Allen v. Town of Huntington, 38 N.Y.2d 447 (1975)

A town’s zoning ordinance that creates a residence district allowing multiple residences designed for older people, owned and operated by a non-profit, is a valid exercise of its zoning power to promote the health and general welfare of the community.

Summary

This case addresses the validity of a town zoning amendment creating a “Retirement Community District” and the subsequent rezoning of a parcel of land to that district. Homeowners challenged the amendment and rezoning, arguing that the town exceeded its zoning powers and impermissibly based the classification on age. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the amendment and resolution, finding that the town board’s zoning power was validly exercised to meet the community’s need for adequate housing for the aged, falling within the town’s police powers.

Facts

The Town of Huntington amended its zoning ordinance to create a “Retirement Community District” (R-RM), allowing multiple residences designed for older people operated by non-profit corporations. Health Care Agencies applied to rezone its 20-acre parcel from a “Residence B district” (single-family homes) to an R-RM district to build residences for older people. The application was granted after a public hearing where plaintiffs did not object. The plaintiffs, individual homeowners living near the parcel, then brought suit arguing that the town board exceeded its zoning powers.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the Supreme Court, which upheld the zoning amendment and the resolution granting Health Care Agencies’ application. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted further review.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Town Board of the Town of Huntington exceeded its powers by amending its zoning ordinance to create a “Retirement Community District”?

2. Whether the subsequent resolution of the town board granting Health Care Agencies’ application to rezone its land to a “Retirement Community District” was valid?

Holding

1. Yes, because the amendment to the zoning ordinance was a valid exercise of the town’s zoning power under Section 261 of the Town Law to promote the health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community.

2. Yes, because the resolution granting Health Care Agencies’ application was properly granted under the valid zoning amendment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the town’s zoning power, derived from Section 261 of the Town Law, is broad enough to encompass zoning for the specific needs of the elderly. The Court emphasized that zoning serves a vital role in maintaining a civilized form of existence, requiring consideration of various expert opinions. The amendment had a rational basis in meeting the town’s need for adequate housing for the aged, a matter of public concern. The court noted unrebutted testimony showed an increasing elderly population and a lack of specialized housing. The court emphasized that the town’s action was inclusionary in nature. The court distinguished Matter of Central Mgt. Co. v Town Bd. of Oyster Bay, noting that case involved an administrative denial of a permit based solely on age, while this case involves a legislative enactment. The court stated, “Age’ considerations are appropriately made if rationally related to the achievement of a proper governmental objective. Here, as already indicated, meeting the community shortage of suitable housing accommodations for its population, including an important segment of that population with special needs, is such an objective.” The court also found no indication that the ordinance sought to segregate the community or discriminate against younger people. The court quoted Euclid v Ambler Co., stating that even if the validity of the zoning classification were “fairly debatable, [the town board’s] legislative judgment must be allowed to control.”