## Facts

- The Village of Tarrytown maintained a general zoning ordinance dividing the municipality into residence and business districts.
- In 1947, the Village adopted an amendment creating a new zoning classification, “Residence B‑B,” to permit multiple-dwelling “garden apartment” development subject to detailed standards (including limits on height and density and requirements for yards, open space, and site layout).
- The 1947 amendment established standards and an application mechanism for creating Residence B‑B districts but did not initially set district boundaries.
- In 1948, the Village amended the ordinance to require a minimum tract size of ten acres for Residence B‑B garden-apartment development and implemented map and procedural changes allowing any owner of ten or more acres to apply for Residence B‑B classification, subject to municipal review and approval.
- Elizabeth Rubin owned a tract slightly exceeding ten acres and applied to have it placed in the Residence B‑B district; the Planning Board reviewed the proposal and requested modifications.
- The Board of Trustees enacted an ordinance rezoning Rubin’s tract to Residence B‑B following the municipal approval process.
- Churchill Rodgers, a nearby landowner with approximately six acres, sued to invalidate the amendments and the rezoning, alleging unlawful spot zoning and lack of consistency with a comprehensive zoning plan.
- Lower courts upheld the ordinance amendments and dismissed Rodgers’s claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1947 and 1948 zoning amendments creating and implementing the Residence B‑B district were arbitrary, unreasonable, or otherwise invalid exercises of municipal zoning authority.
2. Whether rezoning Rubin’s tract to Residence B‑B constituted illegal spot zoning undertaken for private benefit rather than the public welfare.
3. Whether the ordinance’s case-by-case legislative method for establishing Residence B‑B districts improperly surrendered zoning control or functioned as impermissible ad hoc variances.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Rodgers’s challenge.
- The court held the amendments were a valid legislative exercise of the zoning power and were not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
- The court rejected the claim of illegal spot zoning, concluding the Residence B‑B program furthered a comprehensive municipal plan and public welfare objectives.
- The court upheld the ten-acre minimum as a permissible legislative line-drawing choice connected to the Village’s planning objectives.
- The court concluded the application process did not divest the Village of zoning authority because each designation still required legislative action and municipal approval.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning and rezoning are legislative determinations entitled to judicial deference and will be sustained unless clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- A rezoning does not constitute illegal spot zoning where it implements a comprehensive plan and serves legitimate public purposes, even if only one parcel initially qualifies.
- Objective eligibility criteria (such as a minimum tract size), coupled with a uniform opportunity for similarly situated owners to apply, support the conclusion that a classification is not a special benefit to a single owner.
- A municipality may structure a zoning amendment to allow landowners to seek a new classification through an established procedure, so long as the local legislative body retains final decision-making authority through formal legislative action.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Tarrytown’s creation and implementation of a Residence B‑B garden-apartment district, ruling that the amendments and Rubin’s rezoning were rational components of a comprehensive zoning plan aimed at community housing and economic goals and therefore did not amount to illegal spot zoning or an invalid delegation of zoning power.


Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 96 N.E.2d 731 (N.Y. 1951)