Opinion ID: 1901249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Caputo v. Chester

Text: Plaintiffs, brothers Joseph and Aldo Caputo, who have owned the property in question since 1960, brought suit against defendants Chester Township and its planning board (Chester) after their efforts to obtain rezoning were unsuccessful. The suit was originally filed on July 22, 1975. By the next year it became apparent that Chester, having been advised by its counsel that its zoning ordinance violated the Mount Laurel doctrine, intended to effect a substantial rezoning of the entire Township. After Chester adopted a new zoning ordinance in October 1976, settlement efforts came close to terminating this litigation but ultimately collapsed. An amended complaint was filed December 16, 1976 and a trial was conducted over 25 days between October 11, 1977 and March 7, 1978. At that trial plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Chester ordinance was unconstitutional under the Mount Laurel doctrine along with appropriate relief, including an order that Chester rezone and include provisions in such rezoning that would enable plaintiffs to develop their land for multi-family units in accordance with their proposed plan (a builder's remedy). The trial court, three years after the action was originally filed, in a 111 page decision held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and ordered rezoning in accordance with its opinion; the builder's remedy was denied, however, primarily on environmental grounds, because the court concluded that Chester's decision to allow multi-family dwellings elsewhere (and not allow them on plaintiffs' property) was reasonable. The court specifically invalidated provisions of the ordinance that limited development to single family dwellings, and held that minimum five acre lot requirements were illegal per se. Plaintiffs appealed from the portion of the trial court's decision denying the builder's remedy; defendants appealed only from the invalidation of the five acre restriction  they did not appeal from the court's determination that the ordinance violated Mount Laurel or from its order requiring rezoning. As a result, it would appear that the only issues before us involve the trial court's refusal to grant a builder's remedy and the legality of the five acre restrictions imposed by the Township. Since Chester is characterized as a limited growth area by the SDGP, our decision to abide by the Plan's policy of limiting development to growth areas requires us to note that were the trial court's decision imposing a fair share obligation on Chester Township appealed, we would remand to enable the trial court to consider the effect of the SDGP in accordance with this opinion. [59] It appears that close examination of the Township itself and of its zoning history lends support to the legitimacy, and perhaps the wisdom, of accepting the policy of the SDGP in limited growth municipalities as the suitable remedy to meet the Mount Laurel obligation. Chester is in the southwest corner of Morris County, completely surrounding Chester Borough, which, by comparison, is fairly well developed. Chester has very little commerce or industry, and consists mostly of residences and farms. While its population growth in the 1970-80 decade was at a substantial rate (a 22 percent growth compared to a statewide increase of less than 3 percent), the total population and its density give a truer picture of the Township. The population in 1980 was 5,198, and its density 179.9 people per square mile, as compared to Morris County's 866.9 and the state's 983.3. Chester is described as being 42 percent developed and 58 percent undeveloped, although we suspect that picture does not adequately convey its lack of development, since a very substantial portion of that 42 percent undoubtedly consists of vacant land (the one, two or five acres on which homes are found, as well as a very substantial portion of public parks). Of Chester's more than 18,000 acres, 12.3 percent are residentially developed, 25.9 percent are developed for public purposes (almost completely consisting of parklands), 19.6 percent are in agricultural use, 38.4 percent are undeveloped, and the remaining several percent are devoted to commercial, recreational, and industrial uses. [60] Chester's infrastructure, other than some of its highways and bus service, is far from well developed. Furthermore, its topography, water resources, and agricultural suitability are objective facts that support a policy of non-development. One portion of the Township consists of a plateau, a portion of which is developable, while the balance consists of rugged, fairly hilly terrain, with steeply rising slopes, which is unsuitable for development. The two are divided by a fault marked by a ravine through which a stream flows bordered by steep hills and slopes. The fault, the stream, the steeply rising slopes and the consequent plateau and contrasting rugged terrain all traverse the Caputos' tract. Chester contains the source and early portions of some of the streams that ultimately flow into and constitute the Raritan River. It also is located over substantial underground water supplies, which presumably provide the source of the streams themselves. The well-known effects of residential development  pollution of surface waters that run into streams, pollution of underground water supplies through sewage percolation, erosion of slopes during development (and thereafter) and consequent pollution of streams  are particularly critical in Chester. If uncontrolled, such residential development could seriously affect this part of the Raritan River water basin, its downstream owners, the people who directly and indirectly depend upon the purity of the river, and the underlying water supplies. Because the Caputo tract is strategically located, its development would contribute to the effects mentioned above. Finally, Chester has within its borders a substantial portion of prime agricultural land, which no one disputes should remain free of development. The record suggests that the duly elected and appointed officials of Chester, given all of these factors, had adopted a non-development policy. While they legitimately ascribed their decision to the many objective factors mentioned above (preservation of open spaces, agricultural land, maintenance of the purity of the watershed, unsuitability of terrain for development, dangers of erosion), it is clear that there was an additional equally important one: they simply wanted to keep Chester the way it was. Some professional planners saw Chester in a different light. Without exception, every study of the area, no matter how defined, indicated that Morris County, including Chester, was, and would continue to become, an important focal point for ever-increasing development radiating from the general metropolitan region as well as from its own major centers of growth, Morristown and Dover. The demand for land in areas similar to and including Chester for all purposes  commercial, industrial and residential  was apparently intense. Whatever relevant projection might be considered, be it population growth, employment growth or ratable growth, Morris County and Chester, along with other county municipalities, would be shown as anticipating more businesses, factories, jobs, people, and ultimately homes. Presumably the projections were not simply mathematical formulas, but reflected an actual and ever-growing demand for land in the area. It was generally acknowledged that the question was not whether Chester would be developed but how and under what controls. Whatever the future may hold, it would appear that this development has still not really begun, for despite the 22 percent population growth during the last decade, it has been desultory, insofar as Chester is concerned, consisting only of a few homes built here and there over this ten year period. It may be assumed that the existing zoning regulations themselves have been one of the factors contributing to this very slow pace of growth. Chester's zoning history might almost be predicted from the foregoing statement of facts. The consistent overriding development pattern has been the construction of single family residences on very substantial parcels. A municipality that has more than 85 percent of its developed land (excluding publicly owned land, parklands and farms) in residential use, 95 percent of which consists of single family homes, could be expected to have a zoning ordinance in which more than 70 percent of the entire acreage of the Township is set aside for single family residences on either two acre or five acre plots. The zoning ordinance under attack, adopted in 1976, contains eight districts (as did the original ordinance of 1964). Of the four residential districts, three are limited to single family residences, one with two acre minimum lots (40 percent of the entire municipality), another with a five acre minimum (31 percent of the Township), and the third with a one acre minimum (0.5 percent of the total). The fourth residential zone permits, in addition to two acre single family residences, multi-family development at a density of five units per acre with a limit of ten bedrooms per acre. Furthermore, no more than 150 units may be built on any tract and no more than 300 in the entire Township. While cluster development was permitted, it was limited to tracts of at least 30 acres in the two acre zone and 50 acres in the five acre zone. Total acreage available for multi-family dwellings constitutes 1.5 percent of the Township. There were only three tracts so zoned, and two of them were not likely to be developed in the foreseeable future since they were owned by substantial long-term residents of the community. The balance of Chester's zoning consisted of parklands (22 percent), business (about 0.5 percent), industrial (1 percent) and residential/office (no acreage total or percentage determination was provided in the record). The trial court found the ordinance facially invalid because it did not provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of a variety of housing, rejecting all of the justifications advanced by Chester. Additionally the court held the bedroom limitation in the multi-family zone and the five acre zoning provision invalid. It did not order any specific plan of rezoning but simply required revisions of the zoning ordinance consonant with this opinion, noting that the five acre zone must be eliminated and that while there may be an allowance for low density zoning, small acre zoning and some lower income housing must be provided, along with provisions for all variety and types of housing ... based upon the needs of the area; bedroom restrictions and all cost generating restrictions should be removed in the multi-family zone and, generally, all of the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law must be complied with. [61] Municipalities that are in growth areas (unlike Chester) and have resulting fair share duties can satisfy them in a variety of ways, including density adjustments. We hold, however, that low density limitations like five acre lot minimums are not necessarily in violation of the Mount Laurel fair share obligation so long as municipalities are able to satisfy that obligation in spite of apparently exclusionary devices. [62] Therefore, such devices are subject to the same level of scrutiny as other municipal regulations, once compliance with fair share requirements has been demonstrated. Moreover, we hold that the preservation of open spaces itself may, under proper circumstances, be sufficient justification for large lot zoning, including five acre zoning. Where a municipality's zoning provides for its fair share of low and moderate income housing, as well as for other uses it deems appropriate, it is not obliged, in its other zones, to allow for the maximum density of construction that environmental factors will permit. In an area like Chester, it may decide that the value of preserving open space is sufficient to warrant such zoning. We therefore reverse the trial court's ruling on five acre lot minimums, intending thereby to leave Chester free to make its own decisions on the advisability of such zoning, subject to challenge on some basis other than Mount Laurel. Similarly, the need for agriculture, open space, and, perhaps most importantly, for geographic and aesthetic heterogeneity and variety in different areas of this state convince us that the SDGP's characterization of a presently predominantly rural area like Chester as limited growth is presumptively sound. More to the point, there is no showing even approaching that which would be required for us to replace the plan with our own planning judgments. [63] The builder's remedy sought by plaintiffs must of necessity be denied. One of the conditions for awarding such remedy is that the builder establish that the municipal ordinance fails to comply with the Mount Laurel obligation. Since we have held that Chester is not subject to that obligation (insofar as the prospective need for lower income housing is concerned), plaintiffs' claim has not succeeded. Assuming, pursuant to the remand ordered hereafter, that Chester is required to further amend its ordinance or take other steps to provide a realistic opportunity for lower income housing for its indigenous poor, this denial of a builder's remedy shall not be disturbed. We are satisfied that Chester established very substantial reasons for denying such a remedy. The environmentally sensitive nature of much of Chester's lands, and the location of plaintiffs' property within that sensitive area, were fully documented. We interpret the trial court's decision as a determination not simply that there were better places in Chester for lower income housing, but that plaintiffs' property was unsuitable for substantial environmental reasons. The record adequately supports that determination. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court denying a builder's remedy. Given the new principles set forth in this opinion, plaintiffs should be given the opportunity at the trial level to challenge the adequacy of the amended ordinance to meet Chester's indigenously generated present need. We therefore reverse and remand for such further proceedings as plaintiffs may wish to pursue on that issue alone, in accordance with our opinion.