New York Law Review

Udell v. McFadyen, 27 N.Y.2d 467 (1971): Zoning Must Accord with a Comprehensive Plan

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Udell v. McFadyen, 27 N.Y.2d 467 (1971)

A zoning ordinance must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan, reflecting a deliberate and rational allocation of land use based on the community’s needs and goals, not arbitrary decisions driven by public whims or lacking in forethought.

Summary

Udell challenged the Village of Lake Success’s rezoning of his property from business to residential use. The New York Court of Appeals found the rezoning invalid, holding that it was discriminatory and not in accordance with a comprehensive plan as required by Village Law § 177. The court emphasized that zoning must be based on a well-considered plan that addresses the community’s needs as a whole, not arbitrary or discriminatory actions. The decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive plan in protecting landowners from arbitrary restrictions and ensuring rational land use allocation.

Facts

Udell owned two parcels in the Village of Lake Success: an east parcel and a west parcel, both located in an area (the “neck”) primarily zoned for business. In 1960, the Village rezoned the neck, except for a strip adjacent to Northern Boulevard, to Residence “C”, a residential classification. Udell had presented preliminary sketches for commercial development of the west parcel shortly before the rezoning. The east parcel included a restaurant. Udell also owned land adjacent to the east parcel in the Town of North Hempstead.

Procedural History

The trial court declared the rezoning unconstitutional as to the west parcel (confiscatory) but upheld it for the east parcel, reasoning that residential use was practical since residences could face Summer Avenue in the Town of North Hempstead. Both sides appealed. During the appeal, the Village rezoned the west parcel to Business “G”, permitting scientific and research uses, and withdrew its appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed. Udell appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the 1960 rezoning of Udell’s east parcel from business to residential use was valid under Village Law § 177, considering claims that the rezoning was discriminatory and not in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

Holding

No, because the rezoning was discriminatory and not in accordance with a comprehensive plan, violating Village Law § 177.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that the rezoning of the east parcel was invalid because it was discriminatory and not in accordance with the Village’s comprehensive plan. The court emphasized that zoning must be based on a well-considered plan addressing the community’s overall needs, not arbitrary decisions influenced by public pressure. The court highlighted the following points:

  • Comprehensive Plan Requirement: The court stated that the “comprehensive plan is the essence of zoning. Without it, there can be no rational allocation of land use. It is the insurance that the public welfare is being served and that zoning does not become nothing more than just a Gallup poll.” The court found the Village failed to give proper forethought to the community’s land use problems.
  • Discrimination: The court found the rezoning discriminatory because the Village treated the east parcel differently from similarly situated properties, particularly after the Village rezoned the west parcel following the trial court’s decision. The court pointed out the village’s expert testimony conceded that the east parcel could be appropriately used for business purposes.
  • Lack of Forethought: The court noted that the rezoning decision was made quickly after Udell’s associate presented sketches for a commercial development, suggesting a reactive rather than a planned approach. The court quoted the village’s expert witness as saying “it is the feeling of the Village that it does not want extensive business in that area” was not a legitimate justification.
  • Inconsistency with Developmental Policy: The zoning change deviated from the village’s established developmental policy of concentrating non-residential uses on the periphery of the community.

The court concluded that the rezoning was not accomplished in a careful and reasonable manner, and it was inconsistent with the fundamental rationale of the village’s zoning law and map.

More ARTICLES