At issue was a one acre parcel of residentially-zoned property that contained a one-family house. The property had been zoned residential since 1947. A comprehensive plan adopted in 1993 provided that the front of the subject property abutting the highway, to a depth of 250 feet, should be zoned commercial, while the rest of the property should remain residential. The town never rezoned the subject property. In 2000, the plaintiff purchased the subject property with the intention of using it as an office for an accounting firm and for a chiropractor office. The plaintiff applied to the town for a rezoning of the entire parcel from residential to commercial which was denied. Rather than seeking review of the denial of the application, the plaintiffs commenced an action alleging that the decision was inconsistent with the Town’s comprehensive zoning plan, or a violation of equal protection. The Trial Court agreed with the plaintiff that the residential zoning of the property was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
The Appellate Court reversed. While Town Law sec. 272-a requires that zoning decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the Court noted the long-standing interpretation in New York that such sentiment really reflects a requirement for comprehensiveness of planning, rather than slavish servitude to any particular comprehensive plan. The Court noted that the subject property is bordered to the north by a one-acre residential lot and to the west by thirteen residential properties, that the property is situated at the entrance to a residential neighborhood from a commercial roadway, and that the only access to the property is at the corner of the residential street. Therefore, the Court held that the “Board’s decision to deviate from the comprehensive plan and not to rezone the entire property for commercial use was justified and had a rational basis.” Further, the Court noted that the Board’s determination promoted the public interest as there were legitimate concerns that rezoning the property for commercial use will have a negative effect on traffic congestion and the residential character of the access road.
Infinity Consulting Group, Inc. v. Town of Huntington, 2008 WL 808993 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 3/25/2008).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2008/D18581.pdf
This is why it’s important to check the overall land use regime of the particular state. Traditionally, comp plans have been little more than hortatory, with zoning ordinances controlling. This is not always so, though. For example Washington State has adopted the Growth Management Act, which requires cities and counties 1) to adopt a comp plan with certain mandatory elements, and 2) bring all other land use regulations into compliance with the comp plan.
By: Knute Rife on April 27, 2008
at 12:31 pm