Court Opinion

ID: 9760485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:57:22.014163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:12.770992
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the Court’s judgment that the regulations enacted pursuant to the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 to -29, do not effect a taking of plaintiff’s property. As noted by the Court, ante at 197-198, 593 A.2d at 253, plaintiff did not challenge those regulations on substantive-due-process grounds. I write separately in order to emphasize the distinction between the issue resolved by the Court and the issues we do not decide.
*221A landowner challenging a zoning regulation as a violation of substantive due process must overcome the presumption of validity and demonstrate that the scheme is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and therefore an invalid exercise of the public authority’s police power. See Schmidt v. Board of Adjustment, 9 N.J. 405, 414, 88 A.2d 607 (1952). In Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 82 S.Ct. 987, 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962), the Supreme Court reiterated the substantive-due-process test, stating that a land-use regulation is a valid exercise of the police power if “ ‘the interests of the public * * * require such interference[ ] and * * * the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the public purpose[] and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.’ ” Id. at 595, 82 S.Ct. at 990, 8 L.Ed.2d at 134 (quoting Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137, 14 S.Ct. 499, 501, 38 L.Ed. 385, 388 (1894)). On the other hand, a zoning scheme effects a taking if the regulations either do not substantially advance legitimate state interests or deny an owner all beneficial use of his or her land. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141, 65 L.Ed.2d 106, 112 (1980). But cf. Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 843-44 n. 1, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 3146 n. 1, 97 L.Ed.2d 677, 693-94 n. 1 (1987) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (contending that standard for reviewing threshhold issue of validity of public body’s exercise of police power is same in either “takings” or “due-process” analysis).
Although the constitutional requirement that an exercise of the police power may not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious has remained the same, the criteria for making that determination are not static. Rather, they vary “with changing needs and conditions pertaining to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.” Schmidt v. Board of Adjustment, supra, 9 N.J. at 414-15, 88 A.2d 607. Whatever may constitute the public interest underlying a police-power regulation, however, a public body may not arbitrarily discriminate between persons similarly situated. Id. at 418, 88 A.2d 607; see *222also Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 133 n. 29, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2664 n. 29, 57 L.Ed.2d 631, 654 n. 29 (1978) (challenge that zoning ordinance is arbitrary or discriminatory should include consideration of treatment of similar parcels); Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928) (Court considered surrounding property in determining whether zoning was substantially related to public health, morals, safety, or welfare).
The deed restriction required by the regulations as a condition of an owner’s right to develop property consistent with the Pinelands regulatory scheme is indeed unique. In effect, it operates as a mandate that farmland property be used for farmland in perpetuity, even if the underlying zoning has changed. The Court expresses its concern about the enforceability of the restriction in the event of a zoning change. Ante at 214-216, 593 A.2d at 262.
Although the Court concludes that the regulatory scheme requiring plaintiff to deed-restrict his land in order to develop five residential lots does not effect a taking, that holding is not conclusive on the issue whether the New Jersey Pinelands Commission’s regulations violate principles of substantive due process. Resolution of that issue would involve a determination, based on a plenary hearing, whether plaintiff is being treated unfairly or discriminatorily, considering various factors including the need for the restrictions, other available methods of attaining the State’s public purpose, and the treatment of similarly-situated parcels. Cf. Schmidt v. Board of Adjustment, supra, 9 N.J. at 416, 88 A.2d 607 (“Restraints upon property cannot be unreasonable or unduly discriminatory * * * [or] go[] beyond the public need.”).
Justice STEIN concurs in the result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 6.
Opposed — None.