Rudderow v. Township Committee of Mount Laurel Tp.

Decision Date04 December 1972
Citation121 N.J.Super. 409,297 A.2d 583
PartiesWilliam S. RUDDEROW et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF the TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT LAUREL, the Township of Mount Laurel, a municipal corporation, Defendant, and Hannah A. Rosing, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

S. David Brandt, Haddonfield, for defendant-appellant Hannah A. Rosing (Farr, Brandt, Haughey & Penberthy, Haddonfield, attorneys; Stanley E. Zuzga, Haddonfield, on the brief).

Malcolm Block, Cherry Hill, for intervenors Goodwin Homes, Inc. and C. G. Associates (Beck & Block, Cherry Hill, attorneys).

William B. Scatchard, Jr., Camden, for plaintiffs-respondents William S. Rudderow, William X. Bonner and Maryanne A. Busha (Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., Camden, attorneys).

John W. Trimble, Turnersville, for Township of Mount Laurel (Higgins, Trimble & Master, P.A., Turnersville, substituted attorneys).

Before Judges COLLESTER, LEONARD and HALPERN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

HALPERN, J.A.D.

This is an appeal from a final judgment setting aside a tentative approval granted by Mount Laurel Township to appellant for a planned unit development project known as 'Cross Keys.'

Since the opinion of the court below, 114 N.J.Super. 104, 274 A.2d 854, sets forth the legislative history of New Jersey's Municipal Planned Unit Development Act (1967), N.J.S.A. 40:55--54 et seq., hereinafter referred to as P.U.D., it will not be repeated herein. The legislative goals are fully set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55--55. In summary, P.U.D. is a recognition by the Legislature that the 'Edclidean' (traditional) zoning approach, adopted in New Jersey about 50 years ago, had outlived its usefulness, and that new and more creative flexible approaches had to be adopted to overcome 'Euclidean' zoning inequities and deficiencies, and enable municipalities to provide for housing and other public needs for the present and reasonably foreseeable future. P.U.D. is the antithesis of the exclusive districting principle which is the mainstay of 'Euclidean' zoning. The latter approach divided a community into districts, and explicitly mandated segregated uses. P.U.D., on the other hand, is an instrument of land use control which augments and supplements existing master plans and zoning ordinances, and permits a mixture of land uses on the same tract (i.e. residential, commercial and industrial). It also enables municipalities to negotiate with developers concerning proposed uses, bulk, density and set back zoning provisions, which may be contrary to existing ordinances if the planned project is determined to be in the public and individual homeowner's interest. It also recognizes the importance of encouraging and making it financially worthwhile for developers and investors to undertake P.U.D. projects by permitting a more intensified utilization of vacant land which is scarce and skyrocketing in price.

The Legislature directed, 'This act shall be construed most favorably to municipalities, its intention being to give all municipalities the fullest and most complete powers possible concerning the subject matter hereof. * * *' N.J.S.A. 40:55--67.

Mount Laurel Township, after extended study, adopted its comprehensive P.U.D. ordinance in December 1967, and patterned it after N.J.S.A. 40:55--54 et seq. It is apparent that a great deal of planning and thought went into the preparation of the ordinance so that what was primarily a rural farming community could be developed to meet '* * * increasing urbanization and of growing demand for housing of all types and design; to provide for necessary commercial and educational facilities conveniently located to such housing; * * *.' In short, the ordinance sought to utilize the P.U.D. approach as a zoning tool to accomplish the 'Objectives of Development' more fully described in Article III--A of the ordinance. It is highly significant that N.J.S.A. 40:55--57(a) and Article III--A, par. A(2), of the ordinance go beyond the model statute suggested in the Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin 52 (1965) which was designed for residential development and other nonresidential uses ancillary to the residential use. The state statute and the ordinance specifically provide:

(a) Permitted Uses. An ordinance adopted pursuant to this act shall set forth the uses permitted in a planned unit development, which uses may include and shall be limited to (1) dwelling units in detached, semidetached, attached, groups of attached or clustered or multistoried structures, or any combination thereof; and (2) any nonresidential use, to the extent such nonresidential use is designed and intended to serve the residents of the planned unit development, and such other uses as exist or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future, and (3) public and private educational facilities, and (4) industrial uses and buildings. * * *

Appellant made a preliminary application to construct 'Cross Keys' as a P.U.D. project in April 1969. It was not until April 1970 that tentative approval was granted subject to 53 conditions. During that year 'Cross Keys' was intensively discussed and reviewed by the township committee, the township planning board, the county planning board, the State Department of Community Affairs, the Mount Laurel School Board, the Mount Laurel Recreation Commission, the Municipal Utilities Authority, the township engineer, the township planner, and the township solicitor. In addition, five public hearings were held at which interested citizens were heard.

As tentatively approved, 'Cross Keys' involved 162.6 acres of land at the intersection of Route 73 and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Tp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 24 Marzo 1975
    ......and . Ethel Lawrence et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, . v. . TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT LAUREL, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Respondent. . Supreme Court of New Jersey. . ... Advance municipal approval of the project was required. The Township Committee responded with a purportedly approving resolution, which found a need for 'moderate' income housing ...2) and violative of the general zoning enabling act (N.J.S.A. 40:55--30 et seq.). Rudderow v. Township Committee of Mount Laurel Township, 114 N.J.Super. 104, 274 A.2d 854, decided in March ......
  • Dock Watch Hollow Quarry Pit, Inc. v. Warren Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 6 Mayo 1976
    ...The burden of proof in that regard rests upon the party assailing the validity thereof. Rudderow v. Mt. Laurel Tp. Comm., 121 N.J.Super. 409, 415, 297 A.2d 583 (App.Div.1972). The court's role in reviewing ordinances is narrow and limited. We do not judge the wisdom thereof, but act only if......
  • Treme v. St. Louis County, 40523
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 14 Octubre 1980
    ...here. See Sheridan v. Planning Board of City of Stamford, 159 Conn. 1, 266 A.2d 396 (1969); Rudderow v. Township Committee of Tp. of Mt. Laurel, 121 N.J.Super. 409, 297 A.2d 583 (1972); Bigenho v. Montogmery County Council, 248 Md. 386, 237 A.2d 53 (1968); Bellemeade Company v. Priddle, 503......
  • H. P. Higgs Co., Inc. v. Borough of Madison
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • 27 Enero 1982
    ...function is narrow and limited. Dock Watch Hollow Quarry Pit, supra, 142 N.J.Super. at 116, 361 A.2d 12; Rudderow v. Mt. Laurel, 121 N.J.Super. 409, 297 A.2d 583 (App.Div.1972). Courts will interfere with the presumption in favor of municipal action only upon an affirmative showing that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT