Kaveny v. Board of Com'rs of Town of Montclair
| Decision Date | 04 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A--23,A--23 |
| Citation | 71 N.J.Super. 244,176 A.2d 802 |
| Parties | Martin J. KAVENY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the TOWN OF MONTCLAIR et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Francis F. Welsh, Montclair, for appellant.
Samuel Allcorn, Jr., Montclair, for municipal respondents.
Charles R. L. Hemmersley, Montclair, for respondent Board of Education of Town of Montclair.
Alfred Abbotts, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent New Jersey State Board of Education (David D. Furman, Atty. Gen., attorney; Alfred Abbotts, Trenton, of counsel).
Before Judges CONFORD, FREUND and LABRECQUE.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FREUND, J.A.D.
Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment of the Superior Court, Law Division, dismissing his action in lieu of prerogative writs. The complaint sought to compel the Town of Montclair and its building and plumbing inspectors to inspect certain additions and alterations being made to the Montclair High School to ascertain whether the work was being performed in accordance with the terms of the Montclair Building Code, of which the Plumbing Code is a part. All the pertinent underlying facts, including the applicable statutes and ordinance, are fully set forth in the opinion of Judge Waugh. Kaveny v. Bd. of Com'rs of Montclair, 69 N.J.Super. 94, 173 A.D.2d 536 (Law Div. 1961). The parties agree that the disposition of the question presented involves only a question of law.
In accordance with the authority contained in N.J.S.A. 26:3--33 and R.S. 40:48--1, N.J.S.A., the Town of Montclair adopted a Building Code, including a Plumbing Code, which was made expressly applicable to municipal, county and state buildings, except where 'otherwise specifically provided by law.' The parties agree that the issue to be decided is whether or not the construction of and alterations to public school buildings are subject to compliance with the building code of the municipality where such school buildings are located.
The determination of this issue is primarily controlled by the terms of R.S. 18:11--8, N.J.S.A. and N.J.S.A. 18:11--11. R.S. 18:11--8, N.J.S.A., provides that no contract for the erection of any public school building shall be made until the plans and specifications are submitted to and approved by the State Board of Education. N.J.S.A. 18:11--11 expressly provides that no local board of education shall be required to secure municipal approval of its plans and specifications for the erection or alteration of any school building or be required to secure a building permit from the municipality.
Plaintiff argues that a board of education is relieved from filing plans and specifications and obtaining a building permit only because the Legislature has chosen to exempt it from the payment of a permit fee, but that otherwise the provisions of the local codes in regard to inspections must be complied with. We find no authority, nor has any been submitted to us, to support this contention. On the contrary, we agree with the trial judge that the Legislature has placed control of the construction of public schools under the combined authority of state and local boards of education, implicitly excluding any interference therewith by the municipality wherein the school is located. Local boards of education are free from the control of the municipal governing body except to the extent the education law otherwise provides. Botkin v. Westwood, 52 N.J.Super. 416, 425, 145 A.2d 618 (App.Div.), appeal dismissed, 28 N.J. 218, 146 A.2d 121 (1958). The provisions of the education law do not contain any express or implied requirement that a school building conform to the particular standards of a local building or plumbing code.
There are persuasive reasons of public policy underlying this conclusion. There are presently 570 municipalities and 558 school districts in New Jersey. The interests of these many local communities and their school children are most effectively and efficiently served, in health and safety, if the local...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus
...for a school building are not subject to municipal approval and a building permit shall not be required. Kaveny v. Montclair, 71 N.J.Super. 244, 176 A.2d 802 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 36 N.J. 597, 178 A.2d 388 (1962). That statute must be considered with R.S. 18:11--8, N.J.S.A. which requ......
-
Gualano v. Board of School Estimate of Elizabeth School Dist., A--60
...33 (App.Div.1960); Kaveny v. Board of Commissioners of Montclair, 69 N.J.Super. 94, 173 A.2d 536 (Law Div.1961), affirmed 71 N.J.Super. 244, 176 A.2d 802 (App.Div.1962), certif. denied 36 N.J. 597, 178 A.2d 388 Chapter 6 applies to all city school districts, except ones which choose to be g......
-
Board of Ed. of East Brunswick Tp. v. Township Council of East Brunswick Tp.
...to hear the controversy, and that the council should have appealed to the State Board before resorting to the courts. The approach in the Montclair case is expressly embodied in our current rules which dictate that, generally, the available administrative remedies must be exhausted before j......
-
State in Interest of C., In re
...180 A.2d 136 (1962); Kaveny v. Board of Commissioners, Montclair, 69 N.J.Super. 94, 173 A.2d 536 (Law Div.1961), aff'd 71 N.J.Super. 244, 176 A.2d 802 (App.Div.1962). Generally the actions of a government official who is performing his assigned duties should be subject to the restraints of ......