Vickers v. Township Committee of Gloucester Tp.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1961
• Docket Number: No. A--965,A--965
• Citation: 172 A.2d 218,68 N.J.Super. 263
• Parties: Harold E. VICKERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 263

68 N.J.Super. 263

172 A.2d 218

Harold E. VICKERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP et al Defendants-Respondents.

No. A--965.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued May 1, 1961.

Decided June 23, 1961.

Sidney D. Weiss, Woodbridge, for appellant (Milford Salny, Netcong, attorney).

Vincent L. Gallaher, Camden, for respondents.

Before Judges GOLDMANN, FOLEY and LEWIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FOLEY, J.A.D.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants in two suits in lieu of prerogative writs, consolidated for trial, challenging the validity of two ordinances of the Township of Gloucester prohibiting the establishment and conduct of a trailer park business on plaintiff's property.

Plaintiff contends: (1) an amendment to a zoning ordinance prohibiting trailer parks in the industrial zone, the only zone where they had theretofore been permitted, was illegal and void because the planning board did not have the opportunity to give proper consideration to the matter as required by N.J.S.A. 40:55--35, and (2) complete prohibition of trailer parks in every part of the municipality, as effected by the amendatory zoning ordinance and the repeal of a trailer regulatory ordinance, constituted an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the zoning power and the police power.

The determinative facts are not in dispute. On July 1, 1957 Gloucester Township adopted a zoning ordinance which established Residence Districts 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D,' Business District, Agriculture District, and Industry District. Trailer parks not being specifically included in the permissible uses of property zoned for residence, business or agriculture, and, not being expressly excluded from the uses permitted in the industrial zone, became a lawful use in such zone.

On September 3, 1957 the township enacted an ordinance regulating the operation of trailer camps and allied activities in the municipality.

In November 1957 plaintiff purchased a parcel of land, approximately 10 acres in area, situate in an industrial zone. In April 1959 the Supreme Court upheld both the zoning ordinance and the trailer ordinance in the case of Napierkowski v. Township of Gloucester, 29 N.J. 481, 150 A.2d 481 (1959). Inter alia the case held that the township had the right to prohibit by its ordinances, as they then existed, the maintenance of trailers at any place other than in the industrial areas defined by the zoning ordinance.

On August 26, 1959 plaintiff made application to the township for permission to operate a trailer park on the lands he had purchased. On December 8, 1959 he was formally notified by letter that his application was denied because it 'would be in violation of the Sub-Division and Zoning Ordinance of the township and also the individual trailers would not comply with the provisions of the building code.' Meanwhile, on September 19, 1959, plaintiff had acquired title to a second parcel of land, also in the industrial zone and located directly across the road from that which he already owned.

On December 30, 1959 plaintiff filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs directed against that denial by the Township Committee of his application to operate a trailer park. The case came on for hearing on March 17, 1960, at which time the court heard the testimony of the plaintiff and some expert testimony as well. Much of the testimony at that session pertained to the question of whether plaintiff's application and plans complied with the standards promulgated by the State of New Jersey, Department of Health. On motion plaintiff was granted leave to amend his application and the plans which accompanied it. Trial was resumed in June 1960 and at this session it was stipulated by counsel that the amended application and plans, as submitted, complied with the aforesaid standards.

However, on April 22, 1960 the township amended its zoning ordinance so as to prohibit trailer parks in the industrial zone. Simultaneously, the township adopted another ordinance repealing the trailer ordinance. The effect of these enactments was to prohibit the operation of trailer parks or the maintenance of trailers in any part of the township.

On May 5, 1960 plaintiff instituted a second action in lieu of prerogative writs demanding that the ordinances of April 22, 1960 be declared invalid, and inapplicable to the use of his property as a trailer park.

At the first trial plaintiff introduced evidence relating to the nature and character of the community, particularly the industrial zone. This evidence included photographs of homes and other structures in the immediate vicinity of the subject premises. These structures included an old bus used as living quarters; a one-story shack used for repairs of television sets; a combination trailer and dwelling; a farmhouse and barn; several old dilapidated shacks; a one-story structure utilized as a church; and some dwellings ranging from bungalowshanties to modest homes. There was also testimony that there were no housing developments between the subject property and the 'Freeway' on the north, a distance of approximately two miles; and there were no housing developments of any kind between the subject property and the boundary of the township on the east; that there were no industrial operations of any kind near the subject property; and that the great majority of the houses south of the subject property were old, dilapidated, and occupied by persons in very low income brackets. It was also testified that the location of a trailer park on plaintiff's property would have no adverse effect on the economic conditions or values of the neighborhood, and that it would be an appropriate use of the land in question.

The second of plaintiff's actions came on for trial on June 20, 1960 before the same judge who had heard the first case, at which time the actions were consolidated. Evidence was taken on two subjects: (1) the alleged noncompliance by the Township Committee and the Planning Board with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:55--35, and (2) the reasons which motivated the Township Committee in adopting the ordinance of April 22, 1960 amending the zoning ordinance, and on the same date enacting the repealer of the trailer ordinance. Since, as will shortly appear, we consider the second point to be dispositive of the case, the facts concerning the alleged procedural irregularity need not be recited.

Robert Yost, Mayor of the township, testified that in adopting the amendment the Committee 'took many things into consideration; future over-all planning of our Township; the acquisition of 500 acres of development ground bought by developers, adjacent to Mr. Vicker's property, also taking in connection with the Freeway, the other sections of our Township are fairly well built up and...