Chrinko v. South Brunswick Township Planning Board
New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division
77 N.J. Super. 594, 187 A.2d 221 (1963)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Between 1957 and 1960, the population of South Brunswick Township (the township) in Middlesex County doubled in size and new industries and commercial establishments were developed. The township adopted cluster or open space zoning as an amendment to its zoning ordinance in 1958. Cluster or open space zoning allowed a subdivision developer to reduce minimum lot sizes by 20 percent or 30 percent and minimum frontages by 10 or 20 percent if the developer deeded 20 or 30 percent of the subdivided tract for parks, schools, and other public purposes with the approval of the planning board. Cluster or open space zoning was intended to preserve desirable open spaces, lands, and other areas for public purposes. To address the surge in population and the subsequent increase in housing developments, in 1960 the South Brunswick Planning Board (the board) (defendant) authorized a master-plan report. The master-plan report was submitted in 1961, but no master plan had been adopted. The master-plan report suggested the use of an optional system of density zoning. Density zoning was the same as cluster or open space zoning, except density zoning was applicable only in zones with a minimum lot size of 45,000 square feet and allowed reductions of minimum lot sizes, not minimum frontages. The land saved would be deeded to the municipality, and the developer would save on street-installation costs. Brunswick Acres was a proposed housing development on a 235-acre tract in a residential zone within the township. Yenom Corporation (Yenom) owned Brunswick Acres. Frank Chrinko (plaintiff) objected to the validity of the cluster or open space ordinances. Chrinko argued that the ordinances were enacted for the special benefit of Yenom. Yenom contended that the township enacted reasonable, general legislation to respond to the problem of large subdivision developments without land available for schools, recreation, or green spaces.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Furman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.