Barbarisi v. Board of Adjustment

• Decision Date: 23 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. A--707,A--707
• Citation: 30 N.J.Super. 11,103 A.2d 164
• Parties: BARBARISI et al. v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT et al. . Appellate Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 11

30 N.J.Super. 11

103 A.2d 164

BARBARISI et al. v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT et al.

No. A--707.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Feb. 1, 1954.

Decided Feb. 23, 1954.

Salvatore D. Viviano, Paterson, argued the cause for the appellants.

Joseph J. De Luccia, Paterson, argued the cause for the respondents (James D. Ward, Paterson, attorney for Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, Lester F. Titus, Mayor, and William Byrnes, Building Inspector of the City of Paterson; Louis Nussman, Paterson, of counsel with respondent Joseph Vignali).

Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.A.D.

The board of adjustment of the City of Paterson recommended to the board of public works, the governing body of the city, that a variance be granted to respondent Joseph Vignali, from the zoning ordinance, to permit certain construction on property owned by him. The board of public works approved the recommendation and appellants attacked the resolution by this proceeding in lieu of Certiorari. The Law Division sustained the action of the governing body and this appeal followed.

The recommendation for a variance was made under N.J.S.A. 40:55--39(d) which empowers the board of adjustment to:

'd. Recommend in particular cases and for special reasons to the governing body of the municipality the granting of a variance to allow a structure or use in a district restricted against such structure or use. Whereupon the governing body or board of public works may, by resolution, approve or disapprove such recommendation. If such recommendation shall be approved by the governing body or board of public works then the administrative officer in charge of granting permits shall forthwith issue a permit for such structure or use.'

In defining the authority committed to the board by this enactment, the Supreme Court said:

'* * * The amendatory acts indicate a legislative intent to withdraw from R.S. 40:55--39d, N.J.S.A., the application of the requirement for proof of 'unnecessary hardship' and to substitute therefor discretionary authority to grant a variance 'in particular cases and for special reasons.' This is indicated by the fact that in subsection c (as amended) the Legislature retained the words 'exceptional and undue hardship' where the board of adjustment is empowered to Authorize a variance, but in subsection d (which formerly contained no legislative expression of the basis necessary for the board's Recommendation of variance to the governing body) the Legislature inserted the words 'in particular cases and for special reasons.' It is settled that statutes should be accorded that construction which will give effect to every word expressed by the Legislature therein. This requires construction of R.S. 40:55--39, as amended, N.J.S.A. supra, to mean that where the board of adjustment may Authorize a variance there must be proof of 'exceptional and undue hardship,' but where it may Recommend a variance to the governing body of the municipality it may do so, in particular cases, 'for special reasons' which may include, but do not necessarily require, proof of unnecessary hardship as a special reason warranting a variance.' Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Ocean Township, 9 N.J. 64, 77, 87 A.2d 9, 15 (1952).

Thus, in order to recommend a variance to the governing body the board of adjustment must find: (1) 'special reasons' which are not inconsistent with the basic purposes of zoning as set forth in R.S. 40:55--32, N.J.S.A., and (2) that the variance can be granted 'without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.' N.J.S.A. 40:55--39; Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 126, 93 A.2d 385 (1952).

In the present case Vignali acquired the property in 1935, through foreclosure of a mortgage which he held. It is known as 285--291 Fifth Avenue, Paterson, and is on the corner of 19th Street. The lot is 100 feet by 100 feet and located in the residence 'C' district under the zoning ordinance.

Prior to and at the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance, an automobile repair business was being conducted in the building on the premises. The parties concede that this was a valid non-conforming use.

Later in 1935, apparently at the time of the foreclosure, this use ceased and Vignali let the premises, except for a small portion thereof, for a rug- cleaning business. The small portion was rented to the Fifth Avenue Pleasure Club. These uses continued until 1946 when once again a new tenant took possession and operated an automobile repair shop.

In January 1952 the building was so badly damaged by fire that Vignali considered it prudent to tear down what was left. He applied for a permit to rebuild but was refused. An appeal was taken to the board of adjustment for the purpose of establishing a non-conforming use but it was withdrawn without prejudice. Finally, the present proceeding was instituted seeking a variance to allow the construction of a cinder block and stucco garage which would be larger and lower than the old building. The application shows that the new structure would have a frontage of 94 feet and a depth of 94 feet 4 1/2 inches, with no setback line in the front of the lot and one of somewhat less than three feet from each sideline. Since the lot is 100 feet by 100 feet, use of almost its entire area was contemplated.

After a hearing at which a number of witnesses appeared, many of them being objectors who resided in the immediate neighborhood, the board decided to recommend granting of the requested variance. And in its resolution of recommendation the 'special reasons' which prompted the action were set forth as required. Ward v. Scott, supra. They are:

'1. The variance applied for will not substantially impair the intent or the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Paterson.

'2. That the variance is not inimical to the safety, morale and good health of the residents in the affected area or the general welfare of the public.

'3. That the site under consideration, before the passage of the Zoning Ordinance, and since its passage, has been Continuously used for garages, later as a rug-cleaning establishment, and for the past seven years as an auto repair shop, and to refuse to favorably recommend this variance, would be an unnecessary hardship upon the present owner.

'4. There was considerable testimony for and against the appellant as to the manner in which the auto repair shop was conducted prior to its recent destruction by fire. The Members of the Board have concluded that the weight of the evidence Favors the conclusion that the auto repair shop was not the nuisance which the objectors would have the Board believe. The waiver filed by St. Luke's Evangelical Lutheran Church, whose property is within a radius of 60 feet of appellant's property, does not support the statements described by the objecting witnesses, who are further contradicted by many residents in the area.'

It will be observed that paragraphs 1 and 2 are general factual conclusions without reference to specific facts. Paragraphs 3 and 4...