Capman v. Long Beach Tp.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--692,A--692 |
| Parties | , 24 A.L.R.3d 1124 John M. CAPMAN t/a Capman, Real Estate and C & K Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LONG BEACH TOWNSHIP, Zoning Board of Adjustment of Long Beach Township and Bernard J. Tool, Jr., Building Inspector and Zoning Officer of Long Beach Township, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Harry D. Ambrose, Jr., Camden, for appellants (Asbell & Ambrose, Camden, attorneys).
Franklin H. Berry, Jr., Toms River, for respondents, Long Beach Township and Bernard J. Tool, Jr. (Berry, Whitson & Berry, Toms River, attorneys).
James L. Wilson, Surf City, for defendant, Zoning Bd. of Adjustment.
Before Judges SULLIVAN, KOLOVSKY and CARTON.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SULLIVAN, S.J.A.D.
Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment entered by the trial court upholding a ruling of the Board of Adjustment of Long Beach Township. In substance, the board ruled that plaintiff John M. Capman (hereinafter Capman) could not operate a real estate office out of his residence since it was not a 'professional office' under the township zoning ordinance.
The basic facts are undisputed. Capman is the owner of, and resides in, a one-family home in a B residence zone in the township. (Actually, legal title to the property is in plaintiff C & K Corporation, 98% Of the capital stock of which is owned by Capman). Under the zoning ordinance the permitted uses in a B residence zone include:
'* * * (c) Professional office as accessory use provided that not more than 20% Of total floor areas of any building be used for such an office.'
The ordinance defines a 'Professional Office' as:
'The office or studio of a physician or surgeon, dentist, artist, lawyer, architect, engineer, surveyor, or like professional person residing on the premises.'
Capman seeks to maintain a real estate office in his home. The issue is whether such an office is a 'professional office' within the meaning of the ordinance.
The board of adjustment ruled that (1) the professional exception as set forth in the ordinance did not extend to the practice of real estate, whether or not it be regarded as a profession, and (2) the operation of his office, as described by plaintiff and his associate, exceeded any use intended to be granted by the ordinance to a professional person in a residential zone.
In a suit in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the aforesaid ruling, the Superior Court, Law Division, held that the maintenance of a real estate office 'does not fit' within the category of professional office as defined in the ordinance. Summary judgment was entered in favor of defendants.
Plaintiffs challenge the status of the resident taxpayer of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tylle v. Zoucha
... ... Zoning Board of Appeals of Holliston, 340 Mass. 488, 165 N.E.2d 97 (1960); Capman v. Long Beach Tp., 95 N.J.Super. 523, 231 A.2d 852 (1967); Jones v. Robertson, 79 Cal.App.2d 813, ... ...
-
Dock Watch Hollow Quarry Pit, Inc. v. Warren Tp.
... ... Quarrying has been conducted on the land since 1930, long before the adoption of the township's land use ordinance in 1952 in which quarrying on the land was ... ...