Zoning in Westchester
by Rebecca Senn
The Basics
Zoning is a land-use planning tool used by local governments to permit appropriate uses based off of mapped zones which separate one use of land from another use. Typically, zoning is used to segregate uses of land that are inconsistent or incompatible. Zoning has always been a way for communities to preserve their inherent character. This can be seen in the early zoning cases in New York City for example. Zoning can include the regulation of different kinds of activities such as residential, commercial, industrial or open spaces. Zoning also identifies which types of activities can be performed and the density of these activities. For example: the size of buildings allowed on the land, the height, the location of the building on the lot (this is called setbacks), parking, or single-family units just to name a few. Historically, zoning has also been a tool used to segregate the types of people that a community wanted within their neighborhood. It was mainly used to keep African Americans from moving into white neighborhoods.
The origins of zoning are inherently urban, but zoning battles played out all over the United States in rural areas as well. As a case-study the battle of PepsiCo in Westchester will be highlighted. There were some residents who were angry at a large corporation trying to move into their community, but in the end zoning variances were passed that ultimately allowed for corporations all over the United States to move into their desired suburban locations. In the end, zoning was not much of a hindrance for large corporations because they were able to convince the local residents that their presence in their community would be positive addition, creating services, jobs, and an influx on money into the community. Thus, corporations were able to work around zoning issues if they wanted to buy and build on a particular parcel of land.
History of Zoning
Zoning in the United States started after 1910. Numerous accounts attribute New York City as the origin site of zoning, with the cities 1916 ordinance being the very first zoning law. One of the nuisances pushing New York towards the first zoning ordinance was the Equitable Building built in 1915, still standing, rather unobtrusively, among its larger modern neighbors at 120 Broadway.[1] When the Equitable Building was built it was the talk of the city, taking up an entire block, shutting off window views, hiding the sun, and reducing property values and rents for blocks in all directions. The outrage over the building led to New York’s set back laws (regulating building heights, and introducing the concept of the building envelope). These zoning laws, written by a special commission headed by Edward Basset, became the blueprint for zoning in the rest of the country, partly because Bassett headed the group of planning lawyers which wrote The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act that was issued by the US Department of Commerce in 1924 and accepted almost without change by most states.
The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld in 1926. The zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio was challenged in court by a local landowner on the basis that restricting use of property violated the 14th Amendment Though initially ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, the zoning ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid, Ohio vs. Ambler Realty Co. There are accounts of other cities developing similar zoning laws during the same time period though, such as Los Angeles and Boston. Had New York not been the first, several other cities were poised to take the title.[2]
Zoning was not a result of occurrences happening within one particular city or place. Economist William Fishchel explains “Zoning was an idea whose time had come almost simultaneously in cities across the nation. Its origins need to be found in a change in general urban conditions (overcrowding, demand for space, etc.). The roles of planners, progressives, and lawyers were responses to a popular demand for zoning.”[3]
Although the origins of zoning were inherently urban, one should be careful not to overlook the fact that zoning spread rapidly to the suburbs and small towns located in the metropolitan areas. Zoning suburbanized by the 1920s and spread rapidly.[4] By the end of 1916 8 cities had adopted zoning. By 1926, 68 more cities had adopted zoning and between 1926 and 1936, 1246 additional municipalities had adopted zoning laws.[5] By the late 1920s most of the nation had developed a set of zoning regulations that met the needs of the locality. Up until the 1950s, zoning protected private property basically being used as a conservative and exclusionary land use tool. Civil rights advocates in the late 1960s argued that zoning discriminated against low income and racial minorities and that it was unconstitutional. But the US Supreme Court upheld zoning and therefore the right of private property owners. Historically, the courts have separated private property and civil rights and held that the former was more important than the latter.
Suburban Battles over Zoning: The Case of PepsiCo
When corporate headquarters began moving to Westchester, residents were not all thrilled with the new corporate presence in their pastoral communities. As Louise Mozingo notes “until the advent of pastoral capitalism, these classic American pastoral suburbs were pointedly not places of business enterprise, much less industry, indeed they were particularly defined as being devoid of large scale commerce”.[6] As corporations began moving to the suburbs they had to convince the community that their developments would not infringe upon or compromise their pastoral communities.
