Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJudicial Decisionsrive is a private road which is partially paved and partially surfaced with sank and gravel, is about 12 feet wide, an has 18 to 26 percent inclines and shar curves. The planning board denied tl e Landowners' request for a varian e from these requirements. The owne s appealed to the local zoning board )f appeals, which affirmed the denial f the variance. The owners appeale Holding. The appeals court affirmed in favor of the zoning board of appea s. The landowners must show, the co rt said, that strict compliance with the rr- dinance would cause practical diffic il- . ties, and that the fact that they cannot build on their property without viol t- ing the ordinance is not sufficient. he . court pointed out that the critical qu -s- tion is whether denying the varia ce serves a legitimate public purp )se which outweighs the owners' inj ry. The desired variances, the court nofed, are substantial because the landov Ener asked to build on a road containing ex- cessive inclines, insufficient drai age, and a width averaging two feet less than that required. The court om- mented that if the owners' reques was granted, the town would be req ired to allow subsequent variances for.imi- larly situated parcels, thereby f ther aggravating emergency servicin and drainage problems. The landos Hers did not comply, the court noted with the. ordinance's alternative re uire- ments, including the posting of , per- formance bond to cover the c st of remedying the road's deficienci:s. Be • - cause emergency vehicles coulnot safely and properly access existin , resi- dences on Upland Drive, the cou i t said that the town had a legitimate co cern that further construction on the road would harm the safety of the t wn. Also, the landowners claime that the town's land regulation limits► , the number of homes on a private ro d to eight is unconstitutional. But the .ourt found that the regulations were not unconstitutional because the owr ers offered no evidence that their prop ty would not yield a reasonable rett. n under any permitted use. Ali junctions 43 ZD 63 — New York Village is not entitled to preliminary injunction ousting college ti dents and faculty from buildings remodeled without site plan approval when waiting will not harp village. . l'iIIa\'e nj Ca_enrri'ia i'. Ca:erumia College, Supreme Cornu of New York, i1plrllate 1 iic'isiou !intermediate iourt/, Decider! Alai/ 24, 1990, 557 N.Y. .5.2d 557 Facts. Cazenovia College owns two buildings in the village of Cazenovia. One building was recently used for offices, but in July 1989 the college be- gan remodeling it for use as a dormi- tory for 18 students. At the beginning of the 1989-1990 school year, the col- lege began renovating the other build- ing (previously used, pursuant to a variance, as an office for professional engineers) for classrooms, studio space, and faculty offices. Both build- ings were occupied by the college when the 1989-1990 school year com- menced. When the village learned about the renovations, it cited the col- lege for not obtaining site plan ap- proval. The village then sued the col- lege, seeking a permanent injunction enjoining the college's use of the prop- erties until it complied with the regu- lations. The village also sought a preliminary injunction restraining the college's use of the properties pending the outcome of the lawsuit. The trial court granted the preliminary injunc- tion. The college appealed. Holding. The appeals court reversed in favor of the college by finding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The court stated that such a remedy should be granted only when the party seeking it shows that the equities bal- ance in his or her favor. The court cited three factors that established that the equities in this case balance -in the col- lege's favor: (1) the college is currently using the facilities and displacement would cause hardship to students and faculty; (2) it is undisputed that the buildings as currently used satisfy ap plicable building codes; and (3) the co lege admits that it is occupying tl premises at its own risk and is subj ct to appropriate penalties if ultim, ely found to have violated the regul, ons. The court concluded that th village failed to satisfy its burden justifying \a preliminary injure .i n of Regulation 43 ZD 64 — New York Family relationship of three lot wners is insufficient to merge three ndersized lots without evidence of minion maintenance, funds for irchase, or acquisition dates. rkus t'. Kern, Supreme Court of New York, pellalc Division (intermediate court], Decided ril 2, 1990, 553 N.Y.S. 2d 466 cts. The three owners of Lots 30, 31 d 32 in Smithtown applied for vari- ces to construct a single-family resi- nce on Lot 30, and to combine Lots and 32 in order to construct a house the combined parcel. Two sisters in- rited lots 30 and 32 in 1979, and one the sisters' husbands purchased lot (located between lots 30 and 32) in 76. The board denied the two appli- tions for variances after finding that cause the applicants had the ability merge Lots 31 and 32, they also had e ability to merge these lots with Lot . The board concluded that the lots ere held in the same practical