Jersey Triangle Corp. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Jersey City
| Decision Date | 25 September 1941 |
| Citation | 21 A.2d 845,127 N.J.L. 194 |
| Parties | JERSEY TRIANGLE CORPORATION v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF JERSEY CITY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Restrictions imposed upon land by a zoning ordinance are invalid unless grounded on interests of public health, safety or the general welfare.
Proceeding by the Jersey Triangle Corporation for a writ of certiorari against the Board of Adjustment of Jersey City.
Order for prosecutor in accordance with opinion.
Argued before Justice COLIE, sitting alone.
Gross & Gross, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.
Charles A. Rooney and Samuel Pesin, both of Jersey City, for respondent.
M.B.M. Realty Corporation, holder of a contract to purchase premises at 2800 Hudson Boulevard, Jersey City, submitted plans and specifications to the Superintendent of Buildings with an application for a permit to erect a three story building to be used for stores and offices. The permit was refused on the ground that Section 3 of the "Zoning Ordinance of Jersey City" prohibited the erection of any building for business or commercial use in the area wherein the property was located. Thereafter, an appeal was taken to the Board of Adjustment. Before the Board rendered its decision a supplemental application for a variation from the applicable section of the zoning ordinance was made in the name of the owner and Jersey Triangle Corporation, assignee of the contract to purchase the property. Hearings were held on due notice to adjacent landowners. A landowner on Sip Avenue appeared by a representative and objected and another owner of nearby properties wrote a letter by counsel, objecting. Upon the conclusion of the hearings the Board of Adjustment denied the application, stating as grounds for so doing (1) "that the applicant presents no evidence tending to show that the strict enforcement of the ordinance would work a hardship on it." (2) "The applicant is not the owner of the premises but has contracted to purchase same" and (3) "that the granting of this appeal would extend the business area in violation of the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance."
The second ground stated for denial is wholly without merit in fact as well as in law since the landowner joined in the supplemental application made to the Board of Adjustment and in Brown v. Terhune, 125 N.J.L. 618, 18 A.2d 73, it was said that the holder of a contract to purchase land has sufficient standing to apply for a permit and enforce that right by certiorari. The remaining grounds require no particular discussion in view of the decision reached in the case.
By stipulation, the depositions taken on the application for the writ of certiorari together with the exhibits were submitted to a single justice pursuant to the statute. Furthermore, the court, in the presence of counsel, has viewed the locus in quo. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cassel v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
...Leahy v. Inspector of Buildings of City of New Bedford, 308 Mass. 128, 31 N.E.2d 436; Jersey Triangle Corporation v. Board of Adjustment, 127 N.J.L. 194, 21 A.2d 845; Polk v. Axton, 306 Ky. 498, 208 S.W.2d 497; Page v. City of Portland, 178 Or. 632, 165 P.2d On the other hand, it has been d......
-
Cassel v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
... ... 128, 31 ... N.E.2d 436; Jersey Triangle Corporation v. Board of ... Adjustment, 127 ... ...
-
Cox v. Wall Tp.
...N.J.L. 618, 18 A.2d 73 (Sup.Ct.1941), appeal dismissed 127 N.J.L. 554, 23 A.2d 575 (E. & A.1942); Jersey Triangle Corp. v. Board of Adjustment, 127 N.J.L. 194, 195, 21 A.2d 845 (Sup.Ct.1941); Sigretto v. Board of Adjustment, 134 N.J.L. 587, 50 A.2d 492 (Sup.Ct.1946); cf. Reimer v. Dallas (n......
-
Western Pride Builders, Inc. v. City of Berwyn
...N.J.L. 618, 18 A.2d 73 (Sup.Ct.1941), appeal dismissed 127 N.J.L. 554, 23 A.2d 575 (E. & A. 1942); Jersey Triangle Corp. v. Board of Adjustment, 127 N.J.L. 194, 195, 21 A.2d 845 (Sup.Ct.1941); Sigretto v. Board of Adjustment, 134 N.J.L. 587, 50 A.2d 492 (Sup.Ct.1946); cf. Reimer v. Dallas (......