a local law amending Section12-2 of the Village Code regarding the Service Award Program for Amityville’s volunteer firefighters. The change will be on the ballot November 8, and is the result of a decision by the EEOC. Currently, firefighters can accrue, up to age 62, an annuity of $20 a month for each year of service with the fire department, up to 20 years or a total of $400 a month. Centerport firefighters filed a grievance with the EEOC maintaining that the age limit was discriminatory and the EEOC ruled in their favor. If approved, firefighters who do not accrue the 20 years or $400 total by the time they reach 62 and who are still active members of the department will be able to add to their pensions until they reach the cap.

The decision to put the question on the ballot was recommended by the Village Attorney. He told the board that since the law implementing the pension system, which was approved by a public vote and included a requirement that all changes also be approved by the public, the referendum was necessary.

"If this (the discrimination decision) was made by a federal court, and not a federal agency, we might look at it differently," said Kennedy.

The EEOC ruling has an impact on all departments offering the pension system within New York State and each jurisdiction is currently reviewing how to address it. Babylon Town has made a determination that a referendum is not necessary and is simply complying with the regulation.