When a New York town annexes territory or a court redraws town boundaries, do fire district boundaries automatically change too?

Plain-English summary

About sixty parcels of land on the Plattsburgh/Saranac border had been treated by everyone as part of the Town of Plattsburgh. Then in 1996, the New York Supreme Court held they actually fell on the Saranac side of the historical boundary defined by an 1824 statute. In 1998, residents of the parcels petitioned to annex the disputed territory back into Plattsburgh. The Town Boards disagreed, but in 2000 the Appellate Division (Third Department) found annexation was in the overall public interest, and the annexation went forward.

The Cadyville Fire District (created in 1952 by Plattsburgh and Schuyler Falls) had always served those parcels. The Town of Saranac Fire District, created in 1955 and bounded by the eastern line of Saranac, would arguably have taken over after the 1996 boundary correction, then lost the territory again after annexation. Plattsburgh's town attorney asked the AG who was actually responsible for fire protection.

The AG's answer was simple. General Municipal Law § 716(13) provides that "[i]f a town annexes territory of another town, such annexation shall not affect the boundaries of any fire district, fire protection district, or fire alarm district." So the annexation, on its own, did not move the Cadyville Fire District boundary. The 1996 judicial decision was not directly covered by any statute, but the AG read § 716(13)'s general policy (settled expectations about fire protection should not be disturbed by changes in town boundaries) as the closest analogy. A fire district is a separate political subdivision under Town Law § 174(7), with boundaries set when the district is established. Those boundaries do not move every time town boundaries are redrawn.

The Cadyville Fire District's western boundary was defined as running "along the westerly line of the Town of Plattsburgh." The AG interpreted that to mean the line as the towns understood it in 1952 (when everyone thought the disputed territory was Plattsburgh), not whatever boundary later surveys would establish. Because Cadyville had in fact provided service throughout the period, the AG concluded its responsibility continued.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What does General Municipal Law § 716(13) actually say?
A: It provides that town annexation does not affect the boundaries of any fire district, fire protection district, or fire alarm district. The Legislature's policy choice was that fire-protection expectations should not move just because town lines do.

Q: What if a city annexes town territory?
A: Different rule. Under General Municipal Law §§ 709 and 716(11), when a city annexes territory from a town, the annexed territory leaves any preexisting fire district and fire protection becomes the city's responsibility. The opinion notes this in a footnote.

Q: What about village annexation?
A: Under General Municipal Law § 716(12) and Town Law § 182(1), a village annexing territory from another village or from a town does not change fire district boundaries unless the affected residents and the town board act to change them.

Q: Did the court's 1996 boundary decision matter at all?
A: For tax rolls, voter registration, and most other town-related questions, yes. For fire district boundaries, no. The AG read § 716(13) as expressing a general policy that fire-protection coverage should not turn on shifts in town lines, and applied the same logic to a judicial line correction.

Q: Could the towns agree to redraw the fire district boundary?
A: Yes, but it would require deliberate action under the fire district statutes (Town Law §§ 170-176). Town boundary changes alone do not do the job.

Q: Why did this matter practically?
A: Because residents needed to know who would respond to a fire call, which fire district they were paying taxes to, and which district had financial obligations to serve the territory. The AG's reading preserved Cadyville's longstanding role.

Background and statutory framework

Fire districts in New York are governed by Town Law article 11. Town Law § 170(1) lets town boards establish a fire district by resolution; § 173 allows alternative establishment by determination. Fire districts are political subdivisions of the state under § 174(7) and are independent of the towns that created them. Their boundaries can span multiple towns and need not match town lines.

General Municipal Law § 716 governs the effect of annexation on special districts. Subdivisions vary by annexing entity: city annexation removes territory from a fire district (§§ 709, 716(11)); village annexation does not, absent further action (§ 716(12); Town Law § 182(1)); and town annexation explicitly does not move fire district boundaries (§ 716(13)).

The 1824 chapter (Laws of 1824, ch. 129) was the original statute that carved Saranac out of Plattsburgh and defined their common boundary by reference to "Platt's six thousand six hundred acre location." The exact ground location of that line was disputed in the 1980s and was resolved by the 1996 Supreme Court decision in favor of Saranac. The 2000 Appellate Division decision in Town of Plattsburgh v. Town of Saranac then approved annexation of the disputed territory by Plattsburgh.

