also Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 145 N.J. 144, 156-57, 678 A.2d 225 (1996) (reaffirming the Court’s holding in Ventron, supra); Restatement (Second) of the Law of Torts §§ 519, 520 (1969) (setting out strict liability rule and test for abnormally dangerous activity on land). The same rationale applies to pollution that is released into the air from chemicals stored at a chemical facility. An actor who chooses to store dangerous chemicals should be responsible for the release of those chemicals into the air. That Alden Leeds lawfully and properly stored chemicals does not alter that conclusion. See DeEugenio & Sons v. Division of Envtl. Quality, 92 N.J.A.R.2d (Vol.5) (EPE) 47, 1992 WL 257715, aff'd, No. A-4055-91T2, (App. Div. April 2,1993), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 480, 634 A.2d 527 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The risks attendant to the storage of
holding bza estopped from denying a variance where inter alia injury to the public would be minimal but not reaching the question of the effect of the estoppel on a claim made by a neighboring landowner holding it is a question of fact recognizing the open question holding that despite lawfulness of open burning in question consequent deposit of smoke particulate on neighboring property violated njac 72752a holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact