Viewing page 88 of 93

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

accompanied height restrictions. In each the ostensible purpose was the protection of runway approach zones from hazard. In two of the three cases the land use restriction was held to be invalid, and in the third it was held valid only because compensation was provided in case of taking. Roark v. City of Caldwell (Idaho, invalid); Banks v. Fayette County Board of Airport Zoning Appeals (Kentucky, invalid); Baggett v. City of Montgomery (Alabama, valid), all cited in footnote 112. 
115. Roney v. Board of Supervisors, 138 Cal. App2d 740, 292 P.2d 529 (1956) (valid to prohibit residential development in heavy industry zone); Lamb v. City of Monroe, 358 Mich. 136, 99 N.W.2d 566 (1959).
116. Corthouts v. Town of Newington, 140 Conn. 284, 99 A.2d 112 (1953) (ordinance invalid, but court upheld principle of non-cumulative zoning in dictum); Kozesnik v. Montgomery Township, 24 N.J. 154, 131 A.2d 1 (1957) (invalid but not because of non cumulative nature of ordinance); Katobimar Realty Co. v. Webster, 20 N.J. 114, 118 A.2d 824 (1955) (invalid because of unreasonable exclusion); Comer v. City of Dearborn, 342 Mich. 271, 70 N.W.2d 813 (1955) (invalid as applied because unreasonable and arbitrary); Gruber v. Mayor and Township Committee, 73 N.J. Super. 120, 179 A.2d 145 (1962); see also Opgal, Inc. v. Burns, 189 N.Y.S.2d 606 (S. Ct. 1959); Dooley v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission, 197 A.2d 770 (Conn. 1964); Horn Construction Co. v. Town of Hempstead, 41 M.2d 438, 245 N.Y.S.2d 614 (S. Ct. 1963).