Citations and references

Statutes and historical laws:

• General Municipal Law § 709 (city annexation effects)
• General Municipal Law § 712 (annexation petition procedure)
• General Municipal Law § 713 (annexation procedures)
• General Municipal Law § 716(11) (city annexation removes fire district)
• General Municipal Law § 716(12) (village annexation effect)
• General Municipal Law § 716(13) (town annexation does not affect fire district)
• Town Law § 170 (fire district establishment)
• Town Law § 173 (alternative establishment)
• Town Law § 174(7) (fire district as political subdivision)
• Town Law § 182(1) (village annexation effect)
• L. 1824, ch. 129 (creating Town of Saranac out of Town of Plattsburgh)

Cases:

• Town of Plattsburgh v. Town of Saranac, 274 A.D.2d 852 (3d Dep't), lv. denied, 95 N.Y.2d 768 (2000) (annexation approved)
• Miller v. Savage, 237 A.D.2d 695 (3d Dep't 1997) (fire district as separate political subdivision)
• Fallica v. Town of Brookhaven, 69 A.D.2d 579 (2d Dep't 1979) (same)

Prior AG opinions:

• Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) No. 89-19 (boundaries of fire district unaffected by village annexation of fire district territory in town)

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_2002-14_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW §§ 709, 712, 713, 716; TOWN LAW §§ 170, 173, 182(1); L. 1824, CH. 129.

The Cadyville Fire District has responsibility for providing fire protection to territory annexed to the Town of Plattsburgh and previously included within the Town of Saranac. Neither annexation of the territory nor, under the facts presented, an earlier judicial decision defining the towns' common boundary, affected the boundaries of the Cadyville Fire District.

September 19, 2002

William Favreau, Esq.
Town Attorney
Town of Plattsburgh
O'Connell and Aronowitz, P.C.
206 West Bay Plaza
Plattsburgh, New York 12901

Informal Opinion
No. 2002-14

Dear Mr. Favreau:

You inquire whether the Cadyville Fire District, created in 1952 by the Town of Plattsburgh, has responsibility for providing fire protection to territory annexed to the Town of Plattsburgh and previously included within the Town of Saranac. It is our opinion, on the basis of the representations you have made and documents that you have provided, that the Cadyville Fire District has responsibility for providing fire protection to the territory in question.

Background

According to your representations, the documents that you have supplied, and the judicial decisions you reference, the relevant background facts are as follows.

1. Relevant territorial boundaries

Chapter 129 of the Laws of 1824 created the Town of Saranac out of territory previously included in the Town of Plattsburgh and defined the territory constituting the Town of Saranac as "all that part of the Town of Plattsburgh, lying west of a line two miles west of Platt's six thousand six hundred acre location." The Towns of Plattsburgh and Saranac, therefore, share a common boundary: the western boundary of the Town of Plattsburgh corresponds to the eastern boundary of the Town of Saranac.

In the 1980's, the Town of Saranac and the Town of Plattsburgh disputed their common boundary. The dispute centered around approximately sixty (60) parcels of land (the "disputed territory"). The Town of Plattsburgh was of the view that the disputed territory fell on the Plattsburgh side of the boundary between the two towns; the Town of Saranac disagreed. The Town of Saranac commenced an action in the Supreme Court, County of Clinton, seeking a determination that the disputed territory lay in the Town of Saranac. The towns agreed on the operative language defining their common boundary, but disagreed on where that boundary was physically located on the ground. In a decision dated February 26, 1996, the Supreme Court held in favor of the Town of Saranac.

In 1998, property owners and electors in the disputed territory sought annexation of the disputed territory by the Town of Plattsburgh. The Town Board of Plattsburgh voted to approve the annexation and the Town Board of Saranac voted to disapprove the annexation. The Town of Plattsburgh commenced legal proceedings, seeking a determination that annexation of the disputed territory to the Town of Plattsburgh was in the overall public interest. See Town of Plattsburgh v. Town of Saranac, 274 A.D.2d 852 (3d Dep't), lv. denied, 95 N.Y.2d 768 (2000); see also General Municipal Law § 712. In a decision dated July 27, 2000, the Appellate Division held that the annexation was in the overall public interest and, subsequently, the annexation was approved pursuant to the procedures of General Municipal Law § 713.

2. Fire Districts

The history of the fire districts is as follows. In 1952, the Town Boards of the Towns of Plattsburgh and Schuyler Falls passed a resolution creating the Cadyville Fire District to serve property in those towns. In the resolution creating the Cadyville Fire District, the western boundary of the district is defined, in relevant part, as running "along the westerly line of the Town of Plattsburgh." Thus, where the territories of the Towns of Plattsburgh and Saranac meet, the Cadyville Fire District boundary is defined as being identical to, or coterminous with, the western boundary of the Town of Plattsburgh. In 1955, the Town of Saranac created the Town of Saranac Fire District. According to the documents you have provided to us, the eastern boundary of the district is defined as running "along the east line of the Town of Saranac."

You represent that, throughout the period preceding the Supreme Court's 1996 decision, to the extent fire protection services have been required in the disputed territory, the Cadyville Fire District provided those services.

