## Facts

- South Brunswick Township adopted two ordinances authorizing “cluster” or “open space” zoning and related subdivision security requirements.
- Ordinance No. 19–62 permitted a developer, with planning board approval, to reduce minimum lot sizes (by 20% or 30%) and minimum frontage (by 10% or 20%) if the developer simultaneously deeded 20% or 30% of the tract to the Township for parks, school sites, and other public purposes.
- Ordinance No. 20–62 revised performance-guarantee requirements to cover improvements to lands to be deeded to the Township for public purposes.
- The Township experienced rapid growth, including a population doubling from 1957 to 1960, increased industrial and commercial development, and pressure on public facilities.
- A large proposed residential development (“Brunswick Acres”) in a residential zoning district was linked to the practical setting for the ordinances, though the ordinances applied generally to qualifying subdivisions.
- Plaintiffs, township residents and taxpayers, filed a prerogative writ action challenging both ordinances as ultra vires, arbitrary and unreasonable, and impermissible favoritism amounting to “contract zoning” benefiting a particular developer.
- Defendants asserted the ordinances were a general legislative response to township-wide planning needs, including securing land for schools, recreation, and green space, consistent with the master plan and subdivision control objectives.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey land-use enabling statutes authorized a municipality to permit reduced lot size/frontage in exchange for mandatory dedication of a percentage of the tract for public purposes under a cluster/open-space scheme.
2. Whether the ordinances were a reasonable exercise of the police power substantially related to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, rather than arbitrary or capricious.
3. Whether the ordinances constituted impermissible “spot” or “contract” zoning enacted for the special benefit of a particular developer rather than as legislation of general application.

## Decision

- The court sustained Ordinances Nos. 19–62 and 20–62 as valid exercises of municipal authority.
- The court held the Township had statutory authority to implement the cluster/open-space approach and related performance guarantees.
- The court found the ordinances reasonable and connected to legitimate public purposes, including provision for schools, parks, and recreation in the face of rapid growth and large-scale subdivisions.
- The court rejected the claim of unlawful “contract zoning,” concluding the ordinances were general in scope and not the product of a private bargain for a single developer.
- Judgment was entered for defendants, and the requested prerogative-writ relief was denied.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal zoning and subdivision regulations are valid if authorized by enabling legislation and reasonably related to the general welfare, including planning for public facilities affected by new development.
- Cluster/open-space zoning may lawfully permit reduced dimensional requirements when conditioned on dedication or preservation of open space for public purposes and when administered through standards tied to planning objectives.
- A zoning amendment is not invalid merely because a specific developer benefits or initiated the proposal; invalid “contract zoning” requires evidence of a private bargain or legislation effectively limited to a particular owner rather than generally applicable regulation.
- Requirements for land dedication and performance guarantees may be upheld when they are reasonable conditions connected to impacts and public needs generated by subdivision development.

## Conclusion

The court upheld South Brunswick’s cluster zoning and related security ordinance, concluding that reduced lot standards conditioned on public-purpose land dedications were authorized and reasonable responses to rapid township growth and planning needs, and that the ordinances were generally applicable rather than unlawful contract zoning for a favored developer.


Chrinko v. S. Brunswick Twp. Planning Bd., 77 N.J. Super. 594, 187 A.2d 221 (Law Div. 1963)