Nelson Bldg. Co. v. Binda

• Citation: 128 A. 618
• Parties: NELSON BLDG. CO. v. BINDA, Inspector of Buildings, et al.
• Decision Date: 18 April 1925
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

128 A. 618

NELSON BLDG. CO.

v. BINDA, Inspector of Buildings, et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 18, 1925.

Mandamus by the Nelson Building Company against Charles A. Binda, Inspector of Buildings of Township of Weehawken, and another. On rule to show cause. Writ issued.

Argued March term, 1925, before KALISCH, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

William F. Burke, of West Hoboken, for relator.

William S. Stuhr, of Hoboken, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. Relator being the owner of a plot of land on Boulevard East, near Duer Place in the township of Weehawken, prepared plans and specifications for the erection of an apartment house thereon and applied to the respondent Binda, building inspector, for a permit for the erection thereof, which permit was refused upon the ground that the proposed building if erected would be in violation of the zoning ordinance of Weehawken.

The property of relator is in residence zone A, as established, and fixed by the zoning ordinance, and the provisions of the ordinance are such as to restrict such zone to the erection of dwellings to be occupied by one family only.

After refusal of the building inspector to issue the permit, relator applied to the zoning board of appeals, obtaining no relief thereby. On the contrary, such board of appeals by its report, addressed to the township committee, recommended that such action be taken by that committee "as may be deemed advisable to enjoin a violation of section 9 of the zoning ordinance." Relator having pursued the methods of relief fixed by statute is in that respect in a position to ask relief of this court by way of mandamus. We think relator is entitled to relief by our writ.

The township of Weehawken has no Building Code, but seeks to regulate building through and by the provisions of its zoning ordinance. There are undoubtedly many provisions of such ordinance which are proper, but there are some which in our opinion are not. The regulations as to number of families that may occupy a given building per area of land covered are such as arbitrarily limit certain areas to one and two family residences only. This is so as to residence zone A, in which relator's property is situate. We can find no reasonable ground for such restriction.

In the proofs taken under this rule, it was attempted to be shown that relator's land situated on the edge of the Palisades was an unsafe place upon which to erect the proposed building. This was not the reason for refusing the permit,...