Krul v. Board of Adjustment of City of Bayonne

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; An industrial building owned by plaintiff and located in a multi-family residential zone was totally destroyed by fire. The Board of Adjustment of the City of Bayonne denied plaintiff's application for a building permit to construct a bui
Citation313 A.2d 220,126 N.J.Super. 150
PartiesJack KRUL, t/a United Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF BAYONNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date17 December 1973

Page 150

126 N.J.Super. 150
313 A.2d 220
Jack KRUL, t/a United Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF BAYONNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
Submitted Nov. 19, 1973.
Decided Dec. 17, 1973.

Page 151

Cresenzi W. Castaldo, Bayonne, for defendant-appellant.

Gruen & Goldstein, Union, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before Judges LYNCH, MEHLER and MICHELS.

PER CURIAM.

An industrial building owned by plaintiff and located in a multi-family residential zone was totally destroyed by fire. The Board of Adjustment of the City of Bayonne denied plaintiff's application for a building permit to construct a building on the foundation of the burned-out structure. On review of the denial, Judge Larner reversed the action of the Board and entered judgment directing issuance of the permit. The Board appeals. It urges as grounds for reversal the contentions made by it in the court below and for the further reason, not raised below, that the permit would violate Bayonne's zoning ordinance. That argument is without merit.

[313 A.2d 221] The old building was a three-story structure with two apartments on the third floor, which were rented out as dwelling units. Plaintiff proposes to build a onestory building

Page 152

with no apartments. Bayonne's 1948 zoning ordinance states that 'no nonconforming use shall be extended so as to diminish the extent of a conforming use.' The 1969 revision provides that 'no nonconforming use shall be extended at the expense of a conforming use.' These provisions prohibit the extension of a nonconforming use through the modification or elimination of a conforming use, which is not the case here. The new structure is to be only one story high, while the prior structure was three stories high. Thus, although the prior conforming use of a portion of the old building by means of apartments was diminished through their elimination, it was not by reason of an extension of the nonconforming use.

We affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Larner in his opinion, which is reported in 122 N.J.Super. 18, 298 A.2d 308 (1972).

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Mayer-Wittmann v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Stamford, SC 19972
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 5, 2019
    ...one created by the unfortunate casualty and 333 Conn. 662 not by virtue of the power of government." [Citations omitted.] ), aff'd, 126 N.J. Super. 150, 313 A.2d 220 (App. Div. 1973).7 218 A.3d 61 IIThat said, I nonetheless agree with the outcome reached by the majority because I do not bel......
  • Camara v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Belleville
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • February 23, 1990
    ...138, 290 A.2d 450 (App.Div.1972). See also Krul v. Bayonne Bd. of Adj., 122 N.J.Super. 18, 25-29, 298 A.2d 308 (Law Div.1972), aff'd 126 N.J.Super. 150, 313 A.2d 220 Although the present case does not involve destruction of the building to which the sign is attached, it does involve another......
  • Parking Auth. v. Estate of Rubin, DOCKET NO. A-5335-17T3
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • February 11, 2020
    ...was totally destroyed by fire and 14% was badly gutted); Krul v. Bd. of Adjustment, 122 N.J. Super. 18, 28-29 (Law Div. 1972), aff'd, 126 N.J. Super. 150 (App. Div. 1973) (nonconforming use was not terminated where main building in a complex of buildings was totally destroyed by fire becaus......
  • Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Dover Tp., CIBA-GEIGY
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • December 6, 1988
    ...destruction normally precludes rebuilding. Krul v. Bayonne Bd. of Adjustment, 122 N.J.Super. 18, 298 A.2d 308 (Law Div.1972), aff'd, 126 N.J.Super. 150, 313 A.2d 220 (App.Div.1973); Lacey Tp. v. Mahr, 119 N.J.Super. 135, 290 A.2d 450 (App.Div.1972). The township, in order to avoid zoning th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT