Hochberg v. Borough of Freehold
| Decision Date | 17 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. A--151,A--151 |
| Citation | 123 A.2d 46,40 N.J.Super. 276 |
| Parties | Arthur HOCHBERG, Hanna Hochberg, Carl J. Steinmetz, Anna Steinmetz, Lee Isaacson, Harold Hirsh, Ruth Hirsh, William Wagner, Henrietta Wagner, Julius Schoenberg, Mary Schoenberg, Anna S. Cole, Frank A. Witbeck, Alice M. Witbeck, David Berdan, Doris Berdan and Emilie R. Buck, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOROUGH OF FREEHOLD, a municipal corporation, Freehold Racing Association, a body corporate, Abraham Zlotkin and Walter J. Schiverea, Defendants-Respondents. . Appellate Division |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Robert V. Carton, Asbury Park, argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants (Durand, Ivins & Carton, Asbury Park, attorneys).
William R. Blair, Jr., Red Bank, argued the cause for defendant-respondent Abraham Zlotkin (Parsons, Labrecque, Canzona & Combs, Red Bank, attorneys; Theodore D. Parsons, Red Bank, of counsel).
John J. Clancy, Newark, argued the cause for remaining defendants-respondents (Clancy & Hayden, Newark, attorneys).
Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
CLAPP, S.J.A.D.
Plaintiffs, property owners in the Borough of Freehold, brought this action in lieu of prerogative writ to set aside an amendment to the zoning ordinance of the borough. The Superior Court, Law Division, held the amendment valid. Plaintiffs appeal.
The area rezoned by the amendment, some 26 acres, lies on the outskirts of the borough, adjoining the Township of Freehold. It is roughly triangular in shape, pointed toward the north. One leg of the triangle is State Highway Route No. 33 (); the other leg is partly the borough-township line and partly State Highway Route No. 4 (); and the base of the triangle apparently runs along the rear line of properties located on the north side of West Main Street in the borough. The area is owned by the defendant Freehold Racing Association, except for about an acre at the apex of the triangle, which is owned by the defendant Zlotkin.
This triangle may be said to be a segment of a larger integrated traingle, uncrossed by any street, covering 60 acres, 34 acres of which lie in Freehold Township. From one map it appears that the township line seems to cut through a small part of the oval race track itself. The base of this larger triangle is the base of the smaller traingle. The two state highways mentioned form the legs of the larger triangle, and just at the apex is a traffic circle where these and another road or roads converge. Zlotkin owns several acres at this apex, located chiefly in the township, which are contiguous to the land of the Racing Association. His property is largely unimproved, having been used for 35 years in his cattle and hog business and recently (at least in part) for parking autos of those attending the track.
Under the borough's original zoning ordinance adopted in 1924, the rezoned area was placed in a Class A residential district. It remained in this district until the amendment of 1954, challenged her, placed it in a business zone. However the oval race track is itself set forth on the 1924 zone map, being then admittedly a nonconforming use in the residential zone. In fact, harness racing has been conducted at this track, it is said, since 1853. It is stipulated that since 1941 the Racing Association has been operating the only harness racing track in New Jersey licensed to conduct pari-mutuel betting. The license permitted betting for a period of 24 racing days a year from 1944 to 1952, and for a period of 50 days a year since then.
In January 1953 the Racing Association requested the mayor and borough council to rezone the area owned by it, so as to constitute it a business zone; a public hearing was held, but the planning board turned down the proposal. Thereafter in April 1953, on application of the Racing Association and after another public hearing, the board of adjustment granted variances to construct an addition to the bleachers, an addition to the grandstand providing club house facilities, a temporary paddock, an enlargement of the office building and of the parking stations. The Superior Court, Law Division, however set the variances aside. An appeal in that cause was brought on for argument before us along with the present appeal, and an opinion therein is filed herewith, 40 N.J.Super. 271, 123 A.2d 53.
A few days after the court's oral ruling on the variances, the borough council was again requested by the Racing Association to amend the ordinance (the trial judge apparently suggested this course during the trial of the variance case). Subsequently the amendment now before us was recommended apparently unanimously by the board of adjustment (though its recommendation is not called for by the law), approved by the planning board on May 10, 1954 by a vote of 5 to 2, adopted by the borough council on May 17, 1954 by a vote of 4 to 2, approved by the mayor and then sustained by the Law Division judge who had struck down the variance. Although of little moment in our view of the case, nevertheless it may be mentioned that petitions favoring the proposed change in zone were signed by 2,098 residents of the borough, over a third of the adults in the community, one of the petitions bearing the signatures of 100 businessmen. Petitions opposing the change were signed by 213 residents.
Our decision here turns on a narrow point. N.J.S.A. 40:55--35, dealing with amendments to a zoning ordinance, provides:
'* * * no amendment or change shall become effective unless the ordinance proposing such amendment or change shall first have been submitted to the planning board, when such board exists, for approval, disapproval or suggestions, and the planning board shall have a reasonable time, not less than thirty days, for consideration and report, and in the case of an unfavorable report by the planning board such amendment shall not become effective except by a favorable vote of two-thirds of the governing body.'
