Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden -- Respondent's Brief

Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden -- Respondent's Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 48|Likes:
Published by Bill Huston
This is the Respondent's Brief in the case in NY State Court of Appeals in Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden
This is the Respondent's Brief in the case in NY State Court of Appeals in Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Bill Huston on Mar 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
To be argued by: Deborah GoldbergTime Requested: 20 minutesAppellate Division Case No. 515227_________________________________________________________________________
New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division - Third Department_______________________
NORSE ENERGY CORP. USA,
 Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellant
-
 against
-TOWN OF DRYDEN AND TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD,
 Respondents-Defendants-Respondents-and-
DRYDEN RESOURCES AWARENESS COALITION, by its President, Marie McRae,
 Proposed Intervenor-Cross-Appellant
 
Tompkins County Index. No. 2011-0902
___________________________________________________________________________BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTSTOWN OF DRYDEN AND TOWN OF DRYDEN TOWN BOARD___________________________________________________________________________EARTHJUSTICEDeborah GoldbergBridget Lee156 William Street, Suite 800New York, NY 10038-5326212-845-7376
 Attorneys for Respondents-Defendants- Respondents Town of Dryden and Town of  Dryden Town Board 
Dated: December 20, 2012
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSP
AGE
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
 
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................................1
 
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE .....................................................1
 
COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE FACTS...................................................................................4
 
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................5
 
POINT I: PREEMPTION OF MUNICIPAL ZONING PROVISIONS REQUIRES A CLEAR EXPRESSION OF STATE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. ....................................................5
 
The New York Constitution and State Statutes Protect the Authority of 
A.
Municipalities to Control the Use of Land within Their Borders. ...........................6
 
Municipal Zoning Authority Must Be Upheld, Unless the State Legislature
B.
Has Evinced a Clear and Unambiguous Intent to Preempt Local Land UseRegulation. ...............................................................................................................8
 
POINT II: THE OGSML DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PREEMPT THE TOWN OF DRYDEN’S ZONING AMENDMENT. .........................................................................................9
 
The Court of Appeals Consistently Has Upheld Town Zoning Power
A.
Against Express Preemption Claims under the MLRL..........................................10
 
The Reasoning of 
Frew Run
,
 Hunt Bros.
, and
Gernatt 
Applies Squarely to
B.
the Preemption Clause of the OGSML. .................................................................13
 
Appellant Fails to Distinguish the Court of Appeals Precedents. ..........................19
 
C.
 
The Legislature Knows How to Preempt Local Zoning, When It Wishes to
D.
Do So. ....................................................................................................................24
 
POINT III:THE DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED PREEMPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING AMENDMENT. ...............................................................26
 
A. The Declaration of Policy in the OGSML Is Consistent with LocalRegulation of Land Use. .......................................................................................27
 
B. OGSML Provisions Governing the Industrial Operations Are Consistentwith Dryden’s Zoning Amendment. .....................................................................31 
 
- ii -POINT IV: STATE OIL AND GAS REGULATION COEXISTS WITH LOCAL LANDUSE REGULATION IN MANY STATES. ..................................................................................33
 
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................35
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->