## Facts

- The Town Board of Islip amended its zoning ordinance in 1954 to rezone a single corner lot owned by Charles Housler from residential to business use.
- The parcel was located at Bay Shore Road and Udall’s Road; Bay Shore Road was a heavily traveled arterial route.
- The Town Board unanimously found that business development along Bay Shore Road was foreseeable and that the lot was more suitable for business than residential use.
- At the time of the amendment, the Town had no formally adopted comprehensive zoning plan document.
- The rezoning was conditioned on Housler’s agreement to record covenants limiting building size and requiring a six-foot fence and shrubbery buffering adjacent residences.
- Neighboring residential owners, including John Church, sought a declaratory judgment that the amendment was unconstitutional and void, alleging lack of a comprehensive plan, arbitrariness, illegal spot zoning, and illegal contract zoning.
- An official referee found the area largely residential, noted existing nearby business vacancies, found no demonstrated public need, and concluded the amendment was illegal spot zoning and illegal contract zoning.

## Issues

1. Whether a single-parcel rezoning to business use, adopted without a formally adopted comprehensive plan document, was invalid as arbitrary or impermissible spot zoning.
2. Whether conditioning rezoning on the landowner’s recorded restrictive covenants constituted unlawful contract zoning that surrendered or bargained away the municipality’s zoning power.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and upheld the zoning amendment.
- The court held the rezoning was a valid legislative act supported by a rational planning basis related to traffic conditions and anticipated corridor development.
- The court held that the protective covenants did not render the amendment unlawful contract zoning.
- The court rejected the claim that the amendment was invalid for lack of a formally adopted comprehensive plan document.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning amendments are legislative determinations entitled to a strong presumption of validity; courts sustain them when their reasonableness is at least “fairly debatable.”
- A “comprehensive plan” need not exist as a single formally adopted master plan document; it may be reflected in the overall zoning scheme and its development.
- Parcel-specific rezoning is not invalid spot zoning when it reasonably relates to broader planning considerations and public welfare factors such as traffic patterns and growth pressures.
- “Contract zoning” is impermissible when a municipality trades away or surrenders legislative discretion, but conditional rezoning with recorded restrictions may be permissible when imposed to mitigate adverse impacts and protect neighboring properties without disabling future legislative action.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Town’s single-lot rezoning along an arterial roadway, concluding that the change had a rational public-welfare basis and that the owner’s recorded buffering and size restrictions were permissible protective conditions rather than an unlawful bargain for zoning.


Church v. Town of Islip, 8 N.Y.2d 254 (N.Y. 1960)