and ef- ctive ownership and were effectively erged. The trial court annulled the ard's decision and returned the case the board for further consideration. le board appealed. olding. The appeals court affirmed favor of the landowners. The court reed with the trial court's finding sat the board's decision was arbitrary nd without a rational basis in fact. The ourt commented that there was no vidence that a common source of unding was used in the purchase or iaintenance of the lots, that the lots vele ever used in conjunction with each other or that one lot materially en- hanced the value of another. The court added that the fact that there was an offer to merge Lots 31 and 32 if the ap- plications were granted was not a suffi- cient basis to support a finding that the lots were effectively merged. The court concluded that there was no evidence to support the hoard's finding of merger or constructive merger, noting that the fact that the applicants were related was immaterial. Mining 43 ZD 65 — New York Park agency may deny permit for sand and gravel extraction because of potential adverse impact on nearby residences from noise, dust, and traffic safety. Land Use Law February 1991 25 43 ZD 66 Judicial Decisions Richland Acres Development Corp. v. Adirondack Park Agency, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division 'intermediate court], Decided May 24, 1990„557 N.Y.S.2d 581 Facts. The owner of 185 acres of land applied for a permit to operate a com- mercial sand and gravel extraction operation on 116 acres. The area of this proposal is located in an area classified as "moderate intensity use" on the Adirondack Park Land Use and Devel- opment Map. A state statute provides that a commercial sand and gravel ex- traction operation is a "secondary use" in a "moderate intensity use" area and, as such, is generally compatible with that area. But the park agency denied the permit because of concerns about traffic safety, noise, dust and the oper- ation's incompatibility with the moder- ate intensity use area in which it would be located. The landowner appealed. Holding. The trial court affirmed in fa- vor of the park agency. The court re- jected the landowner's claim that the park agency lacked authority to con- sider traffic safety impacts of the pro- posed project. A state highway is a nearby use, the court explained, and a government facility that could be considered a governmental service, which the agency had authority to con- sider in granting permits. The court also rejected the landown- er's contention that there was insuffi- cient evidence to support the agency's action. The park agency, the court noted,, was concerned about the traf- fic hazards at the intersection where trucks would enter the operation about 44 times each day. There was evidence that the increased volume would be in- significant, but that accelerating or de- celerating trucks would present a con- cern for other traffic entering the intersection. Other evidence—state- ments by local residents, accident re- ports for the intersection, and the in- stallation of a blinking Light at the intersection—indicated that the inter- section is dangerous. The court also found the evidence supported the agency's ruling that noise and dust would have an adverse impact on nearby residents. Even if the land- owner.took steps to mitigate the noise, such as the use of earthen berms and muffled equipment, the court said that the fact remains that loudness is not the only impact of noise and that fre- 26 February 1991 Land Use Law quencv and duration are also factors. The court also agreed with the agency's findings concerning the adverse im- pact of dust, given the size of the area to be opened up rind the -potential for storm wvinds to carry dust toward nearby residences. The state statute providing that gravel mining operations are generally compatible with the area was next ad- dressed by the court. Contrary to the landowner's view and the statute as applied to most gravel mining opera- tions, the court agreed with the agency that the proposed use is incompatible with the area because of its size, its lo- cation within 1,000 feet of 30 single- family. residences and mobile homes, and the potential adverse impact of noise, dust, and traffic. The court also allowed the agency to ignore the land- owner's tardy proposal to downsize the operation. But the court noted that the agency's decision expressly allows the landowner to seek its approval of a smaller operation in the future. Hearings 43 ZD 66 — Pennsylvania Developer has duty to act in good faith by promptly submitting revised plans to allow municipality to meet its duty to act on applications in 90 days. Aharhanci Solclnrr•u Township, Commonwealth Court of i'ermsuli.ania (inferrm•diale courtl. Decided ..1177i1 S, 1990, 572 ,.1.2,1 62 Facts. In October 1987 a developer sub- nmitted a preliminary subdivision plan (dividing a 58 -acre parcel into 37 single- family lots) to the township board of supervisors. The township's engineer reviewed the plan and detailed several objections to it. In January 1988 the de- veloper's engineer contacted the town- ship and requested a 30 -day extension to address the objections. During this period the developer did not file a re- vised plan or take any other action. In February the developer requested an additional 60 -day extension and indi- cated that any revisions submitted to the board would be considered as a supplement to the original plan, and not a submission of a new plan. The board considered the developer's re- quest for a second extension as an at- tempt to keep his 1987 application alive in order to avoid an ordinance enacted on January 7, 1988, requiring develop. ers to submit environmental impact re- ports. The board denied the develop- er's. application because the developer failed to submit a revised plan after the 30 -day extension, and because he gave no indication that his revised plans would be promptly submitted. When the developer appealed the board's de- cision, the trial court returned the matter to the board to decide whether it had acted in good faith. The board concluded that it had. The developer appealed. Holding. The appeals court affirmed in favor of the board. The court noted that a Pennsylvania statute (53 P.S. § 10508) requires a municipality to ren- der a decision on a subdivision plan within 90 days or the plan is deemed approved. This, the court said, also re- quires a municipality to act in good faith in reviewing and processing de- velopment plans, which includes pro- viding an applicant a reasonable op- portunity to respond to objections. But the court emphasized that a developer has a reciprocal good faith duty to sub- mit revised plans in a reasonable and timely manner to enable the township to meet its duties. A significant fact in this case, the court said, is the devel- oper's.failurc to submit a revised plan in a timely manner. Also, the court noted that the developer failed to in- dicate when the revised plan would be submitted to the board. The court con- cluded that the board made a good faith effort in reviewing the developer's plan, in highlighting the plan's deficiencies, and in,providing a reasonable oppor- tunity to cure those deficiencies. C1 fir municipality may deem advisable. Upon the passage of a reso- lution by the local legislative body of the municipality granting the petition, the board of education shall cause four copies of surveys or maps of the property described in the petition to be made, one of which shall be filed in the office of the board of ed- ucation, one in the office of the corporation council or chief law officer of the municipality, one in the office of the clerk of the municipality and one in the office in which instruments affect- ing real property in the county are recorded. The filing of such copies of surveys or maps shall be conclusive evidence of the ac- ceptance by the board of education of the terms and conditions of such resolution. The municipality may proceed under the provisions of the eminent domain procedure law for the acquisi- tion of real property for public improvements. When title to the property shall have vested in the municipality, it shall con- vey the same to the board of education upon payment by the board of education of the sums and the giving of the security re- quired by the resolution granting the petition. As soon as title shall have vested in the municipality, the hoard of education may, upon the authorization of the mayor or chief executive of- ficer of the municipality by whatever name known, enter upon the property taken, take over and dispose of existing improve- ments, and carry out the purposes for which the property was acquired. Whenever in connection with condemnation proceed- ings, requirement is made in any applicable general, special or local law for the performance of an act by a department or offi- cer of the municipality, it shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as compliance therewith if with the approval of the mayor or other chief executive officer such act is performed by the board of education or by persons specially designated by it. Added L.1950, c. 762, § 3 ; amended L.1977, c. 840, § 12. Historical Note '1977 Amendment. Subd. 1. L.1977, c. 840, § 12, eff: July '1, 1978, substi- tuted "eminent domain procedure law" for "condemnation law". - Subd. 2. L.1977, c. 840, § 12, eff. July 1, 1978, limited board of educa- tion to provisions and proceedings under the Eminent Domain Proce- dure Law for acquisition of real property and omitted provision relat- ing to filing of maps that such filing shall be in lieu of requirement of any other special or general law rela- tive thereto. Former Section 2511. Benumbered 2561. Effective Date. Section effective July 1, 1951, pursuant to L.1950, c. 702, § 01. Provisions Supplementary to L. 1950, c. 762. See sections 22—a, 48, 49, 50, 58, and 00 of L.1950, c. 762, set out as a Provisions Supplementa- ry to L.1950, c. 762 note under Sec- tion 2501. 162 Schools C=.64, 65. Library References C.J.S. Schools and School Districts §§ 240, 241 et seq. Notes of Decisions Land outside city I Method of sale 3 Resolution for condemnation 2 Review 4 I. Land outside city If the board of education of any city of the state requires real proper- ty for its legitimate use, title thereto must be taken in the name of the city unless the boundaries of the city and the school district are not coter- minous. Board of Education of Jamestown v. Ilaker, .1934, 241 App. Div. 574, 272 N.Y.S. 801, affirmed 200 N.Y. 630, 195 N.E. 359. 2. Resolution for condemnation The resolution of a board of educa- tion stating the necessity for taking land sought to be condemned for school site must precede and not fol- low the commencement of' the con- demnation proceedings. Board of Ed. of Utica City School Dist. v. Edwalt. Bldg. Corp., 1950, 2 A.I).2(1 443, 150 N.Y.S.2d 367. 3. Method of sale A city school district may sell its unneeded personal property without receiving bids therefor. 15 Op.State Compt. 115, 1959. 111 selling or disposing of school district property, a board of educa- tion has a fiduciary responsibility to obtain the best price possible but may exercise its discretion concern- ing the method of sale which will bring the best price. Op. Commis- sioner Edue. Dept., 1974, 14 Educ. Dept. Rep. 5. 4. Review \\'here board of t• Iucatioa of city with loss lhta 125,1)00 itthallitants fully -cowplied with this sec•tioit con- ferring authority to purchase real property and board's findings as to necessity for acquisition demonstrat- ed that board's action was not arbi- trary or capricious and approval of designation of proposed site was giv- en by city planting commission, court could not in review proceeding substitute its judgment for that of hoard, merely because substantial number of persons opposed the pur- chase. Kramer v. Board of Ed., City School Dist. of Glean, 1972, 40 A.D. 2d 940, :139 N.Y.S.2d 243. § 2512. Buildings and sites 1. Such board of education is authorized and it shall have power to designate sites, to purchase, repair, reconstruct, im- prove or enlarge school buildings or other buildings or sites, and to construct new buildings. 2. Whenever in the judgment of such board of education it is necessary to select a new site, or to enlarge a present site, or to designate a playground or recreation center, or to acquire title to or lease real property for other educational purposes autho- rized by this chapter, such board may take options on property desirable for such purposes but before taking title thereto shall pass a resolution stating the necessity therefor, describing by 163 metes and bounds or by lot number the grounds or territory de- sired for each of such purposes, and estimating the amount of funds necessary therefor. 3. Whenever in the judgment of such board of education the needs of the district require a new building for schoolpurposes or for recreation or other educational purposes authorized by this chapter, or when in its judgment a building should be recon- structed or enlarged, such board shall pass a resolution specify- ing in detail the necessity therefor and estimating the amount of funds necessary for such purpose. 4. No site shall be designated except upon a majority vote of a board of education and no building shall be constructed, recon- structed, repaired or enlarged until the plans and specifications therefor are approved by the board of education and, in city school districts of cities having a population of less than seventy thousand, according to the latest federal census, by the. commis- sioner of education pursuant to section four hundred eight of this chapter. 5. When the real property of the school district is no longer needed for educational purposes, such board may sell or dispose of such property and the proceeds thereof shall be credited to the funds under the control and administration of the board of education. 6. The board of education of any city school district of a city which has a planning commission, by whatever name known, shall, before designating a site or sites, submit the proposed des- ignation to such city planning commission. Such commission shall make its recommendation to such board within sixty days from the date of such submission. The board of education may not designate a site or sites contrary to such recommendation, except after a public hearing and by a vote of two-thirds of its voting strength. The notice for such hearing shall be published at least once in each week for the four weeks preceding such hearing, .in a newspaper, or two- newspapers if there be two, having a general circulation, in such city school district. If such commission fails to make any recommendation prior to the expi- ration of such sixty days, the board of education may proceed to designate such site or sites. This subdivision shall not apply to the designation of a site or sites by such board of education (_r where such site is located inside the city school district, but out- side the boundaries of the city. Added L.1950, c. 762, § 3; amended L.1950, c. 764, § 3; L.1952, c. 543; L.1958, c. 231, § 3. 164 Historical Note 1958 Amendment. Stalad. 6. L.1958, c. 231, § 3, eff. July 1, 1955, added sentence heginning "This subdivi- sion". • 1952 Amendment. .Stahel. 2. L.1952, c. ;43, eff. Apr. 5, 1952, amended subd. 2. 1950 Amendment. Sthd. 6. L.1950, c. 764, § 3, eff. ,July 1, 1951, amended subd. 6. Former Section 2512. Renumbered 2562. Effective Date. Section effective .July 1, 1951, pursuant to L.1950, c•. 7(12, § 61. Provisions Supplementary to L. 1950, c. 762. • See sections 22—a, 48, 49, 50, 55, and 60 of L.1950, c. 762, set out as a Provisions Supplementa- ry to L.1950, c. 762 note under sec- tion 2501. Cross References Presentation of claims against the governing body of any school district, see section 3813. Schools :137, (IM. Library References C.J.S. Schools and School Districts §§ 247, 256, 257. Notes of Authority of board 3 Conveyance of school property 5 Designation of site 1 Local laws 4 Recommendation of planning commis- sion 2 I. Designation of site In proceeding to condemn hand for school, there Wats complete absence of competent proof that board had des- ignated specific site where land was sought to be condemned for school and that hoard had submitted pro- posed designation to city planning commission for action ars required by subdivision 6 of this section. Board of Ed. of Utica City School hist. v. Edwnit Bldg. Corp., 1956, 2 A.I).2d 443, 156 N.Y.S.2d 367. Under subdivision (t of this sec -tion providing that in city where there is planning commission, school district shall, before designating school sites, submit proposed designations to plan- ning commission which shall make recommendations and that board may not designate contrary sites except by following procedure therein pre- scribed, there was no jurisdiction for Decisions attempted condemnation of Lund for school where ho:u•d (lid not designate any specific site to planning commis- sion. Id. 2. Recommendation of planning commission Under subdivision (1 of this section providing that where city has plan- ning commission, hoard of education shall, before designating school sites, submit proposed designations to com- mission, and that commission shall make its recommendation within stip- ulated period of submission, such rec- ommendation of proposed school site Iiy planning commission is more than •:c mere formality.- Board of Ed. of l'iic:t City School Dist. v. F.dwalt Bldg. Corp., 1956, 2 A.D.2d 443, 15(1 N.1-. $.2c1 367. 3. Authority of board That three referenda having to do with baud proposals to finance acqui- sition of school site and construction programs had been previously defeat- ed did not diminish statutory author- ity of school board to purchase prop- erty for educational purpose autho- rized by law. Kramer v. Board of 165 hath Ed., City School Dist. of Olean, 1972, 40 A.D.2d 946, 339 N.Y.S.2d 243. \\'here board of education of Sche- • nectady requested- council to autho- rize commissioner of public works and city engineer to employ architect to prepare plans for school building, contract executed by mayor pursuant to such authorization, and later ap- proved by the two officials, was voi(1, in absence of ordinance adopted by four-fifths vote of council and unani- mous approval by board of estimate and apportionment. Wooley V. Sche- nectady, 1929, 221; App.Div. 383, 230 N.Y.S. 104. • A hoard of education of a city school district of a city with fewer than 1.2.5,000 inhabitants has the stat- utory aiuthority to determine when a school building needs to be recon- structed or 'enlarged. \lutt('r of (;ootcher, 1975, 15 Educ.i)ept.Itej). UTAllV1�1 L.ivr 4. Local laws It would seem that the provisions of a city fire prevention code, includ- ing restrictions therein with respect to blasting operations, are not appli- cable to the construction of a new school building for the city school district. 33 O)).State Colupt. 39, 1977. 5. Conveyance of school property Where a city school district con- veys 0 parcel of unneeded school property to al village for considera- tion pursuant to this section, the vil- lage may subsequently convey the parcel to at private individual and, al)sent any provision in the deed, there is no requirement that sueh parcel be recoavey'e(1 to the school district where the village ceases to use it for village or other public pur- poses. ( (p.Stato ('onlpt. 80-330. § 2513. Contracts; advertisement for bids The board of education shall let all contracts for public work and all purchase contracts to the lowest responsible bidder after advertisement for bids where so required by section one hundred three of the general municipal law. Added L.1953, c. 861, § 15. Historical Note A prior section 2513 was renumber- ed 25(13. Effective Date. Section effective Sept. 1, 1953, pursuant to 1.1953, c. 801,§20. Former Section 2513. Section, add- ed I..1950, c. 762, § 3, and repealed by L.1953, c. 801, § 15, related to compet- itive bidding on contracts involving an expenditure of more than 81,0(1(1. The subject matter is now covered by General 'Municipal Law § 10(1 et seq. Cross References Municipal officers' and employees' conflict of interest, General Municipal Law § 800 et seq. Schools 080121. Library References C.J.S. Schools and School Districts §§ 284 to 289. Notes of Decisions 1. Advertising media \Municipal Law, this section, and sec.- Advertiselnents by city school dis- tion 15 of the Public Works Law pro- trict under section 103 of the General viding for :letting of contracts for. 166 public works and purchase contracts involving expenditure of more than $2,500 to lowest responsible bidder after "advertisement" for bids, were not required to be made in a newspa- per, and instrumentalities other than newspapers could be used. Mc- Donough v. Board of Ed. of Lacka- wanna City School Dist., 1959, 20 Misc.2d 98, 189 N.Y.S.2d 401. § 2514. Kindergartens, nursery and night schools 1. The board of education of each city school district may maintain kindergartens which shall be free to resident children between the ages of four and six years, provided, however, such board may fix a higher minimum age for admission to such kin- dergartens. 