2015-9553

Article 17 of the General Municipal Law ("GML"). GML Article 17 is also referred to as the

"Municipal Annexation Law."

While the municipal boards awaited the resolution of a State Environmental3.

Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") lead agency dispute that substantially delayed consideration of

the 507-acre annexation for nearly 12 months, the owners of a smaller 164-acre subset of the

507-acre annexation territory filed, on or about August 20, 2014, a second annexation petition

seeking to annex 71 tax lots of the original 177 lots from the Town to the Village ("164-acre

annexation").

After a comprehensive review of the proposed 507-acre annexation, and the

separate petition for annexation of the 164-acre subset of the 507-acre territory, including

completion of a SEQRA Generic Environmental Impact Statement, the Village Board

4.

determined that both proposed annexations were in the overall public interest. The Village

Board Resolutions, written Decision and Findings, and supporting papers, are attached to the

Affidavit of Michael G. Sterthous, sworn to on October 7, 2015 ("Sterthous Aff"), as Exhibits 1

and 2

Specifically, the Village Board found that annexation will result in substantial5.

benefits to the annexation territory, the Village, the Town, and all special districts that will far

outweigh any detriments, including that annexation would: (i) unify a cohesive community of

residents sharing the same cultural practices and religious beliefs that is separated solely by a

political boundary; (ii) foster sustainable growth, including the development of compact,

walkable communities with much-needed moderate- to low-income housing; (iii) enable

residents in the annexation territory to more easily and reliably connect to the Village's

municipal water and sewer systems; (iv) provide access to enhanced public safety, fire, and

2

emergency medical services, capable of communicating with residents in both English and

Yiddish; (v) expand public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure; and (vi) provide

additional civic infrastructure and services. As the Village Board found, these services and

benefits are not readily available in the Town outside of the Village.

Notwithstanding that the Town Board concurred with most, if not all, of the same6.

considerations upon which the Village Board had relied in approving both annexation petitions,

the Town Board, in a purely political compromise to mollify the vocal opponents of the

annexation, determined that the 507-acre annexation was not in the overall public interest.

The Town Board's disapproval of the 507-acre annexation paradoxically ignores7.

its own findings that the 164-acre annexation is in overall public interest. Indeed, the Town

Board found that (i) the annexation will produce substantial benefits to the Village of Kiryas Joel

that greatly outweigh any expected detriments; (ii) the annexation will cause numerous,

substantial benefits to the annexation territory, and that any possible detriments such as increased

taxes will be commensurate with improved public services; (iii) the overall detriment from

diminished tax revenue for the Town will be relatively small; and (iv) the annexation will

conform the Village political boundary to the already existing cohesive community of the

annexation territory residents whose lifestyle includes substantial, if not exclusive, reliance on

cultural and religious opportunities available only in the Village.

The Town Board's determination provides no rationale for its distinction between8.

the 164-acre annexation and 507-acre annexation proposals. In fact, the sole basis for the Town

Board's disapproval of the 507-acre annexation was that it desired a "buffer" from potentially

higher density development that it speculated might occur in the 164-acre annexation territory.

The Town Board's desire for a zoning buffer from the annexation territory, however, is not a

3

proper consideration under the Municipal Annexation Law especially in light of the

overwhelming and undisputed benefits to the annexation territory and Village.

Because the Town Board's disapproval of the 507-acre annexation is contrary to9.

the undisputed evidence of the overall public interest produced during the comprehensive

annexation reviews, and the Town Board's own findings concerning the 164-acre annexation,

this Court should substitute its judgment for that of the Town Board and determine, as the

Village Board did, that the 507-acre annexation is in the overall public interest.

PARTIES

10. Petitioner Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel is the duly constituted

governing board of the Village of Kiryas Joel, County of Orange, a municipal corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State ofNew York.

1 1 . Respondent Town Board of the Town of Monroe is the duly constituted governing

board of the Town of Monroe, County of Orange, a municipal corporation organized and existing

lander the laws of the State ofNew York.

The Village Board and the Town Board are the only two affected local12.

governments vested with the constitutional authority to consider the 507-Acre Annexation. See

NY Const art IX, 1(d).

The Annexation Petitioners are the owners of taxable real property within the13.

507-acre annexation territory encompassing a majority of the total assessed valuation of all of the

real property proposed to be annexed from the Town to the Village. As owners of taxable

property in the annexation territory, the Annexation Petitioners are entitled to intervene in this

proceeding as of right pursuant to GML 712(4)(b).

4

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The 507-Acre Annexation Petition

On or about December 27, 2013, the owners of a majority in assessed valuation of14.

certain real property in the Town presented a petition for the annexation of 177 tax lots,

encompassing approximately 507 acres, from the Town to the Village pursuant to the provisions

ofGML 703(1).

Consistent with GML 703(1), the 507-acre annexation petition specifically15.

describes the territory proposed to be annexed using a metes and bounds description and states

the approximate number of inhabitants of the annexation territory.

Consistent with GML 703(2), the 507-acre annexation petition includes 1916.

signature pages signed by the owners of a majority in assessed valuation of the real property in

the territory. Each signature page is authenticated by a witness as to the subscription thereof.

Consistent with GML 703(3), the 507-acre annexation petition included a17.

certification of the Town Assessor responsible for the preparation of the Town's last preceding

assessment roll attesting to the fact that the petition was signed by the owners of a majority in

assessed valuation of the real property in the annexation territory.

All of the 177 tax lots within the 507-acre annexation territory are owned by18.

property owners who consider themselves part of the Kiryas Joel community and desire to be

part of the Village and have access to its municipal services.

19. The primary services available in the Village include municipal water, municipal

sewer, and improvements to public safety, fire, and emergency medical services. In addition, the

Village provides enhanced public infrastructure such as sidewalks, street lighting, trash pick up

and public transportation.

5

20. The municipal services and enhanced public infrastructure offered by the Village

are not readily available from the Town.

21. Upon receipt of the annexation petition, Kiryas Joel commenced the statutory

review process for the 507-acre annexation petition in accordance with the Municipal

Annexation Law and the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA").

On or about December 30, 2013, the Village served a Notice of Intent to Serve as22.

Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of the proposed 507-acre annexation on the Town Board,

the only other SEQRA involved agency with respect to the annexation action.

23. The Monroe-Woodbury Central School District initiated a lead agency dispute to

the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

("NYSDEC") seeking SEQRA lead agency status for the District.

24. The County of Orange also petitioned the Commissioner of NYSDEC to be

designated the SEQRA lead agency for the review of the 507-acre annexation petition.

25. Neither the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District nor the County of Orange

are eligible to serve as the SEQRA lead agency because neither has any discretionary approval

authority over the proposed annexation and, thus, are not SEQRA involved agencies.

After considering the lead agency dispute for a period of nine months, during26.

which time the municipal boards could not proceed with their review, the NYSDEC

Commissioner rendered his decision designating the Village Board as SEQRA lead agency for

the 507-acre amiexation action on or about January 28, 2015. Sterthous Aff., Ex. 4.

SEQRA lead agency for theThe designation of the Village Board as27.

environmental review of the 507-Acre Annexation Petition was based on the NYSDEC

Commissioner's finding that the Village has the broadest governmental powers for the

6

investigation of the potential impacts of the annexation and greater capacity to review any:

impacts identified during the review. Sterthous Aff , Ex. , at .i

28. Notably, the NYSDEC Commissioner emphasized that the type of high density

residential development that could potentially occur if the annexation was approved is "likely to

result in a community that is walk-able, bilce-able and more conducive to mass transit while

reducing vehicle miles traveled and generation of greenhouse gas emissions from combustion."

Sterthous Aff., Ex. 4, at 4. The Commissioner further noted that "[a]s a general rule, high

density development, appropriately sited, is considered more environmentally sustainable and

conserves open space." Id.

The 164-Acre Annexation Petition

On or about August 20, 2014, during the pendency of the prolonged nine-month29.

lead agency dispute, a group of property owners filed a second annexation petition with the

Village Board and Town Board seeking to annex 71 tax lots, encompassing approximately 164

acres, of the 177 original lots to be annexed under the 507-acre proposal from the Town to the

Village ("164-acre annexation petition"). Sterthous Aff., Ex. 2.

The territory to be annexed under the 164-acre annexation proposal is a subset of30.

the territory included in the 507-acre annexation. However, because each annexation territory

was proposed to go from the Town to the Village, there was no conflict between the two

petitions requiring the municipal boards to forestall consideration of the later filed 164-acre

annexation proposal.

3 1 . Upon receipt of the second annexation petition, the Village Board commenced the

statutory review process for the 164-acre annexation petition, in accordance with the Municipal

Annexation Law and SEQRA.

7

32. The Village Board served its Notice of Intent to Serve as SEQRA Lead Agency

on the Town Board with respect to the 164-acre annexation action on or about August 21, 2014.

By Resolution dated August 25, 2014, the Town Board consented to the Village33.

Board serving as SEQRA lead agency for the 164-acre annexation action.

34. Neither the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District nor the County of Orange

disputed the Village' s lead agency designation for the 1 64-acre annexation action.

As lead agency, the Village Board determined that the 164-acre annexation35.

action was a Type I SEQRA action since it involved the annexation of more than 100 acres of

land.

SEQRA Review of the Annexation Petitions

Since the NYSDEC Commissioner's decision on the lead agency dispute36.

regarding the 507-acre annexation remained pending in August 2014, the Village initially

commenced its SEQRA review of the 164-acre annexation alone.

37. Following the NYSDEC Commissioner's designation of the Village Board as the

SEQRA lead agency for the 507-acre annexation action in January 2015, the Village Board

proceeded to consolidate its SEQRA review of the two annexation actions, considering the 507-

acre annexation as the primary action and the 164-acre annexation as an alternative.

Notably, the proposed 507-acre annexation and 164-acre annexation actions did38.

not include any specific development project or land use or zoning change in the annexation

territory, but proposed only an adjustment of the Village's political boundaries.

39. This Court has repeatedly held that the lead agency is not required to complete a

SEQRA environmental impact statement for an annexation action that does not simultaneously

propose a specific development project plan or rezoning. See e.g. Matter of City of Middletown

8

vTown Bd, of Town ofWallkill. 54 AD3d 333 (2d Dept 2008); Cross Westchester Dev. Corp. v

Town Bd. of Town of Greenhurgh. 141 AD2d 796 (2d Dept 1988).

Notwithstanding that the Village Board would have been justified in issuing a40.

negative declaration of environmental impact for the annexation actions, the Village Board

nevertheless voluntarily committed to prepare a Generic Environmental Impact Statement

("GEIS") for the actions that would generally assess potential environmental impacts of certain :

hypothetical development scenarios post-annexation.

41. The Village Board reasonably determined that following this approach would not

only adequately assess any impacts that may result from the annexation actions, but would also

provide future decision-makers with necessary guidance concerning the relevant areas of

environmental concern to be assessed when site-specific development projects or rezoning plans

are actually formulated and proposed at some time in the future.

As it did for the 164-acre annexation, the Village Board issued a positive42.

declaration for the 507-acre annexation action, voluntarily committing to complete a GEIS

notwithstanding the lack of any specific development project plan or rezoning proposal.

The Village Board prepared a draft scope for the 507-acre annexation GEIS and43.

voluntarily conducted a public scoping session on March 3, 2015. Written comments on the

draft scope were accepted until March 10, 2015.

44. The Village Board also posted all SEQRA documents for the 507-acre annexation

action on the dedicated website to ensure open public access to its SEQRA review.

The Village Board issued a final scope for the 507-acre annexation GEIS on or45.

about March 20, 2015.

9

46. The Village Board and its consultants prepared a Draft GEIS in accordance with

the final scope which considered the 507-acre annexation as the primary SEQRA action and the

164-acre annexation as an alternative action.

The DGEIS provided the factual basis for the Village Board to consider the47.

benefits and detriments of annexation as it applied to land use and zoning, demographics and

growth, tax and property valuation, fiscal impacts on the school districts, community services,

traffic and transportation, natural resources, municipal water and sewer service, visual and

historic resources, and alternatives. Sterthous Aff., Ex. 5.

On or about May 1, 2015, the Village Board determined that the Draft GEIS for48.

the 507-acre and 164-acre annexation actions was complete, and filed, published, and distributed

the Draft GEIS in accordance with SEQRA.

On June 10, 2015, the Village Board voluntarily conducted a duly noticed public49.

hearing on the Draft GEIS.

50. Following the hearing, the Village Board voluntarily extended the written public

comment period on the Draft GEIS until June 22, 2015.

51. The Village Board prepared the Final GEIS responding to the public and agency

comments received on the Draft GEIS consistent with the requirements of SEQRA 617.9 and

617.10.

The FGEIS responded to public and agency comments related to population52.

growth inducing impacts resulting from the annexation, fiscal impacts, land use and

development, school district impacts, impacts on other special districts, among other things.

On or about August 14, 2015, the Village Board issued a notice of completion of53.

the Final GEIS and filed, published, and distributed the Final GEIS in accordance with SEQRA.

10

On September 6, 2015, the Village Board issued its SEQRA Statement of54.

Findings, finding that consistent with social, economic, and other essential considerations from

among the reasonable alternatives available, both the 507-acre annexation and the 164-acre

annexation avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent

practicable, and will provide for the basic needs of local area residents to have access to

community services such as water, sewer, emergency, and other municipal services that would

otherwise be unavailable, or at the very least difficult to access, without the annexation.

The Village Board's Statement of Findings were filed, published, and distributed55.

in accordance with SEQRA.

The Municipal Annexation Law Review

Upon completion of the Draft GEIS, on or about May 1, 2015, the Village Board56.

and the Town Board commenced the Municipal Annexation Law review procedures.

As required under GML 704(1), on or about May 7, 2015, the Village Board57.

mailed notice of its receipt of the annexation petitions and a scheduled June 10, 2015 joint

hearing on the petitions to each person or corporation owning real property in the annexation

territory as shown by the last preceding assessment roll and to all persons residing in such

territory qualified to vote for officers of the Town, as their names appeared upon the register of

voters for the last preceding general election.

On or about May 8, 2015, the Village Board also published the same information58.

in the Times Herald Record and the Straus News.

The Village Board also mailed notice of the June 10, 2015 joint hearing on the59.

annexation petitions to the governing boards of each fire district, public benefit corporation, and

town improvement district situated wholly or partly in the annexation territory.

11

60. Upon information and belief, the Town Board also caused the publication and

mailing of notices of the annexation petitions and the June 10, 2015 joint hearing.

61. Pursuant to GML 705(1), the Village and Town Boards agreed on the selection

of the Town Supervisor to preside over the June 1 0, 20 1 5 joint hearing.

At the June 10th joint hearing, the Town Board and Village Board received62.

testimony and other comments and information from interested parties and the public concerning

the sufficiency of the annexation petitions and the question of whether the annexations were in

the overall public interest.

The joint annexation hearing was conducted in conjunction with the public63.

hearing on the Draft GEIS consistent with SEQRA guidance, which provides that, whenever

practicable, SEQRA hearings should be conducted with other public hearings on the proposed

action. See 6 NYCRR 617.9(a)(4)(H).

