Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

Zonin!;j Bulletin Febru.ary 10, 2009 I Volume 3.1 No.3 Riya brought an action in trial court. It asserted that Ordinance 15-05 was: inconsistent with the Master Plan; and arbitrary and capricious. It also argued that the rezone constituted impermissible inverse spot zoning. The trial court agreed with Riya's arguments and ruled in Riya's favor. On appeal by the township, the appellate court reversed and ruled in the township's favor. Riya again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of appellate division reversed; judgment of trial court reinstated. . The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that Ordinance 15-05, which rezoned Riya's Parcel, was: (1) arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; and (2) impermissible inverse spot zoning. The court so concluded be- cause. the ordinance, which was inconsistent with the Master Plan, was not adequately explained and arbitrarily imposed a burden on Riya. The court explained that the state's Murticipal Land Use Law ("MLUL") required a municipality to, in adopting a zoning ordinance, either: (1) adopt an ordinance that was "substantially consistent" with the murticipality's Master Plan; or (2) explain its reasons for adopting an ordinance that was inconsistent with the Master Plan. That statutory di- .') rective, said the court, precluded a municipality from making its decision to adopt a zoning ordinance arbitrary. . Here, the Council had admitted that Ordinance 15-05 was inconsis- i' tent with its Master Plan, and cited traffic concerns as its reason for the rezone. The court found that the Council's reasoning was "inadequate" because it failed "to point to any support for the concerns expressed by the [Residents] . . . ." The Residents concerns were "generic complaints." Neither the Residents nor the Council provided any evidence that a com- mercial facility would actually generate greater traffic congestion than an office build.iJig. Even more striking, found the court, was the Council's failure to explain why or how it "suddenly became appropriate" to ap- ply the OP Zone to Riya's Parcel, which was zoned as C-l and located along a corridor dotted with other areas so zoned. That lack of explana- tion "suggest[ed] that the choice was entirely arbitrary." The court neXt explained that to determine whether a zoning action was planned zoning or inverse spot zoning, the court looked at the intent and effect of the action. If the intent or effect of the action was to further a comprehensive scheme, then it was planned zoning. If the intent or ef- fect was to benefit the neighboring commurtity by imposing restrictions on a specific parcel that were contrary to the previously generated com- prehensive plan and to the detriment of the rights of the parcel's owner, then it was iriverse spot zoning. Using this test, the court concluded that ) Ordinance 15-05 constituted inverse spot zoning because of the combina- tion of the facts that: the zoning for Riya's parcel was changed; it would be more difficult for Riya to develop in accordance with the OP designa- @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 97 .