Steve Goodell: “It means the case is over”
By John Tredrea, Staff Writer
The state Supreme Court has decided it will not hear an appeal against a downzoning of Hopewell Township that was enacted in December 2002.
”That’s great news,” said Steve Goodell, municipal attorney, of the court’s ruling, which was handed down a few days ago. “It means the case is over.”
Under the 2002 ordinance, the permitted housing density in most of the northern one-third of the township was reduced from one residence per 6 acres to one per 14 acres. For most of the central one-third of the township, the permitted density was reduced from one unit per 4 acres to one per 6 acres.
The zoning changes reflected the “carrying capacity of the land,” particularly groundwater resources, township officials and consultants said.
A group of plaintiffs sued the township over the downzoning. The plaintiffs lost in Superior Court and in its Appellate Division. The plaintiffs then asked the state Supreme Court to hear the case but were, as Mr. Goodell reported, turned down.
In a Nov. 21 memo to Mayor Vanessa Sandom and the Township Committee, Howard D. Cohen, the township special counsel handling downzoning cases, stated, “I am pleased to enclose a copy of Order dated Nov. 17, 2008 of the Supreme Court denying appellants’ Petition for Certification. This means that the Appellate Division Decision dated Aug, 14, 2008 affirming Judge (Linda) Feinberg’s Trial Court Decision sustaining the validity of Ordinance 02-1268 (the downzoning law) remains the law of this case.”
IN DECEMBER 2002, the Township Committee voted 4-0 to adopt the downzoning measure that dramatically reduced the permitted intensity of development.
Under state law, four votes were needed then for adoption instead of three because of a petition of protest against the ordinance, signed by more than 50 property owners who collectively had several thousand acres of township land.
Before voting in favor of the downzoning, then-Committeeman Robert Higgins said the ordinance, like the new Master Plan from which the ordinance was derived, “is based on extensive and sound scientific studies. We have an obligation to future generations to protect our community’s groundwater, which is threatened.”
”This ordinance is consistent with our new Master Plan, putting us in a strong legal position for the legal challenges that are sure to follow.”
Then-Mayor Jon Edwards said, at the time of the vote, the ordinance was “the culmination of a four-year effort, including more than 30 Planning Board work sessions on the Master Plan, all open to the public, plus five public hearings on the Master Plan.”

