[41 NJSuper Page 91] Plaintiffs obtained from the building inspector a permit for the alteration of their home and the operation of a beauty salon therein. Property owners within 200 feet appealed to the board of adjustment, which, after hearing, determined that the issuance of the permit "for the use disclosed was in error" and revoked "this permit
insofar as the use for a beauty salon is concerned." Plaintiffs thereupon instituted the present action in lieu of prerogative writ to review the decision of the board.
The zoning ordinance, adopted in 1939, established four one-family residential districts. Section 6.1, applicable to all residential districts, provides:
"6.1 General Provisions -- Use
Within any one-family residence district no buildings shall be erected or altered or used in whole or in part for any other than the following specified purposes:
6.11 Single detached house used as a residence by not more than
6.12 A residence containing the professional office of its resident
6.13 Home occupations incidental to the use as a residence, pro-
vided that such occupations shall be conducted solely by
resident occupants of the building, and that no display of
products shall be visible from the street.
6.14 A church or any place of worship, including parish house
or Sunday School Building.
6.15 Buildings used for private horticultural or agricultural pur-
poses, private garages or stables, and private dog kennels."
The word "profession" is defined in section 2:
"Profession. Includes the following: physician, surgeon, dentist, osteopath, chiropractor, lawyer, real estate or insurance broker, architect and civil, electrical, mechanical or industrial engineer."
The ordinance does not define "home occupations."
Conceiving the contemplated beauty culture activity would constitute a home occupation, plaintiffs sought the permit, and the building ...