Zoning Board of Adjustment

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Meeting Minutes March 26, 2024 Opening: The public meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Village of Ridgewood was called to order at 7:36 p.m. Present: Diana Ruhl, Jonathan Papietro, Jason Curreri and Yelena Raytser were present. Also present were Bruce Whitaker, Esq., Board Attorney; John Barree, Village Planner, and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary. Absent: Greg Brown, Matthew Bandelt, Gary Negrycz and Jamie Fox were absent. Minutes: The minutes from February 27, 2024 were adopted. Non-agenda items: Board member comments - There were no comments at this time. Members of the public comments - There were no comments at this time. Public hearings Old Business: LES DANN, LLC – An application for preliminary and final major site plan approval, expansion of a nonconforming use variance approval, and use variance approval for the construction of an auto body shop, which will serve as the principal use at 246-264 South Broad Street, Block 3905, Lots 12, 13 and 14, in an R-3 Zone. (Continued from January 23, 2024) Mark Semeraro, Esq., was present on behalf of the applicant. Robert Inglima, Jr., Esq. was present on behalf of the objector, Religious Society of Friends, Ridgewood Friends Meeting, Friends Nursery School. Mr. Inglima began his cross-examination of Mr. Lydon, Planner for the applicant, who had been previously sworn. Mr. Inglima asked Mr. Lydon about his testimony regarding a 1965 Zoning Ordinance, a section of which referred to the specific regulations that are applicable to the public garages. Mr. Inglima asked if Mr. Lydon had a codified ordinance. Mr. Lydon said it was not available. Mr. Inglima asked about Mr. Lydon’s testimony regarding a 1951 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Inglima asked about the permitted uses in the B-2 zone according to those ordinances. Mr. Lydon stated that public garages were permitted uses in the B-2 Zone and that is what was on Lot 14 at that time. Mr. Inglima referred to Exhibit O-4, which showed several buildings on Lot 14, and asked Mr. Lydon if he knew which businesses were located in the buildings. Mr. Lydon did not 1 know. Mr. Inglima asked if any variances were granted to the businesses located on Lot 14, specifically regarding the requirement in the1965 ordinance that requires public garages to be a certain distance from other public garages, and requires a public garage to be located a certain distance from houses of worship. Mr. Lydon stated that the Village was not able to provide the resolutions. Mr. Inglima asked about Zoning Board resolution from 1987, which was after the property was rezoned from B-2 to R-3. Mr. Inglima asked if the approval for a paint spray booth was for an auto body shop. Mr. Lydon said that was correct. Mr. Inglima asked if the approval was for the expansion of a nonconforming use. Mr. Lydon said that is what the resolution said. Mr. Inglima asked about other uses such as storage of vehicles and parts. Mr. Lydon said that was not part of the approval. Mr. Semeraro asked to give a redirect examination. Mr. Semeraro asked if the zone that contained both lots 12 and 14 remained in the B-2 Zone up until 1984 when they were converted to the R-3 Zone. Mr. Lydon said it was. Mr. Semeraro asked about the 1930 Sanborn map in regards to Lot 14. Mr. Lydon said it was identified at that time as an auto body or repair shop. Mr. Lydon named some of the businesses shown in the newspaper ads submitted by Mr. Saavedra. Mr. Semeraro asked about the definition of public garage from the 1965 Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Lydon read the definition, stating that auto body repair shop falls within the definition. Mr. Semeraro asked about the language in the 1974 resolution in regards to auto body repair. Mr. Semeraro referred to Mr. Montick’s testimony that included the use of the properties as auto repair as far back as the 1960s. Mr. Inglima re-cross examined Mr. Lydon. Mr. Inglima referred to the 1979 resolution regarding the fence application and the 1985 resolution that was more specific about the activities on the lots. Mr. Inglima asked about the Sanborn maps and what they show and the certification. Peter Steck was sworn and his credentials as a Professional Planner accepted. Mr. Steck testified regarding his preparation for the hearing and visiting the properties. Mr. Steck testified that in his opinion, Mr. Lydon’s interpretation of the uses of Lots 12 and 14 as public garage use is not correct as Lot 12 had an auto body shop and Lot 14 had three public uses – auto body, taxi service and a single family home. Mr. Steck testified that the resolution adopted by the Zoning Board in 1974, denying an application to expand the auto body use was a ruling of the extent of that use at the property. Mr. Semeraro objected and they went through the resolution paragraph by paragraph. Mr. Steck stated that at some point, the single-family dwelling was removed and aerial photos show automobiles on that portion of the property. Mr. Steck testified regarding the various businesses that were on the lot according to Mr. Montick’s testimony. Mr. Steck commented that there were no records of applications for Certificate of Occupancy for the changes in use. Mr. Steck stated that according to Mr. Daniel’s testimony, it was not their intention to abandon the use and that Mountain View Auto Body is using Lot 14 for some of their business activities in support of the auto body shop on Lot 12. Mr. Steck said that 2 Mountain View Auto Body on Lot 12 has no right to use some of Lot 14 because it is a different property. Mr. Steck testified regarding the encroachment of the activities on lot 12 upon Lot 13. There was discussion regarding the relevancy of that testimony. Mr. Steck testified that in his opinion, the auto body use on Lot 12, confirmed by the 1987 resolution, was a legal nonconforming use at that time. Mr. Steck testified that in his opinion, there is no substantial, credible evidence that any of the uses at the current time have status as legal nonconforming uses. Mr. Whitaker clarified various statements regarding Mr. Steck’s testimony. Mr. Whitaker asked if Mr. Steck agreed that the term ‘auto body’ is not defined in the Ridgewood Code. In regards to Ridgewood Taxi, Mr. Whitaker asked Mr. Steck if the building was used as a repair shop by the taxi company, would it fit within an auto body use. Mr. Steck said that would be an accessory component to the building, not the principle use. Board members asked questions regarding the uses of Lot 14 and if it had been considered abandoned because the prior owner brought in a contractor. Mr. Whitaker said he would instruct the Board regarding the abandonment issue and said they would need to review all the testimony. The hearing was carried to April 30, 2024 without further notice. Resolution memorialization: The following resolutions were memorialized: - Cariddi – 467 Overbrook Road, Block 3610, Lot 10 - Shalewitz – 224 Richards Road, Block 1205, Lot 4 - Tabboule Restaurant - 39-41 East Ridgewood Avenue, Block 3805, Lot 16 - Sarkes – 781 North Monroe Street, Block 1104, Lot 12 - Blue Foundry Bank – 235 East Ridgewood Avenue, Block 3703, Lot 11 - Kaiser – 334 Corona Place, Block 3303, Lot 9 - Harris – 58 Phelps Road, Block 1511, Lot 3 - Leonard-Hallowell – 65 Park Slope, Block 2110, Lot 15 - Yazdani – 383 South Pleasant Avenue, Block 4502, Lot 43 Discussion: Request for Reconsideration – Mr. Whitaker explained that the Board had received a request for reconsidering from the attorney for the Gusfa, 488 Overbrook Road, application. Following Board discussion, the Board voted to reconsider the application which had been denied at the March 12 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary Date Approved: April 30, 2024 3