Zampieri v. River Vale Tp.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. A--117,A--117
• Citation: 152 A.2d 28,29 N.J. 599
• Parties: Hugo ZAMPIERI et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TOWNSHIP OF RIVER VALE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 599

29 N.J. 599

152 A.2d 28

Hugo ZAMPIERI et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TOWNSHIP OF RIVER VALE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A--117.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 5, 1959.

Decided June 1, 1959.

Bruce H. Losche, Hackensack, argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Losche & Losche, Hackensack, attorneys).

Richard G. Kroner, Westwood, argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents (Freeman & Kroner, Westwood, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PROCTOR, J.

The plaintiffs are 15 property owners in the 'C' Commercial District of the defendant Township of River Vale. They instituted an action to set aside an amendment to the zoning ordinance which increased the front setback requirement from 40 to 60 feet from the center line of all streets in the district. The trial court held the amendment invalid, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendant appealed to the Appellate Division. We certified the case on our own motion before it was argued in that court.

River Vale is a residential community in the northern section of Bergen County. It is partially bordered on the north by New York State. The township is about 3 1/2 miles long from north to south and its width varies from about 1 to 1 1/2 miles. Its population has increased from 1,600 in 1950 to about 4,700 in 1958.

The original zoning ordinance was adopted in 1944 and it was generally amended in 1954. The ordinance as then amended established the 'C' Commercial District. This is the only business district in the township and is located in its southerly section. The center of this district is at the intersection of Westwood Avenue and Rivervale Road, and the district extends along these thoroughfares for about 800 feet in each direction. It has a depth of 200 feet on both sides of said roads. The total area is 18 acres divided into 45 parcels of land. There are 35 buildings in the district, six of which are commercial establishments. The others are dwellings. The plaintiffs' properties are all located on either Westwood Avenue or Rivervale Road.

Rivervale Road and Westwood Avenue are both county roads. Rivervale Road is the only north-south route which links this part of Bergen County with New York State, with the exception of Kinderkamack Road two miles to the west. Traffic on Rivervale Road has increased as a result of the growth of the township and the county, and the establishment of new industry nearby in New York State. The dedicated right of way of Rivervale Road through the business district varies from 37.12 feet to 45.62 feet. (It is fair to say that the average dedicated width is about 40 feet.) However, its paved width is only 18 to 20 feet.

The other county road, Westwood Avenue, is a main connecting route running east and west through the township between the Boroughs of Westwood and Old Tappan. Its dedicated right of way through the business district is 80 feet in width. However, only 18 to 20 feet of the right of way is paved.

On May 2, 1957 the governing body of the township adopted an amendment to the existing zoning ordinance which increased the building setback requirement from the center line on all streets in the 'C' district from 40 to 60 feet. In the district a minimum rear yard depth of 50 feet is required. The plaintiffs in this action challenge this amendment on the grounds that it is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, and that it deprives them of their properties without full compensation and due process of law. In answer, the defendant township asserts that the amendment is a valid exercise of the police power and not confiscatory.

Five of the plaintiffs testified that the effect of the amendment was to depreciate greatly the values of their properties. In several instances it was shown that the 60-foot setback, together with the 50-foot rear yard requirement, would leave the owner with a space in which it would be virtually impossible to erect a building. One of the plaintiffs testified that the 60-foot setback requirement will force him to locate a planned building 20 feet further back from the street than a building which has recently been erected on an adjacent lot, and that as a consequence his 'stores will not be visible coming down Westwood Avenue.' It was stipulated that the remaining plaintiffs 'would have, if they had taken the witness stand, testified substantially as the other witnesses have testified, the difference being the different sizes and dimensions of the lots only. In all other respects, their reasons for objecting to this ordinance will be the same as those who have testified.'

The impact of the amendatory ordinance was summarized by Gerald Dederick, a real estate expert, who testified on behalf of the plaintiffs as follows '(T)he operation of the new zoning ordinance sets up a situation--I mean the new setback ordinance--where we have 2 business streets, same area, at an intersection, one of which permits construction within 20 feet of the line of the street, and the other one causing a setback of approximately 40 feet from the line of the street. The operation of this 60 foot setback not only places some 15 additional properties in a non-conforming use due to the setback, but also practicallyconfiscates the usage for business purposes of 7 properties.

'(T)hat the operation or the insistence upon a 50 foot rear yard reservation, plus a 40 foot setback (from the property line on the street) reservation on Rivervale Road, practically eliminates for any purpose, particularly commercial purpose, any property that is less than 150 feet in depth.'

The testimony on behalf of the defendant township showed that the intersection of Rivervale Road and Westwood Avenue is 'the natural link between the northernmost and southernmost parts of the town.' In addition, the intersection is used by traffic proceeding between that part of Bergen County and New York State. Fire engines must traverse the crossing in order to reach properties in the southern section of the township, and it is used by children going to and from the two elementary schools situated in the northern part of the township. A short time before the passage of the ordinance a traffic light was installed at the intersection.

It is clear that the character of this intersection was the principal factor in the township's enactment of the amendatory ordinance. Mr. Rehill, who at the time of the enactment of the amendment was the Commissioner of Public Safety and who is now the Mayor, testified as to the considerations which led the governing body to the conclusion that the setback line in the 'C' district should be increased to 60 feet. He said the intersection of Westwood Avenue and Rivervale Road represented a serious hazard because of the heavy flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic across it. Also, the buildings located on the four corners of the intersection obstructed the visibility of approaching motorists. He also said that the governing body was concerned with the parking problem; that since the roads are county highways with an increasing amount of travel 'it is obvious * * * that eventually the County will, in an attempt to improve the conditions throughout the County, will widen these streets to what they deem desirable width, which is approximately a paved road of forty feet in width. At that time, of course, we will as a Township be confronted with the problem of controlling the flow of traffic through the intersection.' The control of traffic, he said, would depend to a large extent upon available parking facilities. He foresaw that there will be a severe parking problem which in turn will lead to a constant impediment to the flow of traffic through the intersection. Finally, he said, there has been a continuous increase in the township's population and a correlative growth of business within the district. It was considered that the setback increase would be more conducive to the development of an attractive shopping center which would benefit the entire township. However, Mayor Rehill conceded that '(i)f there is no change in the intersection in the next 25 years, there is nothing in our ordinance that will affect the view (of motorists).' Asked about his concern for the safety of school children at the intersection he said: 'As the properties are now situate, if there is no change in the buildings as they are now located at the intersection, there would be no improvement in the safety condition as far as children are concerned due to the effect of this ordinance.' He also stated: 'The ordinance itself will not have anything to do with the widening of the roads. The County will have the responsibility for widening the roads. The ordinance presents a method of providing for a flow of traffic and an improvement of the visibility of the area once the roads were widened.' In summary, Mayor Rehill said that the ordinance has

'presented the property owners in the commercial district with an opportunity to locate their buildings in such a manner that the erection of buildings in the area will not contribute to the hazardous condition that exists at the present time. In other words, it is not a remedy of a condition which exists now, it is a method of helping remedy a situation that would exist should there be additional building.'

Richard May, Jr., a planning consultant, and Alfred B. Hobelman, the Township Engineer, concurred in the analysis of the conditions described by Mayor Rehill and in the objectives sought to be achieved by the amendatory ordinance.

The trial judge held the amendatory ordinance invalid stating that '(t)he conclusion is indisputable that the purpose (of the amendment) is to provide for the future widening of highways, or to provide for parking space off the streets, or both of those purposes, and to provide for greater safety in the use of these streets by traffic.' He held that the amendment could not be sustained as a zoning regulation because it involved...