Citation Numbers: 7 N.J. Misc. 1037
Judges: Cukiam
Filed Date: 11/14/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/25/2022
This suit is on writ of certiorari to review the action of the board of adjustment of the city of Passaic and the subsequent action of the board of commissioners of that city with respect to the granting of a building permit to the respondent Alpha Garth, to erect a one-story and basement building to be used as a public garage and service station in the Eesidence C District as set off by the zoning ordinance of the city of Passaic. The Garth property immediately adjoins and abuts upon Business A District wherein, by the ordi
“In the matter of the application of Alpha Garth, who desires to erect a public garage, showroom and gas service station at 102-108 Gregory avenue, on a motion made by Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Orre, it was moved that the supervisor of buildings be reversed, the secretary being instructed to communicate with the board of city commissioners so that a resolution might be adopted by the board of city commissioners if said board concurs in the decision as rendered.”
The secretary, under that instruction, addressed the following communication to the board of city commissioners:
“Please be advised that after a public hearing, decision has been rendered in the application of Alpha Garth, who desires to erect a public garage on the premises known as 102-108 Gregory avenue.
“The decision of the board of adjustment is that the building supervisor should be reversed. If your board concurs in this decision, it will be necessary to adopt a resolution ordering the supervisor of buildings >„to issue this permit.”
Subsequently the board of commissioners passed the following resolution:
“Resolved, that the board of commissioners of the city of Passaic concur in the decision of the board of adjustment in approving the application of Alpha Garth to erect a public garage on premises known as 102-108 Gregory avenue.”
The state zoning law (Pamph. L. 1928, ch. 274), in the
There does not appear to be serious dispute for the propo-. sition that the authority to overrule the denial of the supervisor of buildings and to grant a variance from the zoning restriction lay with the board of adjustment and not with the board of commissioners. The pivotal question hinges around the character of action taken by the board of adjustment and by the board of commissioners, respectively. The prosecutors of the writ contend that the action of the board of adjustment was in essence a recommendation and that the actual granting of the permit was by the board of commissioners. The position of the respondents is that the language of the resolution passed by the board of adjustment is unequivocal and not dependent upon what action the board of commissioners might take, and that the subsequent resolution adopted by the board of commissioners was mere surplusage.
We are unable to agree with the latter suggestion. We perceive no possible reason for the board of adjustment to