Viewing page 50 of 93

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

building residences in the affected area. The question is the extent to which it helps the public welfare to keep them from doing so, and whether there is any demand to put the affected areas to the permitted, compatible uses.
    In a Note entitled Industrial Zoning to Exclude Higher Uses, 32 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1261 (1957), the author found that 288 cities with over 10,000 population had some form of ordinance that prohibited residential construction in industrial areas. This has been called noncumulative zoning. There have been several cases involving such ordinances; and in two the ordinances were found valid as applied. United States Supreme Court Justice Brennan, when sitting on the Supreme Court of New Jersey, wrote a strong dissent in the Katobimar Realty Co. case, cited in footnote 116, as to why, in the interest of land use planning for "the overall social and economic welfare" of the municipality, a proper zoning ordinance should be sustained that bans, for example, general business and residences from non-nuisance industrial parks.
    The principle of noncumulative zoning has also received acceptance in other cases, even though not found by the courts to be valid as applied. Especially in the Kozesnik and Gruber cases cited in footnote 116, both of which were in the State of New Jersey, the courts made it clear that they found no fault with the principle of noncumulative zoning.