Case Name: THANET CORPORATION, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, AND W. JOSEPH SHINN, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, DEFENDANTS, AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1969-12-10
Citations: 108 N.J. Super. 65
Docket Number: 
Parties: THANET CORPORATION, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, AND W. JOSEPH SHINN, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, DEFENDANTS, AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 65–73

Head Matter:
THANET CORPORATION, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, AND W. JOSEPH SHINN, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, DEFENDANTS, AND THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF PRINCETON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued November 17, 1969
Decided December 10, 1969.
Concurring Opinion December 22, 1969.
Before Judges Sullivan, Carton and Halpern.
Mr. Henry A. Hill, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Gordon D. Griffin, attorney).
Mr. Garrett M. Heher argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Smith, Stratton, Wise & Heher, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This appeal, by the Township of Princeton, in a zoning case arises out of a long-term ground lease entered into between plaintiff, as owner of a five-acre tract of land situated in the Township, and the United States of America (Post Office Department). The lease recognizes that the Government intends to assign the lease to a "tenant" for the construction on the demised premises of a post office and incidental facilities according to the building and design requirements of the Government which will then lease back the premises.
The tract is located in an area zoned as "engineering and research" by the Township. Following the denial of plaintiff's application for municipal approval of the proposed post office facility (plaintiff sought alternatively a use variance, a special permit, or a variance for the proposed use under the lease), the instant suit was filed seeking a reversal of the denial of the application. By the second count of the complaint, plaintiff sought a declaration that the establishment of the general post office facility will, for the entire period of time it is used for that purpose, be immune from the Township Zoning and Land Subdivision Ordinances.
After issue was joined, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the second count of the complaint, the court holding that the United States Govern ment "whether as owner or lessee, is immune from zoning ordinances." The court's opinion is reported at 104 N. J. Super. 180.
On this appeal the Township concedes that if the United States Government owned the tract in question, its establishment of a post office facility would be immune from the Township Zoning Ordinance. However, the Township argues that the Government's mere lease of the tract, even for post office use, cannot confer immunity on it.
We do not agree and affirm the judgment herein substantially for the reasons expressed in the trial judge's opinion.
In view of the ruling, we find it unnecessary to consider whether or not plaintiff's application for a use variance or a special permit should have been granted.
Affirmed.