appropriately described as
that the B-2 District "no permitted uses" zone,
can be and we
conclude that the no permitted uses B-2 District and unreasonable because it bears no substantial public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
is arbitrary relation to However, we
do recognize that there may be limited circumstances in which a "no permitted uses" zone is a valid exercise of power because the restriction bears substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. For example, in Dur-Bar Realty Co. v. City of Utica, 394 N.Y.S.2d 913, 918 (N.Y.A.D. 1977), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, concluded that a "no permitted uses" zone was constitutional as the parcel at issue was in a "Land Conservation District and represented a
zone located in the flood plain." "Land Conservation District" "aimed
Id. at 915-16, 918. to regulate the use" of
in a "flood prone area." Id. at 918. today does not include a similar purpose
The ordinance at issue as in Dur-Bar Realty.
While the Sheerr court determined that a "conditional use
by permit only zone"——also
permitted uses zone"——was
referred by the Sheerr court
arbitrary as applied
to this zoning
as a "no property statutes
authorized a "conditional use by permit only zone." court determined that the zoning statutes "conditional use by permit only zones" so long as "definite specifications and standards" in place.
the case at issue "definite," so no
today, the standards are certainty exists as to a
The Sheerr authorized there were Id. at 62- generalized conditional