## Facts

- The Town of North Hempstead adopted a zoning scheme creating a “Golden Age Residence District” allowing multiple-residence dwellings designed for senior citizens.
- The ordinance defined eligible “senior citizens” as individuals age 62 or older (or couples with at least one member age 62 or older).
- The ordinance also required that applicants for residence in the district must have legally resided in the Town for at least one year before applying.
- Leonard and Audrey Allen, a married couple over age 62, sought to purchase a condominium unit in a development located within the Golden Age Residence District.
- The Allens were denied eligibility solely because they had not resided in the Town for the preceding year.
- The Allens brought a declaratory judgment action challenging the one-year durational residency requirement; the trial court declared that requirement invalid, and the Town and the developer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a zoning ordinance for senior housing may constitutionally condition eligibility on a one-year prior residency in the municipality.
2. Whether the durational residency requirement is a valid exercise of municipal zoning authority and rationally related to legitimate zoning or welfare objectives.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the declaratory judgment invalidating the one-year durational residency requirement.
- The court held that the Town could employ age-based occupancy limits for senior housing as part of a permissible zoning plan.
- The court struck down the durational residency requirement as unconstitutional and beyond the proper scope of zoning, while leaving the remainder of the Golden Age Residence District scheme intact.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning enactments are presumed constitutional; invalidation requires a showing of unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Zoning generally regulates land use rather than the identity, ownership, or prior residence of occupants, though limited user-based criteria may be permissible when closely tied to legitimate land-use objectives.
- Under rational-basis review, a municipal classification must bear a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- A durational residency preference for access to senior housing is invalid where it is unrelated to elderly housing needs and functions as local favoritism rather than land-use regulation.

## Conclusion

The court held that a municipality may zone to provide age-restricted senior housing, but it may not reserve that housing for persons who have lived in the municipality for a specified period because such a durational residency requirement lacks a rational connection to legitimate zoning or elderly-welfare objectives and exceeds zoning authority.


Allen v. Town of N. Hempstead, 478 N.Y.S.2d 919 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1984)