Meixner v. Bd. Of Adjustment Of City Of Newark

• Decision Date: 02 June 1944
• Docket Number: No. 218.,218.
• Citation: 37 A.2d 678,131 N.J.L. 599
• Parties: MEIXNER et al. v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF NEWARK et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

131 N.J.L. 599

37 A.2d 678

MEIXNER et al.

v.BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF NEWARK et al.

No. 218.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 2, 1944.

Certiorari by Edward Meixner, trading as Edward Meixner & Sons, against the Board of Adjustment of the City of Newark and others to review action of the Board of Adjustment in revoking a building permit issued by the Superintendent of Buildings for alteration of the prosecutor's premises.

Writ dismissed.

May term, 1944, before CASE, BODINE, and PORTER, JJ.

Slavitt & Slavitt, of Newark (Arthur Slavitt, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutor.

Philip J. Schotland, of Newark (Joseph A. Ward, of Newark, of counsel), for defendants.

PORTER, Justice.

The Board of Adjustment of Newark revoked a building permit issued by the Superintendent of Buildings of the city for alterations of the prosecutor's premises in Newark. This action is before us for review under a writ of certiorari.

It appears that the prosecutor has been engaged in the woodworking business on the premises in question continuously for twenty-two years. This place of business is located in a ‘second residential district’ under the zoning ordinance of the city. When the ordinance was adopted, prosecutor's business was the manufacture of bar fixtures. Latterly he has been manufacturing wooden containers for the United States' Army. This new line of work apparently required enlarged facilities at the plant. In any event application was made and granted by the Superintendent of Buildings for the roofing over of an area, 17 x 53 feet between buildings, which had been used as a driveway, and the erection of doors in front. The application contained a statement that the driveway was ‘to remain a dirt floor’ and that the alterations were for the purpose of providing a roof over trucks while loading and unloading. The prosecutor testified that this driveway had previously been used by trucks to gain access to loading platforms and that manufacturing work had also been done in the open driveway when the weather permitted. Upon obtaining the permit prosecutor did not follow the work prescribed in the application and accompanying plans, but in addition to the erection of the roof and entrance doors he also built a floor three feet above the ground, two small buildings for combustible materials, two ventilating stacks and a large chimney.

An appeal was made to the defendant Board by residents of the neighborhood who complained and later testified that the premises were used since the building changes were made in a manner offensive to them because of noise and smoke coming from the premises, which had not been the case before. It is clear that when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, these premises were used for...