Garden View Homes, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Garden View Homes, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment

57 A.2d 677, 137 N.J.L. 44, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 173

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 17, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.2d 677 (Garden View Homes, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garden View Homes, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment, 57 A.2d 677, 137 N.J.L. 44, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 173 (N.J. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

Prosecutor holds a contract to purchase land at the corner of Pennington and Lafayette Avenues in the City of Passaic. The contracting parties have agreed that the contract to purchase becomes binding if the land is available for the erection of two one-family dwellings thereon. The zoning ordinance requires that the proposed houses shall have a set-back of forty feet but the plans submitted to the building inspector called for a twenty-five foot set-back. Under these circumstances, the denial of a building permit was *45 proper. Thereafter, prosecutor applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to permit the buildings to be erected on a twenty-five foot set-back. The Board of Adjustment denied the application. The prosecutor’s argument on this application is that he can use the land to better advantage if he erects two buildings thereon rather than one and that it is unreasonable and arbitrary to deny him a variance from the zoning ordinance to accomplish that end. The mere fact that the land will be more profitable to the prosecutor if the variance is granted is not a sufficient reason for the granting of it. Brandon v. Montclair, 124 N. J. L. 135; affirmed, 125 Id. 367.

Prosecutor failed to establish a case of unnecessary hardship and that being so, the Board of Adjustment did not act capriciously or arbitrarily. Scaduto v. Bloomfield, 127 N. J. L. 1.

The applications are denied, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

Prosecutor holds a contract to purchase land at the corner of Pennington and Lafayette Avenues in the City of Passaic. The contracting parties have agreed that the contract to purchase becomes binding if the land is available for the erection of two one-family dwellings thereon. The zoning ordinance requires that the proposed houses shall have a set-back of forty feet but the plans submitted to the building inspector called for a twenty-five foot set-back. Under these circumstances, the denial of a building permit was *45 proper. Thereafter, prosecutor applied to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to permit the buildings to be erected on a twenty-five foot set-back. The Board of Adjustment denied the application. The prosecutor’s argument on this application is that he can use the land to better advantage if he erects two buildings thereon rather than one and that it is unreasonable and arbitrary to deny him a variance from the zoning ordinance to accomplish that end. The mere fact that the land will be more profitable to the prosecutor if the variance is granted is not a sufficient reason for the granting of it. Brandon v. Montclair, 124 N. J. L. 135; affirmed, 125 Id. 367.

Prosecutor failed to establish a case of unnecessary hardship and that being so, the Board of Adjustment did not act capriciously or arbitrarily. Scaduto v. Bloomfield, 127 N. J. L. 1.

The applications are denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.2d 677, 137 N.J.L. 44, 1948 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garden-view-homes-inc-v-board-of-adjustment-nj-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack