Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 9 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />SECOND CIRCUIT (NEW YORK) (03/23/16)—This case addressed <br />the issue of whether a village discriminatorily rezoned parcels of county - <br />owned land to prevent the building of low- and middle -income housing on <br />those parcels. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2002, Nassau County (the "County"), facing <br />a "budget and infrastructure crises," decided to sell excess government <br />property in order to raise revenue. One of the properties proposed for sale <br />was a parcel owned by the County and located in the Village of Garden City <br />(the "Village"). The parcel, a 25-acre site that housed the former County <br />Social Services Building (the "Social Services Site"), was zoned "Public" <br />or "P-Zone." In order to facilitate the sale to a private developer, the County <br />asked the Village to rezone the parcel. <br />To evaluate and make recommendations on rezoning options for the <br />parcel, the Village enlisted a sub -committee (the "P-Zone Committee"), <br />along with a private planning finn, Buckhurst Fish and Jaquemart ("BFJ"). <br />Eventually, BFJ recommended to the P-Zone Committee a "CO-5(b) zone," <br />with a "multi -family residential group" or "R-M" zoning to be applied to <br />property. Such a zone would have allowed for the construction of up to 311 <br />residential apartment units on the site, or 75 single-family homes. <br />The P-Zone Committee recommended BFJ's suggested zoning to the <br />Village Board of Trustees (the "Board"). The Board unanimously accepted <br />and endorsed the recommendation. Thereafter, under local law, the Board <br />held public hearings on the proposed rezoning of the Social Services Site. <br />At the public hearings, Village residents raised concerns about the possibil- <br />ity of affordable housing at the site. Residents expressed concerns about the <br />proposed R-M zoning changing the Village's "character" and "flavor." They <br />also expressed concerns that the possibility of affordable housing develop- <br />ment would lead to "sanitation [that was] overrun," "full families living in <br />one bedroom townhouses, two bedroom co-ops," and "four people or ten <br />people to an apartment." Other residents requested that Village officials <br />"guarantee" that any housing at the Social Services Site would be "upscale" <br />because of concerns "about a huge amount of apartments that come and <br />depress the market for any co-op owner in [the] Village." <br />In response to public pressure, BFJ and the Village modified the zoning <br />proposal. They scrapped the proposed R-M zoning and proposed a <br />"Residential -Townhouse" ("R-T") zoning for most of the Social Services <br />Site. They proposed R-M zoning be limited to 3.03 acres of the site and <br />only by permit. The R-T zone would permit only single-family dwelling <br />units. <br />In June 2004, the Board unanimously adopted a law rezoning the Social <br />Services Site to an R-T zone. <br />In May 2005, a nonprofit housing developer and several individuals (the <br />"Plaintiffs") sued the Village. Among other things, they asserted claims <br />under the Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). The Plaintiffs argued that the Vil- <br />lage's shift from R-M to R-T zoning was racially discriminatory. They <br />argued that the abandonment of R-M zoning in favor of R-T zoning had a <br />8 © 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />