Kransteuber v. Scheyer, 80 N.Y.2d 783 (1992)
r
r
A zoning ordinance is presumed constitutional, and a landowner challenging it as applied must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, with “dollars and cents” evidence, that the property cannot yield a reasonable return under any permitted use.
r
r
Summary
r
Kransteuber sought area variances to construct a single-family dwelling on a substandard lot in a residential zone. The Zoning Board denied her application, and she challenged the denial, arguing entitlement under single and separate ownership, practical difficulties, and an unconstitutional taking. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Kransteuber failed to prove entitlement to variances under the single and separate ownership exception, failed to establish that the Board’s determination was arbitrary, and failed to demonstrate an unconstitutional taking because she did not prove the property could not yield a reasonable return under any permitted use.
r
r
Facts
r
In 1934, Kransteuber’s husband purchased a 5,000 square foot lot in Oakdale, Town of Islip and built a single-family dwelling on it. Kransteuber acquired the property in 1942. The dwelling was destroyed in 1950, leaving the land vacant. In 1937, the Town of Islip enacted a zoning ordinance classifying the property as Residence AA, requiring a minimum 20,000 square foot lot area for a single-family dwelling. In 1987, Kransteuber contracted to sell the property, contingent on obtaining a variance to build a single-family dwelling. The size of the proposed dwelling required variances from lot area, lot width, side yard, and total side yard requirements.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip denied Kransteuber’s variance application. Kransteuber brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, ruled she was entitled to variances based on an unconstitutional taking. The Appellate Division disagreed, confirmed the Board’s determination, and dismissed the proceeding. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether Kransteuber was entitled to the variances as a matter of right due to the single and separate ownership status of the property.
r
2. Whether Kransteuber proved practical difficulties, rendering the Board’s determination arbitrary and capricious.
r
3. Whether strict application of the zoning ordinance constituted an unconstitutional taking of Kransteuber’s property without compensation.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because Kransteuber failed to prove her entitlement to the variances under the ordinance’s single and separate ownership exception.
r
2. No, because Kransteuber failed to establish that the Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious.
r
3. No, because Kransteuber’s unconstitutional-taking argument fails for lack of proof that the property could not yield a reasonable return under any permitted use.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division’s reasoning. Kransteuber failed to demonstrate entitlement to variances under the single and separate ownership exception. She also failed to prove the Zoning Board’s determination was arbitrary or capricious, meaning she did not show the board acted without a rational basis. Critically, the court emphasized the high burden to prove an unconstitutional taking. Zoning ordinances carry “an exceedingly strong presumption of constitutionality.” A landowner must demonstrate