|
, .
<br /> ( . . • § 8.03[1] ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROLS 8-50
<br /> • Several constitutional and Iegal challenges to bonus zoning plans
<br /> can be posed. Specifically, it can be argued: (1) that such_plans are
<br /> p ) 17
<br /> 4 NYS2d 734,191 NE2d 272(1963),where the New York Court of Appeals sustained .
<br /> ; . .on aesthetic grounds as ordinance prohibiting the erection of a clothesline in a front
<br /> or side yard facing a street.The court stated in pertinent part, 12 NY2d at 466-468
<br /> that: .
<br /> "There are a number of early decisions,both in this State(see People ex rei • •
<br /> . - Wineburgh Adv Co. v. Murphy, 195 N.Y. 126)and elsewhere(see,e�. Varney •
<br /> & Green v. Wiiliamr, 155 Cal 318; City of Chicago v. Gunning System, 214111. •. I
<br /> . 628; City of Passaic v. Paterson Bill Acting Adv &Sign Painting Co. 72 N.'J.
<br /> L 285;Bryan v.City of Chester, 212 Pa.259),which hold that aesthetic conrtirlPr-
<br /> adoas are not alone sufficient to justify exercise of the police power. But since
<br /> 1930 this court has taken pains repeatedly ttrdeclare that the issue is an open and
<br /> • • ' 'unsettled'one in New York.(People v.RubenfekL 254 N.Y.245,248-249;see, .
<br /> also,Perlmutter v. Greene, 259 N.Y.327;332;New York State Thruway Auth. •
<br /> { v. Ashley Motor CL 10 N Y 24 151, 156 457.) In addition, we have actually
<br /> recognized the governmental interest in preserving the appearance of the commu- •
<br /> pity by holding that,whether or not aesthetic considerations are in and of them-
<br /> •
<br /> • selves sufficient to support an exercise of the police power,they may be taken into
<br /> account by the legislative body in enacting laws which are also designed to
<br /> k • promote health and safety.(See,e.g.,Mauer of Wulfsohn v.Burden, 241 N.Y.
<br /> - 288, 303; Downey v- Village of Kensington, 257 N. Y. 221, 230; Perlmutter v,
<br /> Greene, 259 N Y.327,331-332,supra:Baddour v. City of Long Beach. 279 N.. '
<br /> I Y. 167, 174 Matter of Pre hell v. Leslie, 3 N Y 24 384,389; New York State •
<br /> k. . •_ Thruway Auth. v. Ashley Motor Cs,. 10 N Y 2d 151, 157, supra.) 'AEsthetic
<br /> considerations',this court wrote in Dowsey v. Village of Kensington (257 N. Y.
<br /> 221, 230, supra), "are, fortunately, not wholly without weight in a practical •
<br /> world.
<br /> "Once it be conceded that aesthetics is.a valid subject of legislative concern,
<br /> the conclusion seems inescapable that reasonable legislation designed to promote - '
<br /> that end is a valid and permissible exercise of the police power.If zoning restric-
<br /> Lions'which implement a policy of neighborhood amenity'are to be stricken as ' .
<br /> ? invalid,it should be,one commentator has said,not because they seek to promote •
<br /> 1 'aesthetic objectives'but solely because the restrictions constitute`unreasonable
<br /> devices of implementing community policy.'(Dukeminier,Zoning for Aesthetic
<br /> ,. Objectives:A Reappraisal,20 Law&Contemp. Prob.218,231.)Consequently,
<br /> . whether such a statute or ordinance should be voided should depend upon
<br /> I whether the restriction was'an arbitrary and irrational method of achieving an
<br /> attractive,efficientl y'functioning,prosperous community—and not upon whether
<br /> the objectives•were primarily aesthetic.'(Dukeminier,loc.cit.)And,indeed,this '
<br /> view finds support in an ever-increasing number of cases from other jurisdictions -
<br /> S. which recognize that aesthetic considerations alone may warrant an exercise of
<br /> f;
<br /> the police power.(See,e.g.,Berman v.Parker, 348 U.S.26,33;General Outdoor
<br /> Adv Co. v.Department of Public Works,289 Mass.149,187-188,app.dsmd.297
<br /> U. S. 725; Sunad. lne, v. City of Sarasota. 122 So. 2d 611 [Fla.]; State ex rel.
<br /> •
<br /> ,L4 . .
<br /> , z . • • •
<br /> x
<br />
|