Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lattanzi v. Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Camden

Decided: September 17, 1946.

VINCENZO LATTANZI AND ANGIOLINA LATTANZI, PROSECUTORS,
v.
THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN, IN THE COUNTY OF CAMDEN, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN, ANTONIO MONFORTE, MARIANNA MONFORTE AND ANGELO ANTONELLI, RESPONDENTS



On certiorari.

For the prosecutors, Frank M. Lario.

For the respondents Antonio Monforte and Marianna Monforte, Gene R. Mariano and Joseph D. Mariano.

For the respondents Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Camden and the building inspector for the City of Camden, John Crean (Norman Heine, of counsel).

For the respondent Angelo Antonelli, Albert E. Scheflen.

Before Justices Bodine, Perskie and Wachenfeld.

Wachenfeld

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WACHENFELD, J. The question presented by this application involves the determination of the meaning of the words "building line" as used in the building ordinance of the City of Camden. The ordinance provides, in part, that no building of any kind shall be extended beyond the official building line established in any city block except after notice to adjacent resident owners to allow them an opportunity to file objections thereto. The ordinance defines the term "official building line" to mean "not only the official building line established by the City Ordinance, but also the building line in any one city block or square maintained and established by the majority of the other property owners in any city block or square."

Admittedly, the building line in this case would have to be established by the majority of the property owners as provided in the aforesaid ordinance inasmuch as there is no other provision in the city ordinance for establishing the same.

Application was made by the respondents Antonio Monforte and Marianna Monforte, to the Commissioner of Public Works of Camden for a permit to alter the front of their house so as to enclose a front porch and make it a business front for a bakery which is operated on the premises. The permit was granted although no notice had been given of the application.

If the aforesaid ordinance is construed to mean that the building line for the block is the front wall of the porch, the permit was properly allowed. If, on the other hand, the

building line is determined to be the wall at which the porch is connected with the main portion of the house, the construction contemplated ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.