Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Upper Brookville, 51 N.Y.2d 338 (1980)
A zoning ordinance requiring large minimum lot sizes is presumptively constitutional and will be upheld absent a showing that it was enacted with an exclusionary purpose or without considering regional housing needs.
Summary
Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Village of Upper Brookville zoning ordinance establishing a five-acre minimum lot size in certain areas. The plaintiff argued the ordinance was exclusionary and not enacted in compliance with the Village Law. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding the ordinance valid. The Court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality afforded to zoning ordinances and found the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an exclusionary purpose or a failure to consider regional housing needs. The Court stated that large-lot zoning is permissible to preserve open space and protect residents from urbanization, as long as it does not result in impermissible exclusion.
Facts
In 1960, the Village of Upper Brookville enacted a zoning ordinance requiring minimum lot sizes of two and five acres in different areas. This ordinance was based on a comprehensive master plan developed over 18 months. In 1968, Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. purchased a 60-acre tract within the village, with 10 acres zoned for two-acre lots and the remaining 50 acres zoned for five-acre lots. The corporation developed and sold houses on the two-acre lots. It subsequently challenged the five-acre minimum lot requirement on the remaining land. The subject property was within an area characterized by estate-type developments and large lots.
Procedural History
The plaintiff brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. The trial court upheld the ordinance. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the ordinance unconstitutional. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the trial court’s judgment and upholding the validity of the zoning ordinance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Village of Upper Brookville’s zoning ordinance requiring a five-acre minimum lot size is unconstitutional as an unreasonable and improper exercise of the police power. Whether the village acted within the ambit of Section 7-704 of the Village Law in enacting the zoning ordinance.
Holding
1. No, because the plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality afforded to zoning ordinances by demonstrating an exclusionary purpose or a failure to consider regional housing needs.
2. Yes, because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the ordinance did not meet the requirements of the Village Law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that zoning ordinances carry a presumption of constitutionality, and the burden of proving unconstitutionality rests on the party challenging the ordinance. This burden requires demonstrating unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court applied the two-part test from Berenson v. Town of New Castle, requiring the local board to provide a properly balanced plan for the community and to consider regional needs when enacting zoning ordinances. The Court found the plaintiff failed to show the ordinance was enacted for an improper purpose or without regard to local and regional housing needs. The Court emphasized that preserving open space is a legitimate goal of multi-acre zoning, referencing Agins v. Tiburon. The Court acknowledged the potential for large-lot zoning to be used for exclusionary purposes but found no evidence of such a purpose in this case. Testimony from the architect, who consulted with large landowners, was insufficient to prove an exclusionary purpose. The Court quoted Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, noting that “[a] quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addresed to family needs”. Ultimately, the Court deferred to the legislative judgment of the village, finding no clear evidence of unreasonableness or impropriety in the zoning ordinance.