Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise, 51 N.Y.2d 278 (1980)

When acting pursuant to a state-wide concern, a state agency like the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) can override local zoning ordinances if the legislature has granted them that power, and this power doesn’t violate the home rule provisions of the New York Constitution.

Summary

This case addresses whether the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC) can disregard local zoning laws when planning and executing projects. The plaintiff, a property owner near a proposed UDC project, argued that the UDC’s actions violated the home rule provision of the New York Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the UDC, acting under the authority of Article XVIII of the State Constitution related to state housing projects, could override local zoning laws because housing is a matter of state-wide concern and the legislature granted the UDC such power. This power doesn’t violate home rule provisions when applied to general laws affecting all municipalities.

Facts

Plaintiff owned property near a 12-acre site (the Banay property) in the Village of Ossining, where the UDC planned a development project. The proposed UDC project included facilities that would violate the village’s zoning ordinance, which prohibited high-rise apartments, multiple dwellings, and residences on lots smaller than 7,500 square feet in the affected area. The plaintiff brought suit, alleging the statute enabling the UDC’s actions was unconstitutional.

Procedural History

The Trial Term granted summary judgment in favor of the UDC. The Appellate Division affirmed the Trial Term’s decision. The dissenting justices in the Appellate Division argued that the statute only allowed deviation from local laws regarding materials and processes, not zoning laws. The plaintiff then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC) may plan and execute projects in disregard of local zoning laws, considering the home rule provisions of the New York Constitution (Article IX) and the provisions regarding state housing projects (Article XVIII).

Holding

Yes, because Article IX is expressly subject to other provisions of the State Constitution, and section 3 of article IX provides that “ [e]xcept as expressly provided, nothing in this article shall restrict or impair any power of the legislature in relation to * * * Matters other than the property, affairs or government of a local government.”

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the legislature intended to allow the UDC to override local zoning laws. The Court pointed to a vetoed bill (Assembly Bill No. 650) that would have required the UDC to comply with local zoning ordinances, and the Governor’s veto message stating that the UDC was created to overcome restrictive local standards that impede urgently needed development. This demonstrated that both the executive and legislative branches believed the UDC was exempt from local zoning. The court emphasized that housing is a matter of state-wide concern. Because the statute is general in nature and affects housing, local laws cannot inhibit the operation of general laws. The UDC’s powers stem from Article XVIII of the State Constitution, which establishes the legislative power to create such an agency to alleviate housing problems. The Court noted, “This grant of power reaffirmed the traditional immunity that instrumentalities of the State have enjoyed when carrying out State purposes.” (N. Y. Legis. Annual, 1972, p. 448.)