Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

July 10, 2005 -- Page 5 misapplication or miscalculation in the process. The new building official fur- ther determined the house had been constructed in accordance with the plans submitted. Consequently, he issued the certificate of occupancy. Kulak, a neighboring property owner, appealed the grant of the certificate of occupancy. The board ruled in favor of Campbell. Kulak sued, claiming the board's decision violated the zoning ordinance and Campbell's structure had to be brought into compliance. DECISION: Affirmed, The board's findings were supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. There was no evidence in the record that the board's-aPproval was based on false statements or misrepresentations of fact.' . Here, the board found the difference of 250 square feet of lot coverage not to be an issue for the certificate of occupancy and that it was a possible result of a difference in the method of calculation. Thkre was no evidence Campbell lacked good faith. Campbell relied on the building permit in good faith, incurring substantial obhgations based on-that reliance. Moreover, Campbell had completed the construction of his home. Thus, equitable considerations existed to support the building, penmt s viability. Evidence in the record supported the board's f'mding that Campbell did not act in bad faith because the error was made by a miscalculation by the building official. Ultimately, the court deferred to the board's, findings. see also: Sousa v. Town of Coventry, 774 A. 2d 812 (2001). see also: Town of Johnston v. Pezza, 723 A.2d 278 (1999). Accessory Use -- Homeowner claims pigeOn coop is an accessory use Coop houses homeowner's 65 racing pigeons. Citation: DaPurificacao v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Townahip of Union, Superior Court of New Jersey, App. Div., No. A-5308-O2T1 (2005) NEW JERSEY (05/11/05) -- DaPurificacao owned a home in Union Township. He also built a shed to house the 65 racing pigeons he owned. Union Township issued a summons regarding the pigeon coop. DaPurificacao applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Union for a determination his pigeon coop constituted a permitted accessory use. The application was denied. DaPurificacao sued, and the court ruled in favor of the' board. DaPurificacao appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. : A pigeon coop was not an accessory use. The local ordinance defined an accessory use as one that was "naturally and normally incident and subordinate to the pr/nc'pal use. The use had to be subordi~ © 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 21'5