Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of City of Passaic

• Decision Date: 13 May 1975
• Citation: 338 A.2d 824,134 N.J.Super. 107
• Parties: HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF PASSAIC et al., Defendants, and Harry Stanford, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 107

134 N.J.Super. 107

338 A.2d 824

HILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a corporation of the State of New Jersey, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF PASSAIC et al., Defendants and Harry Stanford, Defendant-Appellant.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued May 6, 1975.

Decided May 13, 1975.

Steven E. Pollan, East Orange, for defendant-appellant (Harry Kampelman, Passaic, attorney).

Marvin A. Stern, West New York, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Wittman, Anzalone, Bernstein & Dunn, Hackensack, filed a brief on behalf of amici curiae N.J. Federation of Planning Officials and Englewood Planning Bd. (Frederick L. Bernstein, Hackensack, on the brief).

Before Judges MATTHEWS, FRITZ and BOTTER.

PER CURIAM.

This is a zoning action. In a prerogative writ suit the trial judge set aside, as arbitrary exercises of the zoning power, certain variances granted under the ostensible authority of N.J.S.A. 40:55--39(c) by the board of adjustment of the City of Passaic (board). In addition to this, he included in his opinion, which is published, sweeping dictum broadly criticizing some planning and zoning concepts heretofore thought to be established. 129 N.J.Super. 170, 322 A.2d 501.

We agree entirely that no statutory reasons sufficient to support the grant of the variances appear in the record. This fact is demonstrated by the reasons for the grant as they appear in the record of the board's action:

The application be approved as this variance is re--as the variance required is insignificant in proportion to the magnitude of the proposed project. The proposed use is not unreasonable, nor oppressive and blends into the scheme of the SRDD zone.

Aesthetically the complex structure would tend to beautify and enhance the area and therefore increases property values.

Approval will help alleviate a crucial housing shortage and would provide for the health and welfare of the general public.

It would not impair the safety of the nearby residents and would provide for the promotion of the general welfare of society.

The granting of this variance would in no way be deterimental (sic) to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.

Such is quite obviously not a finding of the prerequisites for a 'subsection (c)' variance. Rather it is in effect a rezoning of the parcel in question to allow a 'proposed project' thought by the board not to be 'unreasonable, nor oppressive.' Even when the underlying motivation is well-intentioned, local zoning action must comply with the statutory requirements. Kohl v. Fair Lawn Mayor and Council, 50 N.J. 268, 275, 234 A.2d 385 (1967). Without sufficient record support for a necessary finding of 'exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape * * * or * * * exceptional topographic conditions, or * * * other extraordinary and exceptional situation or condition * * *,' the granting of a variance is an arbitrary act and will be set aside. The trial judge was eminently correct in recognizing this, and we affirm his judgment in this record. There is no doubt that 'hardship personal to the owner which is unrelated to the physical characteristics of the land is not contemplated by subsection (c) and does not constitute sufficient ground for the granting of a variance under that subsection.' Isko v. Livingston Tp. Planning Bd., 51 N.J. 162, 174, 238 A.2d 457, 462 (1968).

Accordingly, it is unnecessary for us to consider the balance of the opinion of the trial judge. If it undertakes to reverse Kozesnik v. Montgomery Tp., 24 N.J. 154, 131 A.2d 1 (1957), and its progeny, either expressly or impliedly, with regard to references to the planning board, when authorized by ordinance, for review and recommendations as well as site plan approval (N.J.S.A....