Daniels v. Voris (1997)

Spot zoning “ ‘is defined as the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of said property to the detriment of other owners’ ” (Matter of Citizens for Responsible Zoning v Common Council of City of Albany, 56 AD3d 1060 , 1062 [2008], quoting Matter of Daniels v Van Voris, 241 AD2d 796, 799 [1997]; see Boyles v Town Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 AD2d at 690 ).

That term “is defined as the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of said property to the detriment of other owners” (Matter of Daniels v Van Voris, 241 AD2d 796, 799 [1997]; see Matter of Boyles v Town Bd. of Town of Bethlehem, 278 AD2d at 690 ).

Although the Village’s 2003 comprehensive strategic plan was not a formal enactment pursuant to Village Law § 7-722 (see generally Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch, 72 NY2d 121, 131 [1988]; Los-Green, Inc. v Weber, 156 AD2d 994 [1989], lv denied 76 NY2d 701 [1990]), the rezoning pursuant thereto was nevertheless “part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community” (Matter of Daniels v Van Voris, 241 AD2d 796, 799 [1997]).

Ultimately, however, the inquiry distills to “whether the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community” (Matter of Daniels v Van Voris, supra, at 799).

However, the ultimate test is “whether the change is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community” (Matter of Daniels v Van Voris, supra, at 799; see, Collard v Incorporated Vil. of Flower Hill, 52 NY2d 594 ).

In our view, Local Law No. 3 was consistent with the Village's comprehensive plan and was "calculated to benefit the community as a whole as opposed to benefitting individuals or a group of individuals" ( Asian Ams. for Equality v Koch , 72 NY2d at 131 ; see Daniels v Van Voris , 241 AD2d 796, 798 [1997]).

We now turn to McGrath’s contention that the local law enacting the zoning amendment constitutes illegal spot zoning. 2 “[Z]oning determinations enjoy a strong presumption of validity, which can only be overcome by a showing that the decision to rezone was unreasonable and arbitrary” {Matter of Save Our Forest Action Coalition v City of Kingston, 246 AD2d 217, 221 ; see, Matter of Daniels v Van Voris, 241 AD2d 796 ).