Aschenbach v. Inhabitants of City of Plainfield, 237.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 237.,237. |
| Parties | ASCHENBACH v. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF PLAINFIELD et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Carl Aschenbach against the Inhabitants of the City of Plainfield and others to review the action of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Plainfield in refusing to recommend granting of permit to erect addition to garage.
Writ, dismissed.
Argued October term, 1938, before CASE, DONGES, and PORTER, JJ.
Joseph J. Mutnick, of Plainfield, for prosecutor.
William Newcorn, of Plainfield, for defendants.
This writ brings up for review the action of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Plainfield in refusing to recommend to the Common Council that permission be granted prosecutor to erect an addition to his public garage and service station garage. He conducts an auto repairing and servicing garage in a building in the rear of a lot fronting on East Second Street which is about fifty feet from Church Street. There are gasoline stations and automobile show rooms and automobile accessory stores on East Second Street at Church Street and in the immediate vicinity. There are none such on Church Street.
Prosecutor purchased a lot in January 1937, about forty feet square, fronting on Church Street about 125 feet from the corner of East Second Street. This lot abutted the garage building where prosecutor conducted his business in the rear of East Second Street. He purchased the lot for the purpose of building thereon a one-story brick building to be used as an automobile showroom and for the purpose of driving through it as an entrance to and an exit from his present garage.
The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of the proposed building for that purpose in that location. A building permit being refused by the Inspector of Buildings, prosecutor appealed to the Board of Adjustment and applied that it recommend to the Common Council the granting of the permit, the procedure provided by the ordinance. As previously stated, the board refused to make such recommendation. Its action is attacked as being unreasonable, arbitrary and without proper regard to the private property rights of prosecutor in the use of his land.
With those views we are not in accord.
The property was zoned against the use of property as desired by prosecutor when he purchased it and if he did not know it he could easily have ascertained the facts. He quite probably knew of it and purchased with his eyes open,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams Theatre Co. v. Keenan
...will assume that the action of the official was actuated by proper motives and for valid reasons, Aschenbacher v. Inhabitants of City of Plainfield, 121 N.J.L. 598, 3 A.2d 814 (Sup.Ct.1939), affirmed on opinion below, 123 N.J.L. 265, 8 A.2d 579 (E. & A. 1939), a judgment setting the action ......
-
Tzeses v. Board of Trustees of Village of South Orange
...the existence of a hardship, such knowledge is a material element to be considered. And see Aschenbach v. Inhabitants of the City of Plainfield, 121 N.J.L. 598, 599, 3 A.2d 814 (Sup.Ct.1939), affirmed on the opinion below, 123 N.J.L. 265, 8 A.2d 579 (E. & A. The record establishes beyond qu......
-
Lumund v. Board of Adjustment of Borough of Rutherford, A--124
...are material elements to be considered in determining the existence of unnecessary hardship. In Aschenbach v. Inhabitants of City of Plaintield, 121 N.J.L. 598, 3 A.2d 814 (Sup.Ct.1939), affirmed on opinion below, 123 N.J.L. 265, 8 A.2d 579 (E. & A. 1939), the following language was used an......
-
Mischiara v. Board of Adjustment of Piscataway Tp.
...own hardship, and a variance from the zoning restriction sought on the grounds of undue hardship may be denied. Aschenbach v. Plainfield, 121 N.J.L. 598, 3 A.2d 576 (Sup.Ct.1939); Lumund v. Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Rutherford, 4 N.J. 577, 73 A.2d 545 (1950); Home Builders Ass'n......