Value Oil Company v. Town of Irvington

396 A.2d 1149, 164 N.J. Super. 419
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedDecember 22, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 396 A.2d 1149 (Value Oil Company v. Town of Irvington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Value Oil Company v. Town of Irvington, 396 A.2d 1149, 164 N.J. Super. 419 (N.J. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

164 N.J. Super. 419 (1978)
396 A.2d 1149

VALUE OIL COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TOWN OF IRVINGTON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWN OF IRVINGTON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued October 4, 1978.
Decided December 22, 1978.

*420 Before Judges FRITZ, BISCHOFF and MORGAN.

Mr. Howard I. Waxman argued the cause for appellant Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Town of Irvington.

Mr. Richard A. Fazzari argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Arthur W. Burgess, attorney).

PER CURIAM.

In the opinion of the trial judge in these consolidated appeals by the municipality and the zoning board of adjustment from his reversal of the denial by the zoning board of a special exception use (a "conditional use" under the new Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq., 40:55D-65(f)), he carefully distinguishes between such a use and a variance. 152 N.J. Super. 354, 363 (Law Div. 1977). We concur in the particular significance of that distinction in a matter such as this where the ordinance in question, in dealing with the special exception use for which application was here made, expressly prescribes a *421 large number — ten — of carefully detailed conditions which must be met before a permit for such use shall issue.

In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that if the applicant is in careful compliance with each of these conditions, denial of the permit would be an arbitrary action in the absence of evidence of substantial detriment to the public good or substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Accordingly, we believe that in the factual context of this case the right result was reached, and substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Marzulli.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Township of Pemberton v. Berardi
876 A.2d 287 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2005)
Commonwealth v. Montalvo
735 N.E.2d 391 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2000)
In re the Liquidation of Sussex Mutual Insurance
694 A.2d 312 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1997)
Elco v. RC Maxwell Co.
678 A.2d 323 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1996)
Coventry Square, Inc. v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment
650 A.2d 340 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1994)
Stephen C. Glenn, Inc. v. Sussex County Council
532 A.2d 80 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1987)
Medicare&medicaid Gu 34,558 United Hospital Center, Inc., a Private, Non-Profit Corporation Reynolds Memorial Hospital, Inc., a Private, Non-Profit Corporation Davis Memorial Hospital, Inc., a Private, Non-Profit Corporation St. Joseph's Hospital of Parkersburg, a Private, Non-Profit Corporation v. Sally K. Richardson William L. Gilligan Larry C. Fizer and West Virginia Health Care Cost Review Authority, and John D. Rockefeller, Iv, Governor of the State of West Virginia Chauncey H. Browning, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia the West Virginia Department of Health, a Department of the State of West Virginia L. Clark Hansbarger, Director of the State Department of Health the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Medical Services for the West Virginia Department of Welfare and David W. Forinash, Assistant Commissioner of Medical Services for the West Virginia Department of Welfare, United Hospital Center, Inc., a Private, Non-Profit Corporation Reynolds Memorial Hospital, Inc., a Private, Non-Profit Corporation Davis Memorial Hospital, Inc., a Private, Non-Profit Corporation St. Joseph's Hospital of Parkersburg, a Private, Non-Profit Corporation v. The West Virginia Department of Health, a Department of the State of West Virginia L. Clark Hansbarger, Director of the State Department of Health the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Medical Services for the West Virginia Department of Welfare David W. Forinash, Assistant Commissioner of Medical Services for the West Virginia Department of Welfare, and John D. Rockefeller, Iv, Governor of the State of West Virginia Chauncey H. Browning, Attorney General of the State of West Virginia Sally K. Richardson William L. Gilligan Larry C. Fizer and West Virginia Health Care Cost Review Authority
757 F.2d 1445 (Fourth Circuit, 1985)
United Hospital Center, Inc. v. Richardson
757 F.2d 1445 (Fourth Circuit, 1985)
Pequinot v. Allen County Board of Zoning Appeals
446 N.E.2d 1021 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1983)
Pequinot v. ALLEN CTY. BD. OF ZONING APP.
446 N.E.2d 1021 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1983)
Mahwah Township v. Bergen County
3 N.J. Tax 513 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1981)
Boffo v. Boone County Board of Zoning Appeals
421 N.E.2d 1119 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 A.2d 1149, 164 N.J. Super. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/value-oil-company-v-town-of-irvington-njsuperctappdiv-1978.