Untitled New York Attorney General Opinion, 2016-5

Town of DeWitt has a seven-member planning board; under Town Law § 271(4),(5) members serve staggered seven-year terms with one term expiring each year.
Town board requested authority to adopt a local law shortening planning board terms to two years.
Office of the Attorney General previously opined in 1992 that a town could shorten planning board terms; Town Law § 271 was later recodified.
Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 grants towns broad authority to adopt local laws, including amending general Town Law provisions affecting the town unless the Legislature expressly prohibits local variation.
The town must specify the statute being superseded when adopting such a local law per Municipal Home Rule Law § 22(1).
If a local law is silent on retroactivity, it is construed prospectively and does not automatically shorten current incumbents’ terms; the town may, however, lawfully shorten existing terms if done as to the office and in the public interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the town may adopt a local law shortening planning board members' terms below Town Law § 271 length	Town: Municipal Home Rule permits local laws modifying town officers' terms; town can supersede Town Law § 271	State law (Town Law) establishes staggered terms equal to board size and is a general law	Held: Yes. Under MHRL § 10, a town may adopt a local law superseding Town Law § 271 unless Legislature expressly forbids it; no such prohibition exists.
Whether a local law shortening terms automatically shortens current members' terms	Town: Shorter terms can be implemented immediately by local law	Incumbents/State: Absent retroactive language, statutes/local laws operate prospectively; incumbents have vested expectations	Held: A local law is prospective only unless it expresses retroactivity; it will not automatically shorten current members' terms, though the town may lawfully shorten terms of existing offices if aimed at the office (not incumbents) and serving the public interest.

In re Cohen v. Bd. of Appeals of Vill. of Saddle Rock, 100 N.Y.2d 395 (2003) (field preemption can bar local variation where Legislature has occupied the field)
Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317 (1962) (legislature or municipal body may shorten terms of an office if change targets the office, not the incumbent, and serves public interest)
Michaelis v. City of Long Beach, 46 A.D.2d 772 (1974) (upholding power to alter terms of office under similar principles)
Aguaiza v. Vantage Props. LLC, 69 A.D.3d 422 (2010) (statutes/local laws construed prospectively absent explicit retroactivity)