|
<br />o 0 2 3 { 1. 64
<br />
<br />llAmerican Land Company v. Keene, 41 F.2d 484, 490 (1st Cir.
<br />.1930). This language was from a dissenting opinion where the
<br />basis for dissent was a separate issue. q~~
<br />12Coffman v. James, 177 So.2d 25, 30 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
<br />1965) .
<br />
<br />13Brown v. City of Joliet, 108 Ill. App; 2d 230, 247 N.E.2d
<br />47 (1969). '
<br />
<br />14Clirtton v. \Vest Norriton
<br />(Pa., 1959).
<br />
<br />lSArdolino v. Bd. of Adjustment, 24 N.J. 94, 130 A.2d 847
<br />(1957) .
<br />
<br />- .
<br />
<br />Twp., 75 Montg. Co. L~ Rep. 262
<br />
<br />16N.J. STAT..ANN. 940:55-1.20 (1967), cited in 130 A.2d at
<br />855.
<br />
<br />17130 A.2d at 856.
<br />
<br />lOSee, e.g., Bogert v. Washington To~mship, 25 N.J. 57, 135
<br />A.2d :LlT957); Yygmont v. Planning and Zoning Commission,
<br />152 Conn. 550, 210 A.2d 1.72 (1965) For a discussion of
<br />these and other cases, see Chap~er II of Part III, foot-.
<br />notes 123-131 and accompanying text. .
<br />
<br />r~-Stoneham v. Savalo, .341 ;.~a.c-.:;. 4:::6.,
<br />
<br />17;)
<br />
<br />~-' .':t "j':' A';'?
<br />.., .~. ""\wi. "2.',
<br />
<br />.. ",~. I"':.. ro.,.
<br />.oz....v \..I..;VV/.
<br />
<br />20 See the Murray ,Kentucky ordinance cited in note 154 of
<br />Chapter II and accom?anying text.
<br />"
<br />2 I See Noble v. Tovmship of Nendhatn,
<br />91 N,J. Super HI, 219 A.2d 335, 339 (1966) which stated:
<br />
<br />"It is a matter of public interest that streets be
<br />of sufficient ,vidth and sui table to accommodate. motor
<br />vehicle traffic and to provide access forfire~fight-
<br />ing'equipment and. other emergency vehicles."
<br />
<br />See also Kligman v.Lautman,. 53 N.J. 517, 251 A.2d 745
<br />~6~Reggs Homes, Inc. v. DiCkerson, 179 N.Y.S.2d 771
<br />(S.Ct., Suffolk Co.) (1958).
<br />
<br />~2120 N.J.L. 145, 198 A. 225 (1938).
<br />
<br />23Id., 198 A. at 234.
<br />
<br />24For cases rejecting arguments that development should be
<br />denied because of increa.seq commun~ty expense ~ Smith,
<br />Municipal Economy and Land Use Restrictions, 20 L. & C.
<br />PROB. 481 (1955). See ,e.g., Beach v. Planning and Zoning
<br />Comnl'n. of Milford;-I41 Conn. 79, 103 A.2d 814 (1954)in which
<br />the court held that approval of a subdivision plat could not
<br />be denied under the legislation in effeot because the sub-
<br />division would place too heavy a burden upon the town
<br />for schools, police and fire protection;
<br />
<br />,;..,:C;'?;;:
<br />:;,:-~ .;.
<br />-~.X"'C
<br />
|