Posted on

Borough of Glassboro v. Vallorosi, 117 N.J. 421 (1990)

Facts: A Borough of Glassboro ordinance limits residence in certain districts to stable and permanent “single housekeeping units” that constitute either a “traditional family unit” or its functional equivalent. The Borough conceded that the ordinance was to prevent groups of college students from living together.

Issue: Whether a group of ten unrelated college students constitute a “family” within the definition of a restrictive zoning ordinance.

Procedural History: The Chancery Division concluded that the relationship and living arrangements among Vallorosi and the other college students demonstrated the “generic character” of a family. The Appellate Division affirmed.

Holding: Affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division.

Reasoning: Vallorosi and the other students often ate meals together, cooked for each other, and shared the household chores, grocery shopping, and yard work. In addition, a common checking account paid for food and other bills and they shared the use of a telephone. Although Vallorosi and the students are uncertain of living arrangements after graduation, their relationship “shows stability, permanency and can be described as the functional equivalent of a family.”

Posted on

Penobscot Area Housing Development Corp. v. City of Brewer, 434 A.2d 14 (1981)

Facts: The Penobscot Area Housing Development Corp. is a nonprofit organization that provides housing for retarded citizens. The Penobscot Housing Corp. was denied an occupancy certificate for a house it purchased because the home was to be used as a “group home for six adults or older minors” which did “not meet the terms of the City of Brewer’s zoning ordinance as a single family.”

Procedural History: The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s affirmation of the Brewer City enforcement officer.

Issue: Whether the requirement of a domestic bond would have been met by the relationship forged among the residents themselves as they lived and worked together.

Holding: Rejected the Penobscot Area Housing Corp’s position because the concept of “domestic bond” within the context of the ordinance implies the existence of a traditional family-like structure of household authority.

Reasoning: The reviewing court’s function is only to determine whether the decision of the Board of Appeals was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Relationships other than those based on blood or law satisfy the ordinance. The domestic bond requirement is not met because most residents would only reside in the home for one to one and a half years.

Posted on

Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 US 1 (1974)

Facts: The Village of Belle Terre is located on Long Island’s north shore and is inhabited by 700 people. Belle Terre restricts land use to one-family dwellings and Boraas became a colessee with five other college students. The Village of Belle Terre  defines “family” as “One or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage, living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. A number of persons but not exceeding two (2) living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family.”

Issue: Whether the zoning ordinance interferes with certain fundamental rights such as the right to travel, immigrate to and settle within a State, barring people who are uncongenial to the present residents…and that the ordinance is antithetical to the Nation’s experience, ideology and self-perception as an open, egalitarian, and integrated society.

Holding: The zoning ordinance is upheld.

Reasoning: Zoning ordinances are legitimate police powers of the state, there is no fundamental right involved, and therefore, the zoning ordinance only needs to be “reasonable, not arbitrary” and bear a “rational relationship to a permissible state objective.”

Dissent (Justice Marshall): The classification burdens the students’ fundamental rights of association and privacy guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, the ordinance should not just be subjected to a rational basis review. Also, the Village of Belle Terre is free to limit the density of occupancy but cannot limit the density only in homes occupied by unrelated persons – the Village is then regulating the way people choose to associate with each other within the privacy of their own homes.