Court Opinion

ID: 9883632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:02:34.014663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:27.810794
License: Public Domain

*55Peootoe, J.
(dissenting in part). I join in the majority opinion with respect to the issues relating to the procedural aspects of the case but disagree with its conclusion on the merits.
The dwelling located on lot 11A was constructed in violation of the zoning ordinance in that it did not conform with the rear-yard requirement. When the plaintiffs purchased lot 11B this violation was remedied as there was then sufficient property under common ownership to meet the rear-yard requirement. This was unaffected by the purpose for which plaintiffs purchased lot 11B, for it should follow as a matter of law. That part of the land of lot 11B which constituted the area of the rear yard of the dwelling on lot 11A became as much a part of that dwelling as if they had constructed an addition thereto. Clearly, if they had followed this course there would have been a joinder of the two lots. And it is equally true that this use of the land on lot 11B to remedy the violation of the rear-yard requirement must also be viewed as a joinder of the two lots, at least to the extent of that part of lot 11B necessary to supply the rear-yard deficiency of lot 11 A. The effect of the majority opinion in failing to recognize the joinder of the two lots is to permit a re-creation of a violation of the ordinance as to lot 11A. Once a violation has been remedied its re-establishment should not be sanctioned. Otherwise, it would constitute discrimination against other property owners in the zone and tend to destroy zoning as an instrument of orderly municipal government. See Barbarisi v. Board of Adjustment, Paterson, 30 N. J. Super. 11, 17 (App. Div. 1954).
Mr. Justice Hehee joins in this dissent.
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteatjb, and Justices Wachexteeld, Beeling, Jacobs and Ebancis—-5.
For reversal—Justices Hehee and Peootoe—2.