Town of Belleville v. Parrillo's, Inc.
416 A.2d 388 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A change in a pre-existing nonconforming use is impermissible if it is a substantial change that alters the essential quality, character, and intensity of the prior use, with any doubt being resolved against the change.
Facts:
- Prior to 1955, Parrillo's, Inc. operated a restaurant and catering service in the Town of Belleville.
- In 1955, Belleville passed a zoning ordinance that placed Parrillo's property in a residential zone where restaurants were not a permitted use.
- Because it pre-dated the ordinance, Parrillo's was permitted to continue operating as a pre-existing nonconforming use.
- In 1978, the owners of Parrillo's renovated the premises and reopened the business as a discotheque.
- The business's primary purpose shifted from dining, with incidental dancing, to dancing as the main attraction, with incidental food service like hamburgers.
- Operational changes included advertising as a 'disco,' instituting a mandatory admission charge, replacing live bands with a DJ and recorded music, and installing psychedelic lighting.
- The changes resulted in fewer tables, different hours of operation, and numerous complaints from residents in the surrounding area.
Procedural Posture:
- The Town of Belleville's construction code official filed a complaint against Parrillo’s, Inc. in municipal court for violating the town's zoning ordinance.
- The municipal court found Parrillo's guilty and imposed a $250 fine.
- Parrillo's appealed to the Superior Court, Law Division, which conducted a trial de novo.
- The Superior Court affirmed the conviction, finding a prohibited extension of a nonconforming use.
- Parrillo's, Inc. (as appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, holding that the change in operation was not an extension of the nonconforming use.
- The Town of Belleville (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the conversion of a pre-existing nonconforming use from a restaurant to a discotheque constitute a substantial and therefore illegal extension of that nonconforming use?
Opinions:
Majority - Clifford, J.
Yes. The conversion of a restaurant to a discotheque represents a substantial and impermissible change in the nonconforming use. The court's inquiry must be qualitative, not quantitative, focusing on the quality, character, and intensity of the use in its totality. While the old restaurant had elements like music and drinks, the entire character of the business was altered from a place where people eat to a place where people dance. Citing the strong public policy of reducing nonconforming uses to conformity over time, the court holds that any doubt about whether a change is substantial should be resolved against permitting the change. The court adopted the trial court's findings that the shift in primary use, music, lighting, cover charge, and overall atmosphere constituted an abandonment of the prior restaurant use and an unlawful extension of the nonconforming use.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that nonconforming uses are disfavored and will be interpreted strictly under New Jersey zoning law. It establishes a 'qualitative' test for determining whether a change constitutes an illegal extension, focusing on the overall character and intensity of the use rather than merely cataloging its component parts. This precedent empowers municipalities to prevent the evolution of nonconforming uses into more intensive or different operations that could negatively impact a neighborhood's zoning plan. It signals to property owners that they cannot fundamentally alter the nature of a grandfathered business without seeking proper zoning approval.
Unlock the full brief for Town of Belleville v. Parrillo's, Inc.