## Facts

- A borough zoning ordinance (1939) divided the municipality into districts; in Residential District A it permitted one- and two-family dwellings, apartment houses, and expressly permitted boarding and rooming houses.
- The ordinance did not list hotels or motels as permitted uses; it defined “boarding house” and “rooming house” based on lodging (and, for boarding houses, meals) for compensation to more than six nonrelated persons.
- Landowners in District A applied (May 19, 1954) for a building permit to construct a 27-unit motel.
- The building inspector denied the permit; the landowners did not pursue an administrative appeal or apply for a variance under the governing zoning statute.
- Shortly thereafter (May 25, 1954), the municipality adopted a supplemental ordinance expressly prohibiting motels and similar automobile-oriented transient lodging uses (including motor courts, motor lodges, tourist camps, and tourist courts).
- The landowners sued seeking an order compelling issuance of a permit and challenging the supplemental ordinance as arbitrary and unconstitutional because it allowed rooming houses but excluded motels.
- The trial court ruled for the landowners, held the motel/rooming-house distinction unreasonable, and directed that a permit issue; the municipality appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may prohibit motels in a residential district even though boarding and rooming houses are permitted.
2. Whether distinguishing between rooming houses and motels is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it exceeds zoning police power limits and violates due process.

## Decision

- The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and upheld the municipal zoning action.
- The court held that treating motels as a distinct land use from rooming houses is not inherently unreasonable.
- The court concluded the municipality could reasonably find motels to have different adverse effects (e.g., automobile-oriented transience, traffic, and noise) than traditional rooming houses in residential neighborhoods.
- The court ruled the landowners were not entitled to a permit for a motel in the residential district.
- The court noted, without making it dispositive, that the landowners did not pursue available administrative/variance relief.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning enactments are legislative and are sustained if supported by any reasonably conceivable factual basis related to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- A zoning classification is invalid only if clearly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and lacking substantial relation to legitimate zoning objectives.
- A municipality may exclude a particular use from a district when the exclusion is reasonably related to preserving district character and the general welfare.
- Motels may be regulated as a land-use category materially different from rooming or boarding houses due to their automobile-oriented, transient operational characteristics.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a residential-zone prohibition on motels despite permitting rooming houses, holding that the distinction had a rational basis tied to legitimate zoning objectives and therefore did not violate constitutional limits on the zoning power.


Pierro v. Baxendale, 20 N.J. 17, 118 A.2d 401 (N.J. 1955)