Justice Presiding Eugene D. Faughnan
Petitioners sought to annul an amendment to the Village of Lansing Zoning Ordinance, arguing that the re-zoning of the subject property is unlawful in that it represents impermissible “spot zoning” since it is inconsistent with the Village’s comprehensive zoning plan, and failed to conduct a proper review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). Village of Lansing respondents asserted that the re-zoning of the subject property was within the authority of the Village Board and did not represent “spot zoning” as it was not done for the benefit of a single developer, nor to any cognizable detriment of petitioners, and was otherwise consistent with the comprehensive plan for zoning. The court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that petitioners failed to sustain their burden that the re-zoning of the subject property represents impermissible spot zoning. The court added that petitioners failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the re-zoning of the subject property was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or that the re-zoning improperly affects the land of only a few without proper concern for the needs or design of the entire community.