Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Z.B. August 15, 1995 -- Page 3 Westchester County. In 1981, a court found the town's zoning ordinance to be unconstitutional · it did not meet the area's housing needs. At the court's direction, the town rezoned six parcels to allow multifamily housing as of right. One of the parcels was 63 undeveloped acres owned by Continental Building Co. In May 1985, Continental applied for a permit to build 184 multifamilg units on its property. A few months later, the town planning board adopted a new master plan it had been considering since 1984. While Continental's appli- cation was pending, the Town Board drafted a new zoning ordinance. The Westchester County Planning Board recommended conditional disapproval of the ordinance. The County Board said the ordinance conflicted with the county's housing and residential policy, which called for 50,000 new housing units throughout the county. Nevertheless, the Town Board approved the new ordinance, which reduced by 54 percent the number of permitted multifamily units (from 379 to 129). Only 43!of the town's 14,000 acres -- 0.33 percent of the land devoted to residenti'al use -- were designated for multifamily housing. This was dramati- cally less than the 1981 court decision required. The remaining residential land was zoned for half-acre to four-acre lots. Continental's land was rezoned for two-acre, single-family lots. The effect of the zoning was that there were only eight multifamily struc- tures in town, all containing four units or less. The area's median household income was not enough to carry a mortgage on a median-priced, single-family house in-either the county or the town. Continental sued the town, seeking damages and a declaration that the ordi- nance was unconstitutional. According to Continental, the ordinance was uncon- stitutional because it ignored regional needs for 'multifamily and affordable housing,i and did not "provide a properly balanced and well-ordered plan for the community." The court found the ordinance to be unconstitutional. The town appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly found the o}dinance to be unconstitutional. The town could not use its zoning powers to discriminate against economic or racial groups. The town's new ordinance ignored a regional need for moderately priced housing by creating an environment in which only expensive housing could be built. 208 East 30th St. CorI). v. Town of North Salem, 488 N. Y.S. 2d 723.' Berenson v. Town of New Castle, 378 N.Y.S. 2d 672. Special Use -- Community Objects to Store Selling Alcohol City of Las Vegas v. Laughlin, 893 P'2d 383 (Nevada) 1995 Laughlin wanted.to open a convenience store to sell beer and wine in a commercial zone of Las Vegas, Nev. He applied to the city council for a special use permit. The proposed location was near the area's junior high school. At ttie council meeting, representatives of more than 200 residents raised