Cochran v. Planning Bd. of Summit
87 N.J. Super. 526, 210 A.2d 99 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A master plan adopted by a municipal planning board is merely a preliminary, advisory document that has no legal effect or binding force until it is implemented through a legislative ordinance. Therefore, its adoption does not constitute a compensable taking of property or create a justiciable controversy.
Facts:
- Robert and Alice Cochran owned a home in Summit, New Jersey, in a zoning district designated for single-family residences.
- Their property was adjacent to a 63.5-acre tract owned by the Ciba Corporation, which was also located in the same single-family residential zone.
- The Ciba tract was subject to deed restrictions limiting its use to single-family residences until 1975.
- The Planning Board of the City of Summit adopted a master plan for the city's future development.
- This master plan recommended rezoning the Ciba tract to allow for the construction of parking areas, research facilities, and office buildings for Ciba's expansion.
- The plan proposed a 125-foot buffer zone containing trees and a screen to separate the proposed Ciba development from the Cochrans' property.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert and Alice Cochran (plaintiffs) filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (a trial court).
- The lawsuit was brought against the Planning Board of the City of Summit and the City of Summit (defendants).
- The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring the master plan null and void and an injunction to prevent the city from implementing the plan.
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 the adoption of a master plan by a municipal planning board, which proposes zoning changes but has not been implemented by a legislative ordinance, constitute a compensable taking of property or give rise to a justiciable controversy?
Opinions:
Majority - Feller, J.S.C.
No. The adoption of a master plan by a planning board does not constitute a compensable taking of property or give rise to a justiciable controversy. A master plan is merely a declaration of policy and a guide for future development, lacking any binding legal effect until the governing body implements its recommendations by adopting an ordinance. The court reasoned that a master plan is a flexible instrument that shows a planning commission's intentions, but it is not a 'straitjacket' on the legislative body. Because the plan has no legal consequence on its own and may never be adopted by the city's governing body, any alleged harm or diminution in property value is speculative and conjectural. Until the municipality takes concrete legislative action, such as passing a zoning ordinance, the plaintiffs have not suffered a legal injury, and their lawsuit is premature.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between the planning function and the legislative function in municipal land use regulation. It clarifies that a master plan is purely an advisory document, insulating municipalities from legal challenges at the early planning stages. The decision reinforces the principle that a legal injury in a zoning context arises only from a binding legislative act, like an ordinance, not from a preliminary, non-binding recommendation. This precedent ensures that planning boards can engage in comprehensive, long-term planning without facing litigation over proposals that may never be enacted into law, thereby preserving the flexibility of the planning process.
