Mansfield & Swett, Inc., and Ridge Holding Co. v. Town of West Orange 198 A.

225 (1926) Supreme Court of New Jersey Parties: Plaintiff: Mansfield & Swett, Inc. and Ridge Holding Co. Defendant: Town of West Orange

Facts: On March 10th, 1936, Mansfield & Swett, Inc., contracted to purchase from its co-prosecutor, Ridge Holding Co., a tract of land situate in the town of West Orange, at the northwest corner of Gregory avenue and Northfield road, comprising four and a half acres. Shortly thereafter, it prepared and presented to the town's board of commissioners for approval a survey and map delineating a proposed subdivision of the tract into nineteen lots and two streets, the development to be known as "Shadowlawn." The lands are located in a "residential" zone delimited by the local zoning ordinance; and it is planned to erect thereon nineteen dwelling houses for sale at prices ranging between $15,000 and $18,000. In accordance with the provisions of an existing ordinance a meeting was held on May 5th, 1936, which referred the matter to the planning board "for their recommendations in the premises." That body, after public hearing had, "disapproved the proposed plan." The transcript of the minutes incorporated in the return discloses the rejection was "due to the fact" that the plan "does not conform with the developments along Gregory avenue, between Northfield road and Mt. Pleasant avenue, and that the greater number of property owners expressed their opinion objecting to same at public hearing held." The proceedings were thereupon brought to the Supreme Court of New Jersey by certiorari. Legal Issue: The issue involved is the constitutional validity of the cited enabling statute by the Town of West Orange. The case argues that the statute violates the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions, in that "it deprives an owner of the proper use of his property." It is said that zoning does not embrace planning, and that the cases classifying municipal zoning as outside the general police power of the state are, by analogy, decisive of the question. Holding: In an opinion by Justice Heher, the case was "remanded to the planning board in order that the grounds of disapproval may be 'stated upon its records' as required by the statute." 15 N.J. Mis. R. 441. Rational: The court stated in its opinion that the planning board considered the views and desires of the neighboring estate owners as determinative. The board's original action was indisputably made to rest upon this ground alone. As pointed out, its minutes recite that the rejection of the plan was due to its non-conformance with neighboring "developments" and the objections of "the greater number of property owners" in the vicinity, whose several estates comprise from one to five acres and contain but one large mansion house, valued at from $50,000 to $75,000 each, and whose objections were based upon aesthetic considerations and the conviction that a development on this scale would depreciate their particular properties. This evinces a palpable misconception of the law. The standard is not the advantage or detriment to particular neighboring landowners, but rather the effect upon the entire community as a social, economic and political unit. That, which makes for the exclusive and preferential benefit of such particular landowner, with no relation to the community as a whole, is not a valid exercise of this sovereign power. That authority may not be exerted to bar "the ordinary use of property because repugnant to the sentiment or desires of a particular class residing in the immediate neighborhood thereof;" it may be interposed only in the event that the "use is detrimental to the interests of the public at large." The neighboring owners do not possess the right to impose, for their own special

benefit, restrictions upon the lawful use of the tract in question. In view of the board's manifest misapprehension of its authority, and its disregard of fundamental principles and statutory considerations in this and other particulars to be presently mentioned, the court is of the opinion that the cause should be remanded for a re-examination and determination of the issue in the light of the correct principles. Critical Analysis: The court upholds the ideals and principals of the use of subdivision regulation as a land use control device to shape the growth of a community. This is stated in the courts definitions of police power and its interpretation their of within the opinion of the court. Though it supports the ideas of subdivision regulation, it does have a problem with the way that the planning board of West Orange came to its conclusion, thus remanding the case back to the planning board for revaluation with recommendations from the court, more specifically that the grounds that the planning board used to disapprove of the proposed development be stated in its records. The ruling provides the basis in that subdivision regulation in the use of controlling land use is within the framework of the Constitution, under the ideals of police power, thus paving the way for the current uses of subdivision regulation that we see in community zoning today.