2. A board of education may maintain nursery schools which shall be free to resident children and may fix the age for admis- sion. 3. Night schools, which shall be free to all persons residing in the city school district, and wherein the common branches and, in the discretion of the board of education, such additional subjects as may be adapted to students applying for instruction are taught on at least two nights each week, for two hours each night, shall be maintained by the board of education: a. In city school districts of a city having a population of one hundred thousand or more, according to the latest federal census on at least one hundred nights. b. In city school districts of a city having a population of fif- ty thousand but less than one hundred thousand, according to the latest federal census, on at least seventy-five nights. c. In each other city school district, on at least fifty nights. Added L.1950, c. 762, § 3; amended L.1973, c. 282. § 2. Historical Note Provisions Supplementary to L. 1950, c. 762. See sections 22-a, 48, 49, 50, 58, and 00 of 1.1950, c. 762, set out as 0 Provisions Supplementa- ry to L.1950, c. 762 note under sec- tion 2501. 1973 Amendment, Suhd. 2. • L.1973, c. 282, § 2, eff. July 1, 1973, deleted provisions setting the minimum age of admission at 3 years. Former Section 2514. Renumbered 2564. Effective Date. Section effective July 1, 1951, pursuant to L.1950, c. 762, § 61. Cross References Day care; when department to furnish. see Social Services Law § 410-a. Reports to coinnhissioaer of education, see section 2117. 167 Note 8 8. Extensions of time A reasonable extension of the time set forth in a contract of sale of property to complete the transaction is not a materi- § 2512. Buildings and sites 1. Designation of site Conversion of existing elementary school to middle school involving con- struction of new addition to existing building did not involve "designation of a site" within scope of either this section requiring approval of municipal planning board or section 401 requiring resolution of school district to include metes and EDUCATION LAW al and substantial variance of the terms of sale. Matter of Brown School, 1985, 24 Educ.Dept.Rep. 393. Notes of Decisions bounds description of site to be designat- ed. City of Glens Falls v. Board of Educ. of Glens Falls City School Dist., 1982, 88 A.D.2d 233, 453 N.Y.S.2d 891. Submission to city planning commis- sion of new site for school as required by this section is limited exclusively to initial designation of new location for any school building. Id. § 2522. General budgetary controls; lapse of appropriations Contracts 2 Waiver of requirements 1 Notes of Decisions 2. Contracts Where contract executed by school su- perintendent resulted in pecuniary liabil- ity to architect in amount greater than amount appropriated by school board, contract violated this section governing general budgetary controls, was not en- tered into conformity with statutory re- quirements, and was invalid. McKee v. City of Cohoes Bd. of Educ., 1984, 99 A.D.2d 923, 473 N.Y.S.2d 269. 1. Waiver of requirements Express requirements of this section governing budgetary controls may not be nullified by implied authorization. McKee v. City of Cohoes Bd. of Educ., 1984, 99 A.D.2d 923, 473 N.Y.S.2d 269. § 2523. Moneys; custody and disbursement Notes of Decisions Self-insurance plan moneys 4 4. Self-insurance plan moneys Moneys pooled for a group.self-insur- ance plan would be subject to statutory § 2526. Auditor 1. Powers, generally An internal auditor does not have the authority to transfer funds from one budget item to another as to do so would fiscal requirements in this chapter relat- ing to custody, investment, and disburse- ment of funds. Op.State Compt. 80-487. Notes of Decisions 36 be to effect a supplemental appropria- tion and that power lies solely with the board of education. Op.State Compt. 82-14. EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 52—CITY HUNDRED TWI Section • ' 2569—f. Appointment of c § 2553. Board of edu vacancies [See 10. a. The member district of the city of 1 such city as provided hE b. The common coup of the operative date of publish by local law bou said subdistricts shall l: nearly as possible the sc said city school subdistt education of the city sc after a public hearing tl- such resolution must be election for school boarc [See x (As amended L.1982, c. 757 His 1982 Amendment. Subd L.1982, c. 757, § 1, eff. on day after July 27, 1982, in ginning "The common counc ed "inhabitants" for "quali and in sentence beginning 2. Residence qualification A board of education -is . waive or otherwise dispen: one-year residency requil § 2554. Powers and dui Subject to the provision{ shall have the power an [See m 6. To lease, in the cit for the purpose of furnis tered by the board of edu to prepare and execute 1 [See m 16—a. In its discretion policies issued by any in: