Gignoux v. VILL. OF KINGS POINT

• Decision Date: 22 June 1950
• Citation: 199 Misc. 485
• Parties: Gerard C. Gignoux et al., Plaintiffs,<BR>v.<BR>Village of Kings Point, Defendant.<BR>J. Edward Meyer et al., Plaintiffs,<BR>v.<BR>Village of Kings Point, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

199 Misc. 485

Gerard C. Gignoux et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Village of Kings Point, Defendant.

J. Edward Meyer et al., Plaintiffs,

v.Village of Kings Point, Defendant.

June 22, 1950.

G. Burchard Smith and Le Roy G. Edwards for plaintiffs.

G. Frank Dougherty and George L. Hubbell, Jr., for defendant.

HOOLEY, J.

These two actions have been tried together because they involve similar questions.

In each action certain property owners in the village of Kings Point, Nassau County, seek a declaratory judgment, among other things, that the zoning ordinance of the Village of Kings Point as amended on March 24, 1946, insofar as it provides that in A 2 and A Residence Districts, no building shall be erected or altered to accommodate or make provision for more than one family for each 40,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet respectively of land, is void and ineffective and in violation of the provisions of Amendment XIV of the Constitution of the United States and section 11 of article I of the Constitution of the State of New York and is, therefore, unconstitutional, invalid and void. In the two actions eleven parcels are involved. For convenience these parcels have been outlined in red on defendant's Exhibit A and they will be hereafter referred to as parcels numbers 1 to 11 inclusive. Parcels numbers 1 to 6 inclusive are the parcels described in the six causes of action in the complaint entitled Meyer, et al. v. Village of Kings Point and parcels numbers 7 to 11 inclusive are the parcels described in the two causes of action in the complaint entitled Gignoux et al. v. Village of Kings Point.

By an amendment to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Village of Kings Point, adopted March 24, 1946, parcels 1 to 9 inclusive, which had theretofore been in A Residence District, which had a minimum dimension requirement of 20,000 square feet for each dwelling, were placed in A 2 Residence District which had a minimum dimension requirement of 40,000 square feet for each dwelling. Parcels 10 and 11, which had theretofore been in B Residence District which had a minimum dimension requirement of 10,000 square feet for each dwelling were placed in A Residence District which had a minimum dimension requirement of 20,000 square feet for each dwelling. A plot of land containing 40,000 square feet is slightly less than an acre in area.

The village of Kings Point is the most northerly of a group of nine villages, most of which are small in area and population, in what is known as the Great Neck Peninsula extending from the north side of Long Island northerly into Long Island Sound, surrounded on three sides by water, Little Neck Bay on the west, Long Island Sound on the north and Manhasset Bay on the east. Kings Point has a population of a little more than 2,000. It has no stores or churches or schools within its corporate limits although a very small area is zoned for business and is, as yet, undeveloped. In various sections of the village there have been developments in which many more than ordinarily beautiful and expensive houses have been constructed. The village is unique in the sense that the governing authorities have endeavored to keep it strictly residential depending on adjacent villages for its business, school and church needs.

That a village may, if it so desires, limit its building construction to buildings of purely residential character was decided in the case of Matter of Fox Meadow Estates v. Culley (233 App. Div. 250, affd. 261 N.Y. 506) where the appellate courts sustained the zoning of the entire village of Scarsdale for one-family residences with the exception of two small sections near the railroad station where business uses and apartments had existed before adoption of the zoning ordinance. In the lastmentioned case, the Appellate Division said (pp. 251-252): "There is no rule or standard found in other municipalities that may be inexorably applied to this village. It may adopt plans suitable to its own peculiar location and needs, acting reasonably."

In Dilliard v. Village of North Hills (276 App. Div. 969) that entire village, with the exception of a small unused business district, was zoned for one-family residences with an added restriction requiring an area of two acres for each building plot. The court said in part: "In the light of the location and character of the village, it was within defendant's legislative province to determine, in the absence of proof of superior public need (Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 390), that the two-acre restriction is justifiable as an elastic application of police power (Simon v. Needham, 311 Mass. 560; Matter of Wulfsohn v. Burden, 241 N.Y. 288; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., supra, pp. 387, 388; Matter of Fox Meadow Estates, Inc. v. Culley, 233 App. Div. 250, 251); nor is the restriction invalid with respect to the particular parcel owned by plaintiffs."

In Simon v. Town of Needham (311 Mass. 560) a by-law of the town, which is a suburb of Boston, which prescribed a minimum area of one acre for lots in a residential district was held valid. In that case, the court pointed out that in the four towns that adjoin Needham, the minimum area restrictions for a single dwelling had been fixed in one at 20,000 square feet; in two others at 40,000 square feet and in the fourth at an acre.

The case at bar was vigorously contested. The court had the benefit of the testimony of able experts on each side and the counsel on each side, to an unusual degree, afforded to the court a comprehensive view of the entire general situation in the village and vicinity. We are here dealing with a most unusual village. With no industry or business and not even schools or churches, it is apparent that the officials of this village, from its incorporation, strove to make it available for residential purposes only, for those who desired the advantages of a community distinctly rural in character and for those who might desire the advantages of the quiet and beauty of rural surroundings.

Nassau County, once rural, is fast losing that distinctive characteristic owing to the great influx of population and the unprecedented construction of new homes. It is wholly understandable that there would be people who would desire the establishment of a community of homes in which traffic congestion should be at a minimum, adequate light, air and sunshine should be afforded, the danger from fire should be at a minimum, peace and quiet would be enhanced, where life would be a relief from the densely populated areas adjacent to a great city and where the general enjoyment of life incident to such an environment would be promoted by zoning regulations tending to preserve and increase the beauty of the village in its distinctive setting and natural characteristics.

Of course, a zoning...