Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

March 10, 2015 ( Volume 9 ( Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin that were adopted converted most of the Griepenburgs' property from resi- dential and commercial use to an Environmental Conservation district ("EC district"), thereby restricting future development of their property. The Griepenburgs filed a legal action. Among other things, they chal- lenged the validity of the Township ordinances, which had rezoned their property. They argued that since their property did not contain any environmentally distinct features or threatened or endangered species, the ordinances rezoning their property were "arbitrary, unreasonable, capri- cious, and illegal." The Township maintained that the Griepenburgs' property was reason- ably included in the rezone because the property served as a "key connec- tion point" linking other forested areas. The trial court dismissed the Griepenburgs' challenge. In doing so, the court applied criteria for assessing the validity of a zoning ordinance and determined that the challenged zoning ordinances here were a valid exercise of municipal zoning power and were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The Griepenburgs appealed. The Appellate Division reversed. Agreeing with the Griepenburgs, the court held that the ordinances were invalid as applied to the Griepenburgs because the "downzoning [was] not required to serve the stated purposes of the ordinances and [did] not reflect reason- able consideration of existing development in the areas where the [Griepen- burgs'] property [was] located." The Township appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court, Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the ordinances were valid in that they represented a legitimate exercise of the Township's power to zone property consistent with its Master Plan and the state's Municipal Land Use Law ("MLUL") goals. In so holding, the court evaluated the validity of the challenged ordi- nances under a four-part, objective test. That test assessed whether: (1) the ordinances advanced one of the purposes of the [MLUL] as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2; (2) the ordinances were substantially consistent with the land use plan element and the housing plan element of the master plan or designed to effectuate such plan elements, unless the requirements of that statute were otherwise satisfied; (3) the ordinances comported with constitutional constraints on the zoning power, including those pertaining to due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against confiscation; and (4) the ordinance were adopted in accordance with statutory and mu- nicipal procedural requirements. As to each of these elements, the Supreme Court of New Jersey gave deference to the trial court's determinations that all of them were satisfied. Among other things, the trial court had concluded that: the ordinances "advanced several purposes of the MLUL" including promotion of smart 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters