Gallo v. Mayor and Township Council of Lawrence Township
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
744 A.2d 1219 (2000)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
New Jersey required municipalities to adopt, and periodically review, master (or comprehensive) zoning plans. The Lawrence Township planning board submitted a proposed master plan for adoption by the township council (defendant). The plan proposed eliminating old zone R-1.5, which permitted relatively small residential lots, and replacing it with a larger-lot zone R-2. During the proposed plan’s public-review phase, a developer proposed modifying zone R-2 by adding subzone R-2A, which would apply to the developer’s new subdivision and permit the subdivision to retain old zone R-1.5’s denser housing scheme. In accordance with all applicable laws and procedures, the council adopted the proposed plan, including subzone R-2A, as the township’s new land-use ordinance (LUO). Despite the LUO’s facial validity, a group of landowners (plaintiffs) sued the council and the township’s mayor (defendant) to overturn the LUO as invalid on the grounds that the council had spot-zoned subzone R-2A for the developer’s benefit. The trial-level superior court entered summary judgment for the mayor and council, and the landowners appealed to the superior court’s appellate division.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Carchman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.