Udell v. Haas
235 N.E.2d 897, 21 N.Y.2d 463, 288 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning amendment is ultra vires and invalid if it is not enacted in accordance with a community's comprehensive plan, which is evidenced by the community's established land use policies and zoning map. A zoning change will also be deemed invalidly discriminatory if it treats a similarly situated parcel of land differently from its neighbors without a rational basis.
Facts:
- The Village of Lake Success had a neck-like area of land extending to the major thoroughfare of Northern Boulevard, which for over two decades had been zoned for business use.
- In 1951, Udell acquired two parcels of land within this business-zoned neck, one on the east side of Lakeville Road and one on the west.
- In 1958, the Village formally adopted a 'developmental policy' which stated that while the community was primarily residential, nonresidential uses would be permitted on the periphery to strengthen the tax base, a policy consistent with the existing zoning map.
- On the morning of June 21, 1960, an associate of Udell presented a village official with a preliminary sketch for a bowling alley and supermarket on the vacant west parcel.
- That same evening, the village planning board, citing traffic concerns, recommended rezoning most of the neck area, including both of Udell's parcels, from Business to Residence 'C'.
- Shortly thereafter, the Village enacted ordinance No. 60, formalizing this zoning change from business to residential.
Procedural Posture:
- The landowner, Udell, filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) against officials of the Village of Lake Success, seeking to have ordinance No. 60 declared invalid.
- The trial court issued a split decision, finding the rezoning unconstitutional as applied to Udell's west parcel but upholding it as valid for the east parcel.
- Both Udell and the Village appealed to the Appellate Division (New York's intermediate appellate court).
- While the appeal was pending, the Village rezoned the west parcel to a new business category and withdrew its appeal, thereby accepting the trial court's ruling regarding the west parcel.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the rezoning of the east parcel, with one justice dissenting.
- Udell (as appellant) then appealed the decision concerning the east parcel 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 zoning ordinance that reclassifies a property from a long-standing business use to residential use violate the statutory requirement that zoning be 'in accordance with a comprehensive plan' when it is inconsistent with the village's established development policy and enacted hastily in response to a specific development proposal?
Opinions:
Majority - Keating, J.
Yes, the zoning amendment is invalid because it was not enacted in accordance with the village's comprehensive plan and was discriminatory. The statutory requirement that zoning be 'in accordance with a comprehensive plan' is the essence of zoning, meant to ensure that land use is allocated rationally for the benefit of the community as a whole, not based on the whims of a vocal minority. A community's comprehensive plan can be discerned from its zoning map, its ordinances, and its historical development policies. In this case, the Village of Lake Success's comprehensive plan, evidenced by its map and its 1958 'developmental policy,' designated peripheral areas like the subject property for business use to support the tax base. The abrupt rezoning to residential was a radical departure from this established plan. The timing of the change, occurring on the same day Udell proposed a commercial development, indicates it was a reactive measure rather than the product of deliberate study and forethought, which should precede, not follow, a zoning change. Furthermore, the ordinance was discriminatory. After the trial court invalidated the rezoning for the west parcel, the village rezoned it for a different business use while leaving the similarly situated east parcel zoned as residential. The village provided no rational basis for this dissimilar treatment, and its own expert conceded that commercial use of the east parcel was appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'comprehensive plan' doctrine as a substantive limitation on municipal zoning power, preventing arbitrary and reactive zoning changes. It establishes that courts will scrutinize zoning amendments to ensure they are the result of careful study and are consistent with a community's long-term land use policies, rather than serving as a tool to block specific, unpopular development proposals. The ruling empowers landowners to challenge such 'reverse spot zoning' by requiring municipalities to justify deviations from their established plans. This precedent requires zoning authorities to engage in proactive, deliberative planning and creates a higher evidentiary bar for defending zoning changes that are inconsistent with historical land use patterns.
