Case Name: SHELL OIL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1973-03-21
Citations: 127 N.J. Super. 60
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHELL OIL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 60–66

Head Matter:
SHELL OIL COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 21, 1973—
Decided March 21, 1973.
Before Judges Kolovsky, Matthews and Crahay.
Mr. Robert H. Otten argued the cause for the appellant (Messrs. Crowell & Otten, attorneys; Mr. David W. Clark on the brief.)
Mr. Lawrence A. Carton, III argued the cause for the respondent (Messrs. Pillsbury, Barnacle, Russell & Carton, attorneys; Mr. John G. Colannino on the brief.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment, ordering the Board of Adjustment to recommend variances for gas station use, is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed in Judge Lane's opinion in the Law Division.
The trial court recognized the presumption of correctness, fairness and proper motivation that a decision of the Board of Adjustment carries and of its limited scope of judicial review. Also acknowledged was that a Board's acceptance or rejection of the testimony of witnesses, where such choice was reasonable, was conclusive on appeal.
On the basis of plaintiff's proofs Judge Lane specifically found reasons for the grant of a (d) variance and rejected the Board's specifications in denying the application.
The Board has found;
". . . that the relief requested by the applicant cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance of the Borough of Shrewsbury;
1. The proposed use would cause additional congestion at an already congested intersection;
2. There is no way to prevent traffic from crossing the highway and creating additional risks to the motorists at the intersection ;
3. The land in question could be put to a better and higher use;
4. Additional gas stations are not needed in the Borough of Shrews-bury and would not benefit the residents of the Borough of Shrews-bury.
5. The area involved is adjacent to an area which is composed of a large tract of land which is undeveloped;
6. The proposed use could have a deleterious effect on the future development of the surrounding undeveloped land;
7. No hardship has been shown by the applicant;
8. There are three Shell gas stations within a short distance of the residents of the Borough of Shrewsbury;
9. Gasoline stations are not a permitted use in the Borough of Shrewsbury;
10. The use sought is not particularly fitted to the location for which the variance is sought and special reasons do not exist for the granting of the variance . . ."
The findings of a Board of Adjustment must be substantially grounded in sufficient competent evidence. Izenberg v. Board of Adjustment of City of Paterson, 35 N. J. Super. 583, 588 (App. Div. 1955); Dolan v. DeCapua, 16 N. J. 599, 610 (1954); Stolz v. Ellenstein, 7 N. J. 291, 295 (1951).
Here, we hold that the Board's findings were at best conclusional and not fairly supported by the proofs submitted. Significantly, the Board did not specifically find plaintiff's proofs incredible or unpersuasive.
Affirmed.