Magnolia Development Co. v. Coles, A--120
| Decision Date | 16 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A--120,A--120 |
| Citation | 10 N.J. 223,89 A.2d 664 |
| Parties | MAGNOLIA DEVELOPMENT CO., Inc. v. COLES, Mayor, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
George D. Rothermel, Camden, argued the cause for appellant.
William C. Gotshalk, Camden, argued the cause for respondents (Matthew F. Van Istendal, Jr., Camden, attorney).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court from a judgment of the Law Division of that court in favor of the defendants and certified here on our own motion.
The facts are not in substantial dispute. The plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the sale of lots in the defendant borough. Before the situation occasioning the present litigation arose the plaintiff had presented to the borough council maps for two tracts referred to as sections 1 and 2 of Magnolia Gardens. These maps were duly approved by the defendant municipality and the plaintiff began to develop the two sections. Apparently the municipal officials became dissatisfied with the manner in which the property was being developed; they considered that the drainage was improper, that the roads were not properly constructed, that no sidewalks were provided and that the composition of the soil was not suitable for the use of the cesspools that were being installed. The borough officials seemingly had had little success in inducing the plaintiff to remedy this situation. In these circumstances the plaintiff in June 1950 submitted to the borough for approval a plat plan for section 3 which concededly complied in all respects with R.S. 46:23--1 et seq., N.J.S.A., relating to the filing and approval of plat plans for newly developed areas. On August 2, 1950, the governing body of the defendant borough by resolution refused to approve the plat plan on the grounds that 'It appears that the Magnolia Development Company does not intend to comply with the desires of the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Magnolia, mainly to install sidewalks, curbs, and gutters and 26 foot compact gravel roadway.'
Thereafter, on March 7, 1951, the borough adopted two ordinances. The first of these provided for the imposition of a penalty if land in the borough was sold by reference to a plat plan prior to the approval of the plan by the borough. The second ordinance required a surety completion bond for streets, sidewalks, curbs and other improvements as a condition precedent to the approval of a plat plan by the borough. On the day before the ordinances were passed, the plaintiff instituted this action in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court, demanding: (1) that the resolutions of August 2, 1950, be set aside; and in an amended complaint filed after the adoption of the ordinances (2) that the defendants approve the plat plan for section 3; (3) that the two ordinances of March 7, 1951, be declared not to operate retroactively on the plaintiff's application for approval of its plat plan; and (4) that the two ordinances of March 7, 1951 be declared void. The trial court denied the plaintiff all relief it sought and from the judgment dismissing the complaint the plaintiff took the present appeal.
The defendant borough has no power to deny approval of the plan of section 3 on the grounds stated in the resolution of August 2, 1950, hereinbefore quoted. R.S. 46:23--1 et seq., N.J.S.A., is a statute dealing with maps and plans and their approval and filing. Its purpose is to avoid the confusion in the office of the county register of deeds that would result from the submission of improperly drawn plans and plans having no fixed monuments for use in making surveys. Under this statute a municipality has no power to impose conditions on the approval of a plat plan such as the defendant municipality attempted in this instance to impose on the plaintiff. Indeed, it has been stipulated by the parties that the plaintiff has fully complied with all the provisions of R.S. 46:23--1 et seq., N.J.S.A.
The defendant seeks to justify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hertz Washmobile System v. Village of South Orange
...a municipality is not free to deal with those problems without regard for the legislative prescription'. Magnolia Development Co., Inc., v. Coles, 10 N.J. 223, 89 A.2d 664 (1952); Tagmire v. City of Atlantic City, 35 N.J.Super. 11, 113 A.2d 59 (App.Div.1955); Pennsylvania Railroad Company v......
-
Gilman v. City of Newark
...R.S. 40:48--2, N.J.S.A.; Fred v. Mayor and Council, etc., Old Tappan, 10 N.J. 515, 521, 92 A.2d 473 (1952); Magnolia Development Co., Inc. v. Coles, 10 N.J. 223, 89 A.2d 664 (1952); Hertz Washmobile System v. South Orange, 41 N.J.Super. 110, 123, 124 A.2d 68 (Law Div.1956), affirmed 25 N.J.......
-
State v. C. I. B. Intern.
...adopted under other municipal powers, including the police power, finds support in a well-established rule. In Magnolia Development Co. v. Coles, 10 N.J. 223, 89 A.2d 664 (1953), the Court struck down two ordinances as being outside the authority purportedly conferred by R.S. 46:23-1 et seq......
-
Vickers v. Township Committee of Gloucester Tp.
...provisions and procedures therein described,' many of which are for the protection of property owners. Magnolia Development Co., Inc. v. Coles, supra (10 N.J., at p. 227, 89 A.2d 664), nor does it, speaking more generally, 'connote an extension of the boundaries delineated by the statutory ......