Graves v. Bloomfield Planning Bd.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. L--13812,L--13812 |
| Citation | 97 N.J.Super. 306,235 A.2d 51 |
| Parties | Richard D. GRAVES and Shirley A. Graves, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMFIELD PLANNING BOARD, an Entity of Town of Bloomfield, and Town of Bloomfield, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, and Rowbert Developers, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
George E. Davey, No. Arlington, for plaintiffs Richard D. Graves and Shirley A. Graves.
Joseph D. Lintott, Newark, for defendants Town of Bloomfield and Bloomfield Planning Bd Milton M. Breitman, Newark, for defendant Rowbert Developers, Inc. (Levy, McCloskey & Schlesinger, Newark, attorneys).
This action in lieu of prerogative writs was commenced by plaintiffs to contest the validity of the action taken by the Bloomfield Planning Board on November 15, 1966 in approving a major subdivision which affects a single, undeveloped lot (Lot 22, Block 963) and extends Wagner Street. It is claimed that the lot in question is an undersized lot, lacking the necessary width or street frontage required by the zoning ordinance of Bloomfield. The Planning board approved the subdivision without requiring the granting of a variance by the Bloomfield Board of Adjustment. It is contended that the action of the planning board violates the zoning ordinance. It is further contended that if the ordinance is construed to permit the action of the planning board without the necessity of an application to the board of adjustment for a variance and the granting of the same by that board, the zoning ordinance is invalid.
In accordance with the provisions of the pretrial order entered in the cause, the pertinent facts were submitted to the court by agreement of the parties and they are not in dispute. The lot in question is in an R--5, Single Family Zone. It is the only unimproved lot in the immediate area and it is conceded that it has been owned by Rowbert Developers, Inc. since June 24, 1928, and that said owner has owned no adjoining land since prior to the adoption of the first zoning ordinance by Bloomfield in 1930.
Prior to subdivision the lot was triangular in shape measuring approximately 173.78 feet on its southerly side, by 84.70 feet on its easterly side, by 193.23 feet on its northwesterly side, and its total area was approximately 7,350 square feet. A part of the northwesterly line, i.e. the most westerly portion of the hypotenuse of the triangle, formed the existing southerly dead-end boundary of Wagner Street, running at an angle across that street. Wagner Street is a short dead-end street running south from Watchung Avenue for approximately 270 feet.
The application to the planning board was classified as one for a major subdivision under the land subdivision ordinance of the town because an extension of Wagner Street is involved. As a part of the approved subdivision, the westerly portion of the lot forming the apex of the traingle, measuring approximately 64.77 feet by 31.04 feet by 70.83 feet, is to be deeded to the Town of Bloomfield, and said land will be used to extend Wagner Street approximately 31 feet and to 'square off' its present dead and. The remaining lot will be trapezoidal in shape and will have a new westerly boundary fronting on the new easterly side of Wagner Street as extended. It will measure approximately 109.01 feet at its southerly side, 84.70 feet at its rear or easterly side, 122.40 feet at its northerly side, and 31.04 at its front or westerly side, bordering on Wagner Street. It will contain approximately 6,500 square feet. According to the preliminary sketch dated November 1966, the proposed dwelling to be constructed on the lot will have a forward building or setback line 47 feet from Wagner Street, and at that point the width of the lot will exceed 50 feet. It is claimed, however, that the lot does not meet the minimum zoning standard, because it width or street frontage at its boundary with Wagner Street is only 31.04 feet. As stated above, the Planning Board approved the subdivision without requiring application to the Board of Adjustment for a variance.
The Town of Bloomfield adopted its first zoning ordinance on November 17, 1930, at which time, as stated above, the lot in question was owned by its present owner as an isolated lot with no adjoining land. The existing ordinance was adopted on June 15, 1959. Its provisions as to minimum area requirements may be summarized as follows:
Section A(2) of Article VI, 'Residential Zones', which relates to area requirements for lots in an R--5 zone, incorporates by reference the provisions of article III, 'Schedule of General Requirements'. The latter article, in prescribing area regulations for each zone, states that they are 'subject to the other provisions of this ordinance,' and that said regulations shall be deemed to be minimum requirements. With respect to lots in R--5 zones, it provides:
Lot Requirements Minimum Yard Requirements
---------------- -------------------------
Principal Building
------------------
Area Width Side
---- ----- --------------
Zone Sq. Ft. Feet Front Rear One Both
---- ------- ---- ----- ---- --- ----
R-5 5,000 50 25 20 6 14
It is clear that the new lot as subdivided will equal or exceed all the minimum area requirements for a lot in an R--5 zone except in its width. The lot area will exceed by 1,500 feet the minimum prescribed area of 5,000 square feet. The setback or front yard will be 47 feet as compared with the prescribed minimum of 25 feet. Its rear yard will be in excess of 30 feet as compared with a minimum requirement of 20 feet, and side yard requirements are complied with.
Although the ordinance requires that there must be a 'lot width' of 50 feet and it is claimed that the lot is substandard because it has a street frontage on Wagner Street of only 31.04 feet, there is no express requirement in the ordinance that there be a minimum width or frontage at the street line of 50 feet. Although, section 2 of article VI, 'General Requirements,' provides that 'every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street,' there is no specific provision for a minimum street frontage measured in feet. The term 'frontage' is not defined in article II, 'Definitions,' which contains 39 sections defining terms used in the ordinance. Section 22, which specifically defines 'Lot Width,' provides:
Since the lot in question measures 31.04 feet at the front street line and 84.70 feet at its rear line, the mean or average width of the lot, within the meaning of the first sentence of the above definition, is 57.87 feet and exceeds the minimum. The term 'frontage' as used in the definition is meaningless unless it is used as a synonym for 'width' as distinguished from 'street frontage,' since such frontage is to be measured at the 'most forward allowable building or setback line.' Cf. Tzeses v. Barbahenn, 125 N.J.L. 643, 17 A.2d 539 (E. & A. 1941). As provided in section 37 of article II, 'setback line shall be synonymous with the front yard,' and the minimum front yard under the 'Schedule of General Requirements' is 25 feet.
There were no arguments presented by the parties as to what constitutes the most forward 'allowable building or setback line' of the new lot within the meaning of the above section, nor was specific evidence presented as to its exact width at points other than the front and rear lot lines. However, mathematical computations based upon data shown on the preliminary sketch of the subdivision approved by the planning board indicate that, although the width at the actual building and setback line located 47 feet back from the street is approximately 53 feet, the width at a setback point 25 feet from the street line (i.e., the minimum front yard) is approximately 43 feet.
If the lot is in fact not substandard, plaintiffs obviously would not be entitled to relief. Restrictions in zoning ordinances must be clearly expressed and doubts are resolved in favor of the property owner. N.Y. Central R.R. v. Borough of Ridgefield, 84 N.J.Super. 85, 201 A.2d 67 (App.Div.1964). Applying this standard, the ordinance cannot reasonably be construed to require a minimum street frontage of 50 feet, and the lot is not substandard because it measures only 31.04 feet at the street line. However, although the mean is in excess of 50 feet and its width at the actual building or setback line is in excess of 50 feet, the lot would appear to be substandard because it is less than 50 feet wide at the minimum setback line. All the parties, including the planning board and the Town of Bloomfield, have assumed that the lot is substandard as to width, and for the purpose of this decision the court assumes that the lot is substandard because it is less than 50 feet wide at the minmum setback line. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, plaintiffs would not be entitled to the relief sought, even if the lot were in fact substandard because the street frontage is only 31.04 feet.
Section 12 of article VI. 'General Requirements,' provides a specific exemption for undersized lots as follows:
'12. Use of undersized lots existing prior to adoption of ordinance.
Any parcel of land with an area or width less than that prescribed for a lot in the zone in which such lot is located, which parcel was under one ownership at the date of the adoption of this ordinance, when the owner thereof owns no adjoining land, may be used as a lot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dallmeyer v. Lacey Tp. Bd. of Adjustment
...parcel of property useless is unconstitutional. [§ 32.02, p. 32-4]. This doctrine was described well in Graves v. Bloomfield Planning Bd., 97 N.J.Super. 306, 235 A.2d 51 (Law Div. 1967): It is clear that if this lot, located in a single-family residential zone, cannot be used for constructi......
-
Harrington Glen, Inc. v. Municipal Bd. of Adjustment of Borough of Leonia
...539, 554--557, 193 A.2d 232 (1963); Kozesnik v. Montgomery Twp., 24 N.J. 154, 182, 131 A.2d 1 (1957); Graves v. Bloomfield Planning Bd., 97 N.J.Super. 306, 315, 235 A.2d 51 (Law Div.1967); Mischiara v. Board of Adjust. of Piscataway Twp., 77 N.J.Super. 288, 292, 186 A.2d 141 (Law Div.1962);......
-
J. D. Const. Corp. v. Board of Adjustment of Freehold Tp.
...Bellings v. Denville Tp. in Morris County, 96 N.J.Super. 351, 356, 233 A.2d 73 (App.Div.1967); Graves v. Bloomfield Planning Bd., 97 N.J.Super. 306, 314, 235 A.2d 51 (Law Div.1967). The presumption may be overcome by a showing on its face or in the light of facts of which judicial notice ca......
-
Town of Seabrook v. Tra-Sea Corp.
...valueless by the application of the lot size requirements contained in the Seabrook zoning ordinance. Graves v. Town of Bloomfield Planning Board, 97 N.J.Super. 306, 235 A.2d 51 (1967). To interpret the grandfather clause as extending only to those showing a vested right or satisfying stand......