## Facts

- Chesterfield Township adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1955 regulating building and land uses and establishing administrative bodies to process zoning permits.
- The ordinance stated statutory zoning purposes (e.g., traffic safety, health, general welfare) and used a “schedule of regulations” describing permitted uses and general requirements.
- Agricultural and residential uses were addressed in the schedule, with accessory uses allowed under stated conditions (e.g., farm stands, seasonal migrant housing, residential setback and parking requirements).
- Beyond enumerated permitted uses, the ordinance required planning-board involvement for many permits and allowed “special” uses or modifications through application, investigation, and recommendation to the governing body for final approval or denial.
- A key provision authorized approval of a use “not specifically prohibited” if deemed desirable and in the township’s best interest.
- Rockhill, a township landowner, sued to invalidate the ordinance, arguing it was not district-based zoning and vested excessive, unguided discretion in municipal bodies.
- The trial court invalidated only the “not specifically prohibited” provision but otherwise sustained the ordinance; Rockhill appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a zoning ordinance that departs from district-based, generally applicable regulations and relies on case-by-case discretionary approvals conforms to New Jersey’s zoning enabling statute and constitutional limits on zoning.
2. Whether delegating broad authority to permit or deny uses based on generalized criteria (e.g., desirability, best interest) is an unlawful delegation inviting arbitrary administration.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court held the ordinance legally insufficient to the extent it implemented an open-ended discretionary approval scheme rather than rule-based zoning.
- The Court concluded that the ordinance’s structure functioned as an ad hoc licensing system, not zoning by general legislative standards.
- The Court went beyond the trial court’s limited severance and rejected the ordinance’s broader mechanism that vested unguided discretion in the planning board and governing body.
- The ordinance was invalidated to the extent of its nonconformity with statutory and constitutional zoning requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning must operate through legislatively prescribed, generally applicable rules; it may not be converted into a discretionary permit system driven by case-by-case judgments.
- Reciting statutory zoning purposes does not validate an ordinance whose operative scheme departs from the enabling act’s required structure.
- Delegations to administrative bodies must be bounded by clear, adequate standards that constrain discretion and reduce the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.
- Use zoning contemplates reasonable uniformity of regulation within designated areas, with exceptions limited and guided by definite criteria.

## Conclusion

The court required municipal land-use regulation labeled as “zoning” to function as zoning in substance—rule-based, standards-guided, and consistent with the enabling statute—rather than as a broad, standardless discretionary system for approving or denying uses.


Rockhill v. Chesterfield Township, 23 N.J. 117, 128 A.2d 473 (N.J. 1957)