Industrial Lessors, Inc. v. City of Garfield
| Decision Date | 09 May 1972 |
| Citation | 119 N.J.Super. 181,290 A.2d 737 |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL LESSORS, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GARFIELD, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, in the County of Bergen, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Robert K. Hartmann, Hasbrouck Heights, for appellant (Hartmann & Brooks, Hasbrouck Heights, attorneys).
John S. Wolchko, Garfield, for respondents Board of Adjustment of City of Garfield, City of Garfield, and The Building Inspector of the City of Garfield (Ralph W. Chandless, Hackensack, attorney).
Before Judges CONFORD, MATTHEWS and FRITZ.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Law Division, Superior Court, sustaining a determination by the building inspector of Garfield, affirmed on appeal by the local board of adjustment, refusing a building permit to plaintiff to reconstruct an industrial building destroyed by fire in 1969. Plaintiff had been duly granted a variance to build the original building in 1962.
The board of adjustment and the Law Division relied upon provisions of the 1960 municipal zoning ordinance which, we assume, without so deciding, prohibit nonconforming buildings ( defined as inclusive of variance structures) from being reconstructed after destruction unless they conform with the ordinance in all respects. The reasoning was that since variances may be subjected to conditions by the granting body, the terms of the ordinance just mentioned are to be regarded as generally applicable additional conditions of any grant of variance enforcible against the property owner. We agree with the premise but not with the conclusion thus formulated.
For present purposes, a variance is vastly different from a nonconforming use. The latter is saved by the statute from subsequent prohibitory provisions of the zoning ordinance, but nonconforming uses and structures are disfavored in the law and the total destruction of a nonconforming building terminates the right to continue the use. See Hay v. Board of Adjustment, Ft. Lee, 37 N.J.Super. 461, 465, 117 A.2d 650 (App.Div. 1955); N.J.S.A. 40:55--48.
A variance, however, is an official quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial determination that the use or structure allowed is not offensive to the ordinance in the broad context of the particular circumstances which, under the statutory criteria specified by N.J.S.A. 40:55--39, have authorized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohalan v. Schermerhorn
...v. Fallwood Park Homes, Inc., 54 Misc.2d 936, 283 N.Y.S.2d 497). The use then becomes a conforming one (Industrial Lessors, Inc. v. City of Garfield, 119 N.J.Super. 181, 290 A.2d 737). Lots which have been modified by variance are thus conforming when they appear on a subdivision map. Consi......
-
Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Springfield
...382, 387, 173 A.2d 296 (1961). Others have characterized such uses as "conforming." See, e.g., Industrial Lessors, Inc. v. City of Garfield, 119 N.J.Super. 181, 183, 290 A.2d 737 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 61 N.J. 160, 293 A.2d 390 (1972); Ramsey Assocs., Inc. v. Board of Adj. of Bernardsv......
-
Dimitrov v. Carlson
...itself or in the zoning ordinance. (119 N.J.Super. at 133, 290 A.2d at 449; emphasis added). In Industrial Lessors, Inc. v. Garfield, 119 N.J.Super. 181, 290 A.2d 737 (App.Div.1972), cert. den. 61 N.J. 160, 293 A.2d 290 (1972), we held that a use pursuant to a variance granted under our sta......
-
SAWYER RECOVERY FACILITIES v. Hampden
...546 N.Y.S.2d 112 (1989); James v. Town of New Hartford, 49 A.D.2d 247, 373 N.Y.S.2d 938 (1975); Industrial Lessors, Inc. v. City of Garfield, 119 N.J.Super. 181, 290 A.2d 737 (App.Div.1972). 11. Although this holding appears to be on point, the facts are not sufficiently presented to enable......