Westwood Forest Estates, Inc. v. Village of South Nyack
| Decision Date | 08 January 1969 |
| Citation | 297 N.Y.S.2d 129,244 N.E.2d 700,23 N.Y.2d 424 |
| Parties | , 244 N.E.2d 700 WESTWOOD FOREST ESTATES, INC., Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTH NYACK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Lynne Anderson Warren, Village Atty., for appellant.
J. Robert Bleakley, Frederick G. Schmidt and John F. Minicus, White Plains, for respondent.
This appeal involves the constitutional invalidity of an amendment to a zoning ordinance of the Village of South Nyack. The offending amendment barred the new construction of multiple dwellings throughout the village. The reason for adopting the amendment was concededly to alleviate the burden on the village's sewage disposal plant, and not because of any requirement of or change in the comprehensive plan for the development of the village.
After a trial without a jury, the Supreme Court, in an opinion, the Appellate Division affirming, held the amendment invalid because it was not related to a proper zoning purpose and because it effectively deprived plaintiff of any reasonable use of its property. At the same time it was observed that the village was not barred from taking appropriate action to prevent indiscriminate construction of apartment houses or from making appropriate provision for adequate sewage facilities.
Because the amendment was not properly related to zoning purposes, and because it restricted plaintiff's property to a use for which it is not adaptable, there should be an affirmance. On the other hand, the village would not be prevented from taking appropriate steps under its other and general police powers to control the hazards arising from temporary or permanent shortcomings of existing provisions for the disposal of sewage.
In August, 1963 plaintiff purchased a portion of its land in the village for $7,500; the remainder was purchased in April, 1965 for $54,000. The property was originally zoned for high-rise apartments. In September, 1964 the area was rezoned to permit only garden apartments. In August, 1965 the zoning ordinance was again amended to prohibit future apartment house construction in the entire village. The Planning Board resolution recommending the latest amendment was based on inquiries made of sanitation experts concerning the effects on the village's sewage system of a 68-unit garden apartment development, for which plaintiff had submitted plans.
Plaintiff's witnesses testified on the trial that its property would be worth about $125,000 if used for apartment construction, and $10,000 to $15,000 if used for one and two-family residences. The witnesses for the village estimated the value of plaintiff's property, if used for one and two-family residences, at $42,500.
There is a distinction between the proper use of the zoning power to carry out the purposes of the enabling statutes (e.g., Village Law, Consol.Laws, c. 64, §§ 175, 177), and the improper use of the zoning power to effect the general police powers of a municipality (1 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning (1967 cum. supp.), pp. 2--9).
The village concededly rezoned plaintiff's land from a multiple residence to a single-family district to prevent an increase in the amount of effluent discharged into its sewer system, pending the construction of improved sewer facilities. The sanitation problem that would be created by the construction of a 68-unit garden apartment development was not due to the inadequacy of the sewer lines and pumping station to handle an increased flow. On the contrary, only 75% Of the hydraulic capacity of the system was being utilized, and any additional effluent generated by habitation of the garden apartments could be absorbed easily. Rather, the problem was the hazard of increased pollution of the Hudson River, after inadequate treatment of the sewage effluent. A pollution problem due to the village's inadequate sewage treatment facilities had existed for years prior to plaintiff's application for a construction permit and prior to amendment of the zoning ordinance. Indeed, for some time the village had been the subject of criticism and efforts by the State and county agencies concerned with pollution to correct the conditions for which it was responsible and which were adding pollutants to the Hudson River.
A municipality has, of course, the power to take appropriate steps to deal with sanitation problems, including those created by inadequate biological treatment of sewage. The instant sanitation problem is, however, general to the community and not caused by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wincamp Partnership v. Anne Arundel County, Md.
...reliance thereon"). The Court of Appeals of New York has twice dealt with cases somewhat similar to this one. In Westwood Forest Estates, Inc. v. South Nyack, 23 N.Y.2d 424, 297 N.Y. S.2d 129, 244 N.E.2d 700 (1969), a municipality amended a zoning ordinance to bar new construction of multip......
-
Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo
...Law. It may not be invoked to further the general police powers of a municipality (see, e.g., Westwood Forest Estates v. Village of South Nyack, 23 N.Y.2d 424, 297 N.Y.S.2d 129, 244 N.E.2d 700). Even so, considering the activities enumerated by section 261 of the Town Law, and relating thos......
-
Rochester Telephone Corp. v. Village of Fairport
...is general (see Matter of Charles v. Diamond, 41 N.Y.2d 318, 392 N.Y.S.2d 594, 360 N.E.2d 1295; Westwood Forest Estates v. Village of South Nyack, 23 N.Y.2d 424, 297 N.Y.S.2d 129, 244 N.E.2d 700). Professor Sax stated it this way: "... when an individual or limited group in society sustains......
-
QC Const. Co., Inc. v. Gallo
...1394; Golden, 30 N.Y.2d at 380, 285 N.E.2d at 303, 334 N.Y.S.2d at 153; See also, Westwood Forest Estates, Inc. v. Village of So. Nyack, 23 N.Y.2d 424 at 428, 244 N.E.2d 700 at 702, 277 N.Y.S.2d 129 at 133 (zoning amendment barring new construction of multiple dwellings improper because it ......
-
Regulatory Taking Doctrine in Washington: Now You See It, Now You Don't
...by the majority and dissenting opinions. Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 138,146. In Westwood Forest Estates, Inc. v. Village of South Nyark, 23 N.Y.2d 424, 427, 244 N.E.2d 700, 702, 297 N.Y.S.2d 129, 132 (1969), regulation based on inadequate sewage treatment capacity was invalidated as benefit ......