Saraydar v. Board of Commissioners

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Saraydar v. Board of Commissioners

36 A.2d 289, 131 N.J.L. 290, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 157

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 22, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A.2d 289 (Saraydar v. Board of Commissioners) 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

Saraydar v. Board of Commissioners, 36 A.2d 289, 131 N.J.L. 290, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 157 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari in a zoning ease. The prosecutor conducts a public automobile garage and service station in his building at 277-285 Garside Street, Newark. The premises are in what is called in the zoning ordinance a “third residential zone” in which public garages and warehouses are prohibited uses. On or about January 6th, 1927, on application of the owner a variance from the residential zoning restriction was granted for the construction of a public garage, which has ever since been operated there. Por economic reasons the prosecutor-now desires to discontinue the garage business and lease the premises for use as a warehouse for the storage of groceries and canned food products and fifteen one and one-half ton automobile trucks to be operated from there in the distribution of said food products. His appeal for a variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance so as to permit the use of the premises as a warehouse was refused hv the building *291 department and on appeal to tlie Board of Adjustment was approved.

Sueli approval or recommendation to bo effective must be approved by the Board of Commissioners. R. S. 40:55—39. This approval was refused by tlie Board. It held two public hearings at which it heard reasons botli in favor of and against approving the recommendation of the Board of Adjustment.

Tlie prosecutor has the burden of showing that the Board’s refusal to grant the permission was either illegal in law or unreasonable in fact. The exercise of its power may not be set aside except upon adequate grounds. We. perceive none. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the judgment of the Board was arrived at in an unfair, capricious or arbitran’ manner. Cf. Shaiman v. Mayor, &c., of Newark, 15 N. J. Mis. R. 431; Essex Investment Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Newark, 14 Id. 181.

We conclude that there is presented no question of law or fact in dispute which requires review.

The writ of certiorari is denied.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari in a zoning ease. The prosecutor conducts a public automobile garage and service station in his building at 277-285 Garside Street, Newark. The premises are in what is called in the zoning ordinance a “third residential zone” in which public garages and warehouses are prohibited uses. On or about January 6th, 1927, on application of the owner a variance from the residential zoning restriction was granted for the construction of a public garage, which has ever since been operated there. Por economic reasons the prosecutor-now desires to discontinue the garage business and lease the premises for use as a warehouse for the storage of groceries and canned food products and fifteen one and one-half ton automobile trucks to be operated from there in the distribution of said food products. His appeal for a variance from the terms of the zoning ordinance so as to permit the use of the premises as a warehouse was refused hv the building *291 department and on appeal to tlie Board of Adjustment was approved.

Sueli approval or recommendation to bo effective must be approved by the Board of Commissioners. R. S. 40:55—39. This approval was refused by tlie Board. It held two public hearings at which it heard reasons botli in favor of and against approving the recommendation of the Board of Adjustment.

Tlie prosecutor has the burden of showing that the Board’s refusal to grant the permission was either illegal in law or unreasonable in fact. The exercise of its power may not be set aside except upon adequate grounds. We. perceive none. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the judgment of the Board was arrived at in an unfair, capricious or arbitran’ manner. Cf. Shaiman v. Mayor, &c., of Newark, 15 N. J. Mis. R. 431; Essex Investment Co. v. Board of Commissioners of Newark, 14 Id. 181.

We conclude that there is presented no question of law or fact in dispute which requires review.

The writ of certiorari is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.2d 289, 131 N.J.L. 290, 1944 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saraydar-v-board-of-commissioners-nj-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack