New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Town Law § 264 (2026)

Adoption of zoning regulations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 264. Adoption of zoning regulations. 1. Method of procedure. The
town board shall provide for the manner in which such regulations,
restrictions and the boundaries of such districts including any
amendments thereto shall be determined, established and enforced.
However, no such regulations, restrictions or boundaries shall become
effective until after a public hearing in relation thereto, at which the
public shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least ten days' notice
of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in a paper of
general circulation in such town.
  Every zoning ordinance and every amendment to a zoning ordinance
(excluding any map incorporated therein) adopted pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter shall be entered in the minutes of the town
board; such minutes shall describe and refer to any map adopted in
connection with such zoning ordinance or amendment and a copy, summary
or abstract thereof (exclusive of any map incorporated therein) shall be
published once in a newspaper published in the town, if any, or in such
newspaper published in the county in which such town may be located
having a circulation in such town, as the town board may designate, and
affidavits of the publication thereof shall be filed with the town
clerk. Such ordinance shall take effect ten days after such publication,
but such ordinance or amendment shall take effect from the date of its
service as against a person served personally with a copy thereof,
certified by the town clerk under the corporate seal of the town; and
showing the date of its passage and entry in the minutes.  Every town
clerk shall maintain a separate file or filing cabinet for each and
every map adopted in connection with a zoning ordinance or amendment and
shall file therein every such map hereafter adopted; said file or filing
cabinet to be available at any time during regular business hours for
public inspection.
  2. Service of written notice. At least ten days prior to the date of
the public hearing, written notice of any proposed regulations,
restrictions or boundaries of such districts, including any amendments
thereto, affecting property within five hundred feet of the following
shall be served personally or by mail by the town upon each person or
persons listed below:
  (a) The property of the housing authority erecting or owning a housing
project authorized under the public housing law; upon the executive
director of such housing authority and the chief executive officer of
the municipality providing financial assistance thereto.
  (b) The boundary of a city, village or town; upon the clerk thereof.
  (c) The boundary of a county; upon the clerk of the board of
supervisors or other person performing like duties.
  (d) The boundary of a state park or parkway; upon the regional state
park commission having jurisdiction over such state park or parkway.
  3. Additional requirements. The procedural requirements set forth
herein shall be in addition to the requirements of the provisions of
sections two hundred thirty-nine-l and two hundred thirty-nine-m of the
general municipal law relating to review by a county planning board or
agency or regional planning council; the provisions of the state
environmental quality review act under article eight of the
environmental conservation law and its implementing regulations which
are codified in title six part six hundred seventeen of the New York
codes, rules and regulations and any other general laws relating to land
use and any amendments thereto.
  4. Public hearing. The public, including those served notice pursuant
to subdivision two of this section, shall have an opportunity to be
heard at the public hearing. Those parties set forth in paragraphs (a),
(b), (c) and (d) of subdivision two of this section, however, shall not
have the right of review by a court as hereinafter provided.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2023 · leading case: Vill. of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, 45 A.D.3d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007).
Vill. of Chestnut Ridge v. Town of Ramapo, 45 A.D.3d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 17× “We conclude that it is within the authority granted by the Legislature to the four villages to sue on the claims that are made here, that Town Law § 264 (4) does not deprive the four villages of either capacity or standing to assert those claims, and that the appellants have…”
Benson Point Realty Corp. v. Town of East Hampton, 62 A.D.3d 989 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · cites it 5× “), dated November 28, 2007, which granted those branches of the amended petition which were to annul so much of the determination as rezoned the subject parcel on the ground that the Town of East Hampton failed to *990 comply with or provide proper notice pursuant to Town of…”
Gernatt Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d 1226 (N.Y. 1996). · cites it 2× “Notice and Referral Requirements Town Law § 264 (1) and § 265 (1) require a town board to give the public at least 10 days’ notice of the time and place of the public hearing at which proposed amendments to a local zoning ordinance will be discussed so that those interested in…”
24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Heaship, 101 A.D.3d 1034 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · cites it 3× “4 was not adopted in accordance with the relevant comprehensive plan, that it was not adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL article 8; hereinafter SEQRA), that it was not adopted in accordance with the requirements of General Municipal Law §…”
Pete Drown, Inc. v. Town Bd., 229 A.D.2d 877 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 2× “Petitioners thereafter commenced this combined action and proceeding seeking to annul the Town zoning law or, in the alternative, to obtain a declaration that they had acquired a vested right to operate the incinerator prior to its enactment. Their application having been…”
Matter of 24 Franklin Ave. R.E. Corp. v. Heaship, 139 A.D.3d 742 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “4 was *745 properly invalidated, we further note that the Town Board, in enacting that local law, failed to comply with the notice provisions of Town Law § 264 (1) and (2). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the record does not show that the notice requirements of Town Law…”
Frooks v. Town of Cortlandt, 997 F. Supp. 438 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). “See 61 N.Y. Town Law § 264 (McKinney’s 1987 & Supp.”
McCarthy v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 283 A.D.2d 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). “In her first cause of action, petitioner alleges that the zoning ordinance is illegal and invalid because it was neither properly entered in the minutes of the Town Board nor properly published and posted in accordance with Town Law § 264. In her second cause of action,…”
Gabrielli v. Town of New Paltz, 116 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “The cause of action alleging a violation of Town Law § 264 is likewise without merit; that provision does not apply, as the 2011 law was enacted in accord with the Municipal Home Rule Law (see Code of Town of New Paltz § 139-2 [A]; Matter of Pete Drown, Inc.”
Cipperley v. Town of East Greenbush, 213 A.D.2d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · cites it 2× “, Town Law § 264 [2]), the requirement that zoning regulations be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan (see, Town Law § 263), and the mandates of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (see, ECL art 8) (hereinafter SEQRA), its passage of the zoning amendment was…”
Loudon House LLC v. Town of Colonie, 123 A.D.3d 1406 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). “of Vestal, 29 AD2d 907 , 908 [1968], revd on other grounds 24 NY2d 900 [1969]; see Town Law § 264 [1]; Matter of L.F. Letts & Son v City of Cortland, 47 Misc 2d 240, 243 [1965]).”
Sherman v. Town of Rhinebeck, 133 A.D.2d 77 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987). · cites it 2× “In opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, the defendants proffered evidence that the town enacted the 1975 Zoning Ordinance and repealed Local Law No. 1 because officials were of the belief that the 1971 Local Law was invalid due to procedural irregularities in its enactment, i.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.