Pieretti v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 09 April 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 229.,229. |
| Parties | PIERETTI v. JOHNSON, Town Clerk, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by Joseph Pieretti, Jr., against J. Cory Johnson, Town Clerk of the Town of Bloomfield, and others, to review a determination of the Board of Adjustment of the Town of Bloomfield which affirmed the rejection by the Inspector of Buildings of an application for a permit to renovate a building and to make an addition thereto.
Writ dismissed.
October Term, 1944, before BROGAN, C. J., and DONGES and PERSKIE, JJ.
Brunetto & Welsh, of Montclair, for prosecutor.
Edward C. Pettit, William Huck, Jr., and John A. Errico, all of Bloomfield, for defendants.
The writ of certiorari in this cause brings up for review a determination of the Board of Adjustment of the Town of Bloomfield, which affirms the rejection by the Inspector of Buildings ‘on an application for a permit to renovate a building and to make an addition thereto upon certain premises' of prosecutor.
It appears that prosecutor entered into possession of the land in question in 1927, and has conducted a soda bottling plant upon the premises from that time. In 1930, the governing body of the municipality passed an ordinance establishing a ‘Small Volume Residential Zone,’ in the northerly end of the town, which included prosecutor's land. On October 7th, 1935, the ordinance was amended to designate a part of the above mentioned area as ‘Small Volume Residential Zone A.’ This zone included prosecutor's land. By stipulation it is agreed that prosecutor's business, conducted on the premises within this zone, is not within the permissive uses, designated in either the original ordinance or the amendment thereto.
On January 25, 1944, application was made to the Inspector of Buildings for a permit, in the following language:
After refusal by the Inspector of Buildings, appeal was taken to the Board of Adjustment, which held a hearing at which evidence was submitted on behalf of prosecutor and objecting residents in the area. The Board adopted a resolution refusing to grant a variation from the zoning ordinance and denying the permit.
It is settled that the owner of premises which, at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance, were used for non-conforming uses, may continue such use. He may, also, restore or repair buildings in which such use existed. R.S. 40:55-48, N.J.S.A. He may not, however, enlarge such use without express permission from appropriate authority. DeVito v. Pearsall, 115 N.J.L. 323, 180 A. 202; Green v. Board of Commissioners of City of Newark, 131 N.J.L. 336, 36 A.2d 310; Meixner v. Board of Adjustment of City of Newark, 131 N.J.L. 599, 37 A.2d 678.
In the instant case it does not appear that the action of the Board of Adjustment was capricious or arbitrary. On the contrary, it appears that an extension of the business of prosecutor would be a serious disadvantage to the residents of the immediate vicinity,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Pieretti, C--1739
...for a variance to build an addition to the bottling plant. The application was denied and the denial affirmed. Pieretti v. Johnson, 132 N.J.L. 576, 41 A.2d 896 (Sup.Ct.1945). Again, in June 1958, they applied for a variance to add a proposed addition on parts of both tracts owned by them. T......
-
Nat'l Lumber Prod.s Co. v. Ponzio, 213.
...1, 20 A.2d 649. The result of power so exercised, carries with it the presumption of ‘fairness and correctness.’ Pieretti v. Johnson, 132 N.J.L. 576, 41 A.2d 896, 897. Unless, therefore, prosecutor has shown that the denial of its application for the variance was ‘clearly against the weight......
-
Hay v. Board of Adjustment of Borough of Fort Lee, A--487
...88 A.2d 537 (1952); Home Fuel Oil Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Glen Rock, 5 N.J.Super. 63, 68 638, 65 A.2d 127 (Law Div.1949). We do 132 N.J.L. 576, 41 A.2d 896 (Sup.Ct.1945); Burmore Co. v. Smith, 124 N.J.L. 541, 12 A.2d 353 (E. & There is no dispute of any legal consequence in the facts.......
-
Sitgreaves v. Bd. Of Adjustment Of Town Of Nutley, 210.
...131 N.J.L. 336, 36 A.2d 610; Meixner v. Board of Adjustment &c., Sup. 1944, 131 N.J.L. 599, 37 A.2d 678; Pieretti v. Johnson, Sup. 1945, 132 N.J.L. 576, 41 A.2d 896. The spirit of the Zoning Act, as it has properly and frequently been said by the Supreme Court, is to restrict rather than to......