n o t f o r p u b l i c a t i o n- rutgers university（n o f t o r p u b l i c t i o n -罗格斯大学）（35页）.docVIP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2132-03T52132-03T5 JOSEPH BAILES, ANTHONY BAILES, JANE BAILES, GERARD NOEBELS, ELIZABETH NOEBELS, JOHN BOCRA, HERB HEIM, BARBARA A. FOERTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and ERNA DIEM and MABEL SIGLE, Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK, Defendant-Respondent, and THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK, Defendant. _____________________________________ IARIA FAMILY TRUST, L.L.C., OLGA CLARK, ROMAN CLARK, JR., WILLIAM CLARK, KATHERINE HIMICH and MIDDLESEX COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK, Defendant-Respondent. _______________________________________ Argued January 25, 2005 - Decided September 22, 2005 Before Judges Skillman, Grall and Riva. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket Nos. L-10864-99 and L-12068-99. David J. Frizell argued the cause for appellants (Frizell Samuels, attorneys; Mr. Frizell, on the brief). Gage Andretta argued the cause for respondent (Wolff Samson, attorneys; Mr. Andretta and Maria K. Anastasia, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by SKILLMAN, P.J.A.D. Plaintiffs, owners of properties in the Township of East Brunswick, challenge the validity of zoning ordinances that downzoned the permitted densities in the district in which their properties are located from one unit per acre or per two acres to one unit per six acres, with cluster options ranging from one unit per three acres to one unit per three-and-a-half acres. We conclude that these ordinances are invalid as applied to plaintiffs properties because the downzoning is not required to serve the stated purposes of the ordinances and does not reflect reasonable consideration of existing development in the areas where plaintiffs properties are loca