Barry Iselin & Assoc. v. Village of Old Brookville, 41 N.Y.2d 103 (1976)
To rezone property, a landowner must demonstrate that the land cannot yield a reasonable return as currently zoned, that their hardship is unique, and that the proposed use won’t alter the locality’s essential character.
Summary
Barry Iselin & Associates sought to rezone a 4.271-acre parcel from residential to business use, arguing the area had become commercial and the residential zoning was unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed the claim, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the denial arbitrary. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the property could not yield a reasonable return under the existing residential zoning. The court emphasized the higher standard of proof required for use variances versus area variances and underscored the presumption of constitutionality afforded to zoning ordinances.
Facts
Barry Iselin & Associates owned approximately 17 acres of land, a portion of which (4.271 acres) was the subject of the rezoning request. The property had been zoned for residential use since 1930. The plaintiff argued that the area had become predominantly commercial, rendering the property unsuitable for residential development. The plaintiff had previously sold portions of their land for commercial purposes, including a shopping center and a gas station near the subject property.
Procedural History
The plaintiff initially sought a zoning change from the town, which was denied. The plaintiff then filed suit in the Supreme Court, which dismissed the complaint after trial. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, declaring the existing zoning unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff’s property. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff met the burden of proving that the residential zoning of the subject property was unconstitutional because the property could not yield a reasonable return under the existing zoning, the plight was due to unique circumstances, and the rezoning would not alter the essential character of the locality.
Holding
No, because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the property could not yield a reasonable return if used for residential purposes, as required to overcome the presumption of constitutionality afforded to zoning ordinances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished between area variances and use variances, noting that a higher standard of proof is required for the latter. For a use variance or rezoning, the owner must show: (1) the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in that zone; (2) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to general neighborhood conditions; and (3) the use authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, citing Matter of Otto v. Steinhilber, 282 N.Y. 71, 76. The court found that the plaintiff’s evidence failed to demonstrate that the property could not yield a reasonable return if developed residentially. The court emphasized that a slight or even significant difference in profit from commercial use does not automatically establish confiscation. The court also addressed the argument of spot zoning, stating that the zoning was part of a comprehensive plan. It reiterated the presumption of constitutionality afforded to zoning ordinances, stating, “Upon parties who attack an ordinance * * * rests the burden of showing that the regulation assailed is not justified under the police power of the state by any reasonable interpretation of the facts.” The court found that the plaintiff had not met this burden.