122- Basic Review Expanded

The other day I made some comments about water and wastewater and the local laws governing their access.  Here now is the backstory:

Back in December, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation wrote a letter to the Town of Woodstock, telling the town that several applications had to be made in order to extend town water to RUPCO's Woodstock Commons project.  This was a matter of New York State Law, not Woodstock Town Law.

First, where there are two overlapping jurisdictions such as Woodstock Town and New York State, it makes sense and is in fact the case that both jurisdictions have standing, which means that the more restrictive law is the one to worry about. In the case of RUPCO, this means that although Woodstock Town law might allow anybody in town on any property to hook up to town water, New York State Law, if it is more restrictive, (and it is,) State law defines the rules.

State Law says that if a development is on a property, and the property is split into two parts, one within and one outside of the water district, there are some applications necessary on the part of the town, to serve the part of the property outside of the water district.  This is why the DEC wrote a letter to the town.  DEC told the town to make a decision whether to make the applications, and if that decision was in the affirmative, the application process could start.  It was estimated that approval of these applications might take half a year, but that is an estimate, hearsay, but a period that seems reasonable, given all of the opinions and information I have gleaned.

So, what we have here is the Town of Woodstock, in a position to either apply or not apply to extend water access to the other end of the RUPCO project property, the end NOT in the water district.  The bottom line of that story SHOULD HAVE BEEN that the town would discuss and make a decision either way, at a town board meeting, by resolution, and then there would either be opposition or not (we do not have to wonder all that much whether or not there would be opposition.)

But of course that was not the bottom line of that story, not at all.  What happened is that Woodstock's attorney, Rod Futerfas, sent a letter to the DEC, arguing "the" law.  He "cited" town law, explaining that if a property is partially in the water district, then all of the property gets water access.

There are two problems with Futerfas' argument. First, the DEC does not care about town law.  The DEC is a state agency, and it cares about New York State law, which is more restrictive than the town law Futerfas supposedly quoted, and so the law that matters in this case.

The second problem is that even if town law mattered,  Futerfas misquoted Town Law.  Yes, that's right.  Rod Futerfas misquoted Town Law of the town for which he is town attorney.  There is no law stating that a  property partially in the water district is entitled to water access anywhere on that property.  There is such a law pertaining to wastewater service, but not to water access.

Citizen Iris York brought this up at a Town Board meeting earlier this week.  Somebody said that Futerfas was aware of and had already corrected this error.  One board member spoke up, saying that he had not seen any correction.

When a lawyer misquotes the law, it is incumbent upon that lawyer not only to correct the error on the phone in a casual conversation, let's say, but also in all correspondences in which he misquoted the law.

I am not accusing any lawyer here or anywhere of intentionally misquoting any law in his or her practice of law.  To make such an unsubstantiated accusation would be foolish of me.  What I do know for sure though, and what I will accuse Woodstock town lawyer Rod Futerfas of is extremely sloppiness.  And, I do not trust him for one single second.

More later.