64. Pursuant to GML 71 1(1), the conclusion of the joint hearing on the annexation

petitions commenced the 90-day review period for the Village Board and Town Board to

determine whether the annexation petitions were consistent with the provisions of the Municipal

Annexation Law and whether the proposed 507-acre and 164-acre annexations were in the

overall public interest.

The Village Board's Approval of 507-Acre and 164-Acre Annexation Petitions

Consistent with GML 711(2), on or about September 6, 2015, the Village Board65.

adopted two resolutions and signed a written decision and findings approving each the 507-acre

annexation petition and the 164-acre annexation petition.

12

The Village Board determined that both petitions substantially complied with66,

form and content required by the Municipal Annexation Law and that the respective annexations

were in the overall public interest.

67. Certified copies of the Village Board Resolutions and Order, Written Decision

and Findings, together with copies of the petitions for annexation, the notice of hearing, the

written objections, and the testimony and minutes of the proceedings taken and kept upon the

hearing, were filed in the offices of the Town and Village Clerks.

The Village Board, after evaluating the considerations required under GML68.

711(1), found that (i) the benefits of the annexation outweigh any detriment, and (ii) the

territory to be annexed and the Village into which it will be incorporated have the requisite unity

ofpurpose and facilities to constitute a community.

Specifically, the Village Board determined that the 507-acre and 164-acre69,

annexations will benefit the Village by providing it with additional territory for potential

development of affordable housing and community buildings within the Village to accommodate

the growing local population, and increasing the Village's tax revenue to facilitate the provision

of expanded public services.

The Village Board also determined that the 507-acre and 164-acre annexations70,

will benefit the annexation territory by providing the annexation territory with desired access to

the Village's municipal water system, public sewer service, enhanced public safety, fire, and

emergency medical services, and upgraded transportation and pedestrian infrastructure, among

other benefits, which are not otherwise readily available in the Town,

The Village Board determined that the 507-acre and 164-acre annexations will71.

benefit the Town by reducing its obligations to provide limited Town services such as refuse

13

pickup and snow removal, increase Town revenues as a result of additional work under road

maintenance agreements with the Village, decrease traffic, and reduce pressure on the Town's

groundwater resources.

72. The Village Board also considered the effects of the annexation on the school

districts, fire districts, and other district corporations serving the annexation territory, and

determined that the annexations will improve provision of these services to the annexation

territory without compromising their continued provision in the remainder ofthe Town.

73. The Village Board determined that the greatest benefits would be derived from

approval of the full 507-acre annexation, and that the benefits of the 164-acre annexation are the

same as those projected for the 507-acre proposal, only proportionally smaller.

74. The Village Board carefully assessed the physical and social characteristics of the

area to be annexed and its ties with the Village and found that the 507-acre annexation territory

and the Village have the requisite unity of purpose and facilities to constitute a community

because the residents and property owners in the annexation territory already affiliate with the

culture of the Village and the Village's municipal facilities are easily extended into the

annexation territory.

The Town's Disapproval of the 507-Acre Annexation Petition

On or about September 8, 2015, the Town Board adopted a single written75.

resolution and order approving the 164-acre annexation but denying the 507-acre annexation.

Sterthous Aff. , Ex. 3.

76. Upon information and belief, certified copies of the Town Board Resolutions and

Order, Written Decision and Findings, together with copies of the petitions for annexation, the

14

notice of hearing, the written objections, and the testimony and minutes of the proceedings taken

and kept upon the hearing, were filed in the offices of the Town and Village Clerks.

77. Upon information and belief, consistent with GML 711(5), the Town Board

filed certified copies of the Town and Village resolutions and orders in the office of the Orange

County Clerk on or about September 8, 2015.

The Town Board's written decision provides over 14 pages of findings as to the78.

benefits of both the 164-acre and the 507-acre annexations for the Village, the Town, and the

annexation territory, and identifies no substantive detriments.

The Town Board makes no material distinction between the 507-acre annexation79.

and the 164-acre annexation in its decision and findings.

The Town Board's only articulated basis for disapproval of the 507-acre80.

annexation petition was to allow a transition to more rural, low-density development in the

Town.

Since no development project or rezoning plan had been presented for either81.

annexation territory, the Town's expressed desire to provide a "buffer" area between the Town

and the annexation territory was premature and not a proper consideration for the determination

of the annexation petitions under the Municipal Annexation Law.

82. The Town Board failed to rationalize how such a transition zone solely for the

benefit of the Town outside of the annexation territory outweighs the identified substantial

benefits to the Village, the annexation territory, and the Town, including the provision of a

unified community with the Village as desired by the Annexation Petitioners.

The Town Board failed to explain why a proposed buffer area could not have83.

been established in the Town outside of the 507-acre annexation territory.

15

The Town Board Resolution, Order and Findings disapproving the 507-acre84.

annexation were contrary to the evidence presented and the facts adduced at the joint hearing.

The Town Board Resolution, Order and Findings disapproving the 507-acre85.

annexation were irrational and inconsistent in light of the Town Board's findings approving the

1 64-acre annexation.

86. Upon information and belief, the Town Board Resolution, Order and Findings

disapproving the 507-acre annexation were an impermissible political compromise intended to

mollify the vocal opponents of the annexations.

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR REVIEW

87. The Village Board repeats and realleges all of the foregoing allegations as if set

forth fully herein.

88. Under General Municipal Law 711(1), the Town Board and the Village Board

were each required to determine, by a majority vote of its total voting strength, whether the 507-

Acre Annexation Petition complied with the provisions of the Municipal Annexation Law and

"whether, on the basis of considerations including but not limited to those relating to the effects

upon (a) the territory proposed to be annexed, (b) the local government or governments to which

the territory is proposed to be annexed, (c) the remaining area of the local government or

governments in which the territory is situated and (d) any school district, fire district or other

district corporation, public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire alarm district or town

or county improvement district, situated wholly or partly in such territory, it is in the over-all

public interest to approve such proposed annexation."

The Village Board determined, by majority vote, that the 507-acre annexation89.

petition complied with the provisions of the Municipal Annexation Law.

16

The Town Board determined, by majority vote, that the 507-acre annexation90.1

petition complied with the provisions of the Municipal Annexation Law.

The Village Board determined, by majority vote, that the 507-acre annexation was91.

in the overall public interest for the reasons set forth in its Written Order and Findings.

92. Specifically, the Village Board found that annexation would enable the provision

of public water to the annexation territory, which is not presently available from the Town.

93. The Village Board further found that annexation would decrease the reliance on

private groundwater wells through connection to the Village's municipal water supply, which

would relieve pressure on local groundwater resources.

94. The Village Board further found that annexation would improve public sewer

service to the annexation territory through the extension of the Village' s sewer mains.

95. The Village Board further found that annexation would improve the provision of

public safety, fire, and emergency medical services to the annexation territory, including the

provision of Yiddish and English-speaking dispatch services.

96. The Village Board further found that annexation would provide the residents of

the annexation territory with important safety, social, and cultural benefits through integration of

the annexation territory with the Village's public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure,

including much needed sidewalks and street lights.

97. The Village Board further found that annexation would provide the Village with

additional territory for potential development of housing and community buildings to

accommodate a growing local population.

17

98. The Village Board further found that annexation would enable construction of

moderate- to low-income housing, and provision of civic infrastructure and services, which are

not easily accessible in the Town outside the Village.

99. The Village Board further found that annexation would result in a net increase ini

overall tax receipts by the municipalities.

100. The Village Board further found that annexation would increase the walkability of

the annexation territory and decrease traffic impacts on the surrounding areas.

The Village Board further found that annexation would unify a cohesive101.

community of residents and property owners in the annexation territory that already affiliate with

the culture of the Village.

102. The Town Board determined, by majority vote, that the 164-acre annexation was

in the overall public interest for the reasons set forth in its Written Order and Findings.

Specifically, the Town Board found that annexation would unify a cohesive103.

community of residents in the annexation territory that share the lifestyle and culture of the

residents of Kiryas Joel.

104. The Town Board further found that annexation would provide the Village with

additional territory for potential development of housing and community buildings to

accommodate a growing local population.

105. The Town Board further found that annexation would enable provision of services

designed to support additional development including provision of municipal water and sewer

and furnishing of culturally necessary infrastructure such as pedestrian facilities and public

transportation.

18

106. The Town Board further found that annexation would support "smart growth"

principles identified in Village and Orange County planning documents by supporting the

concentration of development with available infrastructure to avoid suburban sprawl.

107. The Town Board further found that annexation would increase the walkability of

the annexation territory and decrease traffic impacts on the surrounding areas.

108. The Town Board further found that annexation would decrease the reliance on

private groundwater wells through connection to the Village's municipal water supply, which

would relieve pressure on local groundwater resources for use by other residents of the Town

and neighboring towns.

109. The Town Board further found that the detriment of decreased tax revenue to the

Town would be relatively small given the likely increase in road maintenance revenue derived

from agreements with the Village.

The Town Board further found that annexation would promote the efficient110.

delivery of public water to the annexation territory.

111. The Town Board further found that annexation would provide the residents of the

annexation territory with important safety, social, and cultural benefits through integration of the

annexation territory with the Village's public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure.

112. However, based on these very same findings showing an overwhelming public

interest in approving annexation, the Town Board determined that it was not in the overall public

interest to approve the 507-acre annexation petition.

The Town Board's findings do not support the disapproval of the 507-acre113.

annexation petition.

19

1 14. For the reasons set forth in the Village Board's findings and in the Town Board's

findings, the benefits of the 507-acre annexation far exceed any detriments and, therefore, the

507-acre annexation is in the overall public interest.

115. Therefore, this Court should substitute its judgment for that of the Town Board

and enter a judgment, pursuant to General Municipal Law 712, determining that the 507-acre

annexation is in the overall public interest.

116. This proceeding is commenced within thirty (30) days after the filing of Town

and Village Orders with the County Clerk.

117. No previous application has been made for the relief sought herein.

WHEREFORE, for these reasons and those set forth in detail in Petitioner's supporting

papers, Petitioner Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel respectfully requests that this

Court issue a judgment, pursuant to General Municipal Law 712, adjudicating and determining,

on the law and facts, that the proposed 507-acre annexation of territory from the Town to the

Village is in the overall public interest, and grant Petitioner such other and further relief as the

Court deems just and proper.

WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLPDated: October 7, 2015Albany, New York

To: Michael H. Donnelly, Esq.Dickover, Donnelly & Donovan, LLP28 Bruen PlaceGoshen, New York 10924

Town Board of the Town of Monroe1 1 Stage RoadMonroe, NY 10950

21

VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK ): ss.

COUNTY OF ALBANY )

MICHAEL G. STERTHOUS, ESQ., being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

I am a member of Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, attorneys for Petitioner1.

Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel in this matter.

I have read the foregoing Verified Petition and the same is true to my own2.

knowledge, except those matters stated to be upon information and belief, and as to those

matters, I believe them to be true. The source of my belief is my review of the pertinent

documents and information provided by my clients.

The reason why this verification is made by me and not Petitioner is that3.

Petitioner does not have a principal place of business within the County of Albany.

-

MICHAEL G. STERTHOUS, ESQ.

Sworn to before me thisT^day of October, 2015

Notary Public

Angel L. WelsmannNotary Public, State of New York

Qualified in Albany CountyNo. 01 WE6137913 ,-y

Commission Expires December 5, 20 ' {

22