Thomas Griepenburg v. Township of Ocean (073290)
105 A.3d 1082
N.J.2015Background
- Township of Ocean adopted a smart-growth Master Plan and sought State Planning Commission endorsement to designate Waretown as a town center and convert large areas from PA-2 (suburban) to PA-5 (environmentally sensitive).
- As a condition of endorsement the State Planning Commission required the Township to revise zoning; the Township enacted ordinances (2006-06, 2006-34, 2006-37) creating an Environmental Conservation (EC) district with strict density limits (one dwelling per 20 acres).
- Plaintiffs Griepenburg own ~34 acres; their residence sits on a conforming 2-acre parcel but most of their land was rezoned into the EC district, greatly limiting future development.
- Plaintiffs challenged the ordinances as arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and as constituting inverse condemnation; the trial court upheld the ordinances under the Riggs four-factor test but left inverse-condemnation relief open if a variance were denied.
- The Appellate Division reversed, finding the ordinances invalid as applied because plaintiffs’ parcel lacked specific environmental features; the Supreme Court granted certification.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial-court judgment: ordinances were a valid exercise of zoning power tied to smart-growth and habitat-contiguity objectives; plaintiffs should have sought a variance before pursuing as-applied or inverse-condemnation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of ordinances under Riggs (MLUL consistency, purpose, constitutional/procedural compliance) | Ordinances arbitrary as applied; downzoning not justified by environmental constraints on plaintiffs’ land | Ordinances advance MLUL purposes (smart growth, prevent sprawl, protect contiguous sensitive uplands) and are consistent with Master Plan and state endorsements | Court: Ordinances satisfy Riggs factors; presumptively valid and supported by credible record evidence |
| As-applied challenge (need for site-specific environmental features) | Rezoning invalid because plaintiffs’ parcel lacks wetlands, floodplains, endangered-species habitat, or other discrete constraints | Rezoning aimed at protecting a contiguous coastal ecosystem and preventing habitat fragmentation; individual parcels need not show discrete features | Court: Appellate Division erred by requiring parcel-specific features; inclusion was rationally related to legitimate planning objectives and DEP findings |
| Requirement to exhaust administrative remedies (seek variance) | Plaintiffs need not seek variance because it would be futile and Board lacks authority; Pheasant Bridge controls | Plaintiffs should pursue variance first; no showing futility here | Court: Generally require exhaustion; Pheasant Bridge not to be read as excusing exhaustion; plaintiffs should have sought a variance before as-applied or inverse-condemnation claims |
| Inverse condemnation claim | Rezoning amounted to a taking requiring compensation | Remedy should be pursued after administrative remedies fail; variance process appropriate first | Court: Trial court properly stayed/left open inverse-condemnation claim; plaintiffs may pursue it if denied variance; exhaustion required first |
Key Cases Cited
- Riggs v. Township of Long Beach, 109 N.J. 601 (established four-factor test for zoning-ordinance validity under MLUL)
- Pheasant Bridge Corp. v. Township of Warren, 169 N.J. 282 (addressed as-applied challenge procedure; Court cautioned not to read this decision as broadly excusing exhaustion)
- Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (deference to trial-court factfinding in bench trial)
- Rumson Estates, Inc. v. Mayor of Fair Haven, 177 N.J. 338 (presumption of validity for zoning ordinances and MLUL consistency principles)