Borough of Glassboro v. Vallorosi
221 N.J. Super. 610, 535 A.2d 544 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A group of unrelated individuals living together can constitute a single 'family' for zoning purposes if they exhibit the generic character of a family unit, meaning they function as a single, stable, and permanent housekeeping unit.
Facts:
- In the spring of 1986, a disruptive college party prompted the Borough of Glassboro to amend its zoning ordinance.
- The new ordinance defined a 'family' as 'One or more persons occupying a dwelling unit as a single non-profit housekeeping unit, who are living together as a stable and permanent living unit, being a traditional family unit or the functional equivalency thereof.'
- On June 25, 1986, Diane Vallorosi and Paul Sages took title to a home in a residential zone, purchased to provide housing for their family member, Peter Vallorosi, and his college friends.
- A family partnership, S & V Associates, became the landlord and entered into ten separate, semester-long leases with ten Glassboro State College students.
- The ten students began living in the house in late August 1986.
- The students shared all common areas of the house, used a single kitchen, ate meals together or in small groups, and paid household bills from a common checkbook.
- Although their leases were short-term, the students intended to reside in the house for the duration of their college careers.
Procedural Posture:
- The Borough of Glassboro, as plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Diane Vallorosi and Paul Sages, as defendants, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.
- The lawsuit alleged that the defendants' property, occupied by ten college students, was in violation of a borough zoning ordinance restricting occupancy in residential districts to a 'family'.
- The Borough sought an injunction to bar the students from living in the home.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a group of ten unrelated college students who share a house, living expenses, and common areas constitute a 'family' under a municipal zoning ordinance that defines a family as a 'single non-profit housekeeping unit' living together as a 'stable and permanent living unit' or the 'functional equivalency thereof'?
Opinions:
Majority - Edward S. Miller, J.S.C.
Yes, a group of ten unrelated college students can constitute a 'family' under the ordinance because they exhibit the generic character of a family unit by functioning as a single, stable, and permanent housekeeping unit. While the ordinance's requirement for a 'single housekeeping unit' that is a 'stable and permanent living unit' is valid under New Jersey law, the group of students meets this definition. Citing State v. Baker, the court focused on whether the group bears the 'generic character of a family unit.' The students' arrangement, which involved sharing common areas, a kitchen, meals, and a common checkbook for household bills, demonstrated they were a single housekeeping unit. The court determined their intention to remain in the house throughout their college careers was of sufficient duration to be considered stable and permanent, distinguishing it from more transient arrangements like a halfway house. Therefore, their communal living arrangement qualifies as the 'functional equivalent of a family' and is a permitted use under the ordinance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the New Jersey legal principle, established in State v. Baker, that zoning ordinances cannot narrowly define 'family' to exclude groups of unrelated individuals who function as a single household. It clarifies that the test for a family is functional, not biological, focusing on stability, permanence, and a shared lifestyle. The case demonstrates that even groups with seemingly transient characteristics, like college students with semester-long leases, can meet the permanency requirement if their collective intent is to reside together for a significant and definite period. This ruling limits a municipality's ability to use zoning as a pretext to discriminate against unpopular groups like students, protecting their right to live together in residential areas so long as they constitute a bona fide single housekeeping unit.
