New York Law Review

Tag: Regional Housing Needs

  • Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Upper Brookville, 51 N.Y.2d 338 (1980): Upholding Large-Lot Zoning Absent Proof of Exclusionary Purpose

    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.

  • Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102 (1975): Validity of Zoning Ordinance Excluding Multifamily Housing

    Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 38 N.Y.2d 102 (1975)

    A zoning ordinance that excludes multifamily housing is not per se unconstitutional but must provide for a balanced, cohesive community, considering both local and regional housing needs.

    Summary

    Plaintiffs challenged the Town of New Castle’s zoning ordinance, which effectively prohibited the construction of new multifamily residential housing. The New York Court of Appeals held that while a town can regulate land use through zoning, an outright ban on multifamily housing requires a careful balancing of the town’s need to maintain its character with the broader regional need for diverse housing options. The court emphasized that zoning ordinances must consider both local and regional needs to ensure a balanced and integrated community.

    Facts

    The plaintiffs owned a 50-acre parcel in the Town of New Castle, a suburban community north of New York City. New Castle’s zoning ordinance, enacted in 1971, did not permit multifamily dwellings in any of its twelve zoning districts, most of which were restricted to single-family residential use with minimum lot sizes of one or two acres. The plaintiffs planned to build a large, age-oriented condominium development on their property, but town officials indicated that the necessary zoning changes would not be approved. The plaintiffs then filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional because it excluded multifamily housing.

    Procedural History

    The Special Term denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the town’s need for multifamily housing. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that factual issues remained, and granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment but clarified the relevant factual issues for trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a zoning ordinance that effectively prohibits the construction of all new multifamily residential housing within a town’s borders is constitutional.

    Holding

    No, because such an ordinance must provide for a balanced and well-ordered plan for the community, considering both local and regional needs for multifamily housing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court acknowledged the power of municipalities to regulate land use through zoning to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, citing Euclid v. Ambler Co. However, this power is not unlimited. The court emphasized that a zoning ordinance must provide for a balanced and cohesive community that makes efficient use of available land. This does not mean each zone must be balanced, but the town as a whole, as provided for by its zoning ordinances, must be balanced and integrated.

    The court outlined a two-part test for evaluating ordinances that exclude multifamily housing. First, the zoning board must have provided a properly balanced and well-ordered plan for the community. This requires assessing the types of housing that currently exist, their quantity and quality, and whether this array adequately meets the present needs of the town. Second, the ordinance must consider regional needs and requirements. The court recognized that zoning often has a substantial impact beyond the boundaries of the municipality and that localities cannot ignore the housing needs of the broader region. However, a town need not permit a use solely for the sake of the people of the region if regional needs are presently provided for in an adequate manner.

    The court quoted Matter of Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo, cautioning against “community efforts at immunization or exclusion.” The court also noted that while zoning is a legislative act, courts must assess the reasonableness of what the locality has done until regional governmental units can make such determinations. The court emphasized the importance of balancing local desires with the greater public interest of meeting regional needs.

    The court concluded that whether New Castle could exclude high-density residential development depended on the specific facts and circumstances in the town and the community at large, which needed to be assessed at trial.