Search Our Website:
On December 22, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed an Appellate Division ruling and reinstated the trial court decision that found that the rezoning of a parcel of property was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. In Riya Finnegan v. South Brunswick, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney's Henry Kent-Smith argued for the plaintiff, Riya Finnegan LLC, that the undeveloped parcel of land in question was improperly re-zoned by the Township Council.

In 2001, the city of South Brunswick adopted its Master Plan, regulating the zoning restrictions of undeveloped land in the city. Under the Plan's Land Use Element, Riya Finnegan's parcel and much of the other land along Route 27 was zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial (retail service business and professional offices). In 2003, Riya filed a site plan application to develop its parcel by constructing a professional office building and two retail buildings, including a drugstore. Neighborhood opponents to the development appeared before the Township Council and asked that Riya Finnegan's parcel be rezoned to Office Professional, a zone designed for large office parks on the Route One corridor. The Planning Board recommended that the Township Council rezone Riya Finnegan's parcel, despite the 2001 Master Plan recommendation to continue the C-1 zone. The Township Council adopted the re-zoning in 2005 by Ordinance 15-05, relying solely on the complaints of the neighboring residents to support this action.

Riya Finnegan filed a complaint asserting that the ruling was inconsistent with the Master Plan, was arbitrary and capricious, and constituted impermissible inverse spot zoning. In a published decision, the Law Division agreed, declared the ordinance invalid, and remanded the matter to the planning board for consideration of Riya's site plan application. The trial court reasoned that even though the Township had complied with the technical requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law, its decision was arbitrary and capricious because it was based solely on the assertions of the neighboring property owners. In the alternative, the court concluded that because the Township had rezoned only Riya's parcel and there was no evidence in the record that the zoning change would further the comprehensive zoning plan in the Township, it constituted impermissible "inverse spot zoning." The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated Ordinance 15-05. The appellate panel reasoned that because the Township Council action was legislative rather than quasi-judicial in nature, its reliance on the objections of the neighboring residents alone was permitted. The Appellate panel also rejected the trial court's conclusion that the ordinance constituted inverse spot zoning.

In reversing the Appellate Division ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Ordinance 15-05 was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court also found Ordinance 15-05 constituted impermissible inverse spot zoning. The State Supreme Court upheld the trial court ruling, finding that the Township had arbitrarily singled out the Riya property for excessively stringent zoning, which was out of context with neighboring parcels and the Township's own Master Plan. By reinstating the C-1 zoning per the trial court's decision, Riya is able to proceed with its proposed development.