Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo
30 N.Y.2d 359, 334 N.Y.S.2d 138, 285 N.E.2d 291 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may enact zoning ordinances that phase residential development and time its rate of growth by conditioning subdivision approval on the availability of adequate public facilities, provided the restrictions are part of a comprehensive plan, are temporary rather than permanent, and are not exclusionary.
Facts:
- The Town of Ramapo experienced a rapid increase in population, straining its municipal facilities and services.
- In response, Ramapo developed a comprehensive master plan and a corresponding 18-year capital budget and program to ensure the orderly provision of public infrastructure.
- The town amended its zoning ordinance to require a special permit for any new residential development.
- To obtain a permit, a proposed development had to accumulate 15 "development points," which were awarded based on the availability of five essential services: sanitary sewers, drainage, public parks/schools, roads, and firehouses.
- The town's 18-year capital plan dictated the timeline for constructing these services, effectively delaying development in certain areas for up to 18 years.
- Landowners, including Golden, sought to develop a residential subdivision but were unable to secure the necessary special permit due to a lack of development points for their property.
Procedural Posture:
- The Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo denied Golden's application for preliminary approval of a residential subdivision plat for failure to secure a special permit.
- Golden initiated a proceeding in the trial court (Special Term) to review and annul the Planning Board's determination.
- In a separate case, Rockland County Builders Association and others filed an action for declaratory judgment to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional.
- In Golden's case, the Special Term sustained the ordinance and granted summary judgment to the town.
- In the builders' case, the Special Term dismissed the complaint, finding the constitutional attack premature.
- On appeal, the intermediate appellate court (Appellate Division) treated Golden's case as an action for declaratory judgment and reversed, holding the ordinance unconstitutional.
- The Appellate Division also reversed in the builders' case, finding the parties were aggrieved and granting their motion for summary judgment.
- The Town of Ramapo appealed both decisions to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a town zoning ordinance that phases residential development over an 18-year period by conditioning subdivision approval on the availability of municipal services, as detailed in a comprehensive plan and capital budget, exceed the authority granted by state zoning enabling statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Scileppi, J.
No. A town may validly use its zoning power to implement a phased-growth plan that ties residential development to the scheduled availability of public facilities. The power to restrict and regulate land use necessarily implies the authority to direct the growth of population for legitimate zoning purposes, such as facilitating the adequate provision of schools, parks, and other public requirements. The Ramapo ordinance does not constitute an absolute prohibition on development but rather imposes a temporary and reasonable restriction to ensure orderly community growth. The scheme is not exclusionary; it aims to assimilate population growth by phasing it with the town's ability to provide essential services, as outlined in its comprehensive plan and long-term capital budget. Since the restrictions are of a definite duration and the town is committed to a program of development, the ordinance does not amount to a confiscatory taking and is a permissible exercise of the authority granted by the state's zoning enabling legislation.
Dissenting - Breitel, J.
Yes. The power to impose a moratorium on land development for up to 18 years is not delegated to municipalities by the state's zoning enabling acts, which only authorize district zoning and subdivision regulation. The Ramapo ordinance is an unauthorized attempt to control the timing of development, a power that should only be granted by the state legislature with careful limitations and consideration for regional needs. This unilateral and idiosyncratic solution to growth problems usurps the legislature's role and could lead to exclusionary and parochial land-use policies that frustrate statewide efforts to address housing needs and urban sprawl. The ordinance goes far beyond traditional zoning and, lacking explicit statutory authorization, is an invalid arrogation of power.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the legitimacy of municipal growth management and planning through phased development controls. It expanded the understanding of the zoning power beyond traditional use and density regulations to include the timing and sequencing of development. The decision provides a legal framework for communities to link development approvals to their capacity to provide public services, thereby preventing the negative consequences of uncontrolled sprawl. However, the ruling also emphasizes that such plans must be comprehensive, non-exclusionary, and temporary to be constitutionally valid, setting a precedent that influences modern "smart growth" and land-use planning law.
