## Facts

- A village zoning ordinance barred “formula fast-food restaurants” from the village’s Central Business District.
- The ordinance defined a formula fast-food restaurant by operational features, including standardized menus or uniforms, ready-to-consume food, disposable packaging, limited menus, immediate consumption, and pre-payment.
- The stated purpose of the restriction was to maintain the village’s character, the vitality of commercial districts, and residents’ quality of life.
- Mead Square Commons, LLC owned commercial property in the Central Business District and sought to lease space to a Subway franchise, which would fall within the ordinance’s definition and therefore be prohibited.
- The property owner sued for injunctive and declaratory relief, asserting the ordinance was invalid and unenforceable.
- The trial court denied the owner’s motion for summary judgment, granted the village’s cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.
- On appeal, the appellate court modified the judgment to enter a declaration on the merits but otherwise upheld the ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinance impermissibly regulated business ownership or franchise status rather than regulating land use.
2. Whether the prohibition on formula fast-food restaurants in the Central Business District was arbitrary or unreasonable, or instead rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.
3. Whether distinguishing formula fast-food restaurants from other permitted restaurants violated equal protection principles under rational-basis review.

## Decision

- The appellate court modified the judgment to reinstate the declaratory-judgment causes of action solely to enter a proper declaration.
- The court declared the challenged zoning provision valid and enforceable.
- As modified, the judgment was affirmed; the owner did not obtain injunctive or declaratory relief invalidating the ordinance.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning regulates permissible land uses; a restriction is treated as a use regulation when it turns on operational characteristics of a business (e.g., service model and method of food preparation/sale), even if it affects franchised businesses.
- A zoning ordinance is upheld if it is not arbitrary or unreasonable and bears a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, including preserving community character and supporting commercial district vitality.
- Under rational-basis review, a municipality may draw distinctions among types of eating establishments if the classification rests on differences reasonably related to the stated objectives.
- When a party seeks declaratory relief challenging a law’s validity, the proper disposition is an on-the-merits declaration, not dismissal of the declaratory claim.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the village’s ban on formula fast-food restaurants in its Central Business District, ruling that the ordinance regulated land use through operational criteria and was rationally related to legitimate goals of preserving village character and commercial vitality; the judgment was modified only to enter a formal declaration that the ordinance is valid and enforceable.


Mead Square Commons, LLC v. Village of Victor, 97 A.D.3d 1162 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 2012)