LAND USE AND PLANNING
26-2-4903 Glassboro Guardians v. Borough of Glassboro, App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) In this appeal, the issue is whether the trial judge erred in sustaining a challenge to a 2004 ordinance, which requires every rental property in defendant Borough of Glassboro to “provide a minimum of one off-street parking space for every one authorized occupant 18 years of age or more.” Glassboro imposes no such parking requirement on non-rental properties. Plaintiff Glassboro Guardians, a nonprofit corporation comprised of “individuals who own rental properties” within the municipality, filed this action. In granting summary judgment, the trial judge determined that the ordinance was overly-broad and unreasonable. The appellate panel rejects Glassboro’s arguments that plaintiff lacked standing and the action should have been held time-barred. The panel further concludes the matter was not ripe for summary judgment because the record is largely silent on whether there was a rational basis for the ordinance’s adoption. Apparently, the judge invalidated the ordinance because she believed the municipality was attempting to limit property owners’ ability to rent to college students in the guise of regulating parking within the municipality. However, it cannot be said on the limited record whether the ordinance constituted a legitimate exercise of the municipality’s powers or whether the enactment was intended to obscure an improper motive, was merely pretextual, or had as its goal the curing or prevention of “anti-social conduct in dwelling situations.” The order under review is vacated and the matter remanded for further consideration following development of the record.
