Pierro v. Baxendale
20 N.J. 17, 118 A.2d 401 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality's zoning ordinance may reasonably distinguish between similar uses, such as permitting boarding houses while excluding motels in residential zones, and may exclude a particular business from the entire municipality if it is done to promote the general welfare by preserving the community's character.
Facts:
- In 1939, the Borough of Palisades Park enacted a zoning ordinance dividing the town into residential, business, and industrial districts.
- The ordinance permitted "boarding and rooming houses" in residential District A but did not expressly permit hotels or motels.
- The plaintiffs own land located within residential District A.
- Palisades Park is a residential community, approximately one mile square, with 80% of its land zoned for residential purposes.
- The plaintiffs' property is situated in a residential area surrounded by one-family and two-family homes.
- There are no motels in Palisades Park, but motels exist in nearby communities such as the Borough of Fort Lee.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 19, 1954, the plaintiffs applied to the building inspector of the Borough of Palisades Park for a permit to erect a motel.
- The building inspector denied the application.
- On May 25, 1954, the borough adopted a supplemental ordinance expressly prohibiting motels.
- The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Law Division (trial court) seeking an order to issue the permit and to set aside the supplemental ordinance.
- The Law Division trial judge entered a final judgment finding the supplemental ordinance invalid and ordering the borough to issue the building permit.
- The defendants, the Borough of Palisades Park, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Division.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey certified the appeal on its own motion before it was heard by the Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal zoning ordinance that permits boarding and rooming houses in a residential district, but is supplemented by an ordinance that bans motels from the entire municipality, constitute an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of the zoning power in violation of constitutional principles?
Opinions:
Majority - Jacobs, J.
No. A zoning ordinance that distinguishes between motels and boarding houses and excludes motels from the entire municipality is a valid exercise of the zoning power. Municipalities have the authority under their police power to promote the general welfare, which is a broad concept that includes preserving the wholesome and attractive characteristics of the community and maintaining property values. There is a reasonable basis for distinguishing between motels and boarding/rooming houses; motels are public businesses that cater to transient guests indiscriminately and possess significant commercial characteristics, whereas boarding houses are less public, can be selective, and maintain the outward appearance of private dwellings. As long as the validity of the legislative classification is 'fairly debatable,' the municipal judgment must be allowed to control. Citing precedents like Duffcon v. Cresskill, which allowed the exclusion of all heavy industry, the court affirmed that a municipality can exclude uses it deems incongruous with its essential character.
Dissenting - Heher, J.
Yes. The ordinance supplement constitutes an unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory exercise of the zoning power. The essence of zoning is the territorial division and regulation of uses by district, not the outright prohibition of a legitimate business throughout the entire municipality. There is no substantial difference between motels and other uses permitted in the district, such as multiple-family dwellings, garden-type apartments, and boarding houses, making the classification illusive and unreal. Banning motels due to potential police problems is an improper use of zoning power; such issues should be addressed by direct regulation, not total suppression of the use. The ordinance goes beyond regulation and becomes an ultra vires act of prohibition, violating due process and equal protection.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the concept of "general welfare" as a justification for zoning regulations in New Jersey. It establishes the principle that a municipality can entirely exclude a legitimate business if it reasonably determines that the business is incompatible with the community's established character. This ruling strengthens the presumption of validity afforded to municipal zoning ordinances and solidifies a highly deferential standard of judicial review, where courts will not overturn a legislative classification if it is 'fairly debatable.' The case is a landmark in the development of exclusionary zoning, empowering suburban communities to legislate to preserve their residential nature, a power later scrutinized for its potential socio-economic impacts.
Unlock the full brief for Pierro v. Baxendale