Walton v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 29 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 216.,216. |
| Parties | WALTON et al. v. STEPHENS, Recorder, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Claude T. Walton was convicted on a charge of conducting the business of operating a riding academy and maintaining a stable for horses not accessory to or incidental to his own residence and not as a private stable for his own use, contrary to the terms of zoning ordinance of the borough of Oakland, and he applies for a writ of certiorari against George R. Stephens, Recorder of the Recorder's Court of the Borough of Oakland, and the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Oakland, New Jersey, wherein Carmen Scardo and his wife intervened. Judgment reversed.
Argued January term, 1940, before TRENCHARD, CASE, and HEHER, JJ.
Maurice Bernstein and Slingland, Houman & Bernstein, all of Paterson, for prosecutors.
James M. Muth of Hackensack, and Walter W. Weber, of Ramsey, for respondents.
The writ was issued on the application of Claude T. Walton, lessee of certain real estate located on what is known as Page's hill in the Borough of Oakland. The Scardos, husband and wife, owners, were permitted, by rule, to intervene upon conditions. Walton was convicted by the borough recorder on a charge of conducting the business of operating a riding academy and maintaining a stable for horses not accessory to or incidental to his own residence and not as a private stable for his own use, contrary to the terms of the borough zoning ordinance passed January 13, 1931. The writ brings up the judgment of conviction with pertinent records.
Prosecutor admits that his use of the premises was contrary to the prohibitory provisions of the ordinance and seeks to justify the use as non-conforming within the meaning of R.S. 40:55-48, N.J.S.A. 40:55-48, and also within the purview of paragraphs 5 and 6 of section 1 of the ordinance which provide as follows: Prosecutor further contends that the section of the ordinance which prohibits such use is arbitrary and unreasonable and without substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community.
The entire Scardo property, a part of which is devoted to the disputed uses, consists of four acres of land upon which are the Scardo residence, facing on the road, and toward the rear two barns, adapted to the stabling of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Accera
...Campbell v. Board of Adjustment of Borough of South Plainfield, 118 N.J.L. 116, 191 A. 742 (Sup.Ct.1937); Walton v. Stephens, 124 N.J.L. 216, 11 A.2d 364 (Sup.Ct.1940); Provident Institution for Savings v. Castles, 168 A. 169, 11 N.J.Misc. 773 (Sup.Ct.1933); but see State v. Casper, 5 N.J.S......
-
Ardolino v. Board of Adjustment of Borough of Florham Park, Morris County
...use was in existence when the ordinance was adopted; hence, the premises do not constitute a non-conforming use. Walton v. Stephens, 124 N.J.L. 216, 11 A.2d 364 (Sup.Ct.1940). The appellants next urge that their having obtained approval from the planning board for a realignment of the bound......
- Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
-
Haulenbeek v. Bor. Of Allenhurst
...due to lack of demand, inability to get a tenant and financial difficulty did not change the character of use. Walton v. Stephens, 124 N.J.L. 216, 11 A.2d 364; Campbell v. Borough of South Plainfield, 118 N.J.L. 116, 191 A. 742; National Lumber Products Co. v. Ponzio supra. The effort here ......