Oakwood at Madison, Inc. v. Madison Tp.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1974
• Parties: OAKWOOD AT MADISON, INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The TOWNSHIP OF MADISON and the State of New Jersey, Defendants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 438

128 N.J.Super. 438

320 A.2d 223

OAKWOOD AT MADISON, INC., a corporation of the State of New

Jersey, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The TOWNSHIP OF MADISON and the State of New Jersey, Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division.

April 29, 1974.

Frederick C. Mezey, New Brunswick, and Lois Thompson, Tarrytown, N.Y., of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, for plaintiffs (Mezey & Mezey, New Brunswick, attorneys).

Richard F. Plechner, Metuchen, for defendant Tp. of Madison.

FURMAN, J.S.C.

Madison Township amended its 1970 zoning ordinance, effective October 1, 1973, between the decision of this court holding the 1970 zoning ordinance invalid (reported in 117 N.J.Super. 11, 283 A.2d 353 (1971) and the resolution by the Supreme Court (certif. granted, 62 N.J. 185, 299 A.2d 720 (1972)) of an appeal from that decision. The Supreme Court remanded to this court for a trial, retaining jurisdiction, in accordance with appellate procedural law that an appellate court determines the legal validity of the zoning ordinance in effect at that time. Tidewater Oil Co. v. Mayor, etc., Carteret, 44 N.J. 338, 341, 209 A.2d 105 (1965).

This court held in the earlier decision that:

In pursuing the valid zoning purpose of a balanced community, a municipality must not ignore housing needs, that is, its fair proportion of the obligation to meet the housing needs of its own population and of the region. Housing needs are encompassed within the general welfare. The general welfare does not stop at each municipal boundary. Large areas of vacant and developable land should not be zoned, as Madison Township has, into such minimum lot sizes and with such other restrictions that regional as well as local housing needs are shunted aside. (at 20, 21, 283 A.2d at 358)

The precedents relied on include Chief Justice Vanderbilt's opinion in Duffcon Concrete Products v. Cresskill, 1 N.J. 509, 513, 64 A.2d 347 (1949), recognizing regional needs as a proper consideration in local zoning. A zoning ordinance prohibiting heavy industry anywhere within the municipality was sustained in Duffcon, but only under the circumstance that 'in the same geographical region, there is present a concentration of industry in an area peculiarly adapted to industrial development and sufficiently large to accommodate such development for years to come * * *.' (at 515, 64 A.2d at 351)

In Fanale v. Hasbrouck Heights, 26 N.J. 320, 139 A.2d 749 (1958), Chief Justice Weintraub, in upholding a prohibition by zoning ordinance against any new multi-family housing, noted:

There, of course is no suggestion that the county is so developed that Hasbrouck Heights is the last hope for a solution, and hence we do not have the question whether under the existing statute the judiciary could resolve a crisis of that kind. (at 328--329, 139 A.2d at 754)

DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1, 56 N.J. 428, 442, 267 A.2d 32 (1970), and Andrews v. Ocean Tp. Board of Adjustment, 30 N.J. 245, 251, 152 A.2d 580 (1959), recognized that the serving of regional as well as local needs by, respectively, public multi-family housing and a parochial school were 'special reasons' supporting zoning variances under N.J.S.A. 40:55--39(d).

Presumptively, the Supreme Court would have recognized the general welfare as overriding and struck down the ordinances under review in Duffcon and in Fanale if, respectively, there had not been adequate industry or adequate multi-family housing nearby.

As a parallel, this court, finding desperate housing needs in the county and region, held that the Madison Township zoning ordinance was invalid because it failed to provide for the township's fair share of housing to meet the housing shortage. Whatever general welfare benefits might be served within the township by population limitations (the conceded objective), these were overriden and the general welfare in balance thwarted by exclusionary zoning restrictions against new low and moderate income housing.

Factually, a crisis in housing needs continues; most severe for those of low and moderate incomes, and a disadvantaged population remains trapped in the ghettoes of the central cities. The issue thus is whether the amended zoning ordinance of Madison Township provides for the township's fair share of new low and moderate income housing as well as of new high income housing.

Some preliminary clarifications may be appropriate. The region, the housing needs of which must be reasonably provided for by Madison Township, is in the view of this court, not coextensive with Middlesex County. Rather, it is the area from which, in view of available employment and transportation, the population of the township would be drawn, absent invalidly exclusionary zoning. Less than 1% Of the Madison Township residents who are employed have their jobs within the township. But the township is bisected by arterial highways, including the Garden State Parkway, and by a commuter railroad with stations in adjoining municipalities. Access to employment even at some distance is practicable by automobile, bus and railroad. 50% Of the work force is employed in Middlesex County, 15% In New York City, 10% In Essex County and the balance in nearby New Jersey counties, including 7% In Monmouth County to the south.

In determining the township's fair share of housing in all income ranges, the breakdown of population by yearly income according to the 1970 census is relevant. Only 12% Of the township's households (both families and persons living alone) had incomes below $6627, 19% Had incomes from $6627 to $9936, 24% Had incomes from $9936 to $13,088, 27% Had incomes from $13,088 to $19,236 and 18% Had incomes above $19,236, as compared in each quintile to 20% Of the State's households. Unquestionably, high costs of commutation to work have tended to reduce the township's proportion of low-income earners below that of nearby urban and industrial centers.

Madison Township comprises approximately 25,000 acres. Its population is 8% Of Middlesex County but its vacant developable land is nearly 20%, about 11,000 ¹ out of 56,000 acres throughout the county. Despite zoning restrictions which this court held invalid, the township's population upsurge continued from 1970 to 1973, up by 5000 or 11%. But only 6% Of the building permits issued in the county were issued in the township during that period. Projected housing needs for the township are for 750 to 1000 units a year into the 1980's, 500 to 600 of those low and moderate-income units according to testimony on both sides.

The 1973 zoning amendments were extensive, enlarging both total acreage available for housing and housing capacity. Under the 1970 ordinance about 5500 acres of vacant developable land were zoned R40 with one-acre minimum lot size, and about 2500 acres of vacant developable land were zoned R80 with two-acre minimum lot size. These totals were amended to about 4500 acres in R40, and 325 acres in R80. Minimum total floor space limitations in R40 and R80 were deleted; minimum floor space limitations per room were established in all residential zones. An R15 zone was created with 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, on the outskirts of areas of high density population. The available land in R15 is about 500 acres. The R20 zone with 20,000 square foot minimum lot size was expanded by about 500 acres.

Cheesequake State Park; the Old Bridge sands, an underground water resource largely owned by the City of Perth Amboy; Burnt Fly Bog, the meadowlands adjacent to Deep Run, and the Raritan Bay beachfront were rezoned from R80 to RP, Recreation-Preservation.

Under the 1970 ordinance the multi-family housing zone, designated AF, was limited to a new housing capacity of about 700 units, with a bedroom per development ratio of 80% One bedroom and 20% Two bedroom, and a maximum density of 12 units per acre....