Opinion ID: 796834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Of the Police Power Claims

Text: 54 We reject Cross Sound's remaining contention that the Ferry Law is an improper and abusive exercise of the Town's police power. A municipal zoning ordinance like the one challenged here will not be invalidated unless its provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and bear no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). In support of its claim that the Town Board acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, Cross Sound contends that the Ferry Law was enacted ultra vires because it was not authorized by Town Law §§ 130(17) and 263. 55 At the time that the Ferry Law was enacted, Town Law § 130(17) authorized towns in New York to create laws [r]egulating the speed and regulating and restricting the operation of vessels and, in the count[y] of . . . Suffolk the size and horse power of inboard and outboard motors, while being operated or driven upon any waters within or bounding the town to a distance of fifteen hundred feet from the shore. N.Y. Town Law § 130(17)(1)(a) (1997). That section also authorizes the towns to enact laws [r]estricting and regulating the anchoring or mooring of vessels in any waters within or bounding the town to a distance of fifteen hundred feet from the shore. N.Y. Town Law § 130(17)(1)(b). 56 In 2000, the New York Legislature amended § 130(17)(1)(a) to authorize towns to prohibit personal water craft and specialty prop-craft, namely, jet skis: regulations may include a prohibition of their use provided such prohibition does not prevent access to federally maintained and designated channels. N.Y. Town Law § 130(17)(1)(a). Cross Sound argues that, by negative implication, East Hampton lacked the authority in 1997 to prohibit the operation of any vessels since no prohibitory language was used in relation to them. 57 In both its previous and current forms, however, Town Law § 130(17)(1)(a) expressly empowers towns to [r]egulate and restrict[ ] the operation of vessels, the size and horse power of their motors, the vessels' speed, and their anchoring and mooring. Our reading of the Town Law as endowing towns with the same authority to prohibit certain types of vessels as they may prohibit personal water craft comports with the legislative history of the statute. The 2000 amendment was enacted only to clarify the previous scope of the statute and did not rescind the Town's preexisting authority. See Sponsor's Mem. of Sen. Carl L. Marcellino, N.Y. Bill Jacket, 2000 S.B. 5309, Ch. 415 (stating that [t]he bill would supply clarification of the powers of local governments to regulate personal watercraft and was motivated by an increase in accidents involving them). 58 In addition, Town Law § 263 authorizes towns to promulgate regulations designed to lessen congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; to promote health and general welfare; . . . to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; . . . [and] to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation. N.Y. Town Law § 263. While Cross Sound contends that the Ferry Law is invalid because East Hampton has not offered proof that the law will reduce traffic congestion, the record, viewed in the light most favorable to Cross Sound, supports the District Court's conclusion that the law is substantially related to the objectives set forth in the Transportation Element. The law clearly bears a substantial relation to public safety. Accordingly, we conclude that the Ferry law is a proper exercise of the Town's police power.