Under the terms of this statute, amendments must be submitted to the planning board (at least where there is such a board). Hasbrouck Heights Hosp. Ass'n v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 15 N.J. 447, 105 A.2d 521 (1954). But--
'* * * No member of the planning board shall be permitted to act on any matter in which he has, either directly or indirectly, any personal or financial interest.' N.J.S.A. 40:55--1.4.
Three members of the planning board are charged with a disqualifying personal or financial interest here, and the question is whether this last statute has been violated. In 1953 and 1954 (the board acted on this matter in May 1954) one member was partly responsible for one of the track concessions, namely, the running of the horsemen's kitchen. Asked whether he made any money out of it, he testified
'I wouldn't say so, no, not for the time and effort I put into it.'
Beyond question, the implication of this testimony is that he made a little money out of the concession. He therefore may be said to have had a financial interest, to some small extent, in the improvements contemplated by the zoning amendment. Those improvements apparently included 40 more stalls for horses with (one might infer) a resulting increase in the number of horsemen.
In construing one city charter which provided that no member of the city council shall be interested in a contract payable from the city treasury, it was held that a financial interest serves to disqualify a member of the council, however small that interest may be. Foster v. City of Cape May, 60 N.J.L. 78, 36 A. 1089 (Sup.Ct.1897), opinion of Justice Depue, Justices Magie and Gummere Concurring. Under various statutes of like import, it has been held that service in municipal affairs calls for an exclusive fidelity, and a corroding self-interest vitiates the municipal action. Ames v. Board of Education of Montclair, 97 N.J.Eq. 60, 65, 127 A. 95 (Ch.1925); Rankin v. Board of Education of Egg Harbor, 135 N.J.L. 299, 303, 304, 51 A.2d 194 (E. & A.1947); Pyatt v. Mayor & Council of Borough of Dunellen, 9 N.J. 548, 555, 89 A.2d (1952); see Traction Co. v. Board of Public Works, 56 N.J.L. 431, 29 A. 163 (Sup.Ct.1894), affirmed 57 N.J.L. 710, 34 A. 1134 (E. & A.1895); cf. Cobble Close Farm v. Board of Adjustment of Middletown, 10 N.J. 442, 454, 92 A.2d 4 (1952); Mackler v. Board of Education of Camden, 16 N.J. 362, 368, 108 A.2d 854 (1954); but cf. Wakefield v. Mayor & Common Council of Borough of Caldwell, 9 N.J.Misc. 44, 152 A. 697 (Sup.Ct.1930); Gland v. Mayor & Council of Borough of North Arlington, 179 A. 380, 13 N.J.Misc. 521 (Sup.Ct.1935); Downs v. Mayor & Common Council of City of South Amboy, 116 N.J.L. 511, 185 A. 15 (E. & A.1936). See in general Annotations, 133 A.L.R. 1257, 140 A.L.R. 344. The self-interest of one member of the planning board infects the action of the other members of the board, regardless of their disinterestedness. Pyatt v. Mayor & Council of Borough of Dunellen, 9 N.J. 548, 557, 89 A.2d 1 (1952). Moreover, the fact that the borough council voted in favor of the amendment will not cure the vice in the planning board's action. Cf. Hasbrouck Heights Hosp. Ass'n v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 15 N.J. 447, 105 A.2d 521 (1954).
Plaintiffs claim that the above-mentioned member and two other members of the planning board were disqualified from sitting on the board in this matter because of other personal or financial interests; but in view of the above decision we need not pass on the various questions thus raised. As to the circulation of a petition by one of them, addressed to the mayor and council urging the adoption of the zoning amendment, and the signatures on such a petition by the two other members mentioned, compare Hendrickson v. Borough of Point Pleasant, 65 N.J.L. 535, 537, 47 A. 465 (Sup.Ct.1900); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kozesnik v. Montgomery Tp.
...did not fully or correctly meet or anticipate the needs of the total community, amendments may be made, Hochberg v. Borough of Freehold, 40 N.J.Super. 276, 123 A.2d 46 (App.Div.1956), and if the ordinance as thus amended reveals a comprehensive plan, it is of no moment that the new plan so ......
-
MacDonald v. Board of County Com'rs for Prince George's County, 427
... ... Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 26 N.J. 320, 139 A.2d 749 (1958): ... 'Hence although apartment houses ... did not fully meet or anticipate the needs of the total community, amendments may be made, Hochberg v. Borough of Freehold, 40 N.J.Super. 276, 123 A.2d 46 (App.Div.1956), and if the ordinance as thus ... ...
-
Hill v. Thompson
...of one member of a planning board infects the action of the other members, regardless of their disinterestedness. Hochberg v. Freehold, 40 N.J.Super. 276, 123 A.2d 46; Pratt v. Mayor & Council of Dunellen, 9 N.J. 548, 89 A.2d 1, Zell v. Roseland, 42 N.J.Super. 75, 125 A.2d The defendant Boa......
-
Rivkin v. Dover Tp. Rent Leveling Bd.
...to withdraw therefrom, so that not the faintest shadow be cast on the integrity of the determination. [Hochberg v. Freehold Racing Ass'n, 40 N.J.Super. 276, 284, 123 A.2d 46 (App.Div.1956).] See Griggs v. Princeton Borough, 33 N.J. 207, 222, 162 A.2d 862 (1960) (setting aside planning board......