Agenda - 11-25-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

r.; a 8-49 • INCENTIVE ZONING § 8.03[1] § 8.03 Constitutional and Other Legal Issues [1]—Generally - - I In the landmark decision of Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,' . • the United States Supreme Court established a general test to deter- • mine the constitutionality of zoning ordinances. Under that test, a zoning ordinance which is shown to be clearly arbitrary and unrea sonable, and to have no substantial relation to the public health, . safety, morals or general welfare, will be declared invalid.2 Implicit ' i in Euclid is the principle that zoning is a legitimate method of protecting the general welfare, and that the concept of "general welfare" is continually changing and growing.3 Although it is still � - too early to determine the validity of bonus zoning schemes,' it • % would appear that such plans will be sustained because of their tendency to benefit the public welfare.5 1 272 US 365,47 S Ct 114,71 L Ed 303(1926). ( 2 272 US at 395. `t 3 Justice Sutherland stated(272 U.S. at 386•-387) that: - - _ "Building zone laws are of modem origin.They began in this country about (f - urban life was com tivel sim le;but • sweaty-five years ago.Until recent years, � Y � p • • with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have devel- - aped,and constantly are developing,which require,and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in • urban communities.Regulations,the wisdom,necessity and validity of which,as u applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that-they are now uniformly sustained,a century ago,or even half a century ago,probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained,,under the complex conditions of our day,for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street nJ railways,would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable.And • • in this there is no inconsistency,for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies,the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world, it is impossible that it should be otherwise." 'See§ 8.02 supra for examples of bonus zoning plans. 5 The "general welfare" has been judicially recognized to be distinct from the - traditional objectives of zoning legislation,which is the protection of public health, safety and morals.The expansion of the meaning of"general welfare"in terms of legitimate use of the zoning power is illustrated by the increasingly favorable atti- tude of the courts toward zoning for aesthetic purposes, that is zoning to protect - or enhance community appearance.See.e.g.. People v. Stover,_12 NY2d 462. 240 (Zoning taw) • \ 3. .r- .c't te. +r.-a