| ICSC Legal Database - Cases | Monday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM |
| Citation: |
| Asian Americans for Equality v. Koch, 128 A.D.2d 99, 514 N.Y.S.2d 939 (1987), aff'd 72 N.Y.2d 121 (1988). |
| Issue: |
| Whether the City of New York properly exercised its zoning power in creating the Special Manhattan Bridge |
| District, considering that the City did not affirmatively order the construction of dwelling units for low and |
| Facts: |
| In 1979, the New York City Planning Commission (Planning Commission) published a study of the Manhattan |
| Bridge area. The study called for the creation of a special zoning district in the Chinatown area directly adjacent |
| to the Manhattan Bridge. The study concluded that Chinatown was overcrowded with tenements and there had |
| been little new construction in the area. One reason for the lack of new construction was the existing |
| high-density zoning within the district. Thus, any new construction, which would replace obsolete old |
| tenements, would not provide an equal number of dwelling units. The Planning Commission proposed new |
| regulations which would be sensitive to the existing urban design of the area, create a center for a mixture of |
| income groups to move into the area, encourage development of new community facility space, and promote |
| rehabilitation of the existing older housing. In addition, the Planning Commission believed it important to provide |
| a wide range of housing opportunities for all income groups. The mechanism by which the Planning Commission |
| sought to achieve these goals was to permit special higher density zoning than usually allowable. On June 3, |
| 1981, a hearing was held where representatives of local community groups and others could participate. |
| Subsequently, the Board of Estimate approved the new zoning regulations. Key to the new district zoning |
| amendments was a trade-off whereby the builders could increase the basic floor area ratio in return for a |
| promise to provide space for community facilities, dwellings for low and moderate income families, and |
| rehabilitation of existing sub-standard housing. Henry Street Partners (HSP) applied to the Planning |
| Commission for a permit to develop within the special zoning area. HSP planned to provide condominium units |
| for upper-middle income people. As part of HSP's permit, it was required to construct a YMCA on the premises |
| and contribute $500,000 to subsidize rehabilitation of low income housing. After HSP successfully received its |
| permit, Asian Americans For Equality initiated this class action suit against the City. The citizens group |
| claimed that the zoning amendments were not the product of a well-considered plan and that the amendments |
| failed to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of low income housing. The trial court, in denying the |
| City's motion to dismiss, relied on New Jersey's "Mount Laurel Doctrine." |
| Holding: |
| Reversed. The Court began its analysis by enunciating the standard of review in zoning decisions. Unless the |
| zoning is shown to be arbitrary, it will not be overturned. In addition, the burden of establishing such |
| arbitrariness is imposed upon the person who asserts it. The Court next considered a related decision to the |
| case at bar. In the previous case, the citizens alleged that they did not receive adequate notice of the zoning |
| changes, a violation of their constitutional rights. In finding against the citizens, the court held that the failure to |
| publish notice of the zoning hearings in the Chinese language was not unreasonably calculated. Moreover, the |
| Court of Appeals of New York, in sustaining the intermediate level decision, held that the Special District |
| resulted from a well-considered plan. In rejecting the citizens' argument that, under "Mount Laurel II," the |
| amendments failed to provide a realistic opportunity for the creation of low income housing, the Court asserted |
| that "not by the widest stretch of the imagination could the fact pattern of Mount Laurel be applicable to New |
| York City's record for providing low and moderate income housing." The court rejected the citizens' Mount Laurel |
| claim based on a variety of New York appellate level decisions also rejecting the Mount Laurel Doctrine. |
| Furthermore, the court distinguished Mount |
| Laurel in that it called for regional planning, while the district in question was not larger than a fourteen block |
| area. The Court then examined New York precedent concerning exclusionary zoning. The proper inquiry into the |
| exclusionary zoning question is whether the zoning amendments would create a balanced and integrated |
| community. The Court found that the zoning amendments would create such a community. The permits would |
| provide for low and moderate income housing as well as upper-income housing. Finally, the Court realized that it |
| was not its place to supplant its judgment for that of the legislature in zoning matters. In concluding, the Court |
| asserted that the Plaintiffs had offered no legal authority holding that every area as small as the district in |
| question must contain provisions for the construction of low and moderate income housing. A dissenting justice |
| that, under the New York Constitution and various case law, the City had an affirmative duty to create low and |
| moderate income housing. The dissent asserted that proof of exclusionary zoning existed which would rebut the |
| presumption of constitutionality applicable to zoning regulations. After concluding that a triable controversy |
| existed, the dissent distinguished previous cases, relied on by the majority, to assert the constitutionality of the |
| special zoning district. Finally, the dissent concluded that, under the majority's decision, the harm to the |
| community would be irreparable and the decision to award the City summary judgment was unconscionable. |
| 00137 - Legal Update - Winter 1988 |
|
