This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D enacted a General Zoning Ordinance dividing the village into seven districts or zones. There was a need for additional housing. In 1947 and 1948, the board of trustees passed two amendatory ordinances. In this new class, buildings for multiple occupancy of fifteen or fewer families were permitted. The village planning board was empowered to approve such amendments and, in case such approval was withheld, the board of trustees was authorized to grant it by appropriate resolution. The ordinance erected exacting standards of size and physical layouts for Residence B-B zones: a minimum of ten acres of land and a maximum building height of three stories were mandated; setback and spacing requirements for structures were carefully prescribed, and no more than 15% of the ground area of the plot was to be occupied by buildings. Rubin (D) sought to have her property, consisting of almost ten and a half acres in the Residence A district, placed in a Residence B-B classification. Eventually, Rubin's (D) request was approved. In December of 1948, the board of trustees, passed the second ordinance wherein it provides that the Residence B-B district 'is hereby applied to the [Rubin (D)] property and the district or zone of said property is hereby changed to 'Residence B-B' and the official Building Zone Map was amended accordingly by specification of the various parcels and plots involved.' P owns a residence on a six-acre plot about a hundred yards from Rubin's (D) property. P sued Ds to have the two amendments declared invalid. The courts below, adjudging the amendments valid and the action of the trustees proper, dismissed the complaint. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.