Town of Larchmont v. Levine, 35 N.Y.2d 314 (1974)
A municipality’s zoning ordinance regulating the outside storage of mobile homes is a valid exercise of police power if it is reasonably related to the community’s welfare and aesthetic considerations, even if it imposes conditions on landowners.
Summary
The Town of Larchmont adopted a zoning ordinance requiring a special permit for the outside storage of mobile homes. Levine, a homeowner, was denied a permit to store his travel trailer in his driveway. The New York Court of Appeals held that the ordinance was a constitutional exercise of the town’s police power because the ordinance was regulatory, not prohibitory, and was related to the town’s interest in preserving neighborhood aesthetics and property values. The court emphasized that municipalities have broad authority to regulate land use for the public good.
Facts
Levine owned a home in a single-family residential zone in Larchmont, NY. He purchased a travel trailer and stored it in his driveway. The Village of Larchmont then adopted a zoning ordinance that required a special permit from the Board of Appeals to store mobile or house trailers outside. The ordinance stipulated the trailer be owned by the property occupant and not be stored in the front yard or within 30 feet of the curb line. Levine applied for the special permit, paid a $15 fee under protest, and was denied the permit after a hearing where several neighbors opposed it.
Procedural History
Levine sought judicial review of the Board of Appeals’ decision. The Special Term annulled the Board’s decision and ordered a permit to be issued. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Town of Larchmont then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a village zoning ordinance that requires a special permit for the outside storage of mobile homes in a single-family residential zone is a valid exercise of the municipality’s police power and constitutional.
Holding
Yes, because the ordinance is a reasonable regulation related to the community’s general welfare and aesthetic considerations and does not amount to an unconstitutional taking.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the zoning ordinance was a valid exercise of the municipality’s police power, allowing it to regulate land use for the sake of public safety, health, welfare, and morals. The court distinguished this case from ordinances that completely prohibit certain uses. Here, the ordinance was regulatory, not prohibitory, as it allowed for outside storage of trailers subject to specific conditions and a special permit. The court determined that the Board of Appeals had the authority to deny the permit based on its familiarity with the location, the character of the neighborhood, and photographic exhibits of the trailer. The court drew an analogy to cases upholding regulations on clotheslines and billboards, stating that a legislative body could reasonably determine that the outdoor storage of vehicles would be unnecessarily offensive and detract from the community’s aesthetic pattern. The court cited People v. Stover, Matter of Cromwell v. Ferrier, and People v. Goodman to support the principle that municipalities can reasonably regulate land use for aesthetic purposes. The court held that the ordinance was not unreasonable simply because it treated boat trailers differently, citing that the local circumstances may warrant such a distinction.