Nelrose Realty Co. v. Hoppe

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Nelrose Realty Co. v. Hoppe

127 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 39, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 3

DecidedDecember 31, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A. 926 (Nelrose Realty Co. v. Hoppe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nelrose Realty Co. v. Hoppe, 127 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 39, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 3 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam'.

The relator in this ease applied to the inspector of buildings in the village of Ridgefield Park for a permit to erect a one-story brick building, to contain three stores, on his lot forty feet by one hundred feet on the westerly side of Tea-neck road, eighty feet south of Cedar street, in accordance with the Ridgefield Park building code. The permit was refused on the ground that the plans submitted by the relator did not comply with subdivision JD of section eight (8) of the [40]*40zoning ordinance, which refers to the height and area regulations controlling district B zones. We think an alternative writ should issue in tins case, so that the facts may he presented to the court on which a record can be made, if it is desired, and such will be the order of the court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam'.

The relator in this ease applied to the inspector of buildings in the village of Ridgefield Park for a permit to erect a one-story brick building, to contain three stores, on his lot forty feet by one hundred feet on the westerly side of Tea-neck road, eighty feet south of Cedar street, in accordance with the Ridgefield Park building code. The permit was refused on the ground that the plans submitted by the relator did not comply with subdivision JD of section eight (8) of the [40]*40zoning ordinance, which refers to the height and area regulations controlling district B zones. We think an alternative writ should issue in tins case, so that the facts may he presented to the court on which a record can be made, if it is desired, and such will be the order of the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A. 926, 3 N.J. Misc. 39, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelrose-realty-co-v-hoppe-nj-1924.