Lacey Tp. v. Mahr
Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Citation | 119 N.J.Super. 135,290 A.2d 450 |
Parties | , 57 A.L.R.3d 415 TOWNSHIP OF LACEY, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mary Mott MAHR and Karl C. Mahr, Defendants-Appellants. |
Decision Date | 10 May 1972 |
Page 135
New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Mary Mott MAHR and Karl C. Mahr, Defendants-Appellants.
Appellate Division.
Submitted April 17, 1972.
Page 136
[290 A.2d 451] Joel A. Mott, Jr., Ocean City, for appellants.
John F. Russo, Toms River, for respondent.
Before Judges CONFORD, MATTHEWS and FRITZ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants are the owners of certain real property in plaintiff township on which is presently located
Page 137
the remains of what was Ye Olde Greyhound Inn. The property and inn building were purchased by defendants in 1954. During 1957 the third and fourth floors of the building were damaged by fire. When these floors were removed 50 rooms were rebuilt on the first floor.In 1967 the township amended its zoning ordinance to require a 50-foot building line setback in its highway business zone which runs along both sides of New Jersey Highway 9 as it passes through the township. Defendants' property is located in this zone. After the adoption of the zoning amendment defendants' inn became a nonconforming use because of violation of front and side yard setbacks. (The front yard encroachment exceeds 40 feet and the side yard encroachment exceeds 14 feet).
On January 10, 1968 the inn was again extensively damaged by fire. After the fire defendants attempted to restore portions of the building as living quarters for themselves. The township thereupon instituted these proceedings, contending that the destruction of the inn building was so extensive as to preclude defendants' right to restore it.
At the trial in the Chancery Division the township contended that approximately 69% Of the building was totally destroyed and that approximately an additional 14% Was badly gutted. Defendants contended that one-third of the structure remains. They seek to restore certain portions of this claimed one-third for residential purposes. Expert testimony was produced by both sides.
The Chancery Division judge determined that the destruction of the inn building was so extensive as to exceed 'partial' destruction referred to in N.J.S.A. 40:55--48. Accordingly, he enjoined defendants from rebuilding any portion of the structure and directed them to demolish it. The trial [290 A.2d 452] judge also directed that should defendants fail to demolish the structure within 60 days of the entry...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hawrylo v. Board of Adjustment, Harding Tp.
...to pay for the removal of the nonconforming structure absent its being the equivalent of a nuisance. See generally Lacey Tp. v. Mahr, 119 N.J.Super. 135, 138, 290 A.2d 450 (App.Div.1972), mod. on other grounds, 143 N.J.Super. 484, 363 A.2d 913 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 72 N.J. 466, 371 A.......
-
City of Paterson v. Fargo Realty Inc.
...property must be granted by specific legislation since there is no inherent power in the courts to assess the same. Lacey Tp. v. Mahr, 119 N.J.Super. 135, 138, 290 A.2d 450 2 The Legislature, recognizing this problem, adopted N.J.S.A. 17:36-8 et seq., as amended by L.1979, c. 369, which req......
-
Camara v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Belleville
...A.2d 650 (App.Div.1955). Total destruction has been judicially defined to mean "substantially totally destroyed." Lacey Tp. v. Mahr, 119 N.J.Super. 135, 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......
-
Parking Auth. v. Estate of Rubin, DOCKET NO. A-5335-17T3
...residences was destroyed by construction activity, except for the foundation and footings); see also Township of Lacey v. Mahr, 119 N.J. Super. 135, 138 (App. Div. 1972) (use of a building as an inn was substantiallyPage 31 totally destroyed where 69% was totally destroyed by fire and 14% w......