Ramsbotham v. Bd. Of Pub. Works Of City Of Paterson

• Decision Date: 08 September 1948
• Docket Number: No. 282.,282.
• Citation: 137 N.J.L. 559,61 A.2d 196
• Parties: RAMSBOTHAM et al. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF PATERSON et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

137 N.J.L. 559

61 A.2d 196

RAMSBOTHAM et al.

v.BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF PATERSON et al.

No. 282.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 8, 1948.

Certiorari proceeding by Harry Ramsbotham and others to review a resolution of the Board of Public Works of the City of Paterson granting Harold Meyer a permit to operate a used car lot on his property in a residence zone on the recommendation of the city board of adjustment.

Writ of certiorari dismissed.

May term, 1948, before DONGES, COLIE, and EASTWOOD, JJ.

Edward G. Weiss and Joseph J. De Luccia, both of Paterson, for prosecutors.

John M. Ward and Charles S. Silberman, both of Paterson, for defendants.

DONGES, Justice.

This writ brings up for review a resolution of the Board of Public Works of the City of Paterson, adopted January 20, 1948, which followed the recommendation of the Board of Adjustment of said city and granted to respondent, Harold Meyer, a permit to operate upon his property, located at 764-766 Market St., at the southwest corner of Market and East 29th Sts., a used car lot although his property is located within a class B residence zone wherein such use is prohibited by the zoning ordinance of the city. The Board of Adjustment made its recommendation upon a finding of fact that ‘such variance will not be contrary to the public interest and a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant.’

The respondent contends that the municipality has no power to regulate the use of vacant lands separate and apart from buildings under the zoning laws, but the contrary has been held in 420 Broad Ave. Corp. v. Borough of Palisades, Sup., 61 A.2d 23, and the cases there cited.

Prosecutors, neighboring property owners who objected to the granting of the permit, contend that the zoning ordinance does not permit the allowance of such a permit in a residential zone. But the variance granted was under the provisions of the statute, R.S. 40:55-39, N.J.S.A., which provides for the recommendation of variances under special conditions wherein a literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. The zoning board of adjustment is ‘authorized to ‘hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which such board is required to pass,’ as to lands within the area of 150 feet, if the proposed use is permissible in the adjoining district (subsection b); to grant a variance in the like area...