## Facts

- A municipal planning board began a statutorily required six-year reexamination of a 1987 master plan in 1992.
- The board provided public notice, conducted 24 work meetings over multiple years, and held public hearings before adopting a revised master plan in June 1995.
- The revised master plan proposed new residential zoning districts (R-1 through R-5) and mapped where each would apply.
- The governing body later adopted a land use ordinance implementing the revised master plan, including creation of a higher-density residential zone adjacent to plaintiffs’ property.
- During public review, a developer sought an R-2A subzone to permit a denser housing scheme for a proposed subdivision; the ordinance adopted the modification along with other changes.
- Nearby landowners sued, alleging (1) failure to provide mailed notice to owners within 200 feet of the rezoned district and (2) invalid spot zoning, including the R-2A subzone.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the municipality; the landowners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the MLUL requires mailed notice to owners within 200 feet of a zoning classification or boundary change when the change is recommended in a periodic general reexamination of the master plan.
2. Whether adoption of the ordinance, including creation of a higher-density district and an R-2A subzone, constituted illegal spot zoning or was otherwise substantively invalid.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the municipality.
- It held that mailed notice to owners within 200 feet was not required because the challenged changes fell within the statutory exemption for zoning changes recommended through a periodic general reexamination of the master plan.
- It rejected the spot-zoning and related substantive challenges, concluding the ordinance was adopted as part of a comprehensive planning process and was not shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

## Legal Principles

- MLUL protest/notice provisions generally require mailed notice to owners within 200 feet for zoning classification or boundary changes, but exempt changes recommended by the planning board in a periodic general reexamination conducted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-89.
- When zoning amendments arise from a properly conducted, comprehensive master-plan reexamination with public meetings and hearings, the statutory mailed-notice exemption applies.
- Zoning ordinances are legislative acts presumed valid; challengers bear a heavy burden to prove invalidity.
- Spot zoning is invalid when it singles out a property for special treatment inconsistent with the zoning plan and lacking a sufficient public-purpose justification; adoption within a comprehensive planning framework and reasoned municipal action weighs against a spot-zoning finding.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the land use ordinance and ruled that mailed notice to nearby owners was not required for zoning changes recommended through a statutory master-plan reexamination, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove the ordinance amounted to illegal spot zoning or was otherwise unlawful.


Gallo v. Mayor & Twp. Council of Lawrence Twp., 328 N.J. Super. 117, 744 A.2d 1219 (App. Div. 2000)