Written on 03 April 2019.

20181030 Zoning Board of Adjustment

VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Meeting Minutes

OCTOBER 30, 2018

Opening:

The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Village of Ridgewood was called to order at 7:40 p.m.

Present: Sergio Alegre, Greg Brown, Alyssa Matthews, Ines Bunza and Jonathan Papietro. Also present were Bruce Whitaker, Esq., Board Attorney and Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary (9:00 p.m. arrival).

Absent: Diana Ruhl, Gary Negrycz and Isaac Lebow

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:

KEVIN & JENNIFER HOGAN – An application to construct a front portico, a rear 2-story addition and a rear covered deck which will result in a side yard setback on the left of 9.2 feet to the first floor and 9.2 feet to the 2^nd floor; side yard setback on the right of 6.8 feet to the chimney, 8.3 feet to the addition and 8.7 feet to the deck, where 20 feet is required; combined side yard setback of 15.9 feet, where 16.5 feet is required; coverage by above-grade structures of 22.3%, coverage by above-grade structures within 140 feet of the front lot line of 23.7%, where 20% is permitted for both; coverage by improvements within 140 feet of the front lot line of 46.76%, where 45% is permitted and gross building area of 37.76%/2,643 square feet where 35%/2,450 square feet is permitted at 82 John Street, Block 3501, Lot 6, in the R-1 Zone. This matter has been carried from October 23, 2018, without further notice.

Chairman Alegre recused himself from this hearing and left the meeting at this time.

Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Kim O. Furbacher, CRCR, CCR, RMR:

WHITAKER: Let the record note Mr. Brown is the chairperson for tonight's hearing. We have four eligible members. Mr. Rutherford, on that basis, I understand you do wish to proceed.
RUTHERFORD: Yes.
RUTHERFORD: Yes. To clarify, Mr. Whitaker, and, first of all, good evening, members of the board, David L. Rutherford appearing on behalf of the applicant. Yes, we do wish to proceed with the testimony this evening. I will ask the board for perhaps a minute or two with my client at the end of the testimony to determine if we want to proceed to take it to a vote this evening. I see there are only four members. I know there are five eligible members, so we may want to give that issue a little bit of consideration. But I see no reason why we cannot proceed this evening, hopefully finish all of the testimony, then, if it is carried, it would be carried solely for the purpose of board discussion and decision, if that's acceptable.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. Sure.

INGLIMA: If I may be heard on that issue and the procedure, Mr. Chairman. Robert Inglima, Jr., representing the objectors Reynolds and Cron. I don't have any objection to what Mr. Rutherford just said, but I would ask that before we give summations, a decision be made as to whether or not a vote will be taken whether the applicant will want to proceed to a vote tonight, because I would prefer to give my summation to all of the board members who will be voting on the matter.
WHITAKER: That would be appropriate, I would assume. Mr. Rutherford?
RUTHERFORD: No objection. That's fine.
INGLIMA: Thank you.
WHITAKER: The other matter administratively, you received a letter from me today, it was placed on the record, that there has been a letter response from Ms. Perez on behalf of Ridgewood with the zoning perspective of certain issues that arise at the last meeting. She rendered an opinion. I sent that letter to all members. Mr. Inglima raised a concern about that, and rather than appealing that by going through the formalities of an appeal, I had proposed, and I understand I have concurrence of counsel, that the issues raised by Ms. Perez and challenged by Mr. Inglima will be dealt with this evening without the formality of Mr. Inglima filing an appeal of that decision under the Municipal Land Use Law. The result will be the same, then everyone will have the opportunity to go through the analysis, and, on the basis of that, I gave a letter to the board members dated today advising we will permit Mr. Inglima to proceed with raising objections to Ms. Perez's letter as it pertains to her interpretation. The board can render a decision relative to that, without the formality of filing that appeal. So, you'll be called upon either tonight or at a subsequent meeting to review Ms. Perez's decision to determine if it's proper, and, at the same time if you find and concur with Ms. Perez's decision, you will then make a decision of the merits of the Hogan application. So that's understood by counsel, it's understood by board members. So, let's proceed.
RUTHERFORD: Yes, Mr. Whitaker. I agree. So, I believe we were in the middle of Ms. Phillips' testimony. Unless there's anything further, Ms. Phillips will take her seat.
WHITAKER: Time for cross examination.
RUTHERFORD: That's correct. Mr. Inglima was in the midst of that when we ended it at the last meeting.
WHITAKER: Continuation of cross examination of Ms. Phillips. Ms. Phillips, you're still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

WHITAKER: Let's proceed.
RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Chairman.

L I S A P H I L L I P S, P.P., previously sworn, testifies as follows:

CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLIMA:

Ms. Phillips, good evening. I had asked you a number of questions at the last meeting regarding the steps that you took in preparing for the hearing and in preparing your testimony and the different things you looked at. Since the date of the last hearing, which was September 11th, we have obtained a transcript of that hearing and submitted it to the board and to Mr. Rutherford. Did you have an opportunity to review that transcript?
Yes.
Is there anything that you would modify, amend or correct in that transcript?
RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object. I don't think that's a proper question. That has nothing to do with the facts or the law relating to this matter. What's the
WHITAKER: The proper question would be: You rendered certain opinions at the last meeting, is there anything you wish to modify as to the opinions you already testified to?
INGLIMA: I'm simply asking her
WHITAKER: That's not the same kind of question, but maybe a little bit more precise.
INGLIMA: I don't have an objection to rephrasing in that manner; however, I don't think there's anything objectionable about asking a witness if there is anything that she noted from her review of the transcript that was not what she said or incorrect.
WHITAKER: So let's break your question down. Was there anything said at the last meeting by you or you testified to that was incorrect or needs modification?

THE WITNESS: I don't believe so, no.

Is there any additional testimony that you would like to give to the board tonight to supplement the statements, the opinions that you expressed at the last meeting?
Can I ask a question of the
WHITAKER: It's simply a yes or no answer.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Yes.
Can you tell the board what those things are that you would want to supplement?
After reading Mr. Perez's letter, I believe that there's two variances that have been eliminated; one is the vent projection, what was called the "vent projection" which is now a fireplace or chimney projection, according to her letter, so that variance has been eliminated, which at the time I had testified to as a separate variance for the side yard. And then the combined side yard we no longer need a variance for, because we meet and exceed the 33 percent combined side yard requirement. We're at 35 percent, 17.46, so we've eliminated two variances since my testimony. So that would be what I would like to supplement.
You're not referring to any specific changes in the plans, the layout, the design of the building, additions that are proposed to the site, in reaching those conclusions, are you?
No.
So without any changes to the plan, how did you determine that the, I believe Mr. Schlicht referred to it as a "fireplace enclosure." How did you determine that a variance was no longer needed for that?
Because Ms. Perez states that a chimney, with or without a fireplace, is a permitted projection.
So you agree with Ms. Perez's interpretation of the ordinance and statement in response to Mr. Rutherford's letter in that respect?
Yes.
With respect to the combined side yard, you just said you no longer need that variance?
Right. Mr. Schlicht, from what I remember from his testimony and also from the plan, is that he had incorporated the projection into the side yard, so, therefore, I believe it was 6.8, and then 9.16, which was less than the 16.5, if you added those two together. But because now we're using 8.3 as the porch, which is the closest encroachment on the right side, and then 9.16, which is the first floor extension in the rear, and that would be on the left side, if you combine those, you come out to 17.46, which equals 35 percent of a 50 foot wide lot. So we're actually exceeding the requirement is 33 percent, we're actually exceeding that and we have 35 percent open space, open side yards.
But there were no changes to the plan. Is that correct?
No, not that I'm aware of, no.
The side yard distance along the south side of the property, in other words, the dimension that would be a horizontal dimension from the nearest point of the proposed improvements on the Hogan property to the common boundary of the Hogan property and the Cron property to the south, that requires a side yard setback variance, correct?
Yes, we have individual side yard setback. I'm talking about the combined. So we have
I'm asking just that question.
Yes, that requires a variance.
And, in that case, there's a 20 foot side yard required, correct?
Yes.
And on the north side of the building, the distance from the nearest portion of either the dwelling or the attached covered porch to the Reynolds property, the property located to the north of the site, that also requires a variance, correct?
Yes.
And the required side yard is 20 feet in that case also?
Yes.
So we have one 20 foot side yard and another 20 foot side yard for a total of 40 feet of side yards that are required at this site. Isn't that correct?
Yes.
Well, then how are you saying that there is no variance from any requirement pertaining to the total side yards at the property?
I was talking about the minimum combined side yard, which is actually proportionate to the lot width. The ordinance has two regulations related to side yards. I was speaking to the minimum combined side yard requirement of 33 percent.
So you feel that the 33 percent calculation, based on lot width, overrules the sum of the individual side yards that are required at
RUTHERFORD: Mr. Chairman, I can cut to the chase here a bit. We acknowledge that we need individual side yard setback variances. We acknowledge that 20 feet is required on the north and the south. We have neither of them. We acknowledge we need those variances.
INGLIMA: I'm only asking a follow up question to a statement that this witness made for the first time tonight, not based on the change in the plans but apparently based on a change in a measurement she performed or an interpretation of the ordinance that she performed. I am just trying to get at what she means by that.
RUTHERFORD: That wasn't her testimony, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to interrupt. Her testimony was that she based her testimony on the combined side yard setback based on Ms. Perez's letter of October 22nd. That's what she said.
INGLIMA: Thank you.
Do you have a copy of Ms. Perez's letter in front of you?
WHITAKER: For the record, it is a letter of October 22nd, 2018.
RUTHERFORD: For the record, I am handing Ms. Phillips a copy of my letter of October 12th and Ms. Perez's response of October 22nd.
I have it, yes.
Which numbered item on that letter do you say is the source of your opinion with respect to whether a total side yard variance is required?
Number two.
So it's based on not including the chimney, fireplace enclosure?
That's right, because during the last hearing, I believe Mr. Schlicht had testified prior to me testifying that he included the setback on his zoning calculations to include the vent, so he measured the side yard to the vent. And when I testified, I said because it was a different section of the ordinance, I measured to the wall and the vent was a separate variance. So, when Ms. Perez says that the fireplace encroachment was permitted, I then just re calculated, took out that 6.8 from Mr. Schlicht's plan, and measured right to the building just like I had done during my testimony. So my testimony is that the fireplace is permitted to encroach, and that you measure from the side yard or side property line to the building on both sides, and combined those equal greater than 33 percent of the lot width.
Is it fair to say that you agree with the other opinions expressed or statements made, as the case may be, in the October 22nd letter from Paola Perez?
Yeah, I really wasn't sure about the exterior wall that Mr. Schlicht is correct about. I wasn't but I understand everything else, yes, and I agree with it.
Are there any sections of the ordinances of the Village of Ridgewood that you feel are applicable to those determinations, other than the ones that are cited in Mr. Rutherford's letter of October 12, 2018?
I didn't look that closely at the section numbers.
Did you read the sections?
Yes, but not since I received the letter. I didn't go back over and compare.
But you know of no other provisions of the zoning ordinance of the Village of Ridgewood that would govern these particular issues, do you?
No.
Are there any additional exhibits that you intend to submit tonight?
No.
INGLIMA: I have no further questions of the witness.
RUTHERFORD: I have no redirect, Mr. Whitaker, no.
WHITAKER: Any questions by any other members of the public not being represented by counsel?

(No response.)

WHITAKER: Mr. Rutherford, your next witness.
RUTHERFORD: I have no more witnesses, Mr. Whitaker, that's our case, subject to whatever additional testimony I want to offer in terms of a rebuttal.
WHITAKER: Mr. Inglima?
INGLIMA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. Thank you, Mr. Rutherford. Since we are dealing with an issue of an "a" appeal, an appeal that is vested in the jurisdiction of this board pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D 70a as well as 72a, I will be addressing issues that are relevant to that appeal in the course of the testimony of my first witness, who will be Kathryn Gregory. If there are no objections, I would like to distribute to the board members some materials that could be helpful to them in the course of her testimony with respect to the appeal issue. First, I have created an exhibit, just so that the record contains all of the necessary elements, an exhibit that I'm showing to counsel right now. It's simply copies of the letter dated October 12, 2018 from Mr. Rutherford. On the backside of that page is the letter that was issued by Ms. Perez who which the witness referred, October 22, 2018. Then there is a two sided page which contains a letter that I issued to Mr. Whitaker, October 22, 2018, and Mr. Whitaker's letter of this date, which he was kind enough to send to us by email, explaining the procedural format for tonight as far as this appeal is concerned. I don't expect the board members to read these letters now. I'm just stating that I would like to have them marked as part of the record so that the record is extremely clear with respect to what we've been dealing with.
WHITAKER: Let the record reflect all board members have had these letters in advance of this hearing tonight. They have had the opportunity to review them and reviewed them already. We'll mark them collectively as O 1.
INGLIMA: I have no objection to O 1, although if you want to make it a joint exhibit, since it partakes of elements of all of our correspondence, it might I be better.
RUTHERFORD: That's fine. It doesn't matter.
INGLIMA: J 1?
WHITAKER: J 1.
INGLIMA: Thank you. (Letter dated 10/12/18 from D. Rutherford, letter dated 10/22/18 from P. Perez, letter dated 10/22/18 from R. Inglima, and letter dated 10/3018 from B. Whitaker is marked as exhibit J 1 in evidence.)
INGLIMA: Then there's another exhibit, and I'm not sure how we should mark this, but I will describe it for the record before we start. It is a printout of the Village of Ridgewood Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 190, in three sections. These are excerpts from the ordinance. Just in case anyone refers to a particular section of the ordinance, I felt it would be helpful for the board members to have these at their ready disposal. The first section, which is stapled together is pages 190:1 through 190:29, which is basically the first several sections of the ordinance that deal with construction and how it's interpreted generally and then the definitions of the ordinance that pertain to zoning issues. The second section, which is two pages stapled together, is pages 190:188 through 190:191. This is a copy of Section 190 102, which is the R 1 Single Family Residence District zoning standards. And then the last item is pages 190:259 to 190:262. It's the section that's identified as Section 190 119 from the ordinance, subparts (A) through (C)(1). And this is the general provisions that relate to things like how the municipality should measure certain distances and exceptions from the measurements of those distances for things like porches, chimneys, similar structures. So what I've done is, just to make this easier for the board members, is I've clipped these together. I'll show a copy of each of these, before I distribute them, to Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Rutherford. Once again, this is simply in the interest of having reference material that's at the ready, just in case a board member wants to see exactly how a provision that is discussed in testimony is written. Are there any objections to having this distributed?
RUTHERFORD: No.
WHITAKER: You want to mark this as O 1.
INGLIMA: Thank you. And I will state for the record that these are the provisions that were available from the municipal website and I believe it's general code link as of last Monday, October 22, 2018. (Excerpts of Village of Ridgewood Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 190, pages 190:1 through 190:29; Section 190 102, pages 190:188 through 190:191; and Section 190 119, pages 190:259 through 190:262 is marked as exhibit O 1 in evidence.)
INGLIMA: With that said, I would like to call Kathryn Gregory.
WHITAKER: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

WHITAKER: Thank you. Give your full name and business address.

THE WITNESS: Kathryn Gregory, that's spelled K A T H R Y N, last name Gregory, G R E G O R Y, business address is 96 Linwood Plaza, #350, in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

WHITAKER: Thank you.

Kathryn M. Gregory, PP, AICP, c/o Gregory Associates, 96 Linwood Plaza, #350, Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLIMA:

Good evening, Ms. Gregory. Could you state for the record your current business name and location, if you haven't already. I know you gave your address, but the name of your business is.
Gregory Associates.
Thank you.
Yes, with the business address that I just gave previously.
I'd like to show you a document that you provided to me earlier today. Is this a copy of your current curriculum vitae?
Yes.
And a statement of your work history, professional experience, and other attributes of your professional practice?
Yes, it is.
INGLIMA: I'd like to offer this as O 2.
RUTHERFORD: No objection.

(Two page curriculum vitae of Kathryn M. Gregory, PP, AICP, is marked as exhibit O 2 in evidence.)

Ms. Gregory, could you just state for the record your educational background and your experience and certification and licensure in the field of professional planning?
Yes. I have a master of architecture and a master of urban planning from the University of Illinois. I have been engaged as a licensed planner in the State of New Jersey since the year 2000. I have 22 years of total experience in the planning world. And I have testified throughout the State of New Jersey many, I don't know, hundreds of times throughout all the counties, and I also have a few municipal clients that I represent, which would include Edgewater, New Jersey; Ridgefield, New Jersey; Woodland Park, New Jersey; Little Falls, New Jersey; I'm the conflict planner in Westwood, and I think I'm forgetting one. So, that's basically just a brief synopsis of my background and education.
Over the past how many years have you been engaged in the professional practice of planning in New Jersey?
About 22 years.
During that time, have you worked as a community planner and performed services on behalf of municipalities in the nature of creating or drafting zoning ordinance provisions?
Yes.
Have you also worked on zone plans, master plans, and similar types of planning documents for municipalities?
Yes, I have.
Have you also worked on other more involved processes, such as designing redevelopment areas, redevelopment plans, and similar types of special planning techniques for municipalities?
Yes, I have.
Have you familiarity in reviewing and interpreting the provisions of zoning ordinances throughout the State of New Jersey?
That's basically what I think planners do for a living.
In the course of your professional services, have you appeared not only on behalf of municipal entities, but also private applicants as well as objectors in land use hearings before administrative agencies of the state?
Yes.
Have you also had occasion to testify in court with respect to applications, variances, planning issues and similar types of work that is related to your field?
Yes.
In the course of that service, testimony before either boards or courts, have you been accepted as an expert witness in the field of professional planning?
Yes.
Have you had occasion to testify previously in front of the municipal land use agencies of the Village of Ridgewood?
Yes.
Have you been accepted as an expert witness in the course of that testimony?
Yes.
INGLIMA: I would offer Kathryn Gregory as an expert witness in the field of professional community planning and particularly with respect to the interpretation of zoning ordinance provisions of the Village of Ridgewood.
WHITAKER: Any questions, Mr. Rutherford?
RUTHERFORD: No, Mr. Whitaker.
WHITAKER: Any questions by any members of the public not represented by counsel as it pertains to Ms. Gregory's qualifications in the field of planning?

There being none, Ms. Gregory will be qualified as an expert in the field of planning, and, as such will be able to render a professional opinion in that field.

Please proceed.

INGLIMA: Thank you, Mr. Whitaker.
As you know, Ms. Gregory, part of the hearing tonight involves the review and discussion, and, in the context of an appeal arising under the Municipal Land Use Law, my clients' objections to the interpretations of the Ridgewood Zoning Ordinance made by Paola Perez, the assistant zoning officer of the municipality.

Are you familiar with that procedure?

Yes.
Have you had an opportunity to review the documents that were marked as J 1, consisting of Mr. Rutherford's letter to Ms. Perez, Ms. Perez's letter in response to that, as well as my letter and Mr. Whitaker's letter with respect to the procedural elements of this appeal?
Yes.
Have you had an opportunity to look at the applicant's plans? And when I say the "applicant's plans," I'm referring to the most recent set of architectural plans that form the basis of this application and which were identified in the course of Mr. Schlicht's testimony on September 11, 2018?
Yes.
Have you also had an opportunity to review the transcript of the hearing that was held on that date, including the testimony of not only Mr. Schlicht but also the testimony of Lisa Phillips, the planner called by the applicant?
Yes.
Have you had an opportunity to review the zoning ordinance and specifically the provisions of the zoning ordinance of the Village of Ridgewood which are contained within the exhibit which was marked as O 1 earlier tonight?
Yes.
If I can address your attention to the very first issue that is discussed in exhibit J 1, this would be the issue that is described by Mr. Rutherford in item 1 of his letter dated October 12th, as well as the response of the same number contained in Ms. Perez's letter of October 22nd.

Are you familiar with that issue?

Yes.
This is an issue that deals with how a front porch and the structural elements of a front porch should be interpreted under the zoning ordinance when a building that is existing at the site and will be continued in the future violates the front yard setback of the zone in which the property is located.

You are familiar with that issue, right?

Yes, I am.
Are you familiar with the fact that this site, the applicant's property, is located in the R 1 zone, and, pursuant to the width of John Street, a 45 foot front yard setback is required?
That is correct.
Can you describe for the board how you interpret the proposed front porch and whether or not in your opinion a variance is required in order to permit what is proposed by the applicant on their most recent plans?
I do believe that a variance is required for the front porch. The reason that I say that is I will read exactly from your ordinance, which I think that Ms. Perez interpreted incorrectly. Section 190 119(g) states: "No steps or ramps shall extend into any street right of way in any zone district. Unenclosed porches, steps and ramps may extend not more than 60 inches into any required front yard, up to but not exceeding 150 square feet area, in the aggregate for each lot, of encroachment into the required front yard." The key word here is "required" front yard, which is actually stated twice in that section, and the required front yard is 45 feet. So, therefore, by enlarging the front porch or portico, you're actually exacerbating a nonconforming condition and it is not permitted and it would be considered to be a variance. And another reason that I would say this is that my interpretation in Edgewater of our ordinance, we allow side
RUTHERFORD: I'm going to object to anything about Edgewater. No factual basis, no copy of the ordinance, absolutely no basis upon which this Board could compare how they do things in Edgewater and how they do things in Ridgewood.
WHITAKER: Sustained.
If I could just limit your comments to the clear language of the ordinance in Ridgewood, I think that would probably be sufficient.
Okay. Well, that's my interpretation of it. So, front yard setback variance is required for the enlargement of the portico.
Now, Mr. Rutherford, in his letter to Ms. Perez directed her attention to Section 190 119(A)(4)(g), which is a subsection of the subpart, and he described the fact that that allows certain encroachments in required yards. If you review the, and I think we only really have to focus our attention on the very last part of it, (4)(g), if you review that language, do you feel that that gives rise to the interpretation urged by Mr. Rutherford and accepted or approved by Ms. Perez?
RUTHERFORD: I object to the word "urged" by Mr. Rutherford.
INGLIMA: I'll change that
RUTHERFORD: I really do object to that, because paragraph one of my letter was very neutral. I attempted to define or describe 199(A)(4)(g) as best I could, and I said please advise. I didn't suggest it one way or the other.
INGLIMA: It was not intended to imply that there was any particular motivation. I certainly withdraw the word "urged." Let me just say that Mr. Rutherford requested an interpretation, he supplied a basis for his request. And now I'm asking the witness to comment on the specific language in the ordinance and whether it supports the interpretation made by Ms. Perez.
You may continue.
Me?
Yes. Thank you.
Okay. No, the language does not support the interpretation made by Ms. Perez.
It says that "No steps or ramps shall extend into any street right of way in any zone district." Then it goes on to say that unenclosed porches may extend not more than 60 inches into any required front yard. Where would you measure the point where they may extend to begin and where would it end?
It would start at a 45 foot setback.
So, in other words, your interpretation of this provision is that you could have a porch or steps that are 40 feet away from the front line?
Correct.
Five feet closer than the 45 foot setback?
Yes.
And based on the fact that the applicant is requesting approval of a structure that's 38 feet from the front lot line, you feel a variance is required?
Yes.
Are there any other provisions of the ordinance that you feel would support the position that has been taken by Ms. Perez on this issue?
Yes, actually Section 190-126.
Well, let me clarify that, I said that would support her position?
Oh, I thought you said about supporting our position. I'm sorry. No.
Would you like to point out any other sections of the ordinance that you feel support your interpretation?
Yes. Under Section 190 126, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, under (C)(2), "No nonconforming structure may be altered, if the alteration would increase the degree or extent of the nonconforming condition or create any condition on the property that would not be in conformance with this chapter." Also (4), "A nonconforming use or structure should not be changed or altered to diminish the nature, degree or the extent of the nonconforming condition in one location while simultaneously increasing the nature, degree or extent of the nonconforming condition in another location on the property." So, essentially, this section of the ordinance talks about nonconforming uses and structures and talks about not increasing those nonconformities, which would be the deficient front yard setback for the existing portico and for what is proposed.
So the new front porch will be larger than what's there today, it will be closer to the street line or the front lot line than what is there today. Is that correct?
That is correct.
And it's attached to a building which itself is nonconforming in terms of the principal building front yard setback?
Correct.
And it's your opinion that, therefore, to approve this would be to expand upon the nonconformities of the front porch and the front yard setback?
That is correct.
Okay. Let me move you to the next issue. The second issue referred to in Mr. Rutherford's letter deals with what he characterized as a gas fireplace projection. And, in essence, he's asking Ms. Perez to tell the board and the applicant whether or not a variance is required for the structure that is shown on the applicant's plans as an appendage to the north wall of the existing house.

Are you familiar with that appendage?

Yes.
In his testimony on September 11th, Mr. Schlicht referred to that as a "fireplace enclosure." Are you familiar with that testimony?
Yes.
In fact, I had asked him about it calling it a chimney and he said, no, it's not a chimney, it's a fireplace enclosure. Did you read that testimony?
Yes, I did.
RUTHERFORD: I'm sorry, do we have a transcript of this? Is that from the last hearing?
INGLIMA: Yes.
RUTHERFORD: Thank you.
INGLIMA: I believe it's at page 37.
WHITAKER: Let's reference that.
INGLIMA: You want a cite. Okay. I'm referring to his testimony as page 36, lines 16 through 18, the response answer to my question: "Well, we did dimensioned the setback well, it's not the chimney, it's a firebox, it's considered a fireplace enclosure." And his statement at the time, I will note for the record, was consistent with the identification of that structure or appendage on the applicant's most recent plans.
With respect to the fireplace enclosure, are you familiar with the design and the size, the dimensions of that structure?
Yes.
Let's start with the last issue that you had identified with respect to the front porch, the issue of expanding upon nonconformity. Will that fireplace enclosure be attached to a wall that is currently nonconforming in terms of its location?
Yes.
So that's a wall that's located closer to the common boundary between the Hogan property and the Reynolds property to the north than is required by the ordinance?
That is correct.
With respect to the fireplace enclosure, have you made any determination based on your review of the zoning ordinance section that was cited by Mr. Rutherford in his letter, and I'll read it into the record, it's Section 190 119(A)(4)(e). Are you familiar with that provision?
Yes, I am.
Do you have any opinion, well, let me ask you first, based on your review of all of those factors, how did you interpret that structure and the appropriate measurement of distance from that structure to the property line?
Well, the side yard setback would be measured from that particular structure, because, again, the ordinance states that chimneys, with or without fireplaces, may also project not more than 18 inches into any required yard. So, therefore, I would say that again, a variance is required from that particular structure, because it is in the 20 foot setback or the 20 foot required yard setback. So it would be counted as variance because it would not be it would only be permitted to be projecting 18 inches from the 20 foot setback, not from the existing line of the house.
So, is it your position that once any structure that's described in that subpart of the ordinance is closer than 18.5 feet to the north property line in this case, it would violate the ordinance, and, therefore, require a variance to be constructed?
That is correct.
Do you have the same opinion with respect to an expansion or increase in the degree of nonconformity under the cited section of the ordinance that you referred to before with respect to the fireplace enclosure?
With respect to Section 190-126.
Uh huh.
Yes.
So the same testimony that you gave with respect to the front porch would be applicable, in your opinion, with respect to the fireplace enclosure?
That is correct.
In the course of his prior testimony, Mr. Schlicht had also described a ventilation fan that would be installed on the north side of the fireplace enclosure facing the Reynolds property. And I believe he testified that it be something akin to the mushroom style fans that you see sometimes on buildings on either the roof or walls. If there is a ventilation fan that is installed upon the surface of the fireplace enclosure, does that change or affect in any way your testimony or opinion with respect to whether a variance is required?
Yes.
Can you describe for the board the manner in which that opinion is changed or altered?
Yes. There's another section in your ordinance, and that's Section 190-124, and that would be under M, Exterior Equipment. "Mechanical equipment and tanks located outside of a building, including but not limited to air conditioning equipment, heat exchangers, fans, compressors, propane tanks and oil tanks, generators, condensers and similar equipment shall be subject to the following regulations: (1)The installation of such exterior equipment shall require the issuance of a zoning permit. (2)Such equipment shall comply with the minimum required front yard setback for principal buildings and shall be screened from the view of adjacent properties and streets, provided, however, that the screening requirement shall not apply to window mounted equipment such fans or window air conditioners. (3)Such equipment shall be setback at least 10 feet from any residential property line. (4)Exterior equipment located on the roof of a building shall be subject to the requirements of Section 190-124P."
Obviously number four is not applicable here because it's not on the roof, it's on the wall?
Correct.
Did you find, based on your review of the application and the design of the proposed fireplace enclosure, that were a fan to be installed upon the face of that, that it would be violative of this section of the ordinance?
I believe that it would be, according to the section of the ordinance.
In other words, because the fireplace enclosure is at the least 6.83 feet away from the Reynolds property, it would violate the 10 foot setback?
That is correct.
So, in addition to your opinion with respect to a variance that's generated by virtue of the structure being within the required setback distance from the Reynolds common boundary of the site, you feel there's a variance for the fan?
Yes.
If we can move to item No. 3.
Yes.
The question that was raised by Mr. Rutherford is whether or not the plan, and I assume from that he means the applicant's most recent plan, accurately measured setbacks. And he further stated that Mr. Schlicht said that the setbacks would be measured to an exterior wall or porch landing/floor. I note for the record that there is no reference to a section of the zoning ordinance contained in Mr. Rutherford's question, but assuming that Ms. Perez's response is based on any provisions of the zoning ordinance, she states: "As far as setbacks, we measure to the exterior walls. Mr. Schlicht is correct." She didn't comment on the issue of a porch landing or floor. Let's deal with exterior walls. Do you have a difference of opinion with Ms. Perez's interpretation of the ordinance as to how to measure a setback?
Typically we do measure setbacks to exterior walls.
With respect to other structures that are attached to the building, how would you interpret the ordinance requirement for setbacks?
In that case, depending on the type of structure, typically porches are usually measured to the roof line, at least that's usually how I've interpreted it in terms of the last 20 years of doing this. They seem to be different than other structures in terms of the setback measurements, and, like I said, we do typically measure to the building, to the wall, but in terms of what the impacts might be might be a different story when we talk about eaves.
Well, you've raised the issue of eaves. I was about to ask you about a provision that was previously the subject of Mr. Schlicht's testimony. In order not to belabor this point too much, if we can agree, Mr. Rutherford, that Mr. Schlicht's testimony previously contemplated that the eaves that are shown on his building, on his plans, rather, for the proposed building would not have been included in the distance measured for setbacks.
RUTHERFORD: That's correct.
INGLIMA: And I believe, if I can just paraphrase his testimony quickly, he said that there's provision of the ordinance that says that an eave can extend by two feet closer to a common boundary from the setback line.
Are you familiar with the provision that Mr. Schlicht was citing or relying upon in coming to his interpretation of the ordinance?
Yes.
Let me ask you to review it. If I may, for the board's edification, it's Section 190-119A Yards, subpart (4), Projections and encroachments, and then subsection (a). Can you read (a).
Yes. "Cornices and eaves may project not to exceed two feet over any required yard or court."
Would it be, well, let me ask you. Is your interpretation of projecting into a required yard or court consistent in the case of this subpart with your interpretation of the other subparts that dealt with porches or chimneys?
Yes, it would be the same with the eaves.
So
Based on how this ordinance is written, and it talks about the required yard. It doesn't talk about where the face of the building happens to be in a nonconforming condition, it talks about the required yard, which would mean that this eave could extend two feet over the 20 foot setback or at an 18 foot setback.
And these would be extensions of the roof line above the building that extend beyond the outer wall of the building?
That is correct.
So is it fair to say that your interpretation where there's a 20 foot side yard required is that the eaves could be 18 feet from the property line but no more than that?
Correct.
With respect to the current plan, the drawings show a covered porch that extends from the rear of the proposed dwelling. Are you familiar with the design of that covered porch?
Yes.
Does the covered porch have walls?
No.
In your view, does the covered porch have eaves?
I would say no.
Obviously an eave is the extension of a roof beyond an outer wall, correct?
That is correct.
So if you don't have a wall, you can't have an eave, right?
Correct.
With respect to the measurement that you feel is most appropriate for determining the setback of the porch from, in this case it would be the northerly property line of the site, the common boundary with the Reynolds property, how do you feel that that distance should be measured? Should it be from the base of the deck, of the floor or landing of the porch, as Mr. Rutherford referred in his letter, or should it be from the farthest structural extension of that covered porch?
From the farthest structural extension.
In other words, the distance from the Reynolds property line should be measured to the edge of the roof, wherever that may be?
Correct.
Do you feel that there's any provision of the zoning ordinance of which you're aware that would allow the measurement to be made from a lower or ground level surface or the porch landing or floor?
No.
Structure is structure, right?
Yes.
And as an attachment of a structure to the single family dwelling, it becomes part of the principal building, does it not?
Yes.
Under those circumstances, is it your opinion that Ms. Perez's interpretation is incorrect or at least to the extent that it may inferentially permit a measurement to the porch landing or floor, that it would be incorrect?
Yes, it is incorrect in terms of this particular plan, because I do believe the setback is measured to the roof line of the porch in the rear.
Did you note from your review of the most recent plan any differences in the design of the roof? When I say "differences," I mean changes to the roof of the existing residence from what was originally shown on the plans by the applicant?
Sorry. Can you repeat the question.
Yes. I'm going to show you what I'm about to introduce as an exhibit. Do you want me to mark this first, Mr. Whitaker?
WHITAKER: Yes.
INGLIMA: It's based on plans that are already in evidence.
WHITAKER: Is it part of what we marked A 5?
INGLIMA: The most recent, yes.
WHITAKER: Okay.
INGLIMA: The original, it was sheet V2, which I believe is A 2.
WHITAKER: You don't have to mark it again.
INGLIMA: I'll just represent for the board, I believe I'm correct on this, Mr. Rutherford, I'm showing the witness a copy that I've created on 11x17 paper of sheet V2 of the plan that was originally dated March 29, 2018, and I believe was marked as applicant's exhibit A 2 at the very first hearing. I'm also showing her an exhibit that I believe is A 5, which would be the new elevation drawings, these are sheets SK4, SK5, SK6 and SK7. I believe these were marked collectively on July 11th.
RUTHERFORD: I appreciate that. I think A 5 was marked at the September 11th meeting.
INGLIMA: Did I say September 11th?
RUTHERFORD: Yes.
WHITAKER: A 5.
INGLIMA: I believe V2 was marked as A 2 on June 10th.
RUTHERFORD: Yes, correct. Then I have in my hand what was marked as A 6, which are these renderings, right, SK4, SK5, SK6, SK7.
INGLIMA: Well, that's A 6.
RUTHERFORD: That's correct.
INGLIMA: I am sorry. I stand corrected. So A 6 would be the most recent copy of the elevations.
RUTHERFORD: Yes, I agree. That is correct, yes.
INGLIMA: I am showing to counsel an exhibit that was created from the two sheets that we just referred to, exhibit A 2 and exhibit A 6.
RUTHERFORD: Okay.
INGLIMA: The first sheet is an exact copy of what is shown as the front elevation on A 2, and the second sheet of the exhibit it's two pages, stapled together is an exact copy of the elevations shown on SK4, the first sheet of A 6.
RUTHERFORD: That's right, and you'll mark that as O 3, right?
INGLIMA: O 3. And is there any objection to distributing these to the board members?
RUTHERFORD: No, they appear to be copies of what Mr. Schlicht had produced earlier in these hearings. (Exhibit created from exhibit A 2 and exhibit A 6 is marked as exhibit O 3 in evidence.)
Now, comparing the front elevation shown on the first and second sheets of O 3, is there a difference with respect to the overhang of the roof?
Yes.
Is it your understanding that the first page of O 3, which was taken from sheet V2, which was exhibit A 2, reflects essentially what is at the site today as far as the roof line is concerned?
Yes.
You've inspected the property? You've viewed it from the street?
Yes.
From the boundary lines?
Yes.
And the second sheet shows a nine inch overhang on the north and the south sides of the front elevation. Is that correct?
That is correct.
In other words, the applicant's plan shows the roof coming closer to both the Cron and the Reynolds properties over the existing house. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Do you feel that that structure should be taken into account in measuring the setback distances, in addition to any of the other structures that you previously described in your testimony?
Yes.
Just to closeout this portion of the hearing, and I don't know whether or not the board would like to have questions by Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Whitaker or board members and the public with respect to these issues that deal with the appeal, but, if you would, I think it would probably be appropriate for me to just wrap up with Ms. Gregory on this issue, and then we move from that, and then resume later with testimony regarding variances to the extent they're required?
WHITAKER: I think that would be the proper approach to bifurcate it and deal with the interpretation issue now, before you move on to the variance relief.

