Jenad, Inc. v. Village of Scarsdale, 18 N.Y.2d 78 (1966)

A village may validly authorize its planning board to require a subdivider to allot land for park purposes within the subdivision or, at the village’s option, pay a fee in lieu of such allotment as a condition for plat approval.

Summary

The Village of Scarsdale required Jenad, Inc., a real estate developer, to either dedicate land for park purposes within its new subdivision or pay a fee of $250 per lot into a fund for park and recreational purposes. Jenad paid the fees without protest and then sued to recover them, arguing that the requirement was an unconstitutional tax. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Village’s requirement was a valid exercise of its power to plan for the general welfare of the community and not an unconstitutional tax. The court reasoned that the exaction was a reasonable condition for subdivision approval, similar to zoning regulations and requirements for essential infrastructure.

Facts

Jenad, Inc. sought approval from the Village of Scarsdale Planning Commission for a subdivision plat. The Village’s regulations, specifically Section 2, Article 12, required subdividers to allot land within the subdivision for park purposes or, at the Planning Commission’s option, pay a fee of $250 per lot to be used for park, playground, and recreational purposes. Jenad paid the required fees without protest. Subsequently, Jenad sued the Village to recover the fees paid, claiming the requirement was an unconstitutional tax and an unauthorized taking of property.

Procedural History

Jenad, Inc. sued the Village of Scarsdale in New York state court to recover the fees paid under protest. The lower court ruled in favor of Jenad. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Village of Scarsdale appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a village can validly require, as a condition for subdivision plat approval, that a subdivider allot land within the subdivision for park purposes or, at the village’s option, pay a fee in lieu of such allotment.

Holding

Yes, because section 179-l of the Village Law grants villages the power to make such exactions as a reasonable form of village planning for the general community good, analogous to zoning regulations and infrastructure requirements.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that section 179-l of the Village Law empowers villages to require subdivision maps to show “a park or parks suitably located for playground or other recreation purposes.” While the statute doesn’t specifically authorize a “money in lieu of land” system, it allows the planning board to “waive” the parkland provision “subject to appropriate conditions and guarantees.” The court interpreted “appropriate conditions and guarantees” to reasonably include a fee per lot paid into a separate village fund used for park and recreational purposes. The court distinguished this case from Gulest Assoc. v. Town of Newburgh, where the town law amendment was deemed vague. In this case, the Scarsdale regulations specifically directed that the funds be used for the “acquisition and improvement of recreation and park lands.”

The court rejected the argument that the fee was an unconstitutional tax, stating that it was a “reasonable form of village planning for the general community good,” akin to zoning regulations and requirements for essential infrastructure. The court noted that subdivisions increase the demand for recreational space and that requiring developers to contribute to parklands, either through land dedication or fees, is a reasonable way to address this increased demand. The court cited with approval decisions from Wisconsin (Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls) and Montana (Billings Props. v. Yellowstone County) that upheld similar requirements. The court in Jordan stated “a required dedication of land for school, park, or recreational sites as a condition for the approval of the subdivision plat should be upheld as a valid exercise of police power if the evidence reasonably establishes that the municipality will be required to provide more land for schools, parks, and playgrounds as a result of approval of the subdivision.” The court concluded that the fee was not a tax on the land, but a fee for obtaining plat approval.