Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Slattery v. Township of Caldwell
Decided: June 26, 1963.
JAMES SLATTERY, WILLIAM ILLGE AND WILDLIFE PRESERVES, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFFS,
TOWNSHIP OF CALDWELL, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT
Glickenhaus, J.c.c. (temporarily assigned).
[79 NJSuper Page 592] This matter came on before the court on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in an action in lieu of prerogative writs challenging
the validity of an amendment to a zoning ordinance. The amendment to the zoning ordinance made on November 19, 1962 purports to enlarge a recently created industrial zone by including therein certain lands formerly zoned for agricultural and residential uses. For the purpose of this decision the details of the ordinance are not required to be set forth. It suffices to note that in the amendment three references are made to "Proposed Federal Highway I-80" in fixing the boundary lines for the zone. The proposed Federal Highway I-80 is not delineated or indicated on any map attached to or made a part of the amended ordinance and the said proposed Federal Highway I-80 is not set forth as appearing on any map referred to in the said amended ordinance. The only map referred to in the amended ordinance is a tax map of the defendant township.
The defendant township contends that although Federal Highway I-80 referred to in the ordinance has not yet been constructed, its route is nevertheless sufficiently certain. It bases its contention on the following:
A. The route was settled and determined by the State Highway Department with the approval of the Federal Bureau of Roads.
B. The State has purchased land within the right of way lines and has begun preparation for the purchase of other parcels within the route.
C. Contracts will soon be drawn for excavation work within the right of way.
D. No change has been made in the proposed course of the highway since May 1961 and none is contemplated.
E. Maps delineating the route had been furnished to the defendant township by the State Highway Department prior to the adoption of the ordinance.
The defendant township further raises the question as to the status of plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the amendment.
In deciding this matter, the court wishes to point out that it is conceded that the boundary lines referred to in the
ordinance are not delineated on a map referred to or made a part of the zoning ordinance; that, in its opinion, if such boundary lines were delineated on a map referred to and made a part of the ordinance, or if delineated by metes and bounds, there would appear to be ...
Buy This Entire Record For