Case ID: nj-misc_5/html/0715-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, EX REL. ISAAC RASKIND, RELATOR, v. THOMAS J. DOWLING, INSPECTOR OF THE BUILDING AND PLUMBLING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ORANGE, AND THE CITY OF ORANGE, RESPONDENTS.
    Submitted January 29, 1927
    Decided July 9, 1927.
    Zoning — Apartment-House in Residence District — No Appeal to Board of Adjustment — Writ Denied.
    On application for writ of mandamus.
    
    Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Trey-chard.
    Eor the relator, Levy, Fensier & McQloslcey (John J. Mc-ClosTcey, of counsel).
    For the respondents, William A. Calhoun.
    
   Per Curiam.

The relator applied to the building inspector of the city of Orange for a permit to erect a four-story brick apartment-house on premises owned by him in that city. The building inspector denied the permit for the sole reason that the land in question was in residence “A” district, which was zoned against apartment-houses.

The relator thereupon obtained an alternative writ of mandamus to which a return was made, which was demurred to. There is also presented a stipulation as to the facts.

It thereby appears that the city of Orange has a board of adjustment, whose powers have been amplified by the act of 1926, chapter 315, and that no appeal was taken by the relator to that board. In that situation the relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus against the building inspector. So the Supreme Court has determined in several cases. See Burg v. Ackerman, 5 N. J. Mis. R. 96; Paramount Realty Co. v. Schmitt, 5 Id. 177; State v. Dowling, 5 Id. 180.

The application for the writ of mandamus must be denied, with costs.