On alternative writ of mandamus.
For the relator, George F. Losche.
For the respondent, Chandless, Weller & Kramer (Ernest Weller).
Before Case, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Burling.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
CASE, CHIEF JUSTICE. The case comes before us on an alternative writ of mandamus, the return thereto and an approved stipulation of facts. The relator desires to erect and operate a laundry on a tract of land which lies chiefly in the "D" or business district, partly in the "E" or industrial district but under such circumstances as to depend upon the zoning restrictions with respect to the "D" district in the City of Hackensack. The building inspector refused to issue the building permit for the location named in the original application; but he did issue a permit for the erection on so much of the premises as lies in the "E" district in accordance with an amended application filed by the relator. Upon the contention of relator and with the apparent acquiescence of the respondent we pass the question of whether the relator is
adversely affected by the amended application and the action thereon. The inspector grounded his refusal upon the finding that the proposed use was contrary to the provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Subdivision (a), (p) and (q) of section 4, article IV of the zoning ordinance provides as follows:
"r. D Districts -- Within the districts designated as 'D' the trades or industries hereinafter set forth shall not hereafter be carried on, conducted or located; and no building designed for the uses hereinafter set forth shall be located or constructed therein, to wit:
"(a) Manufacturing other than light manufacturing. * * *
"(p) Any trade, industry or use prohibited by section 5 of this article in E. Districts.
"(q) No trade, industry or business that is noxious or offensive by reasons of the emission of odor, ...