The communal reaction to the corporate headquarters moving to the suburbs is captured in the case of PepsiCo moving to Westchester. In 1967 PepsiCo proposed to move their headquarters to Westchester County in the town Purchase. A huge debate centered on PepsiCo moving to this location. The article below showcases the community debate that took place over the zoning of Purchase and Harrison in regards to PepsiCo:
Purchase, N.Y. April 27, 1967- Estate owners fighting to save their open fields and picturesque country roads here from intrusions by commerce demanded today a referendum supporting a plan to incorporate Purchase as a self-governing village. At stake immediately is a proposal of PepsiCo, Inc., to build a $12 million campus-type world headquarters. Members of the Purchase Association don’t want the headquarters, while other residents do. Tonight the PepsiCo plan was unfolded in detail at a public hearing of the Harrison Town Board in the Purchase Community House.
Incorporation would not mean secession from Harrison but would mean that Purchase would elect its own mayor and trustees, control its own zoning, run its own police department and manage a multitude of other services that it now pays Harrison $400,000 a year to provide.
The Harrison Town Board now controls all zoning for the property PepsiCo intends to use. If Purchase incorporates as a village, the new village officials would control the zoning. If the Town Board tries to rezone before village officials take office, Purchase estate owners say they will seek an injunction in State Supreme Court to block the board.[7]
This article is a prime example of the debates and differences of opinion surrounding corporate inclusion into the suburbs. The hearing was on the rezoning of PepsiCo in the town of Harrison. During this meeting Donald M. Kendall, president of PepsiCo tried to convince the town and its residents that “It won’t be a huge commercial building. We will produce a careful blend of woodland screening, rolling lawns, and attractive Lakeland waters.”[8]
Residents responded with their concerns as well “A corporate headquarters with 600 cars in the parking lot, all of them leaving at 4:30P.M., is not a proper use out here,” says Mr. Hisle of the Purchase civic group “People around here can’t get out of their driveways during rush hours. “This has been one of the outstanding residential areas in the country,” he said. “We simply feel we’re being invaded.”[9]
Ultimately, the town of Purchase did not want PepsiCo invaded their pastoral suburban community, whereas the town of Harrison saw PepsiCo as an asset, generating four times as much local revenue as residential development, without requiring new schools or other public services. In the past, opposition from Purchase residents had excluded International Business Machines, a racetrack, and a shopping center from their manicured acres. But the referendum campaign against PepsiCo failed as the town’s broader interest prevailed over those of the wealthiest residents. Three months after PepsiCo unleashed their plans to move, the Harrison town board approved a zoning change to permit commercial building in areas previously restricted to private estates, provided that the
new PepsiCo facilities were surrounded by at least 100 landscaped acres.[11]
Corporations such as PepsiCo had to convince the town that there large headquarters would not interfere with the community. They had to convince the town boards, the community boards, and local residents that their corporation would not cause destruction, but would rather add to their community by providing tax revenue. In the end, after much convincing, hearings, and public meetings, PepsiCo moved to Westchester and is still located there today. PepsiCo had won its zoning battle.
Although the reception of suburban homeowners was inherently skeptical, they had something to gain from the corporate headquarters. As the suburbs continued to expand, the need for more services such as police and fire departments demanded more money. Thus, the suburban residents benefited from the large tax money the corporations provided for these services. This compromise played out between home owners and power brokers all over the country.[10] Another Westchester example is that of General Foods. The mayor of White Plains characterized the public hearing to approve the headquarters for General Foods as “the roughest zoning hearing I’ve ever attended.”[12]
In conclusion, the suburbs had a lot to gain from corporate headquarters making their move. Although resistance was felt from the communal residents, in the end the corporations almost always were able to move to their desired suburban location. Battles over zoning happened all over the United States in regards to commerce and industry trying to move their large companies to the suburbs, but in the end a compromise between corporation and community sufficed.
Notes:
[1] Pauls, Michel. Recivilization, "The origins of zoning." Accessed October 25, 2012. http://recivilization.net/AmericanCityBuilding/241originsofzoning.php.
[2] William A. Fishchel. An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for Its Exclusionary Effects. Dartmouth College, 2001.p. 3.
[3] Fishchel p. 3.
[4] Fishchel p. 3.
[5] Fishchel p.3.
[6] Mozingo, Louise. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes. Canada: MIT Press, 2011.
[7] Merrill Folsom. (1967). Purchase Village Plan Pressed in The New York Times. p. 1-2.
[8] Folsom. p.1.
[9] William Tucker. “Corporate Quest for Idyllic Sties Begins to Ruffle Estate Country”. New York Times, 1977.
[10] Mozingo, p. 33.
[11] Mozingo, p. 33.
[12] Michael N. Danielson. New York: The Politics of Urban Regional Development. University of California Press, 1982, p. 93.
The Basics
Zoning is a land-use planning tool used by local governments to permit appropriate uses based off of mapped zones which separate one use of land from another use. Typically, zoning is used to segregate uses of land that are inconsistent or incompatible. Zoning has always been a way for communities to preserve their inherent character. This can be seen in the early zoning cases in New York City for example. Zoning can include the regulation of different kinds of activities such as residential, commercial, industrial or open spaces. Zoning also identifies which types of activities can be performed and the density of these activities. For example: the size of buildings allowed on the land, the height, the location of the building on the lot (this is called setbacks), parking, or single-family units just to name a few. Historically, zoning has also been a tool used to segregate the types of people that a community wanted within their neighborhood. It was mainly used to keep African Americans from moving into white neighborhoods.
The origins of zoning are inherently urban, but zoning battles played out all over the United States in rural areas as well. As a case-study the battle of PepsiCo in Westchester will be highlighted. There were some residents who were angry at a large corporation trying to move into their community, but in the end zoning variances were passed that ultimately allowed for corporations all over the United States to move into their desired suburban locations. In the end, zoning was not much of a hindrance for large corporations because they were able to convince the local residents that their presence in their community would be positive addition, creating services, jobs, and an influx on money into the community. Thus, corporations were able to work around zoning issues if they wanted to buy and build on a particular parcel of land.
History of Zoning
Zoning in the United States started after 1910. Numerous accounts attribute New York City as the origin site of zoning, with the cities 1916 ordinance being the very first zoning law. One of the nuisances pushing New York towards the first zoning ordinance was the Equitable Building built in 1915, still standing, rather unobtrusively, among its larger modern neighbors at 120 Broadway.[1] When the Equitable Building was built it was the talk of the city, taking up an entire block, shutting off window views, hiding the sun, and reducing property values and rents for blocks in all directions. The outrage over the building led to New York’s set back laws (regulating building heights, and introducing the concept of the building envelope). These zoning laws, written by a special commission headed by Edward Basset, became the blueprint for zoning in the rest of the country, partly because Bassett headed the group of planning lawyers which wrote The Standard State Zoning Enabling Act that was issued by the US Department of Commerce in 1924 and accepted almost without change by most states.
The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld in 1926. The zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio was challenged in court by a local landowner on the basis that restricting use of property violated the 14th Amendment Though initially ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, the zoning ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid, Ohio vs. Ambler Realty Co. There are accounts of other cities developing similar zoning laws during the same time period though, such as Los Angeles and Boston. Had New York not been the first, several other cities were poised to take the title.[2]
Zoning was not a result of occurrences happening within one particular city or place. Economist William Fishchel explains “Zoning was an idea whose time had come almost simultaneously in cities across the nation. Its origins need to be found in a change in general urban conditions (overcrowding, demand for space, etc.). The roles of planners, progressives, and lawyers were responses to a popular demand for zoning.”[3]
Although the origins of zoning were inherently urban, one should be careful not to overlook the fact that zoning spread rapidly to the suburbs and small towns located in the metropolitan areas. Zoning suburbanized by the 1920s and spread rapidly.[4] By the end of 1916 8 cities had adopted zoning. By 1926, 68 more cities had adopted zoning and between 1926 and 1936, 1246 additional municipalities had adopted zoning laws.[5] By the late 1920s most of the nation had developed a set of zoning regulations that met the needs of the locality. Up until the 1950s, zoning protected private property basically being used as a conservative and exclusionary land use tool. Civil rights advocates in the late 1960s argued that zoning discriminated against low income and racial minorities and that it was unconstitutional. But the US Supreme Court upheld zoning and therefore the right of private property owners. Historically, the courts have separated private property and civil rights and held that the former was more important than the latter.
Suburban Battles over Zoning: The Case of PepsiCo
When corporate headquarters began moving to Westchester, residents were not all thrilled with the new corporate presence in their pastoral communities. As Louise Mozingo notes “until the advent of pastoral capitalism, these classic American pastoral suburbs were pointedly not places of business enterprise, much less industry, indeed they were particularly defined as being devoid of large scale commerce”.[6] As corporations began moving to the suburbs they had to convince the community that their developments would not infringe upon or compromise their pastoral communities.
The communal reaction to the corporate headquarters moving to the suburbs is captured in the case of PepsiCo moving to Westchester. In 1967 PepsiCo proposed to move their headquarters to Westchester County in the town Purchase. A huge debate centered on PepsiCo moving to this location. The article below showcases the community debate that took place over the zoning of Purchase and Harrison in regards to PepsiCo:
Purchase, N.Y. April 27, 1967- Estate owners fighting to save their open fields and picturesque country roads here from intrusions by commerce demanded today a referendum supporting a plan to incorporate Purchase as a self-governing village. At stake immediately is a proposal of PepsiCo, Inc., to build a $12 million campus-type world headquarters. Members of the Purchase Association don’t want the headquarters, while other residents do. Tonight the PepsiCo plan was unfolded in detail at a public hearing of the Harrison Town Board in the Purchase Community House.
Incorporation would not mean secession from Harrison but would mean that Purchase would elect its own mayor and trustees, control its own zoning, run its own police department and manage a multitude of other services that it now pays Harrison $400,000 a year to provide.
The Harrison Town Board now controls all zoning for the property PepsiCo intends to use. If Purchase incorporates as a village, the new village officials would control the zoning. If the Town Board tries to rezone before village officials take office, Purchase estate owners say they will seek an injunction in State Supreme Court to block the board.[7]
This article is a prime example of the debates and differences of opinion surrounding corporate inclusion into the suburbs. The hearing was on the rezoning of PepsiCo in the town of Harrison. During this meeting Donald M. Kendall, president of PepsiCo tried to convince the town and its residents that “It won’t be a huge commercial building. We will produce a careful blend of woodland screening, rolling lawns, and attractive Lakeland waters.”[8]
Residents responded with their concerns as well “A corporate headquarters with 600 cars in the parking lot, all of them leaving at 4:30P.M., is not a proper use out here,” says Mr. Hisle of the Purchase civic group “People around here can’t get out of their driveways during rush hours. “This has been one of the outstanding residential areas in the country,” he said. “We simply feel we’re being invaded.”[9]
Ultimately, the town of Purchase did not want PepsiCo invaded their pastoral suburban community, whereas the town of Harrison saw PepsiCo as an asset, generating four times as much local revenue as residential development, without requiring new schools or other public services. In the past, opposition from Purchase residents had excluded International Business Machines, a racetrack, and a shopping center from their manicured acres. But the referendum campaign against PepsiCo failed as the town’s broader interest prevailed over those of the wealthiest residents. Three months after PepsiCo unleashed their plans to move, the Harrison town board approved a zoning change to permit commercial building in areas previously restricted to private estates, provided that the
new PepsiCo facilities were surrounded by at least 100 landscaped acres.[11]
Corporations such as PepsiCo had to convince the town that there large headquarters would not interfere with the community. They had to convince the town boards, the community boards, and local residents that their corporation would not cause destruction, but would rather add to their community by providing tax revenue. In the end, after much convincing, hearings, and public meetings, PepsiCo moved to Westchester and is still located there today. PepsiCo had won its zoning battle.
Although the reception of suburban homeowners was inherently skeptical, they had something to gain from the corporate headquarters. As the suburbs continued to expand, the need for more services such as police and fire departments demanded more money. Thus, the suburban residents benefited from the large tax money the corporations provided for these services. This compromise played out between home owners and power brokers all over the country.[10] Another Westchester example is that of General Foods. The mayor of White Plains characterized the public hearing to approve the headquarters for General Foods as “the roughest zoning hearing I’ve ever attended.”[12]
In conclusion, the suburbs had a lot to gain from corporate headquarters making their move. Although resistance was felt from the communal residents, in the end the corporations almost always were able to move to their desired suburban location. Battles over zoning happened all over the United States in regards to commerce and industry trying to move their large companies to the suburbs, but in the end a compromise between corporation and community sufficed.
Notes:
[1] Pauls, Michel. Recivilization, "The origins of zoning." Accessed October 25, 2012. http://recivilization.net/AmericanCityBuilding/241originsofzoning.php.
[2] William A. Fishchel. An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for Its Exclusionary Effects. Dartmouth College, 2001.p. 3.
[3] Fishchel p. 3.
[4] Fishchel p. 3.
[5] Fishchel p.3.
[6] Mozingo, Louise. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes. Canada: MIT Press, 2011.
[7] Merrill Folsom. (1967). Purchase Village Plan Pressed in The New York Times. p. 1-2.
[8] Folsom. p.1.
[9] William Tucker. “Corporate Quest for Idyllic Sties Begins to Ruffle Estate Country”. New York Times, 1977.
[10] Mozingo, p. 33.
[11] Mozingo, p. 33.
[12] Michael N. Danielson. New York: The Politics of Urban Regional Development. University of California Press, 1982, p. 93.