Lumpkin v. Twp. Comm. Of Bernards Tp.
| Decision Date | 09 September 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 230.,230. |
| Citation | 134 N.J.L. 428,48 A.2d 798 |
| Parties | LUMPKIN v. TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF BERNARDS TP. et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari by Robert C. Lumpkin against the Township Committee of the Township of Bernards, in the County of Somerset, and others, to review a decision of the governing body of the township denying prosecutor's application for a certificate of occupancy to use his building located in a residential A zone as a nonsectarian private boarding school for boys.
Action of the governing body of the township set aside.
May term, 1946, before BODINE, PERSKIE, and WACHENFELD, JJ.
Kearns & Bruder, of Newark (Anthony P. Kearns, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutor.
Sandford Looker, of Basking Ridge (John Beekman, of Somerville, of counsel), for respondents.
The question for decision is whether prosecutor was improperly denied a certificate of occupancy to use his building, located in a prohibitive zone, as a nonsectarian private boarding school for boys.
The prosecutor, and educator, acquired lands and premises located on the westerly side of Somerville Road (also known as Sanford Road) in the Township of Bernards, Somerset County, N. J., and designated as lot no. 11, in section 36 of the Township tax map. The lands cover about 165 acres. The main building is situate about one-half mile from the main (Somerville) road, at the side of a mountain, in a heavily wooded spot. It was constructed by prosecutor's predecessors in title along the lines of a European castle at a cost of between $80,000 and $95,000. It is built of stone primarily, with walls approximately two feet thick. The central portion of the building is of Norman architecture and the wings are designed to reproduce Elizabethian additions to an old castle. The building has a heavy slate roof and oak trim on the outside. It contains sixteen high and spacious rooms, the floors of which are of hardwood or flagstone and the walls are all insulated. The building is located in a sparsely settled section of the Township. There is clear ground for about 50 feet around the building, woods surrounding three sides thereof and the fourth side overlooks open country. There are about a dozen buildings on the entire three mile length of the Somerville Road from the Township boundary line and its connection with the Liberty Corner-Fox Hill Road. The first building from the prosecutor's building to the southwest is about a mile and four-tenths; the first building to the northeast from the prosecutor's building is about a mile and two-tenths therefrom; and the nearest building situate on the opposite side of the road from the prosecutor's building is about six-tenths of a mile therefrom. The many photographs submitted emphasize the beauty and splendor of the situs and the interior and exterior of the building.
To the end of using the stated building as a non-sectarian private boarding school to accommodate about thirty boys between the ages of six and fourteen years, prosecutor obtained the approval of out State Commissioner of Education, and arranged for a teaching staff of educators of high standing and repute.
In this background, prosecutor, on July 12, 1945, made application to the building inspector of the Township for a certificate of occupancy to use the described building for the aforestated purposes. The application was denied. That denial was obviously based upon the ground that prosecutor's premises were located in a Residence A zone under the Township zoning ordinance, adopted December 22, 1937.
On appeal to the Board of Adjustment of the Township, that body, after hearing on public notice, concluded-in light of the fact that but one objector appeared and his premises were not within a radius of 200 feet from the premises in question, and in light of all the other proofs-that, in their opinion, ‘the establishment of the school would render a service to the community and would not injuriously affect the rights of adjoining property owners nor be contrary to the public interest.’ Based on that conclusion, it recommended to the governing body of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ranney v. Istituto Pontificio Delle Maestre Filippini
...zone by Princeton, Rutgers, Seton Hall or other established university in the State. Compare Lumpkin v. Township Committee of Bernards, 134 N.J.L. 428, 48 A.2d 798, 799 (Sup.Ct.1946) where the municipal board of adjustment recommended an exception or variance under R.S. 40:55--39(d), N.J.S.......
-
Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton
...1 Ill.2d 342, 115 N.E.2d 762, supra; Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery, 371 Ill. 257, 20 N.E.2d 583; Lumpkin v. Township Committee of Bernards, 134 N.J.L. 428, 48 A.2d 798; State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 228 Minn. 363, 37 N.W.2d 370, Section 2 of the ordinance states that it ......
-
Yanow v. Seven Oaks Park, Inc.
...therein. In our own State, the only apparently germane decision is that of the former Supreme Court in Lumpkin v. Township Committee of Bernards, 134 N.J.L. 428, 48 A.2d 798 (Sup.Ct.1946). In that case the facts were different from the facts in the present case. Lumpkin proposed to use a la......
-
Urnstein v. Village of Town and Country
...Kaegel v. Holekamp, (Mo.App.) 151 S.W.2d 685; Fleming v. Moore Bros. Realty Co., 363 Mo. 305, 251 S.W.2d 8; Lumpkin v. Township Committee of Bernards, 134 N.J.L. 428, 48 A.2d 798. Furthermore, the extension or changing of a nonconforming use is not a problem. Women's Christian Association o......