Mr. Rutherford, any objection to that?

RUTHERFORD: That's fine.
INGLIMA: Okay.
Just by way of summing up, based upon your statements and your testimony and your review of the application, the plans, and the ordinances that you've described tonight, do you feel that the interpretations that were set forth, and I'll say collectively based on the Q and A that is constituted by Mr. Rutherford's October 12th letter and Ms. Perez's October 22nd letter, as far as items 1, 2 and 3 shows that variance relief is required that is not currently being requested of a higher magnitude or of a different type as you've described in your testimony?
Yes.
Do you feel that, based upon your interpretation, review and opinion in this matter, that the expressions, to the extent that they constitute determinations made by the zoning officer of the Village of Ridgewood, are not correct?
They are not correct.
INGLIMA: Thank you. I have no further questions on this particular issue at this time.
WHITAKER: Mr. Rutherford.
RUTHERFORD: Yes, just a few.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. RUTHERFORD:

Ms. Gregory, you testified obviously you disagree with Ms. Perez's opinion as expressed in her letter. What's the nature and extent of your experience in Ridgewood on prior applications dealing with the interpretation of the ordinance relating to encroachments?
I have had no dealings dealing with encroachments.
So you've never dealt with this issue before
No.
in Ridgewood? Have you ever dealt with the issue of gas fireplace projections in the Village of Ridgewood?
No.
Or the manner in which the setbacks are calculated?
No.
You testified earlier that with respect to 119A(4)(g), and actually let's look at A(4)(a), it's a little bit easier to understand. It says: "Cornices and eaves may project not to exceed two feet over any required yard or court." It's my understanding that your interpretation of that ordinance essentially means that it cannot project more than two feet into any required setback. Is that essentially what you're saying?
Yes.
Does A(4)(a) read cornices and eaves may project not to exceed two feet into beyond any required setback line. Is that what it says?
No, that's not the wording.
No, it says "over any required yard or court." Is that right?
Yes.
But you're interpreting that as being measured from the setback line rather than the wall or facade of the building. Is that right?
Yes.
With respect to the manner in which the setbacks are measured, you agreed with Ms. Perez that setbacks are to be measured to exterior walls, but you opined that porches are treated differently?
Yes, because there's is no wall.
You fail to cite any specific provision of the ordinance that deals with that. Is there one?
Not to my knowledge.
So there's no basis, at least in the ordinance, for your opinion that porch setbacks are to be measured any different than building setbacks?
But the porch doesn't have a wall, so it can't be measured from the wall.
Well, the porch in this case, it's a covered porch so it has columns and it has a roof structure, does it not?
Yes.
Would not those particular elements be an appropriate way to measure a setback?
Well, the columns aren't consistent, they don't form a wall structure.
So, in your opinion then, how would you measure a setback? Let's go back to what's exactly being proposed here. The rear of this home, a proposed rear covered porch is shown on Mr. Schlicht's plan, correct?
Yes.
In your estimation, how is the setback of that porch to the north property line to be measured?
To the roof.
To the closest portion of the roof?
Yes.
And if it featured an eave, then it would be measured to the eave. Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay. Drawing your attention to Section 190-119, would you agree with me that that contains some provisions that deal with specific features of buildings and makes specific provision for them. Is that correct?
Yes.
Would you regard these to be as exceptions from the way in which the setbacks would ordinarily be measured?
Yes.
So your only issue with Ms. Perez's interpretation, and I'm not going to repeat it again, but we'll just do it one more time, is that with respect to the projections of eaves and cornices and unenclosed steps, for that matter, your reading of the ordinance, notwithstanding its language, is that they may not exceed two feet over the required setback line. Is that right?
It doesn't say "setback line," it says "required yard."
But you're interpreting as if it does?
Yes.
Okay.
"Yards" and "setback" are typically used interchangeably or they're used both together.
In your estimation, the terms "required yard" and "setback line" are essentially the same?
Yes.
RUTHERFORD: I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
WHITAKER: Any questions by members of the public who are not represented by counsel in connection with this issue? Any questions by board members in connection with this issue?

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: I just have one quick question for you. So it's your opinion then that you would look at a strict interpretation of the ordinance for the required setbacks?

THE WITNESS: Well, it's a little vague.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Sorry. So, basically your testimony is that we should be looking at the entire overall structure to look at any side yard, rear or front yard setbacks, not where the required is, not as it's currently been interpreted sort of as Mr. Schlicht proposed it?

THE WITNESS: Well, yes, that's my reading of the ordinance. If I were to come here to actually testify, then I would have prepared my testimony based on what your ordinance says, which talks about required yards. So I just find it very interesting that Ms. Perez is interpreting it where you can have projections into deficient yards, which really doesn't make any sense, because you're supposed to have the required yard to begin with so that projection is allowable in that required yard. It's not allowable from the side of an existing home. And in this case, the exacerbation of the side of an existing home which is nonconforming.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Right. Okay. Were you aware that on July 25, 1990, the objector at 550 Wyndemere was granted a variance relief for both a front yard and for a front yard setback of 37 feet and a rear yard of 19 feet, where 30 feet was required?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Okay. So how would you interpret that from a streetscape perspective?

INGLIMA: I'm sorry. You may want to ask this during the balance of the hearing, but I'm not sure
WHITAKER: The question is: Were you involved with that application or had the opportunity to review that application?

THE WITNESS: I wasn't, no. I wasn't involved in it. I was still in college, if it was 1990.

WHITAKER: Have you had the opportunity to review that application or the resolution pertaining to that application?

THE WITNESS: I did not review the resolution, but I am aware of the variance that was granted.

WHITAKER: Do you know how that was measured at that time? Was it measured from the eaves or from the wall?

THE WITNESS: I do not know that. I do not know.

INGLIMA: If I can note for the record, the structure that I believe was the subject of that application is a garage that has a ridge line that runs north/south, so that there is no eave line along the south side of the building closest to the applicant's property. That's my understanding. I believe that's borne out by the photographs that were previously introduced during Mr. Schlicht's testimony and possibly during Ms. Phillips' testimony. I know they both introduced photographs that showed that structure.
WHITAKER: So, just as a synopsis, maybe to recap for the board's edification, if I understand your review of the ordinances and your position would be as follows: If the ordinance required a 20 foot setback or a required yard, both words are interchangeable?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

WHITAKER: And there's an eave of two feet, that eave is not to be counted as an infringement in the required yard or the side yard setback, correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

WHITAKER: If the building is not 20 feet off the sideline but is 19 feet 11 inches, so it's nonconforming in that it's already in a side yard, then the eave would have to be counted?

THE WITNESS: Yes, or you could look at it separately and say that there is a variance for the eave and a variance for the wall.

WHITAKER: Correct.
INGLIMA: You're talking about an existing building?
WHITAKER: Yes.

THE WITNESS: So you could either count it together or you can have it be separate, as I just stated, and have two variances that would be required.

WHITAKER: If I were building, but if it existed now, it would be two different variances or two different nonconforming, one for eave and one for the building wall?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

INGLIMA: Just so the record
WHITAKER: The board understands the distinction?
PAPIETRO: Yes.
INGLIMA: I don't want it to get muddled in this back and forth, but it's the position of my clients that there is no eave over the porch, that that roof constitutes structure and it does not qualify under the exception that's contained in, I believe it was subpart A of the ordinance. It's not an eave.
WHITAKER: So to clarify, your clients' position in connection with interpretation, just so the record is clear, Ms. Gregory, what is your opinion as to, based on your interpretation of the ordinances as to the variances that are required based upon the applicant's present application?

THE WITNESS: Well, I do believe that they need a front yard setback variance for the proposed portico. I do believe that they need a side yard setback variance, one and both. I do believe that they need the coverage variances as well, which would include the maximum total coverage by above grade structures, maximum total coverage by above grade structures within the 140 feet of the front lot line, gross building area and structures within 140 feet of the front lot line, and also improved lot coverage within 140 feet of the front lot line.

WHITAKER: Going back to your interpretation pertaining to setbacks, what variances do you believe are necessary as it pertains to the setback aspect, porch, fire, chimney?

THE WITNESS: Chimney/fireplace enclosure.

WHITAKER: Yes. What ones in your opinion are required?

THE WITNESS: Well, on the north side of the building, the first floor would be setback at 7.84 feet, and the porch roof is actually at 7.59 feet. And then on the south side, on the first floor is setback 8.46 feet, and the second floor on the south side is setback 8.41 feet.

INGLIMA: And if a fan was installed on the fireplace enclosure, as testified to by Mr. Schlicht, even though the details for were not provided, we don't know the final design, but certainly we would want to have that included in the mix right now as to the separation distance of 10 feet that's required between those types of mechanical equipment and the property line, the common boundary of Reynolds and the applicant's site.
WHITAKER: Based upon your testimony, Ms. Gregory, the setback variances that you are suggesting as required in this instance are measured from the eaves?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

WHITAKER: Thank you. Any other questions by board members, Mr. Rutherford or members of the public in connection with the interpretation aspect?

There being none, Mr. Inglima, you may proceed with your second part

INGLIMA: Thank you.
WHITAKER: of your presentation.
INGLIMA: Thank you.

