Borough of Point Pleasant Beach v. Point Pleasant Pavilion
| Decision Date | 12 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | A--201 |
| Citation | 3 N.J.Super. 222,66 A.2d 40 |
| Parties | BOROUGH OF POINT PLEASANT BEACH v. POINT PLEASANT PAVILION, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Before JACOBS, Senior Judge, and EASTWOOD and BIGELOW, JJ.
William R. Blair, Jr. and Parsons, Labrecque, Canzona & Combs, all of Red Bank, for defendant-appellant.
W. Douglas Blair, of Point Pleasant, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Recorder's Court convicting the appellant of violation of the Section 811 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach. The appellant is the owner of property used for amusement purposes and located at the boardwalk near Arnold Avenue in the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach. From 1941 to 1945 a ferris wheel and 'kiddie rides' were located at the premises. In 1945 the ferris wheel was discontinued and, thereafter, kiddie rides, including a 'kiddie whip', were operated. On March 18, 1948, the appellant obtained a permit authorizing an extension of the platform on which the kiddie rides had been operated and, thereafter, began constructing an 'adult whip' which was substantially completed by May 12, 1948. On May 13, 1948, the Borough adopted an amendatory ordinance which revised its zoning requirements and embodied a new paragraph designated as Section 811 and reading as follows:
On July 9, 1948, a complaint was filed in the Recorder's Court charging the appellant with violating Section 811 by operating its adult whip 'in the open and not under cover of a permanent building'. The appellant did not dispute that it operated its adult whip in the open but contended before the Recorder that Section 811 was invalid. It introduced evidence that kiddie rides and adult whips were almost invariably operated in the open throughout the country; that to attempt to place them under cover of permanent buildings would result in increased concentration of noise, exclusion of sun and air and 'wouldn't be healthy'; that its premises joined the boardwalk at Point Pleasant Beach in an area devoted primarily to 'concessions and amusements'; and that a substantial number of the businesses adjoining the boardwalk were conducted, entirely or in part, without the cover of permanent buildings. No evidence to the contrary was presented by the Borough which asserts in its brief that Section 811 'is admittedly directed against the unsightliness of open air business operations, whether it be the sale of hot dogs from a wash tub on a vacant lot, the selling of merchandise from open air stands, or the operation of the appellant's amusement device in the open.'
The municipality's restriction on the use of appellant's property, whether it be grounded upon its zoning authority, R.S. 40:55--30 et seq., N.J.S.A., or other permissible exercise of the police power, R.S. 40:52--1, N.J.S.A., must have reasonable relation to the public health, safety, or general welfare. See Pfister v. Clifton, Sup.Ct.1945, 133 N.J.L. 148, 152, 43 A.2d 275. While the authority to regulate for the general welfare has been said to be broad enough to include regulations for the promotion of the public convenience and the general prosperity as well as those for the health, morals and safety of the public see Mansfield & Swett, Inc., v. West Orange, Sup.Ct. 1938, 120 N.J.L. 145, 154, 198 A. 225, our courts have been reluctant to extend it to encompass instances where sightliness is the only justification advanced. See Passaic v. Paterson Bill Posting Co., Err. & App.1905, 72 N.J.L. 285, 62 A. 267, 111 Am.St.Rep. 676, 5 Ann.Cas. 995; Vassallo v. Orange, Err. & App.1940, 125 N.J.L. 419, 15 A.2d 603; Pfister v. Clifton, supra.
In Murphy v. Town of Wesport, Sup.Ct. of Err.1944, 131 Conn. 292, 40 A.2d 177, 156 A.L.R. 568, Chief Justice Maltbie collected the pertinent cases and pointed out that although the earlier decisions nullified regulations designed predominately with regard to aesthetic considerations, there are some recent persuasive decisions to the contrary. Much can be said for the view implicit in his opinion that it is in the public interest that our communities, so far as feasible, should be made pleasant and inviting and that primary considerations of attractiveness and beauty might well be frankly acknowledged as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vickers v. Township Committee of Gloucester Tp.
...N.J. at p. 494, 150 A.2d at p. 150; Pierro v. Baxendale, supra, 20 N.J. at p. 28, 118 A.2d 401; Point Pleasant Beach v. Point Pleasant Pavilion, 3 N.J.Super. 222, 225, 66 A.2d 40 (App.Div.1949). The township has begun to feel the effects of its potential for extensive and rapid development,......
-
Westfield Motor Sales Co. v. Town of Westfield
...were influenced in considerable part by aesthetic considerations which I believe to be entirely proper. (Citations omitted.) In the Point Pleasant case I recently expressed the view, to which I adhere fully, 'that it is the public interest that our communities, so far as feasible, should be......
-
Larson v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Spring Lake Heights
...the extent imposed, is unnecessary and has no reasonable relation to such public purposes as may properly be sought to be served.' (at 225--226, 66 A.2d at 41.) So, too, in the present case there has been no attempt by the municipality to enforce regulations 'reasonably calculated to meet t......
-
Petition of Franklin Builders, Inc.
...dwellings were influenced in considerable part by aesthetic considerations which I believe to be entirely proper. [citing cases] In the Point Pleasant case I recently expressed the view, to which I adhere fully, 'that it is in the public interest that our communities, so far as feasible, sh......