Rodgers v. Tarrytown

302 N.Y. 115, 96 N.E.2d 731 (1951)

 

RULE:

Defined as the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners, "spot zoning" is the very antithesis of planned zoning. If an ordinance is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan, it is not "spot zoning" even though it singles out and affects but one small plot or creates in the center of a large zone small areas or districts devoted to a different use.

FACTS:

Defendant village enacted a general zoning ordinance dividing the village into seven districts or zones for single family dwellings, two-family dwellings, multiple dwellings and apartment houses, three business districts and an industrial zone. It later passed amendatory ordinances, creating a new district which permitted buildings for multiple occupancy in properties with a minimum of ten acres and providing that the new district applied to defendant’s property. Plaintiff, who owned a residence on a six-acre plot, brought an action to have the zoning amendments declared invalid and to enjoin defendant from constructing multiple dwellings on her property. The appellate court adjudged the amendments valid and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment.

ISSUE:

Did defendant village’s zoning amendments constitute an invalid exercise of police power by creating a condition of illegal spot zoning?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

In the instant case, the amendment applied to the entire territory of defendant village and accorded each and every owner of ten or more acres identical rights and privileges.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.