Court Opinion

ID: 9740419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:35:09.204933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.229594
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer, concurring: I am not prepared to rule, as the majority opinion may be read to imply, that every municipality in the State, regardless of its size, its established character, or the accessibility of available areas outside its borders, must make place within its boundaries for every conceivable industrial use of land not unlawful per se, and for an unlimited number of users in every permitted class. The contrary views that have been expressed seem persuasive to me. See Duffcon Concrete Products, Inc., v. Borough of Cresskill, 1 N.J. 509, 64 A.2d 347 (1949); Valley View Village v. Proffet, 221 F.2d 412 (6th Cir. 1955); Town of Hobart v. Collier, 3 Wis.2d 182, 191, 87 N.W.2d 868, 873 (1958) (dissenting opinion). Since a landowner adjoining the plaintiff has been allowed to carrjr on the ready-mix concrete business and was given permission to expand his installations after the effective date of the amendment prohibiting the use, I concur in accepting the trial court’s finding that the ordinance, in the circumstances of this application, is arbitrary and void.