In re County of Monroe, 72 N.Y.2d 338 (1988)

When governmental entities conflict over land use regulations, courts must balance the public interests involved, considering factors like legislative intent, scope of the entity, and impact on local interests, rather than applying a rigid governmental/proprietary distinction.

Summary

Monroe County sought to expand the Greater Rochester International Airport, located within the City of Rochester. The City asserted its site plan approval requirements applied to the expansion. The County argued it was immune due to the governmental nature of the airport. The New York Court of Appeals abandoned the traditional “governmental versus proprietary” test for resolving such disputes, adopting a “balancing of public interests” approach. The Court found that the state legislature implicitly exempted the County from City zoning oversight in this context, and further, that the public interest factors weighed in favor of allowing the County’s airport expansion to proceed without City approval, considering the airport’s importance to regional commerce.

Facts

Monroe County owned and operated the Greater Rochester International Airport, located primarily within the City of Rochester. Between 1984 and 1986, the County proposed amendments to the airport’s master plan, including terminal expansion, runway improvements, a parking garage, an air freight facility, a hotel, and temporary parking. All improvements were planned for land within the City. The County initially submitted a site plan to the City but later asserted that the planned uses (except the hotel) were governmental and thus immune from City oversight.

Procedural History

The City claimed jurisdiction based on the proprietary function test. The Appellate Division declared that the City’s code and permit requirements did not apply to the expansion, citing the governmental versus proprietary distinction and, alternatively, the implied exemption under General Municipal Law § 350. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the expansion of the Greater Rochester International Airport by Monroe County is subject to the site plan approval requirements of the City of Rochester.

Holding

No, because a balancing of public interests, rather than the governmental/proprietary distinction, is the appropriate test, and those interests weigh in favor of the County’s expansion plans.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court abandoned the governmental-proprietary function test, calling it an outdated and unworkable “labeling device.” The Court noted the test was borrowed from tort law and its application had led to inconsistent results. Instead, the Court adopted a balancing of public interests approach, considering several factors. These include the nature and scope of the governmental entity, the function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest served, the effect of local land use regulation on the enterprise, and the impact on legitimate local interests. The Court found the legislature implicitly exempted the County from City zoning oversight under General Municipal Law § 350. The Court reasoned that the statute grants counties broader authority over airport development and that subjecting county airport projects to city approval could frustrate the larger public purpose of promoting air commerce. The Court also noted that the expansion was subject to County land use oversight, including public hearings where the City could participate. “That a portion of the planned improvements will be leased out for operation does not, in the context of this airport expansion case, affect the result.” The Court emphasized the importance of municipal airports to interstate and intrastate commerce, quoting Hesse v. Rath: “The city that is without the foresight to build the ports for the new traffic may soon be left behind in the race of competition.” The Court concluded that the airport terminal, parking facilities, and air freight facility are accessory uses customarily incidental to airport operation and therefore are embraced within the immunity from the City’s land use laws.