Fulling v. Palumbo, 21 N.Y.2d 30 (1967)
When a property owner will suffer significant economic injury from an area standard zoning ordinance, the ordinance can only be justified by demonstrating that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by upholding the ordinance and denying the variance.
Summary
Fulling sought an area variance to build on a 9,500 square foot lot in Bronxville, New York, where the zoning ordinance required 12,000 square feet. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance, and the lower court upheld that decision. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the denial was improper because the Board failed to demonstrate any public benefit from denying the variance, especially considering the surrounding area largely consisted of substandard lots. The court established that significant economic injury to the property owner must be balanced against a demonstrated public benefit derived from strict enforcement of the zoning regulation.
Facts
Fulling owned a 9,500 square foot vacant lot (Lot 31) in Bronxville, NY, which he had purchased in 1948. He also owned an adjacent improved lot (Lot 33). Prior to 1938, both lots conformed to zoning regulations. In 1938, the area was rezoned to require 10,000 square feet, but a saving clause exempted separately owned lots. Fulling’s common ownership after 1948 nullified the saving clause for these two lots. In 1953, the area requirement was increased to 12,000 square feet. Fulling contracted to sell Lot 31, contingent upon the buyer obtaining an area variance and a building permit.
Procedural History
Fulling applied for an area variance, which the Zoning Board of Appeals denied. Special Term (lower court) upheld the Board’s decision. Fulling appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
- Whether the Zoning Board of Appeals abused its discretion in denying the application for an area variance?
- Whether the zoning ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to Fulling’s property?
Holding
- Yes, because the Zoning Board failed to demonstrate any legitimate public interest served by restricting the use of Fulling’s property.
- Yes, effectively, because the absence of demonstrated public benefit, coupled with the significant economic injury to the property owner, renders the ordinance unconstitutional as applied in this specific instance.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that minimum area zoning ordinances are not per se unconstitutional but can be unconstitutional as applied to a particular property. The court stated, “where the property owner will suffer significant economic injury by the application of an area standard ordinance, that standard can be justified only by a showing that the public health, safety and welfare will be served by upholding the application of the standard and denying the variance.”
The court found the Zoning Board’s denial was improper because it was not based on any harm to the purposes of the zoning ordinance. The court noted the surrounding area consisted mostly of substandard lots, creating an “island” of more restrictive zoning. The court emphasized the lack of any reasonable argument that granting the variance would affect the character of the area or strain municipal services.
The court articulated a two-step analysis: first, the municipality must demonstrate a legitimate public interest served by the restriction. Only then can the property owner be required to demonstrate that the hardship is so severe as to deprive them of any reasonable use of the property, effectively amounting to a taking. Here, because the municipality failed to demonstrate any legitimate purpose, Fulling was entitled to the variance.
The court reversed the lower court’s order and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion.