J. H. Realty Co. v. Board of Adjustment

Supreme Court of New Jersey

J. H. Realty Co. v. Board of Adjustment

142 A. 921, 6 N.J. Misc. 540, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 231

DecidedJune 6, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A. 921 (J. H. Realty Co. 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

J. H. Realty Co. v. Board of Adjustment, 142 A. 921, 6 N.J. Misc. 540, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 231 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The facts of this case are as follows: The prosecutor was the owner of certain land in East Orange, situate in a district designated under the zoning ordinance of that city as "small volume residence district.” He caused plans and specifications to be prepared for the erection of a two-story [541]*541brick building, to be occupied by five stores and nine apartments. An application was made in due form to the respondent John Scott, superintendent of buildings of the city of East Orange, who declined to issue a permit because of the provision of section 3 of the zoning ordinance of East Orange.

Section 3 of the ordinance, inter alia, provides, among other things, under the caption, “small volume residencé district” in subdivision A, as follows: “No buildings or premises within any district shown as a small volume residence district on the use and volume district map shall be used for other than one or more of the following specified uses: 1. Dwellings for one family only.”

The prosecutor appealed to the board of adjustment, which board affirmed the action of the building inspector in refusing the permit.

We find nothing in the facts of this case which distinguish them from those facts which appeared in the case of Eeldman & Pivnick, Incorporated, v. Board of Adjustment of East Orange, decided at the present term of this court, and, therefore, the facts of the instant case do not call for the application of a different legal principle than that which - was held controlling in the case cited.

The writ is dismissed, but without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The facts of this case are as follows: The prosecutor was the owner of certain land in East Orange, situate in a district designated under the zoning ordinance of that city as "small volume residence district.” He caused plans and specifications to be prepared for the erection of a two-story [541]*541brick building, to be occupied by five stores and nine apartments. An application was made in due form to the respondent John Scott, superintendent of buildings of the city of East Orange, who declined to issue a permit because of the provision of section 3 of the zoning ordinance of East Orange.

Section 3 of the ordinance, inter alia, provides, among other things, under the caption, “small volume residencé district” in subdivision A, as follows: “No buildings or premises within any district shown as a small volume residence district on the use and volume district map shall be used for other than one or more of the following specified uses: 1. Dwellings for one family only.”

The prosecutor appealed to the board of adjustment, which board affirmed the action of the building inspector in refusing the permit.

We find nothing in the facts of this case which distinguish them from those facts which appeared in the case of Eeldman & Pivnick, Incorporated, v. Board of Adjustment of East Orange, decided at the present term of this court, and, therefore, the facts of the instant case do not call for the application of a different legal principle than that which - was held controlling in the case cited.

The writ is dismissed, but without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A. 921, 6 N.J. Misc. 540, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-h-realty-co-v-board-of-adjustment-nj-1928.