Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002342 <br /> <br />65 <br /> <br />~ <br />~~:!,~ <br />I;f~::;y_ <br /> <br />Midtown Properties, Inc. v. Madison Tp.,. 68 N.J. Super <br />197, 172 A.2d 40 (1961) in which the court held that a municipalit..- <br />cannot refuse to grant approval for a building project - <br />merely because.the school system would be un~ble to <br />accommodate the increase of students or the project would <br />increase taxes; National Land and Investment, Co. v. Kohn, <br />419Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597, 610 (1965)in which the court disapprove:: <br />a zoning ordinance requiring 4 acre'miniJ1l11m16t sizes to <br />reduce traffic and community o?s~s noting: <br /> <br />"Zoning provisions may.not be used, however, to avoid <br />the increased responsibilities and economic burdens <br />whiCh time and natu~al 9rowth invariably bring. "(citing cases) <br /> <br />Bilbar Construction Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment, 393.Pa. 62, 141 <br />.A.2d 851 (1958); But see Furnace Branch Lan~Co. v. Bd. <br />of County Com' rs. ;--232"'Md. 536, 194 A.2d 640; (1963) <br />(Upheld denial of rezoning to permit garden apartments where <br />zoning board had reason to believe that sewage facilities <br />would, be inadequate.); Montcrest Estates, Inc. v. The <br />Mayor and Township Committee of the Township of Rockaway, <br />96 N.J. super 149, 232 A.2d 674 (1967) (Upheld rezoning to <br />inorease minimum lot size to reduce oommunity congestion and <br />expense. <br />Courts have upheld restrictions which help protect the safety <br />of subdivision residents such as minimum lot sizes to . <br />ilSS\H,'e adequo.te be,.;:3.'::"? di5pO~.al. 8--:-E' ~?~'?:: ~i. t'?r:~ i~~ !::':..~.:::-. <br />18, supra. See Roney v. Bd. of Supervisors of Contra C6sta <br />County, -rCal~ App.), 292 P.2d 529 (1956) in which the <br />court upheld the refusal of a county planning board to <br />approve a residential subdivision for an industrial area <br />subject to smoke, fumes and dust. The court felt that <br />. there were health and safety reasons for preventing resi- <br />dential subdivision in the area. A similar .rationale might <br />be applicable to residential subdivision in flood hazard <br />areas. See also .Corthoutg v.Town of Newington, 140 Conn. <br />284, 99 A.2d lli, 114 (1953) in which the court held. invalid <br />. as to plaintiff's land the exclusive industrial zone before <br />it, but noted: . , . <br /> <br />"It \~as not diffioult to conceive a situation. \~hich <br />legi.slatures \~ould be justified in prohibiting <br />residences near industrial plants emitting gases <br />or highly inflammable materials." <br /> <br />~5353 Mass. 141, 228 N.E.2d 831 (1967). <br /> <br />HMASS. GEN. LANS eh. 41, 981 H-l) <br />at 833 <br /> <br />(1967), cited in 228 N.E.2d <br /> <br />~7See La Salle National Bank v. City of High1qnd Park, 27, Ill. 2d <br />E1i, 189 N.E.2d 302 (1963) (Three acre minimum lot <br />size requirement which seriously restricted subdivision of land <br />held invalid),; Hager v. Louisville and Jefferson Co. <br /> <br />~1~~) <br />