Chrinko v. South Brunswick Township Planning Board
1963 N.J. Super. LEXIS 490, 77 N.J. Super. 594, 187 A.2d 221 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal zoning ordinance that provides developers the option to reduce minimum lot sizes and frontages in exchange for deeding a percentage of the tract to the municipality for public purposes (cluster or density zoning) is a valid exercise of the state's zoning power. Such an ordinance reasonably advances the legislative purposes of securing open spaces and promoting the general welfare, provided it is available to all developers within a zone and not enacted solely for the benefit of a private entity.
Facts:
- South Brunswick Township, once predominantly agricultural, began experiencing rapid population growth and development pressure from nearby metropolitan areas.
- A developer, Yenom Corporation, received preliminary approval in 1959 to build a 526-lot subdivision called Brunswick Acres on lots of 13,500 square feet, which was the minimum size allowed at the time.
- Township officials, concerned about the lack of land for schools, parks, and other public facilities in such a large, rapidly-developing area, began meeting with representatives from Yenom Corporation in 1962.
- The township's Planning Board, after reviewing a master plan report that recommended a similar concept, passed resolutions requesting the township committee to enact a zoning ordinance amendment to authorize cluster development.
- The South Brunswick Township committee enacted Ordinance 19-62, which allowed developers to reduce lot sizes by 20-30% and frontages by 10-20% if they deeded 20-30% of their total tract to the township for public use.
- Yenom Corporation subsequently submitted a new subdivision plan for Brunswick Acres that utilized the options provided by the new cluster zoning ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs initiated a prerogative writ action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, which is a trial-level court.
- The action sought to invalidate two zoning ordinances, Nos. 19-62 and 20-62, enacted by the defendant, South Brunswick Township.
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 municipal zoning ordinance that permits a developer, at their option, to build on smaller lots in exchange for deeding a percentage of the subdivision's land to the township for public purposes constitute a valid exercise of the state's zoning power?
Opinions:
Majority - Furman, J. S. C.
Yes, a municipal zoning ordinance that provides an optional method for cluster development is a valid exercise of the state's zoning power. Although state zoning law does not explicitly mention cluster zoning, such an ordinance reasonably advances the legislative purposes of securing open spaces, preventing overcrowding, and promoting the general welfare. The ordinance accomplishes uniformity because the option is open to all developers within a zoning district and is not compulsory. It represents a modern solution to the challenges of large-scale subdivisions, where municipalities must anticipate needs for schools and recreation areas. The argument that the ordinance was improper special legislation for Yenom Corporation fails; while the Brunswick Acres development was a motivating factor, the ordinance was enacted for the general welfare of the municipality to avoid the negative consequences of intense development without corresponding public amenities. Any benefit to the developer was incidental to the primary public purpose.
Analysis:
This decision represents an important judicial validation of flexible zoning techniques designed to address the pressures of modern suburban development. It signals a move away from rigid, uniform lot-size requirements towards more holistic planning approaches. The court established that so long as an innovative zoning ordinance like cluster zoning is generally applicable and advances a legitimate public purpose, it will not be invalidated as improper 'spot zoning' merely because it was prompted by a specific development or confers an incidental benefit on a private developer. This gives municipalities a significant tool for negotiating public benefits, known as exactions, from developers in exchange for development flexibility.