Analysis

Your inquiry has two parts: (1) Did the Supreme Court's February 26, 1996 decision, which included the disputed territory in the Town of Saranac, have any effect on the boundaries of the Cadyville Fire District and Town of Saranac Fire District; and (2) If, as a result of that decision, the disputed territory became a part of the Town of Saranac Fire District, did the annexation result in a return of the disputed territory to the Cadyville Fire District? Our view is that neither the Supreme Court's February 26, 1996 decision nor the subsequent annexation of the disputed territory by the Town of Plattsburgh altered the boundaries of the Cadyville Fire District.

The effect of the annexation is clear under state law. General Municipal Law § 716(13) provides that: "If a town annexes territory of another town, such annexation shall not affect the boundaries of any fire district, fire protection district, or fire alarm district." See also Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) No. 89-19 (under General Municipal Law § 716 boundaries of fire district remain the same after village annexes portion of fire district territory located within town).

The effect of the Supreme Court's 1996 decision is not as clear. No statutory provision directly addresses the effect on fire district boundaries of a legal decision, such as the Supreme Court's 1996 decision, that defines town boundaries in accordance with a new survey. However, we are of the opinion that, as with an annexation, such a judicial decision generally will not modify the boundaries of fire districts. General Municipal Law § 716(13) appears to provide the closest analogy to this circumstance, because it addresses the effect of redefinition of the common boundary between towns. This provision expresses a policy judgment that, generally, settled expectations concerning fire protection services should not be disturbed by changes in town boundaries, and in the absence of any other indication from the Legislature, we find it appropriate to look to this judgment. To the extent laws governing fire districts have any relevance, they also support this conclusion.

Fire district boundaries need not be defined, in the first instance, so that they follow town boundaries. Fire districts, as well as fire protection districts and fire alarm districts, are established by town boards pursuant to resolution or determination. Town Law §§ 170, 173. When they are created, fire districts need not be made to include the same territory that a town includes: a fire district could be made to include all, some, or none of the territory of a town and, although a fire district and a town may share common boundaries, either in whole or in part, nothing in the law requires that the boundaries of a fire district and town be identical. Indeed, there is no requirement that a fire district include only territory within a single town: fire districts may include territory in more than one town, as here. See id. § 170(1).

Furthermore, General Municipal Law § 716(13) demonstrates that a fire district's boundaries, if they follow a town's boundaries at the fire district's inception, do not necessarily continue to do so whenever the town's boundaries change. We note that a fire district is, in its own right, a political subdivision of the State, see Town Law § 174(7), and, thus, independent of the town or towns that created it. See Miller v. Savage, 237 A.D.2d 695, 696 (3d Dep't 1997); Fallica v. Town of Brookhaven, 69 A.D.2d 579, 585 n.1 (2d Dep't 1979).

Finally, the specific language defining the boundaries here does not mandate a different result. In 1952, when the Town of Plattsburgh created the Cadyville Fire District, the fire district's western boundary was defined as running "along the westerly line of the Town of Plattsburgh." We read this language to include territory that the town boards believed lay to the east of the Plattsburgh town boundary in 1952. It is our understanding, based upon your representations and the judicial decisions you reference, that until the 1980s, the disputed territory was believed to fall on the Plattsburgh side of that boundary. Indeed, the Appellate Division found that annexation of the disputed territory by the Town of Plattsburgh was in the overall public interest in part because of the "historical unity" of the Town of Plattsburgh and this territory. See 274 A.D.2d at 853. In this regard, we also note that you represent that the Cadyville Fire District in fact provided fire protection services to the disputed territory at least until 1996.

In conclusion, in our view, neither the 1996 decision of the Supreme Court, Clinton County, nor the subsequent annexation had any effect on the fire district boundaries. With respect to fire district boundaries, the status quo was preserved. According to your representations, the Cadyville Fire District boundary included the disputed territory before 1996. Therefore, the Cadyville Fire District continues to have responsibility for providing fire protection to the territory in question.

The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of the State government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office.

Very truly yours,

LAURA ETLINGER
Assistant Solicitor General
In Charge of Opinions

By:_____
DANIEL CHEPATIS
Assistant Solicitor General

Footnotes:

1. We note that the effect of annexation by a village on fire district boundaries is similar under state law to the effect of annexation by a town; there is no change in fire district boundaries when a village annexes territory of another village or of a town unless action is taken by the affected residents and their town board to change the boundaries. See General Municipal Law § 716(12); Town Law § 182(1). In contrast, when a city annexes territory of a town, the annexed territory ceases to be part of any preexisting fire district and fire protection in the annexed territory becomes the responsibility of the city. See General Municipal Law §§ 709, 716(11).
2. If a proposed fire district includes territory in more than one town, the establishment of the fire district must be approved by the town boards of any town in which the proposed district is situated. Town Law § 170(1).
3. While the consequences of annexation by cities for boundaries of fire districts is different, see General Municipal Law § 716(11), that is not dispositive here in light of the clear evidence that fire district boundaries do not automatically change following changes in town boundaries.