¶44 The court in Dur-Bar Realty identified several policy objectives for restricting use in a flood plain:
(1) the protection of individuals who might choose, despite the flood dangers, to develop or occupy land
landowners from damages resulting from the development of a flood plain and the consequent obstruction of the flood flow; (3) the protection of the entire community from individual choices of land use which require subsequent public expenditures for public works and disaster relief.
The court concluded,
"[i]t is beyond question that these
which correspond closely
to the stated purposes of subject of a legitimate The court further stated
that, "'Land Conservation District' provisions do substantial relation to legitimate governmental purpose
reasonable since the
relation to the goal of flood safety." limitations related to flood safety, the
Id. Thus, restriction
satisfied the relationship to the public health, or general welfare.
¶45 In its analysis, the Dur-Bar Realty court contrasted the "flood plain" ordinance in that case with the ordinance at
issue in Marshall v.
of Wappingers Falls,
N.Y.S.2d were no
permitted uses as of but twelve uses were 655-56. The court "Planned Residential zoning in accordance
right in the "Planned Residential District"
District was ultra vires because
that the it was not The court