Scaduto v. Town of Bloomfield, 267.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 267.,267. |
| Citation | 20 A.2d 649,127 N.J.L. 1 |
| Parties | SCADUTO et al. v. TOWN OF BLOOMFIELD et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari proceeding by Millie Scaduto and others against the Town of Bloomfield and others.
Resolution authorizing variation from zoning ordinance vacated.
Argued October term, 1940, before CASE, DONGES, and HEHER, JJ.
F. D. Masucci, of Newark, for prosecutors.
Edward C. Pettit, of Bloomfield, for defendant Town of Bloomfield.
Nicholas Joya, of Newark, for defendant Patsy A. Conte.
Prosecutors challenge a resolution adopted by the Board of Adjustment of the defendant municipality recommending to the governing body that a permit be granted to the defendant Conte for the construction of a one-story brick building containing "two stores" in a district zoned generally for "dwellings, detached, for not more than two families," and specifically restricted against use for "any industrial, manufacturing, trade or commercial purpose," on lands situate more than 150 feet from the zone boundary, and the subsequent action of the governing body approving the recommendation and directing the building inspector to issue the permit.
The variation thus authorized is not grounded in statutory considerations, and is therefore invalid. The transcript of the proceedings of the Board of Adjustment reveals no basis whatever for the conclusion of "unnecessary hardship." Only the defendant Conte gave evidence in support of the application; and his testimony was confined to these matters: The period of his ownership—eight months; the character of the dwellings in "the neighborhood"—i. e., "one and two-family houses;" and an "explanation" of "the type of business he intended to use the stores for." The Board's approving resolution recites that, in addition to receiving the testimony of this witness, "all of the members * * * inspected the site of the proposed stores and considered the plans;" and the determination was rested upon these grounds: "Immediately adjoining the premises and also on the southwest corner of North Fifteenth Street and First Avenue there are already erected several stores which were permitted after the area was zoned for residential purposes; * * * the location of the proposed stores is not solely suitable for residential purposes, especially in view of the already existing stores adjoining the plot, and to enforce the strict letter of the ordinance will, under existing conditions, work an unnecessary hardship; * * * substantial justice will be done by granting the application;" and "it will not be contrary to public interest" but "will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance to make the exception applied for."
In the making of a variance under R.S.1937, 40:55-39, N.J.S.A. 40:55-39, it is a jurisdictional sine qua non that, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in "unnecessary hardship." The essential inquiry is whether in the circumstances the specific application of the general regulation would constitute an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the fundamental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minney v. City of Azusa
...N.J. 529, 103 A.2d 361, 364. To the same effect are, Moriarity v. Pozner, supra, 21 N.J. 199, 121 A.2d 527, 534; Scaduto v. Town of Bloomfield, 127 N.J. 1, 20 A.2d 649, 651; Ventresca v. Exley, 358 Pa. 98, 56 A.2d 210, 212; Chudnov v. Board of Appeals of Town of Bloomfield, 113 Conn. 49, 15......
-
Puritan-Greenfield Imp. Ass'n v. Leo
...498, 76 N.W.2d 420, 426; National Land & Investment Company v. Kohn (1965), 419 Pa. 504, 215 A.2d 597, 602; Scaduto v. Town of Bloomfield (1941), 127 N.J.L. 1, 20 A.2d 649, 650; Thomas v. Board of Standards & Appeals of City of New York (1942), 263 App.Div. 352, 33 N.Y.S.2d 219, 230; Floren......
-
Preye v. Board of Adjustment of North Bergen Tp.
...and on review, by a full disclosure on the record of the facts relied upon for the board's findings. Seaduto v. (Town of) Bloomfield, 127 N.J.L. 1, 20 A.2d 649 (Sup.Ct.1941) ; P(ennsylvania) R.R. Co. v. N(ew) J(ersey) State Aviation Comm. et al., 2 N.J. 64, 65 A.2d 61 Cf. Stolz v. Ellenstei......
-
Izenberg v. Board of Adjustment of City of Paterson
...basis for a variance the entire zone plan in any municipality might well crumble by chain reaction. Scaduto v. Town of Bloomfield, 127 N.J.L. 1, 4, 20 A.2d 649 (Sup.Ct.1941); Rexon v. Board of Adjustment of Haddonfield, 10 N.J. 1, 9, 89 A.2d 233 (1952); Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 128, 93 A......