Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jantausch v. Borough of Verona

Decided: May 20, 1957.

ARTHUR J. JANTAUSCH, AND ANN M. JANTAUSCH, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
BOROUGH OF VERONA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY AND VERONA BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS



On appeal from the Superior Court, Law Division, Essex County, whose opinion is reported in 41 N.J. Super. 89.

For affirmance -- Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Oliphant, Wachenfeld and Burling. For reversal -- Justices Heher and Jacobs. The opinion of the court was delivered by Oliphant, J. Jacobs, J. (dissenting). Heher, J., joins in this dissent.

Oliphant

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the Superior Court, Law Division, certified here on our own motion, in an action in lieu of prerogative writ which reversed a finding and determination of the Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Verona to revoke a building permit which had been issued to the plaintiffs-respondents.

The respondents are owners of premises located in a "B" Residential Zone which is restricted to one-family houses by the zoning ordinance. The premises are a split-level home consisting of a two-car garage on grade level with three bedrooms and two baths overhead; the other section of the house containing the usual living room, dining room, kitchen, with a cellar underneath.

The zoning ordinance adopted in 1939 sets up four one-family residential districts varying slightly in their restrictions.

On the question here presented the following provisions apply:

"Section 6. One Family Residence Districts:

6.1 General Provisions -- Use

Within any one-family residence district no buildings shall be erected or altered or used in whole or in part for any other than the following specified purposes:

6.11 Single detached house used as a residence by not more than one family.

6.12 A residence containing the professional office of its resident owner or lessee.

6.13 Home occupation incidental to the use as a residence, provided that such occupations shall be conducted solely by resident occupants of the building, and that no display of products shall be visible from the street.

6.15 Buildings used for private horticultural or agricultural purposes, private garages or stables, and private dog kennels." (Italics supplied)

Section 5.81 authorizes a sign for "home occupation" and section 8.1 permits section 6 uses in the business district as well as expressly permitting beauty parlors.

On October 11, 1955 the respondents applied to the building inspector for a permit to alter their two-car garage so as to make one side suitable for use as a beauty parlor. The permit to so convert the garage was issued on the day the application was made and the respondents promptly proceeded to renovate, with the result the work was 90% completed on November 3, 1955. For such work they had expended about $3,000, and on November 3, 1955 various neighbors living within 200 feet of the respondents' residence filed an appeal with the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.