Smith v. Township Committee of Morris Tp.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1968
• Docket Number: No. A--1597,A--1597
• Citation: 244 A.2d 145,101 N.J.Super. 271
• Parties: Edgar P. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF the TOWNSHIP OF MORRIS, et al., Defendants, and Karl Schroth and J. & M. Associates, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 271

101 N.J.Super. 271

244 A.2d 145

Edgar P. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF the TOWNSHIP OF MORRIS, et al., Defendants and Karl Schroth and J. & M. Associates, Defendants-Appellants.

No. A--1597.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued March 25, 1968.

Decided June 7, 1968.

Howard S. Mitnick, South Orange, for appellants (Jacobs & Mitnick, South Orange, attorneys).

Garret A. Hobart, IV, Morristown, for respondents (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, Morristown, attorneys; Harold A. Price and Garret A. Hobart, Morristown, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges GAULKIN, LEWIS and KOLOVSKY.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

LEWIS, J.A.D.

Defendant Karl Schroth and J. & M. Associates (herein developers) appeal from a judgment of the Law Division in favor of plaintiffs (herein objectors) declaring null and void the preliminary approval of two major land subdivisions granted by defendants Planning Board and Township Committee of the Township of Morris.

The parcels involved are located in an R--2 residential zone (minimum size of building lots 35,000 square feet) and are approximately 800 feet apart, with frontages on the northerly side of Spring Valley Road. The one is known as the Van Cleve Estates or Cooper Tract, and the other as the Eggert Tract. In voiding the approvals, the trial court held that the board and township committee disregarded the provisions of the township's Land Subdivision Ordinance restricting to 600 feet the length of dead-end streets and that their action in so doing represented an 'arbitrary exercise of zoning authority.'

It is here argued (1) the board had the power to approve subdivision plans which provide for streets in excess of 600 feet and properly exercised it, and (2) the Eggert subdivision does not contain a dead-end street in excess of that length.

A re sume of the background facts will be helpful in casting the critical issues in their proper perspective.

The Cooper Tract

The Van Cleve development consists of approximately ten acress and contemplates eight building lots with a single access street, 'Charlotte Lane.' The street begins at Spring Valley Road and the westerly borderline of the tract, and follows an irregular course through the property for a distance of approximately 1100 feet, terminating with a cul-de-sac in the north-easterly corner of the property.

Developers' initial application to the board was for a minor subdivision of two lots out of the ten acres. It was reviewed at a conference meeting on April 6, 1964, at which time concern was evinced as to development plans for the remaining acreage. Subsequently, a plat for the entire tract was submitted for classification and, on July 20, 1964, it was classified as a major subdivision. Within a month thereafter application was made for preliminary approval and then followed a series of conference meetings, regular meetings and public hearings at which the neighboring plaintiffs and their counsel voiced objections.

The principal problems involved the adequacy of water supply and storm drainage, the installation of sanitary sewers, zoning compliance and the acquisition of easements, all of which necessitated sundry negotiations with the township engineer, board of health, sewer survey committee, water department, county planning board and county park commission. However, at a regular meeting on December 21, 1964 a member of the board made inquiry as to the length of the road, to which the chairman replied, 'this is not a permanent dead end street * * * it is up to the discretion of the Board to approve a dead end street of this length if they feel that it will eventually continue through.' The minutes of an adjourned hearing on March 15, 1965 reveal that when objectors' engineer was questioned concerning the length of the dead-end street, he 'pointed out that the Planning Board has the right to use their own discretion and vary from the provisions of the ordinance,' and that the developers' engineer observed, 'there are other roads of this type in this municipality and in several other municipalities.'

On April 19, 1965 the board granted conditional preliminary approval, whereupon plaintiffs appealed to the township committee, which held a public hearing on June 3. The latter affirmed the action of the board after making the following determination:

'* * * (a) as to all of the matters raised by the appellants, the Township Committee finds and determines that no basis of fact exists to substantiate the appellants' objections to this preliminary approval; (b) as to all of the actions taken by the Planning Board, all of which have been reviewed by this Committee, the Committee finds that the Planning Board acted properly in all respects; (c) that McCrosky-Reuter, Morris Township Planning Consultants, having reviewed the preliminary subdivision, recommends to this Township Committee that the subdivision is in order and should be approved.'

The Eggert Tract

The Eggert subdivision, approximately 18 acres, was designed for 14 building lots to be serviced by two thoroughfares. The first, a bisecting street, 'Blue Stone Terrace,' is projected to extend at right angles to Spring Valley Road for a distance of approximately 890 feet toward the rear of the development where it dead-ends with a cul-de-sac. The second road, 'Marshall Lane,' emerges at right angles from that access street (about 550 feet from Spring Valley Road) and continues in a westerly direction for approximately 290 feet to a cul-de-sac at that westerly side of the tract. At this juncture we note there is no merit to the contention that 'Blue Stone Terrace' is not a dead-end street in excess of 600 feet because it is intersected by 'Marshall Lane.'

The tract was classified as a major subdivision on March 15, 1965. Objections, problems, proceedings and hearings then ensued similar to those encountered by the developers with respect to the Cooper tract. On August 16, 1965 the board granted preliminary approval subject to stated conditions. That decision was appealed to the township committee which held a public hearing in September at which time the engineer for the objectors expressed criticism of many things but not the length of the streets. On November 11, 1965 the Township Committee, after a public hearing, affirmed the action of the board by a resolution in form substantially the same as the one adopted for the Cooper tract.

In Lieu Proceedings

Plaintiffs instituted separate proceedings in the Law Division to set aside the respective subdivision approvals; the actions were consolidated for trial. In substance, plaintiffs claimed: (1) procedural inadequacies; (2) the approved plats were not properly designed from an engineering viewpoint; (3) provisions for water supply, drainage and sewerage disposal were insufficient; (4) the board improperly interceded on the developers' behalf in negotiations for an easement from the county park commission and board of chosen freeholders; (5) an easement for sewer mains could not be obtained; (6) the township committee unduly relied upon the opinion of planning experts, and (7) the approvals violated the municipal ordinance with respect to the limitations upon length of dead-end streets (we note that (7) was argued at the trial as to both tracts but at the pretrial it was relied upon by plaintiffs only with respect to the Cooper tract).

The developers and the municipal defendants filed answers averring, in substance, that the preliminary approvals were reasonable and legal, they were granted after a complete investigation and public hearings, and that the actions of the board and township committee were within proper municipal jurisdiction and discretion. Additionally, the developers filed a counterclaim against the plaintiffs for compensatory and punitive damages, charging tortious interference with economic advantages accruing to them in the lawful development of their property.

All of the issues raised by the objectors, except those relating to the roads, were resolved in favor of the defendants. The trial court's findings against the plaintiffs are amply supported by the record and should not be disturbed.

The judgment adverse to the developers was predicated solely upon a determination that the municipal bodies acted 'in total disregard' of the local ordinance restrictions on the length of dead-end streets. The trial judge so concluded 'with a great deal of regreat,' stating:

'It is clear to me that the public interest was ever foremost in the minds of the municipal officials. It is regrettable that in a matter of this dimension one departure from the requirements imposed by law should vitiate such a laudable effort. In my view, however, that one departure is one of considerable substance.'

In the course of argument on a motion to settle the form of the judgment, counsel for the municipal bodies requested that the matter be remanded to the planning board to consider whether the subdivider-defendants were entitled to a relaxation of the ordinance requirements within the framework of its provisions. The trial court declined to do so. At the same hearing plaintiffs moved for a dismissal of the developers' counterclaim, which was granted with the comment that if 'plaintiffs' complaint is ultimately dismissed on an appeal, the defendant(s) should have the opportunity at least to have the issue further examined.'

Dead-end Streets Issue

We turn now to the township land subdivision ordinance. Article VIII, 'Design Standards,' section 2, 'Streets,' (m) provides that 'Dead-end streets (culs-de-sac) shall not be longer than 600 ft. *...