Sharff v. Board of Adjustment

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sharff v. Board of Adjustment

143 A. 77, 6 N.J. Misc. 905, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 92

DecidedSeptember 20, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 143 A. 77 (Sharff 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

Sharff v. Board of Adjustment, 143 A. 77, 6 N.J. Misc. 905, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 92 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a zoning case. The building inspector having refused a permit, prosecutors took an appeal to the board of adjustment. We gather from the return to the writ that that body took up the appeal in regular course, that counsel for prosecutors was heard, no one spoke in opposition, and that no evidence either pro or con was taken on the question whether the conditions were such as to make the enforcement of the ordinance unreasonable.

In Chancellor Development Co. v. Senior, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 633, followed in a number of later cases, it was said that the board of adjustment is to decide the question after hearing testimony. What it is to do if no testimony is offered is not laid down in that decision; but we apprehend that to overturn an adverse decision of the building inspector, some evidence should be proffered to show that he was wrong, and [906]*906to overcome the presumption that the ordinance was reasonable in its application.

Apart from this, we have the constitutional amendment of 1927, passed since this application was made, and the act of 1928, chapter 274, in pursuance thereof. In view of this change in the law, the application, even though earlier in point of time than either, should be denied. Koplin v. South Orange, 142 Atl. Rep. 235; 6 N. J. Mis. R. 489.

The writ will therefore be dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a zoning case. The building inspector having refused a permit, prosecutors took an appeal to the board of adjustment. We gather from the return to the writ that that body took up the appeal in regular course, that counsel for prosecutors was heard, no one spoke in opposition, and that no evidence either pro or con was taken on the question whether the conditions were such as to make the enforcement of the ordinance unreasonable.

In Chancellor Development Co. v. Senior, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 633, followed in a number of later cases, it was said that the board of adjustment is to decide the question after hearing testimony. What it is to do if no testimony is offered is not laid down in that decision; but we apprehend that to overturn an adverse decision of the building inspector, some evidence should be proffered to show that he was wrong, and [906]*906to overcome the presumption that the ordinance was reasonable in its application.

Apart from this, we have the constitutional amendment of 1927, passed since this application was made, and the act of 1928, chapter 274, in pursuance thereof. In view of this change in the law, the application, even though earlier in point of time than either, should be denied. Koplin v. South Orange, 142 Atl. Rep. 235; 6 N. J. Mis. R. 489.

The writ will therefore be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A. 77, 6 N.J. Misc. 905, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharff-v-board-of-adjustment-nj-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack