## Facts

- In 1990, a 50-unit senior-housing development was proposed for property on North Street in the Town of Bethlehem, New York.
- The Town Supervisor wrote to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) seeking financial assistance for the project.
- To facilitate the project, the Town enacted Local Law No. 6 of 1990, amending the zoning code to create a Senior Citizen Residence District (SCRD) using a floating-zone technique.
- The SCRD was designed as a district that could be applied to property meeting stated criteria rather than being fixed on the zoning map from the outset.
- The law included occupancy-related restrictions directed to senior residents and also reserved some units for non-elderly physically handicapped families.
- The law contained a two-year “sunset”/reversion clause: if a building permit was not applied for and construction did not commence within two years of the rezoning, the property would revert to its prior zoning classification.
- HUD did not fund the project at that time, but the project sponsors intended to reapply for funding.
- Residents living on or near North Street commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul Local Law No. 6, arguing (among other things) that the Town failed to consult a local land-use advisory committee (LUMAC), that the sunset clause created an unlawful temporary district, that the floating zone violated statutory uniformity, that it was illegal spot zoning, and that it allowed an unlawful increase in density.
- The Town argued the challenge was, in substance, an attack on a legislative enactment and should be treated as a declaratory judgment action; the court addressed the merits and the validity of the local law.

## Issues

1. Does a Town Board’s failure to consult an advisory land-use committee (LUMAC) invalidate a zoning local law where Town Law § 261 vests zoning power in the Town Board?
2. Is a two-year reversion (sunset) provision in a zoning amendment an unauthorized “temporary district” beyond the Town’s zoning authority?
3. Does establishing a floating Senior Citizen Residence District violate the uniformity requirement of Town Law § 262?
4. Does creating and applying the SCRD constitute illegal spot zoning inconsistent with the Town’s comprehensive planning?
5. Does Town Law § 281(b) restrict the Town Board’s authority to enact the SCRD on the theory that it permits an improper increase in density?

## Decision

- The court rejected the residents’ challenges, dismissed the petition, and sustained Local Law No. 6 of 1990 as a valid zoning enactment.
- The court held that any failure to consult LUMAC did not invalidate the law because zoning authority rests with the Town Board under Town Law § 261, and an advisory committee’s role is not a statutory prerequisite to rezoning.
- The court upheld the two-year reversion clause as a lawful timing device tied to land-use planning rather than an unlawful temporary zoning district.
- The court held the floating-zone approach did not violate Town Law § 262’s uniformity requirement, because the SCRD’s regulations were uniform within that district and the floating technique does not, by itself, defeat statutory uniformity.
- The court held petitioners did not establish illegal spot zoning; the SCRD served a public land-use purpose and was not shown to be an arbitrary grant of special treatment inconsistent with the Town’s land-use policy.
- The court rejected the density-based claim premised on Town Law § 281(b), concluding that the statute concerns planning board subdivision powers and does not bar the Town Board’s legislative zoning action.
- To the extent procedural form was at issue (article 78 versus declaratory judgment), the court treated the matter as one properly resolved on the merits rather than dismissed on a pleading label.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning enactment is presumed valid; challengers bear the burden to show illegality or that the enactment lacks a rational basis.
- Town Law § 261 places zoning power in the Town Board; consultation with a local advisory body is not, without a statutory command, a condition precedent to a valid zoning law.
- A floating zone may be used when the ordinance sets standards for later placement and the technique is consistent with the municipality’s land-use scheme; use of a floating zone is not automatically spot zoning.
- Uniformity under Town Law § 262 concerns whether regulations are uniform within a district; the fact that a district “floats” until mapped does not alone establish non-uniformity.
- Spot zoning requires a showing that a zoning change confers a special benefit on a particular parcel for private advantage in a manner inconsistent with the community’s land-use planning.
- A reversion/sunset clause tied to commencement of development may be upheld as a reasonable timing control related to land-use planning.
- Town Law § 281(b) governs certain planning board subdivision tools and does not limit the Town Board’s authority to legislate zoning classifications and district regulations.
- Under CPLR 103(c), a court may treat a miscast proceeding in the proper form (including conversion to declaratory judgment) to reach the merits where appropriate.

## Conclusion

Beyer v. Burns upheld the Town of Bethlehem’s Local Law No. 6 of 1990 creating a floating Senior Citizen Residence District and a two-year reversion clause, holding that the Town Board’s zoning authority was not defeated by lack of LUMAC consultation, the floating-zone method satisfied statutory uniformity, the enactment was not illegal spot zoning, and Town Law § 281(b) did not restrict the Town Board’s legislative zoning power.


Beyer v. Burns, 567 N.Y.S.2d 599 (1991)