Cliffside Park Realty Co. v. Borough of Cliffside Park
| Decision Date | 20 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 78.,78. |
| Citation | 114 A. 797 |
| Parties | CLIFFSIDE PARK REALTY CO. v. BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari by the Cliffside Park Realty Company against the Borough of Cliffside Park to have a zoning ordinance declared invalid. Writ dismissed, and prosecutor appeals. Affirmed.
The following is the opinion of Parker J., in the Supreme Court:
The writ removes for consideration an elaborate zoning ordinance of Cliffside Park, approved September 27, 1920, and which was avowedly enacted pursuant to the supplement to the Home Rule Act of 1917 (P. L. p. 319), which appears as chapter 240 of the Laws of 1920 (P. L. p. 455). Prosecutors own two blocks of land in the borough, laid out as building lots, and allege that the marketability of their land is seriously affected by the restriction of said land to uses not forbidden by "regulations controlling business districts," contained in section 6 of the ordinance and cognate provisions. They claim that the act itself is unconstitutional, as authorizing an improper limit on the use of their property, and that the ordinance itself goes beyond the authority of the statute and of any other legislation applicable in the premises.
I do not think the act itself is unconstitutional in toto, as it is, in fact at least, plainly passed as an exercise of the legitimate police power, for it says the regulations authorized "shall be designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare." There can be no question about the validity of reasonable regulations touching the public health and safety. "General welfare" is a broad phrase, and perhaps would include matters not properly within the scope of the police power, but no doubt includes some that are within that scope. Coming to the ordinance itself, I do not see how it is to be set aside in toto because certain parts of it may be invalid. The rule on this subject is well settled and is not denied by prosecutors.
When we take up the particular parts applicable to them (and I do not think all of them are pointed out), I think that in the case made by prosecutors a certiorari is premature. They do not appear to have been prevented from building any buildings intended for prohibited uses, or from carrying on any prohibited business. As to buildings for uses denounced by the ordinance, I think the proper procedure is that followed in recent cases in Asbury Park and Jersey City, viz. the filing of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florentine v. Town of Darien
...1376; People ex rel. Broadway & 96th Street Realty Co. v. Walsh, 203 App.Div. 468, 474, 196 N.Y.S. 672; Cliffside Park Realty Co. v. Cliffside, 96 N.J.L. 278, 279, 114 A. 797; Home Fuel Oil Co. v. Glen Rock, 118 N.J.L. 340, 347, 192 A. 516; Prove City v. Claudin, 91 Utah 60, 68, 63 P.2d 570......
-
Ross v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Edgewater
...not now and has not been general in its character." The sole question here is the validity of the ordinance. Cliffside Park Realty Co. v. Cliffside, 96 N. J. Law, 278, 114 A. 797; Koettegen v. Paterson, 90 N. J. Law, 698, 101 A. 253; Siciliano v. Township of Neptune, 83 N. T. Law, 158, 83 A......
-
Markham, In re, 676
...Corporation v. Board of Com'rs of Town of West New York, 124 N.J.L. 345, 11 A.2d 832. See also Cliffside Park Realty Co. v. Borough of Cliffside Park, 96 N.J.L. 278, 114 A. 797. It would serve no useful purpose to discuss the distinctive features of the New Jersey We have considered the dec......
-
State ex rel. Civello v. City of New Orleans
...Mass. 597, 127 N.E. 525, and Commonwealth v. Atlas (Mass.) 244 Mass. 78, 138 N.E. 243. In New Jersey, see Cliffside Park Railroad Co. v. Cliffside Park, 96 N.J.L. 278, 114 A. 797, and Schait v. Senior (N. J. Sup.) 97 N.J.L. 390, 117 A. 517. In Iowa, see Des Moines v. Manhattan Oil Co., 193 ......