Albright v. Town of Manlius

• Decision Date: 30 June 1970
• Citation: 312 N.Y.S.2d 13,34 A.D.2d 419
• Parties: Donald C. ALBRIGHT and M. Gloria Albright et al., Respondents, v. TOWN OF MANLIUS and Fayetteville Plaza, Inc., Appellants. Eloise SCHAFF, Respondent, v. TOWN OF MANLIUS and Fayetteville Plaza, Inc., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 13

312 N.Y.S.2d 13

34 A.D.2d 419

Donald C. ALBRIGHT and M. Gloria Albright et al., Respondents, v. TOWN OF MANLIUS and Fayetteville Plaza, Inc., Appellants.

Eloise SCHAFF, Respondent, v. TOWN OF MANLIUS and Fayetteville Plaza, Inc., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 30, 1970.

Harris, Beach & Wilcox, Rochester, for appellant Fayetteville Plaza, Inc. (James M. Hartman, Rochester, of counsel).

Ferdinand L. Picardi, Syracuse, for appellant Town of Manlius.

Oot, Greene, Setright & Moore, Syracuse, for respondent Schaff.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, Syracuse, for respondents Albright, and others (James E. Wilber, Syracuse, of counsel).

Before GOLDMAN, P.J., and WITMER, GABRIELLI, BASTOW and HENRY, JJ.

OPINION

WITMER, Justice.

Respondents, 148 neighboring property owners in the 'Albright' action and one neighboring owner in the 'Schaff' action, instituted the actions to declare invalid and void two ordinances enacted by the Town Board of Manlius on January 21, 1967, amending the general zoning ordinance of the Town. Respondents further requested a judgment permanently restraining defendants-appellants, Town of Manlius and Fayetteville Plaza, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Town and Plaza, respectively, from taking any action under said amendments.

The first amendment created a new zoning classification in the Town designated 'Regional Shopping Districts' and changed the zoning classification of a 50-acre tract, known as Andrea Acres and owned by the Plaza, from Residential Shopping District to Regional Shopping District. The second amendment established 'conditions' upon the proposed use of said Andrea Acres as rezoned. The 'conditions' imposed by the amendment relate to setback, side yard and buffer areas, paving, entrances, signs, parking, landscaping, etc. Respondents contend that the first amendment is invalid because it was not enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the Town as required by law (Town Law, § 263; Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463, 469--471, 288 N.Y.S.2d 888, 893--895, 235 N.E.2d 897, 900--902). They also contend that the second amendment which imposed 'conditions' on the development of Andrea Acres, in fact constitutes establishment of zoning 'regulations' and, as such, is invalid because notice and a public hearing, as required by Town law, section 264, were not given. Agreeing with respondents in both respects, the trial justice granted judgment declaring the first amendment invalid and void because it was not enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan and the second amendment invalid and void because it was enacted without the required public notice and hearing; and defendants-appellants were enjoined from acting under said amendments. The defendants appeal from such judgment.

The first question presented is whether the first amendment was enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Decision of that question requires an examination of the activities of the Town since the original enactment of its zoning ordinance in 1950, with respect to amendments thereof.

Andrea Acres, the 50-acre site in question, is located on the north side of East Genesee Street, also known as State Route #5, a main, through-traffic artery, a short distance west of the Village of Fayetteville in the Town of Manlius. The Town lies east of the City of Syracuse and next east of the Town of Dewitt which intervenes the City and the Town of Manlius. Manlius is mostly rural and residential, and there are some fine residences in subdivisions west, south and east of the subject area. Andrea Acres consists of vacant, low-lying land, traversed from southwest to northeast by a brook which is a tributary of Limestone Creek, and seasonally the area is flooded in its northern section. The lands on its west, south and east are considerably elevated and unaffected by such flooding. The physical features of this property and its relation to the adjoining properties were apparently very important considerations in the action taken by the Town herein.

In 1957, 7 years after the original enactment of the Town's zoning ordinance, application was made to rezone Andrea Acres for commercial use, and this was denied by the Town Board. In the early 1960's the Town Board came to believe that the original 1950 zoning ordinance was becoming outdated and undertook various studies to update and amend it in accordance with developing needs. One avowed objective of the Board was the attraction of commercial development. In furtherance of its objectives the Board retained the expert planning assistance of Planners Collaborative; actual and proposed land use and related zoning maps were prepared, as well as physical characteristics maps of the Town; a comprehensive 'outdoor recreation study' was made, and topographical surveys, population studies, present and expected, and water and sewer studies were made, and proposed master zoning plans were assembled.

In 1965 another application was made to rezone Andrea Acres to 'Commercial A'. The Town Planning Board modified the proposal to 'Residential Shopping District' in an effort to restrict a number of the undesirable uses permitted under a 'Commercial A' classification. As modified, the zoning change was adopted by the Town Board; but upon procedural grounds it was nullified by the Supreme Court (Beneke v. Bd. of Appeals of Town of Manlius, 51 Misc.2d 20, 273 N.Y.S.2d 121).

In October 1966 the Town Planning Board submitted a new proposed General Zoning Ordinance for the Town, in which Andrea Acres was to be rezoned partly 'Commercial B' and partly 'Conservation.' After public hearing thereon in November the Town Board on December 14, 1966 by resolution rejected this proposed general ordinance and returned it to the Planning Board for further study. In its same resolution of that date, however, the Town Board scheduled a public hearing for January 4, 1967 to consider amending the original 1950 zoning ordinance to create a new general district entitled 'Regional Shopping Districts', in which Andrea Acres would be so classified. The public hearing was held, and on January 21, 1967 the Town Board unanimously voted to amend the 1950 zoning ordinance to establish Regional Shopping Districts, and it reclassified Andrea Acres to such district. It appears that a regional shopping district is much larger in store composition and customer attraction than a residential shopping district. As before stated, respondents contend that this amending ordinance was not enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan and is, therefore, invalid.

In considering this issue, we start with the principle that the amendment, as a legislative enactment, is entitled to the strongest possible presumption of validity. A legislative body, in this case the Town Board, is on the scene, knows the needs and wishes of the people and is charged by the electorate with the responsibility for legislating and conducting governmental affairs of the community in accordance with the best interests thereof; and the courts may not lightly overrule its legislative acts (Thomas v. Town of Bedford, 11 N.Y.2d 428, 433--434, 230 N.Y.S.2d 684, 686--688, 184 N.E.2d 285, 287--288; Church v. Town of Islip, 8 N.Y.2d 254, 258, 203 N.Y.S.2d 866, 868, 168 N.E.2d 680, 682; Levitt v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point, 6 N.Y.2d 269, 189 N.Y.S.2d 212, 160 N.E.2d 501; Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, 121, 96 N.E.2d 731, 733; Shepard v. Village of Skaneateles, 300 N.Y. 115, 118, 89 N.E.2d 619, 620). Nevertheless, such an enactment will not be upheld if it does not meet the basic requirement that it be made in accordance with a 'comprehensive plan'. 'No New York case has defined the term 'comprehensive plan'. Nor have our courts equated the term with any particular document' (Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463, 471, 288 N.Y.S.2d 888, 895, 235 N.E.2d 897, 902, supra). What a comprehensive plan is not, however, has been considered by many authorities and courts in an effort to understand and clarify the term (see Place v. Hack, 34 Misc.2d 777, 780, 230 N.Y.S.2d 583, 586). While consistency and rationality in the enactment of the ordinance are important elements, 'the 'comprehensive plan' requires that the rezoning should not conflict with the fundamental land use policies and development plans of the community (see Santmyers v. Town of Oyster Bay, 10 Misc.2d 614, 616, 169 N.Y.S.2d 959, 961; Linn v. Town of Hempstead, 10 Misc.2d 774, 170 N.Y.S.2d 217; Place v. Hack, 34 Misc.2d 777, 230 N.Y.S.2d 583; Walus v. Millington,49 Misc.2d 104, 266 N.Y.S.2d 833 (affd. on opinion of the trial court Sub nom. Walus v. Gordon Realty Corp., 31 A.D.2d 777, 297 N.Y.S.2d 894)). These policies may be garnered from any available source, most especially the master plan of the community, if any has been adopted, the zoning law itself and the zoning map' (Udell v. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d 463, 472, 288 N.Y.S.2d 888, 895, 235 N.E.2d 897, 902, supra). Apart from the prerequisite statutory formalities, no particular procedure is required to enact an acceptable zoning ordinance. Where there is a planning board (cf. Place v. Hack, supra, 34 Misc.2d p. 779, 230 N.Y.S.2d p. 586), the ordinance need not be adopted in accordance with the recommendations of such board (Church v. Town of Islip, 8 N.Y.2d 254, 256--257, 203 N.Y.S.2d 866, 867--868, 168 N.E.2d 680, 681--682, supra), nor must the requisite 'comprehensive plan' be in writing (Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Martin, 16 A.D.2d 1, 4, 225 N.Y.S.2d 112, 115, revd. on other grounds, 12 N.Y.2d 1082, 240 N.Y.S.2d 29, 190 N.E.2d 422; Place v. Hack, supra, 34 Misc.2d p. 780, 230 N.Y.S.2d p. 587; Note, 10 Syracuse Law Review, 303, 304). 'Comprehensive Plan' connotes, however, a full consideration of the problems presented and reasonable and uniform provisions to deal with them, which tend to promote the general community welfare (see Thomas v. Town of Bedford, 29 Misc.2d 861, 214...