BY MR. INGLIMA:

Ms. Gregory, I had asked you previously about your review of the application, the plans, the materials that have been submitted to the board, the testimony. Did you also have an opportunity to meet with your clients, Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds and Mr. and Mrs. Cron, and inspect not only their properties but also the site as viewed from their properties along the north and south sides?
Yes, I have.
Are you familiar with the improvements that are located on their particular properties? Let's start with the Reynolds property. You're familiar with the design and structural elements of the existing dwelling, the attached garage, the swimming pool and deck?
Yes, I am.
How would you characterize the Reynolds property in terms of its development characteristics? In terms of
I'm sorry. Can you re ask your question?
I didn't want to ask you such a leading question.
WHITAKER: I don't understand the question, maybe we can rephrase the question.
With respect to the Reynolds home, how would you characterize the appearance of that house, is it well maintained?
Yes.
Is it landscaped?
Yes.
Does it have features that are consistent with the appearance of the neighborhood?
Yes.
With respect to their rear and side yards, first of all, what is the rear yard of the Reynolds property?
The rear yard is located adjacent to the property in question of this application, and that has to do with the ordinance. In some ordinances, a corner lot will have two front and two side yards. This ordinance was actually changed, and, so, therefore, the short side is counted as the front. So, therefore, the opposite lot line would be considered the rear. So that would be adjacent to 82 John Street.
So, in other words, the rear lot line is the common boundary with the side?
Yes, it's the common boundary with the side yard of the subject property.
Okay. You heard Mr. Brown refer earlier tonight to an approval which was granted to Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds with respect to the existing garage at their property. Are you familiar generally with that application?
Yes.
And Ms. Reynolds will talk about it in greater detail later, but is it your understanding that a variance was granted to permit the garage that exists at the Reynolds property to be 19 feet from the common boundary between the Reynolds property and the Hogan property?
That is correct.
Are there any other structures that you're aware of that were permitted to be any closer to the Hogan property by virtue of the approvals granted under that approval?
Not to my knowledge.
With respect to the swimming pool and deck, are they located generally on the west side of the existing dwelling and garage at the Reynolds property?
Yes, they are.
Do you characterize in any particular way the view of the applicant's property from the Reynolds property, if you were standing in the area of the swimming pool and deck? Are they looking at structure, are they looking at open space currently?
They would be looking at the one story addition in the rear of this, the applicant's property.
If it was constructed, are you saying?
No, no, I'm talking about the existing one.
Oh, the existing one?
There's an existing one story addition at the rear of the applicant's property, so they would be looking at that, and open space in the rear.
Are you familiar with the location of the proposed improvements that are shown on the applicant's current plans in relation to the rear yard of the Reynolds property?
Yes, I am.
And how would you characterize the location of the proposed addition, the second floor that's cantilevered over the porch and the porch itself as it extends to the west from the existing structures?
The proposed addition would actually extend across the majority of the rear lot line of the Reynolds property.
Let's break it down, though. There's a two story addition that's being proposed beyond the footprint of the existing home?
Correct.
In other words, directly in a westerly direction from the existing footprint of the Hogan dwelling?
Yes.
Where would that be in relation to the Reynolds property?
Behind the pool.
There is a covered porch that extends farther to the west from the proposed two story addition that is shown on the applicant's plans. Where would that covered porch be in relation to the Reynolds rear yard?
Behind the pool.
Is it fair to say that almost all of the common boundary between the Reynolds property and the Hogan property would be abutted by new structures or the existing home?
Yes.
I should amend that to say behind the existing front wall of the existing house.
Correct.
Have you reviewed the impact upon the Reynolds property from the proposed structures that would be near their common boundary with the Hogan property?
Yes.
Could you describe for the board how you evaluated those impacts and what you considered to be important in terms of the board's consideration of the applicant's proposal?
Yes. So, in terms of the impacts, this addition doesn't really take into consideration the adjacent property owners. A case was made that this lot is undersized in terms of its lot width at 50 feet. There are a number of properties in the surrounding area that are 50 feet in width, which was testified to by the applicant's planner. However, there was no testimony in terms of what types of side yard setbacks were on those properties, if variances were granted, just that there were undersized lots in the immediate area. So, I don't believe that that would warrant a justification for the granting of variances, because there was no testimony as to similar variances in the area. In terms of this particular impact, we have a unique condition. This lot happens to be adjacent to a corner lot that does not extend the entire length of the subject property of 82 John Street. So what we have, which I just testified to, is an extension of a two story building that extends essentially across the entire rear yard of the Reynolds property. So they don't have the benefit of having a true private rear yard, because now this particular structure is going to be looking down into their rear yard and their side yard, however you want to look at it, because it happens to be the corner lot, and so the corner of their property is actually essentially where the pool is because it was pushed back to that location because it is a corner property. So we have a little bit of unique condition here. Just as well, we also have the fact that the Reynolds property is to the north. Typically the sun comes from the south, I mean I know it comes from above and we all know that, you know, there's differences in shadow between summertime and wintertime, you know, I'll give you that, but typically it does come from the south, so what we have is shadows that are being cast from the subject property onto the Reynolds property, across the entirety of their rear yard. So, I would say that there are some significant impacts to the adjacent property owner in terms of adequate light, air, and open space, and potentially some privacy.
The applicant's proposal includes a covered porch over an elevated deck.

Do you have any particular observations and do you feel that there are any specific issues that should be considered by this board in their weighing of any variance relief that would be required for the covered porch

Well
specifically?
Well, the fact that the covered porch is very close to the property line, again, there's the privacy issue, there's the noise issue. And I think, you know, the noise issue also goes to I think why we talked about our last person, the testimony about any fans or mechanical equipment not being closer to 10 feet to a property line, because it's a noise issue. So, what we have here is also potentially a noise issue by having the open porch. The other concern that I might have is, because it's become part of the structure, you know, I don't know if it at one point would end up being enclosed. And obviously that would be subject to a different application, but essentially they're halfway there.
WHITAKER: Well, let's stop that right now so you understand. The applicant proposes an open porch and the board, in dealing with porches, when they ever grant a variance for an open porch, has the restriction in there that it must remain open. So the board would never consider this variance relief with the possibility of it being enclosed, because that's the way they make their decisions. I know you may not be familiar with that, but we get a series of open porch variances each year, and that's the standard provision in there, if it's granted. Just so you can clarify that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

INGLIMA: Thank you, Mr. Whitaker. I don't know that we're narrowly focused on the issue of what conditions may be imposed upon an approval of the proposal, but obviously a concern is being expressed behalf of my clients that, as time goes by, people seek modifications to structures, and once a structure is there, there would be nothing to preclude them from requesting in an approval, whether it had to come to this board for a variance or not, to do an enclosure in the porch.
WHITAKER: Nothing would preclude them, if they were denied, to come back with an enclosed porch. What I'm saying to you is when the board makes a decision, they're going to make a decision based on an open porch.
INGLIMA: Thank you.
WHITAKER: So the fact that there might be something in the future proposed is not part of their deliberation or consideration.
INGLIMA: Thank you.
Earlier tonight there was discussion about an approval granted to the Reynolds for their existing garage. That's a one story structure, is it not?
Yes.
A one story structure would normally require a 15 foot side yard in the R 1 zone. Isn't that correct? The ordinance says that it's a 15 foot side yard requirement, but it can be increased to two thirds of the height, if the building is taller?
Yes.
So if you had a one story building, you would have a 15 foot side yard, correct?
Yes.
The applicant obtained an approval in 1990 for a 19 foot setback between the one story garage and the common boundary of the Hogan and Reynolds properties. Is that your understanding?
Yes.
Assuming that to be true, that would actually be a larger distance than would have been required as a side yard, if the common boundary was considered a side yard between the two properties?
Correct.
The variance relief was only required in order to permit the structure in that location because, under the new ordinance, it was construed as a rear yard
Yes.
abutting a side yard on a neighbor's property?
That's correct. That's what I just testified to earlier.
In any event, a 19 foot distance between the one story structure on the Reynolds property and the common boundary is significantly greater than the distance between the existing Hogan home, residence, and the common boundary. Isn't that correct?
Yes.
And it's also significantly greater than what will be proposed for any of the improvements that are shown on the plans today. Is that correct?
Yes.
Let's shift to the southerly boundary of the site. This would be the part of the site that abuts the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Cron. Are you familiar with that property?
Yes.
Now, in the case of the Cron property, that's a larger lot width than the applicant's site. Is that correct?
Yes, it is.
It's about 80 feet and change, right?
That is correct.
But it's not as deep as the applicant's site, correct?
No, it's not.
Are you familiar with the existing structural elements of the Cron residence?
Yes.
You viewed it, you walked their property. Is that correct?
Yes, I have.
And although Mr. Cron will be testifying later, you're familiar with the setbacks between the Cron property and the applicant's property, correct?
Yes, I am.
And it's about 17.98 feet, right?
That's correct.
Is it your understanding that based on the height of the Cron house, that that is a conforming dimension?
Yes.
Is it also your understanding that the 17.98 foot distance between the Cron residence and the common boundary with the site is significantly greater than the existing setback distance from the Hogan residence to the Cron common boundary?
Yes, that is correct.
In fact, the applicant's plan doesn't show any increase of any significance between the existing or proposed buildings and the common boundary of the Cron and Hogan lots from what exists today. Is that true?
Yes, that is true.
We had some testimony, you're familiar with the testimony of Mr. Schlicht at the last meeting which we went back and forth about the three inch difference between the walls that would abut, or, I should say, be closest to the Cron property?
Yes, I'm familiar with that.
Existing and proposed?
Yes.
And you're also familiar with the fact that he described the skewing of the building on the lot and the fact that it actually, as you extend from east to west or from front to rear, that building gets closer over the distance covered
Yes.
to the Cron boundary?
Yes.
So the building, the rear is tipped towards the Cron property?
Yes, it's on a very slight angle.
Have you reviewed the plans in terms of the architectural design of the proposed improvements that would be closest to the Cron property?
Yes, I have.
And, specifically, when I refer to the "plans," I'm referring to not only the first sheet which is characterized as a site plan, I'm not stating that it's a site plan under the ordinance, but we'll use that terminology for sake of reference, and the left side elevation. This would be on SK6, which is a portion of exhibit A 6.
Correct.
Do you have any particular observations with respect to the impact of these proposed improvements on the Cron property to the south?
Well, we have the same condition that I spoke of earlier, because we are extending the wall back from the existing home, which is already deficient. So we are beginning to impact into the rear yard of the Cron's property as well, because we do have that two story addition, and just as well, there's actually, I believe that there is an increase in the height of the roof. The existing is 28 feet and it goes to 30 feet. So we're also talking about a slight impact in terms of that height, and then the extension to the rear.
Now, there's a low roof that's indicated under the proposed second floor addition on SK6. You're familiar with the testimony of Mr. Schlicht in which he indicated that that does not mean that the second floor addition is setback any farther from the Cron property, it's just an architectural feature of the side wall of the house?
Yes, it is an architectural feature, and that's where this eave would be an extension, again, into the side yard.
But the areas that are depicted on SK 6, where it shows the roof line at the highest point from the ridge line of the existing house extending to the rear or to the west, all of those areas that would be below that roof are going to be at essentially the same setback distance at what exists at the site today?
Yes.
So what is being proposed by the applicant on SK6 or any of the other plans that are currently the subject of this application, that doesn't make it any better for the Crons, the building is still going to be I refer to the big plan behind you the building is still going to be about 9.16 to 9.21 feet from the common boundary?
Yes, not including the eave.
Over that entire distance of the addition?
Yes.
There were previously changes made to the plans that created, if you will, a notch or an indentation along the north wall of the proposed addition where the second floor was setback slightly larger distance from the Reynolds property from what had originally been proposed. There's no such notch or indentation of the second floor areas on the facade of the building that I just described abutting the Cron property, is there?
No, there's not.
Okay. And, once again, that 9.16 or 9.21 setback is significantly less than the 17.98 foot setback that the Cron residence is set to the south from the common boundary?
That is correct.
Have you reviewed the existing landscaping at the Cron property to which Ms. Phillips referred in her testimony? I'll simply characterize them as arborvitae, they may be mixed species, but they are predominantly arborvitae arranged in a line along the common boundary with the Hogan property. Are you familiar with that?
Yes, I am.
Have you inspected the shrubs and their location in relation to the improvements on both properties?
Yes.
Do you have any particular observations with respect to the landscape material that is located along the common boundary? Whose property is it on?
Oh, it's on the Cron's property.
Is there any protection between those shrubs and the driveway, that you noted in your inspection, between those shrubs and the driveway that exists on the Hogan property? When I refer to "protection," I mean fencing, guide rail, curbing, or similar structures that would keep an automobile from having contact with the shrubs?
There is fencing.
There's fencing along the common boundary?
Yes.
Are you familiar with the location of the fencing in relation to the common boundary itself; is it on the Cron property or is it on the applicant's property?
Actually I'm not sure. Is it shown on the plan?
Is it shown on the plan?
No. I don't think there's any room for a fence.
Is it your understanding that the driveway on the Hogan property runs right up to the property line?
Yes.
With respect to Ms. Phillips' testimony that those shrubs are somehow a feature that screens or buffers the Cron property from not only the existing but the proposed structures on the Hogan property, do you have a particular opinion with respect to that comment?
Well, usually buffers are on the same property to buffer the impacts, not on an adjacent property. And obviously an assumption would be that the Crons planted those trees to help provide some privacy, but they don't blockout everything that would happen on the adjacent property because they are shrubs that do taper to the top.
Obviously to the extent that even if they were providing some screening, to the extent that there is any change in the Hogan property by virtue of construction of the structures that are shown on the applicant's plans, there's no way to know whether or not there would be an adverse impact upon those arborvitae, is there?
No. I'm not an arborist, but one might be able to not assume, but there could potentially be an impact to the root structures of those plants with the construction of the driveway.
In any event, do you know of any reason under the Municipal Land Use Law, the Village of Ridgewood ordinances or any interpretative authorities that shrubbery that is maintained on a neighboring property should be considered a feature of screening or buffering of a proposed development on another property?
No, I'm not familiar with that.
Do you feel that there was any validity to Ms. Phillips' testimony that somehow that would assist in justifying the application being approved?
With regard to that, I think there's different degrees of that. If you had a 100 foot undeveloped portion of the property that was under an easement where it couldn't be developed, that might be considered to be buffer, but what we have here is that on the Cron property they have their own trees aligning with their rear yard that is located exactly right there next to the Hogan property. So there could be some other circumstances where I could justify that but in very particular cases, but not in this particular case.
While we're on the subject of shrubs and trees, are you familiar with several trees that are located on the Reynolds property just north of the common boundary with the site?
Yes.
Now, in particular there's a substantial mature tree in the southwest corner of the Reynolds property, is there not?
Yes.
Would the proposed improvements be constructed near that tree?
RUTHERFORD: I'm going to object to that question. Ms. Gregory previously said she's not an arborist. I think she's totally not able to express an opinion as to the impact construction might have to the vegetation on the Reynolds property.
WHITAKER: I don't see how you can render an opinion as a planner, you're not an arborist, as to what the intent would be for plant life on either property.
INGLIMA: I hate to disappoint the board and counsel, but I wasn't going to ask this witness whether she had an opinion as to whether or not something would have an effect of any kind on trees on the Reynolds property.
WHITAKER: You just said the root system, which you have a concern about a root system, and I'm suggesting to you that this is something beyond the realm of what she can render a professional opinion on. Let's move on.
INGLIMA: I asked her if she was familiar with the location of the trees. We can move on.
WHITAKER: I think the board is familiar with the location of the trees. The board has seen the site. Let's move on.
Do you feel that in its consideration of any variance that requires a departure from the ordinary, or, I should say, the standards that are set forth in the ordinance or the side yard separation that a board should take into account where there is plant life on abutting properties?
Yes.
The applicant is proposing to remove a tree that's located at the rear of its existing home. Are you familiar with that?
Yes.
Are you aware of any trees or shrubs that are being proposed by the applicant on its own property in connection with the proposal?
No.
So, the construction of the improvements that are proposed would reduce the amount of plant life at the applicant's site, at least in terms of trees or shrubs, based on the current plans, is that true?
Yes.
Let's go back to the Cron property again. There is a wood deck that's located along the rear of the existing Cron residence. Are you familiar with that deck?
Yes.
Does that deck have a roof over it?
No.
With respect to the proposed addition to the Hogan property, where would that be located in relation to the existing home, including the deck on the Cron property?
Can you rephrase the question.
Yes. With respect to the proposed structures on the Hogan property, where would they be located in relation to the existing home on the Cron property and its deck? Would they flank it basically? Would they be side by side? Would they be slightly to the rear, slightly to the front? Approximately where would they be in relation to each other?
They would be side by side.
So what the applicant is talking about is building new structure above grade that would extend it even farther to the west than the existing structure dwelling on the Cron property. Is that a fair statement?
Yes.
Taking into account all of the things that you have noted about the features of development that are proposed by the applicant, do you have any particular opinion or have you made any findings or reached any conclusions with respect to the impact of those structures on our clients' properties, the Reynolds and Cron properties?
Yes. As I stated earlier, I believe that there are impacts to adequate light, air, and open space. I do believe that there's impacts to privacy, and that has to do with the actual diminished setbacks that they are proposing. A house could be built, I'm sorry, an addition to be built, not a house, an addition could be built that had greater setbacks and perhaps extended farther into the rear yard, that wouldn't have as many impacts on the adjacent property owners. Like I said earlier, we do have somewhat of a unique condition here, and I think that needs to be taken into account when you talk about impacts to the surrounding properties. I know that there is testimony by the applicant's planner that talked about there's no impact to the public good, because there's no impact to the streetscape. But the impact isn't just, you know, when you're driving by this home, it's also the impact to the adjacent property owners and how that impacts, you know, their quality of life and their adequate light, air, and open space, which is one of the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law.
Knowing what you know about the application, the lots that are owned by not only the applicant but our clients, and the existing and proposed improvements on all of them, would you say that the Cron and Reynolds properties would be the most affected by the proposal as it now stands?
Yes.
With respect to the comments by Ms. Phillips that the proposal constitutes a better zoning alternative for the site, which is testimony she gave on September 11th, do you have an opinion with respect to whether or not that is a proper conclusion?
I do not believe it's a proper conclusion. I went through the section of your ordinance that talks about not exacerbating nonconforming conditions for nonconforming structures, and, quite honestly, this flies in the face of that. I don't see how it's a better planning alternative, particularly with regard to the impacts to the neighbors. So, in terms of the negative criteria, we talk about no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of your zone plan and zoning ordinance. Well, your own zoning ordinance talks about not enlarging nonconforming structures or exacerbating conditions or even having tradeoff, taking one and making it better but then exacerbating something somewhere else. And in this condition, we're exacerbating all of the conditions. We're exacerbating the lot coverages. We're exacerbating the gross floor area. We're exacerbating the side yard setbacks, which are severely deficient. And there are other 50 foot properties in the area that have mostly one story additions to the rear that have much greater setbacks than this particular proposed addition.
Well, let me stop you there. Ms. Phillips, in her testimony, showed what I consider to be fairly limited number of nearby properties, and she had several exhibits that were marked in the record that she contended showed that this was a uniquely undersized lot, that it suffered from conditions that other properties in the areas don't suffer from in terms of its narrowness or its lot width or frontage, and that as a result of the development characteristics of the area, that this applicant should be granted relief as constituted by the well, whatever relief is necessary in order to construct the structures that are shown on the plans. Have you performed a similar review and what conclusions, if you did so, did you come to?
Well, like I said, the review was actually just that there were undersized properties in the immediate area, but there was no analysis or testimony to similar variances that were granted or similar setbacks, and there was also no testimony in terms of the size of the house compared to the size of the lot. And I think that that's really integral to this particular application, because a general statement that says, well, this house conforms to the house sizes of most of the others in the neighborhood, you have a variety of sizes of lots in this neighborhood, and, so, therefore, that's why we have the zoning requirements. And I'm not saying variances should never be granted, but what I am saying is you have to look at the impact of this particular structure compared to the size of the lot. And to say that I mean, the only nonconforming condition in terms of I'm sorry. The hardship case that they were making is that they have a 50 foot wide lot, but they have a lot that is 181 foot in depth, where 120 feet is required. So they do have, if you want to call it, wiggle room, just for a simple term, they have wiggle room in terms of what they can actually do with this property. It's the desire of the applicant to have the rooms that they want inside the structure that they want, which is driving the variances. It's not the hardship of the property of the 50 foot width, because basically an addition could be built in the rear. As I stated earlier, technically you could have a probably a variance free application in terms of the side yard setbacks. It effectively would you build? I don't know. But what I will say to you is that that analysis was not actually made in terms of the impact of the size of this house in relationship to its actual size of the lot. So in other words, there was no testimony that there were other similar sized houses on similar sized lots, and I believe that that's integral to this particular application, that that statement wasn't made, that the analysis was never done.
Just so the record is complete, I'm showing the witness copies, I'll represent to the board that these are true copies of the tax map sheets 35 and 34, that's the order in which it is stapled together. I know that at the prior hearing, Mr. Brown, I believe, or I think it was Mr. Brown, maybe it was Mr. Negrycz, had asked whether I had a copy of a tax map that showed certain lots that I was asking the witness about. What I would offer is these as sufficient records of the municipality. If you want to have them marked as an O exhibit, that's fine, I have no objection. Is there any objection to distributing these to the board?
RUTHERFORD: No, I think it's helpful for the board to see these.
WHITAKER: We'll mark it as an exhibit, two pages of the tax map, O 4, pages 34 and 35. (Pages 34 and 35 of the Ridgewood Tax Map is marked as exhibit O 4 in evidence.)
Ms. Gregory, in the course of doing your review of the area, did you not only perform a visual inspection of other properties nearby, but also rely upon information that you derived from a review of O 4, tax map sheets 34 and 35?
Yes.
And just so that the record is clear, sheet 35 deals generally with properties that are located south of Wyndemere Avenue and east of N. Van Dien Avenue and west of the Saddle River. And sheet 34 deals with or depicts properties that are located generally north of Wyndemere Avenue, within that same area.
Yes.
Up to Linwood Avenue?
Yes.
So you're familiar with the conditions that are shown with respect to the individual properties on those two max map sheets?
Yes.
And they show the existing lot lines, configuration, dimensions, and location of the properties that are owned by not only the applicant but also our two clients and all of their neighbors?
Yes.
Is that a fair statement?
Yes.
You mentioned that there are other 50 foot lots. There are other 50 foot lots in the R 1 zone. Is that correct?
Yes.
And there's 50 foot lots in the R 2 zone, correct?
Yes.
Are you familiar with the zone maps for the municipality that define the areas that are either in the R 1 or the R 2 zone in the area of the applicant's site?
Yes.
INGLIMA: I'd like to show you an exhibit that I'm going to ask to have marked as O 5. I will represent to the board that these are records that were obtained from the County of Bergen website. They are the zoning map of the Village of Ridgewood from 1965, from 1978, from 2012, and the last one is April of 2016, which I understand is the current version of the zone map of the municipality. Are you familiar with these?
Yes.
These zone maps. (Zoning map of the Village of Ridgewood dated 1965, 1978, 2012, and April of 2016 is marked as exhibit O 5 in evidence.)
INGLIMA: I have produced 8 1/2 by 14 copies of these exhibits, just to make it a little easier for the board. Is there any objection to distributing these to the board?
RUTHERFORD: No.
There's just one question that really comes from these. Ms. Gregory, have you reviewed all of these zone maps with respect to the area of the site and the zone designations of the applicant's property, our client's property, and other properties located nearby that are in the R 1 zone district?
Yes.
Would it be fair to say that the zone boundaries of the R 1 zone in the area of the applicant's site have not changed since 1965?
Yes.
With the exception obviously of the creation of the H 1 [sic] district, but that's on the north side of Linwood Avenue, correct?
Yes.
The H district, I'm sorry. So, in all that time, would it be fair, based on the review of the zone map, to say that changes were not made to move the line that delineates the boundaries of the R 1 and the R 2 in any way along John Street?
Yes.
Since 1965, at least?
Yes.
Have you reviewed other land use documents of the municipality, the zoning ordinance, the master plan, with respect to your testimony tonight?
Yes, I have.
Are there any comments or provisions of the master plan or the zoning ordinance that would urge an adjustment or a relaxation of the R 1 zone standards for the Hogan property or properties similar to the Hogan property that have deficient lot width or lot frontage?
No.
Do you know of any land use enactments or initiatives that have been undertaken in the last 10 years that would alter the side yard, front yard or coverage requirements that pertain to lots that are designated within the R 1 zone district of the Village of Ridgewood?
No.
You mentioned a few minutes ago that a conforming addition could be constructed at the site. You're referring to a one story addition that would be 20 feet wide. Is that correct?
Actually, no, it would be
Well, if you had a 15 foot side yard requirement
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
on each side, that's 30 feet, and there's 20 feet left?
Yes, a one story addition.
Yes, a one story addition.
Yes.
So, a 20 foot wide addition could extend from the rear of the existing home and conform to the zoning ordinance, correct?
It could, up to a certain point, because they do need coverage variances.
Well, I'm just talking in terms of side yards.
Okay. Okay. That is correct.
They are requesting a coverage variance as part of this application, correct?
Yes.
You mentioned before about the idea of trying to not exacerbate, as you put it, the different conditions of the property. Is it your opinion that in the context of an application like this, in which bulk variances are being requested in order to expand a nonconforming structure in some respect, that the applicant should seek to move the property in the direction of conformity with the ordinance?
That is correct.
Do you find, based upon your review of the application or the plans, that the applicant is moving the site in the direction of conformity with the ordinance?
No.
Do you feel that there is anything about the design of the proposal, the structures that are shown on the applicant's plans, the features, particularly the covered porch, that mitigate the impacts of the structures and the deficiencies in terms of the yard distance setbacks, separation distance from structures, etc.?
No, there's nothing that is mitigating the nonconforming conditions.
Based upon your review of the area and the buildings that are located in the area, do you have an opinion as to whether or not reasonably sized homes can be constructed and maintained on 50 foot wide lots?
Yes.
What is your opinion on that?
There are a number of 50 foot lots, as evidenced by the tax map, also as evidenced by Ms. Phillips exhibit, wherein there are existing homes that are in good condition that are livable, habitable, etc., located in the immediate adjacent area.
Do you base this opinion only on your visual inspection of those properties or is there any other data that you considered in coming to your conclusions on this issue?
In terms of?
The development characteristics of other properties in the area. Did you perform any research? Did you review any records?
Yes, I reviewed, actually, the property tax cards for a number of properties that were located in the immediate area.
Do you feel that the information that's set forth on those tax cards, assuming it's official records of the municipality, that they're correct, bears out your conclusions, supports your position with respect to that issue?
Yes.
Do you feel that Ms. Phillips' testimony with respect to the affirmative criteria or sometimes called the positive criteria for a grant of (c) variance relief, bulk variance relief, has any foundation? Do you feel that her testimony with respect to the affirmative criteria has any foundation in the record?
RUTHERFORD: I'll object to that, because I don't think it really helps the board much to understand how this witness might characterize the testimony of a prior witness. If this witness wants to produce facts that she thinks are relevant to the board's decision making, that's fine, but having a witness express an opinion as to the persuasiveness of prior testimony, I don't think adds anything to the discussion, so I'd object to the question.
INGLIMA: Well, I'd go through the items one by one, it would probably be easier to do that.
WHITAKER: Let's do it that way. You can't do net opinion on persuasion.
Previously, not only Mr. Schlicht but Ms. Phillips had testified that the approvals were necessary in order to allow the applicant to make modifications to the existing building and to expand it within the areas that are shown on the plans to provide features or elements that would enhance their utility of the building, in other words, serve their needs. Do you have any particular opinion with respect to whether that satisfies the affirmative criteria for a grant of bulk variance relief?
No, it does not.
You've said earlier that it's an attractive and well maintained dwelling, correct?
I don't believe I said it specifically about this property.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I did talk about the neighborhood.
Well, do you have an opinion with respect to the appearance of the existing dwelling?
Yes. The existing dwelling is attractive.
I have argued in my cross examination of Mr. Schlicht that the features that he has shown on the plan, as far as they apply to the existing dwelling structure, could be done, could be constructed, could be added irrespective of this application or any approval of it. Do you agree with that?
Yes, I do. The front facade could be altered to become more attractive without any expansion to the rear of the structure.
With respect to the expansion or alteration of interior areas of the building, we had talked during cross examination about the proposal to put, let's say, a laundry room on the second floor or to expand a living space on the first floor to create a den or great room or with respect to the creation of a master bedroom suite on the second floor, all of them being features of the current plans. Do you feel that the interest of the applicant in obtaining those types of improvements to its home constitute affirmative proofs in support of the affirmative criteria?
No.
So, even though the applicant wants those things and may even feel that they need them in order to serve their own family or their own occupancy of the building, that's different from justifying a grant of bulk variance relief?
Yes.
Do you feel that there is any advancement of the public interest in zoning or planning by virtue of a grant of the approvals, whatever they may be, required for this particular proposal?
No.
Do you feel that the approval of the application as it currently stands would advance only the private or personal interests of the applicant?
Yes.
Do you feel that the applicant can demonstrate special reasons for a grant of variance relief under these circumstances?
No.
You previously spoke at some length about what you consider to be impacts from the proposal that would create a reduction in air, light, open space, separation distance between structures to be erected on the applicant's property and the areas of our clients' properties, whether they're occupied by structures or they're used for recreational purposes?
Yes.
Do you feel that those impacts are proof of substantial detriment of the proposal, if it were to be approved, upon the neighboring properties?
Yes, I do.
Do you feel, based on your review of the application, the plans, the properties, and the information that has been placed on the record of this hearing, that the development of the property as proposed by the applicant would result in overcrowding of the portion of the site where those improvements would be constructed?
I don't know if I would use the word "overcrowding."
Why don't you characterize it instead of me?
I do believe that there would be a significant visual impact in terms of the bulk of the building, because I think "overcrowding" is really used as a slightly different term, so...
Well, you talked earlier about the fact that there would be an affect upon the privacy of the Reynolds property, I think you were referring to?
Yes.
I assume that that
Yes.
concern about privacy applies to either of the two flanking properties?
Yes.
But do you feel that the proximity of new second floor areas on the Hogan property to the neighboring property lines would also demonstrate a intrusion upon a protected area, a privacy area?
Yes.
Do you feel that it would be possible for the applicant to conform to the ordinance and avoid that type of detrimental impact upon its neighbors?
Yes.
Do you feel that the approval of the application, as it's currently constituted, would impair the zone plan or zoning ordinance of the municipality, and, if so, in what respect?
I think that it absolutely does. And it's mostly not mostly, but one of the major factors is that we do have the section on nonconforming uses and structures, which does talk about not exacerbating nonconforming conditions. And as I stated earlier in my testimony, this applicant is exacerbating every condition. They are going from conforming lot coverages and conforming gross building area to nonconforming in both those instances. They are exacerbating the side yard setbacks on both sides, and they are exacerbating the front yard setback in the front. So I don't see how they're not violating actually the zoning ordinance or having a substantial impact on the zoning ordinance.
Do you feel that the flexible (c), as it's commonly referred to or alternate approval mechanism for bulk variances that's found in the statute, the Municipal Land Use Law under N.J.S.A. 40A:55D70(c)(2), is applicable in this particular case?
Well, yes, I believe that it is applicable.
That this application would qualify for flexible (c) treatment?
Yes.
Have you an opinion on whether or not the applicant has sustained its burden of proof in order to obtain a flexible (c) variance or variances?
RUTHERFORD: I mean, again, and I'm not objecting to a lot of these, but that's an ultimate conclusion for the board. That's what we're here for.
WHITAKER: Right.
Do you feel that there are any benefits of the approval of this application that have been set forth on the record through the testimony or evidence submitted by the applicant's witnesses in support of a grant of variance relief for all of the variances that we contend are required for this proposal?
No.
So under those circumstances, would it be possible for this board, in your opinion, under the statute and the interpretative authorities, to find that the benefits of the proposal outweigh detriments that will flow from it?
I do not believe that the benefits outweigh the detriments, and the benefits are the public benefits, not the benefits to the applicant, the public benefits. The public benefits here do not outweigh the detriments.
Are there any public benefits that you can see from your review of the application, the plans, and the testimony in evidence?
No, I do not believe that there are. There's not been testified to any public benefits.
Particularly with respect to the proposed roof to porch, do you feel that the applicant has produced any proof, other than its arbitrary request, to obtain that type of structure within the required setback distance in the course of these hearings?
Can you rephrase the question.
Yes. With respect particularly to the porch in the rear of the proposed dwelling that has a roof structure over it which has been the subject of a lot of our
Yes.
discussion tonight, do you feel that the applicant has produced anything other than an arbitrary request for its approval? Is there any justification you can see for constructing that roofed porch within 7 feet or 8 feet of the common boundary line with the Reynolds property?
No.
Based on the nature of the structure, I know you covered this and I wish that we would incorporate by reference all of Ms. Gregory's testimony on prior appeal as part of this discussion of the variance application, but do you feel that based on the design of that structure, that the separation distance between it and the Reynolds property should be derived from the closest part of the structure, the roof line, to the boundary line?
Yes, yes, I do.
And that based on that, the applicant would require a variance to permit whatever that distance is over the common boundary line?
Yes.
Is it your opinion that the approval of this application will not advance the objectives of the Municipal Land Use Law?
Yes, I believe that it will not advance any of the objectives of the Municipal Land Use Law.
What is your opinion with respect to whether or not this board should grant an approval of the application?
I do not
RUTHERFORD: I don't see that as a proper question.
WHITAKER: That's objectionable, at this point. You said from your planning perspective what your justification is as it pertains to the burden of proof. We'll leave it at that. It's up to the board to determine who's met the burden of proof and what the planning objectives are.
As a professional planner of the State of New Jersey, do you recommend that the application be denied?
RUTHERFORD: That's the same question.
WHITAKER: Same question.
INGLIMA: She can't state that opinion?
WHITAKER: She's stated an opinion from a planning perspective, she's already stated it a number of different ways, but you're asking her to provide her opinion as to whether the board should approve or deny, she's given her basis for that already.
INGLIMA: Okay. No further questions of the witness at this time. Reserve the right to redirect.
WHITAKER: Mr. Rutherford. We will take a five minute break for the stenographer.
RUTHERFORD: Sure, five minutes is fine. Thank you.

(A short recess is held.)

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Mr. Rutherford, we can go back on.

RUTHERFORD: I am ready, Mr. Chairman.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Hey, everybody. Can we have quiet.

RUTHERFORD: Back on the record?

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Back on the record.

RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RUTHERFORD:

Ms. Gregory, when were you retained with respect to this project?
Months ago. I don't know the exact date.
Was it before or after the hearings in this matter had commenced?
Oh, honestly, I'm not sure.
Who contacted you initially?
Mr. Inglima.
What did Mr. Inglima tell you at the time?
He asked me to consider a matter that he was representing some clients on.
Did he tell you that it was a matter that would involve representing interested parties in an application before the Ridgewood Zoning Board?
Yes.
Did you make any investigation as to the nature and extent of the application prior to accepting the assignment?
Yes. Actually, I always ask for plans be sent to me first, before I agree to anything.
So what else did you review, in addition to the plans, in this case?
Master plan, zoning ordinance, site inspections, tax maps, inspection, property cards, I mentioned that before.
That was all done, however, after you were retained and then accepted the assignment. Is that right?
No, usually I look at the zoning ordinance and the application first to get an idea of the application and the extent of the variances in violation of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Inglima told you, I assume, that your objective was to represent interested parties in opposition to an application before the zoning board?
Yes.
Okay.
Uh huh.
And you had indicated that you reviewed property record cards, you referred to in a very general way. How many property record cards did you review?
One second. Approximately 20.
And the property record cards contain survey information?
Well, they contain well, yes, I guess in a way you can call it, it's not an actual survey done by a surveyor but it's a survey of the actual building on the property, so it's not in relationship to the property.
It shows a schematic diagram of the building on the property, does it not?
That is correct.
So when you said earlier, you commented on the existence of a number of 50 foot wide lots in the neighborhood
Yes.
and you said that there are homes on them, correct?
Yes.
Well, that's pretty much true for virtually any lot in this neighborhood, isn't it?
Yes.
So when you say there's homes on them, you did not examine surveys to determine what the property setbacks were, did you?
No.
You don't know what the existing front or side yard setbacks are on those 50 foot lots?
No.
You don't know what the lot coverage is on those 50 foot lots?
Actually, yes, you do from the property tax cards.
Did you do any analysis as to what the provisions of the zoning ordinance were at the time the homes on those respective 50 foot lots were built?
No.
You have no idea to know and certainly have no basis to say whether the homes on those lots are conforming or nonconforming, do you?
No.
Did you go a step further and make a request for information on prior applications to the zoning or planning board
No.
with respect to those properties?
No.
So you don't know if any of the homes that were built on those 50 foot lots, you really don't know much about the zoning, you don't know much about what the zoning was when they were built, you don't know if they were beneficiary of variances or not. Is that right?
Correct.
So what was the purpose of the testimony other than to tell the board that there are homes on 50 foot lots in the neighborhood?
That is a mischaracterization of my testimony. I did not say there were homes on 50 foot lots.
You said 50 foot lots were developed with homes. That's what you said. That's my recollection of your testimony. The board will ultimately determine what that is. That's my recollection of your testimony. Now, going to the 50 foot lots, you indicated earlier in your testimony that the properties that are most affected by this application are the properties of Mr. Inglima's clients to the north and south. Is that right?
Yes.
Does that reflect the fact that the Hogans' property is a relatively small parcel and proposes an addition to an existing residential structure. Is that right?
Yes.
This doesn't involve an application to impose a totally new use into the neighborhood, does it?
That has nothing to do with this application.
Right, right. We're not looking to install a use on this property that is not permitted in this zone. Is that right?
Yes.
Would you agree with me that that type of a use might have a greater impact and might extend and have an effect on properties beyond the Reynolds and Cron properties?
INGLIMA: I have to object to that one. I mean, Mr. Rutherford has objected to dealing with things in the abstract or irrelevant types or other applications. That would be another application, not this one. We readily concede that no use variances are being sought or required for this proposal.
RUTHERFORD: I'm not suggesting that there is, but I'll move on.
Ms. Gregory, the properties to the south, and I'm not going to go through each and every lot on the tax maps, 34 and 35 that you provided, but I'm correct in saying that the three lots to the south on the west side of John Street all exceed 50 feet in width, do they not?
Yes.
And, similarly, the homes on the north side of the property, those outside Wyndemere Avenue all exceed 50 foot in width, do they not?
Adjacent to the property.
Correct.
Yes.
Right. And even across the street on the northeast corner of John Street and Wyndemere, as well as Lot 32, a little bit farther down on John Street, all exceed 50 feet in width as well. Is that correct?
Yes.
So, at least in that context, if we were to consider those lots to be the "neighborhood," considering the fact that the two lots that are greatest affected by this addition are the lots to the north and south, would you say that that fairly characterizes the neighborhood, and, in essence, a series of lots that exceed 50 feet in width?
No.
Okay. The board will be able to draw their own conclusion about the character of the neighborhood. Did you consider the lots on the south side of Wyndemere between John Street and N. Pleasant Avenue, there are two 50 foot lots there. Are those two lots that you considered?
Yes.
Lots 3 and 4?
Yes.
Why do you think they're relevant to this application, if the only two lots that are really affected are the Reynolds and Cron properties, why does Lots 3 and 4 fit into the analysis?
Because there are 50 foot lots that have homes on them in the R 1 zone that are developed and have extensions or additions to the rear that do not match the width of the property I mean, I'm sorry, the width of the existing homes are actually smaller than one story. So they're narrower in the rear and they're one story.
Well, let's talk about a rear addition. You looked at Mr. Schlicht's plan, and you understand that the side yard requirement in the R 1 zone is 15 feet or two thirds the building height. Is that correct?
Yes.
And the maximum permitted height in the R 1 zone is 30 feet, so that's why in this instance certainly 20 foot side yard setbacks are required. So, if we had two 20 foot side yard setbacks, what does that leave for the width of the permitted building envelope?
10 feet.
And in your estimation, you said earlier you could build an addition of 10 feet, but then you said you didn't think anybody would. Do you think that it is a reasonable option or alternative for these applicants, to construct an addition off the rear of their home that's 10 feet in width?
Well, 10 feet width would be for a two story structure, not a one story.
Well, let me ask you this. A good chunk of this property is two stories. Is that correct?
Yes.
If my clients were to propose a one story addition off the rear of this home, what would your position be as to what the required side yard setback is?
Well, it depends on the height of the structure.
Okay. Well, let's say it's a one story structure off the rear, the rest of the house, we'll stipulate, is 30 feet in height. If I'm asking for a one story structure off the rear of a two story home that's 30 feet in height, what would your opinion be as to the required side yard setback?
Well, technically, the required side yard setback would still be the 20 feet, actually the existing structure is 28 feet, not 30 feet, it's proposed to be 30 feet.
So, in your estimation then, what my clients could do on this in conformity with the side yard setback would be to build an addition off the rear that would be 10 feet in width, correct?
Yes.
Do you think that kind of an addition would have any type of function or utility whatsoever?
It would be limited, yes.
Is it your testimony that my clients are entitled to variance relief only if they can't build anything on the property in conformity with the ordinance?
No.
That overstates their burden of proof, does it not?
Yes.
You're entitled to a variance, even if you can build a conformity with the ordinance, the question is: What is it about the property that imposes exceptional or undue hardship if the ordinance is to be complied with. Isn't that really what we're here for?
No, you said "entitled" to a variance. No one is ever entitled to a variance.
A proper basis for a variance is to grant it, if the applicant can prove that extreme hardship will result from the strict enforcement of the ordinance, the board may determine that the applicant has met the burden of proof for a variance. Isn't that right?
That is correct, however, the extreme hardship is that the applicant wants a larger house.
Well, we'll discuss that, but isn't that really what the board is to determine?
What's the board to determine
Isn't the board to determine why the applicant is here. The board ultimately has to determine is the applicant here because of factors related to the property or is the applicant here because of what they want to build; isn't that one of the determinations the board ultimately has to make?
I don't think the question is worded properly.
Are you familiar with the Lang case?
I'm sorry?
Are you familiar with the Lang case?
No.
Earlier, you made reference to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds obtained a variance a number of years ago for the construction of their garage. Is that right?
Yes.
And just so I'm clear, my understanding is that you really don't have any specific knowledge of that other than what Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds may have told you. Was that right?
Yes.
So you didn't see plans, you didn't see a resolution, you didn't see an application, you didn't see anything?
Correct.
And when you testified, you characterized that garage as a one story structure. Is that right?
Yes.
So I'd like to show you, this is sheet four, this is page 4 of exhibit A 4. It was marked on June 12th as part of Mr. Schlicht's testimony. I don't know if you have that in front of you. If you do, otherwise I'll hand you mine. On the fourth page, in the upper right hand corner, there is a photograph of a home and a garage. Do you recognize the home as my clients' home and the garage as Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds' garage?
Yes.
Do you characterize that garage as a one story structure?
Yes.
It has a fairly high roof structure on it, does it not?
Yes.
And it also has a dormer in it, does it not?
Yes.
Did you go in that structure when you visited the property?
No.
Did you go in the house?
Yes.
You went in the house, but you didn't go in the garage?
No.
So all you know about that is that they got a variance to build in violation of the setback and your understanding was that it was a rear yard setback variance. Is that right?
Yes.
Now, you also mentioned that there's a pool and a deck on the Reynolds' property?
Yes.
And you indicated that's on the west side of the dwelling and the garage.

The dwelling and the garage are connected to each other, are they not?

I'm sorry.
Are the dwelling and the garage connected to each other?
Yes.
And you indicated that one of your concerns with respect to my client's proposal is noise. Is that right?
Yes.
And when you were referring to noise, is there one particular feature of this property that you believe lends itself to generating noise, which I assume you consider the noise to be undesirable. Is that right?
Yes.
Undesirable noise. Okay. So what it is about the Hogans' property or the Hogans' proposal that's before the board, what feature is it about it will lead to, in your opinion, as undesirable noise?
Well, I already stated that there's going to be a fan on the fireplace enclosure.
Okay.
Or whatever we're calling it, I guess. And that's what leads to the requirement of ordinance for the 10 foot setback.
Okay. Maybe I misunderstood your testimony then. I thought you were considering other features of the plan as contributing to undesirable noise. Is it just the fan that you're talking about?
Yes.
Okay. Because the pool and the deck generates some noise, do they not?
Yes.
You indicated that, let's see, the southern exposure of the Reynolds home abuts the Hogan property. Is that correct?
Yes.
And you indicated that in your estimation, the proposed additions to the home will block light, air, and open space, and will block the sun. Is that right?
Yes.
Did you do any type of a viewshed analysis or anything else that would justify or support that conclusion?
No.
So basically it's based simply upon the fact that this portion of the property happens to be the southern exposure, and the Hogans are happening to construct an addition to their home adjacent to it. Is that it?
Yes.
You testified with respect to the location of the improvements on the Cron and Reynolds property and how they relate to the proposed addition to my client's home. Is that right?
Yes.
And you expressed certain opinions. I just wanted to know, what was the factual basis for that testimony? Did you, for example, examine surveys of the Reynolds and Cron properties?
Yes.
Okay. And you also looked at Mr. Schlicht's plan, and you're aware of the fact that there is a deck presently off the rear of my client's home. Is that correct?
Yes.
Did you compare Mr. Schlicht's plan, because it does show the location of that deck, does it not?
Of the existing deck?
Yes.
INGLIMA: Perhaps, Mr. Rutherford could refer us to a specific plan. If he has it, we'll it up on the easel.
RUTHERFORD: That would be fine. That's legitimate, that's a good point.
I'm referring to A 5, sheet V1. V1, it's the first sheet, it's the first page of A 5, and that's Mr. Schlicht's plan as revised to August 31st, 2018.
INGLIMA: Okay. So that's the one we have up on the easel behind the witness. If you want to turn around and look at that.
Ms. Gregory, look at that. Do you see where on that plan it shows where the existing deck is? It's dashed. It might be a little hard to see. Do you see that?
Yes.
And you see that that deck extends several feet beyond the rear of the two story addition that's proposed, does it not?
Yes.
And the covered porch goes just a little bit farther than that, right?
Yes.
So, from that perspective, the home doesn't really go out as far as the existing deck does, does it? The expanded home does not go as far to the rear as the existing deck, does it? That's all I'm asking.
INGLIMA: I just want to make we are clear on what you mean by "home." Are you talking about the structure that has walls, the one and two story addition or are you including the roofed porch?
I'm not including the roofed porch, and I do mean to be precise, no. Ms. Gregory, what I'm asking you is that the proposed two story addition with the master bedroom does not extend as far out to the rear as the existing deck does. Isn't that correct?
Yes.
And I think we could all agree that a deck certainly does present some source, you know, some degree of activity. Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay. And then the covered porch just goes a few feet farther than that. Now, you looked at Mr. Schlicht's plan. Sheet V2 of that plan shows that the extension to the first floor on the north side, because the master bedroom cantilevers over the porch, the addition to the rear existing home on the north side is only 3 feet 9 inches. Is that correct?
INGLIMA: Can you specify where you're talking about?
RUTHERFORD: Yes. I'm looking at sheet V2. I'm looking at V2, and I'm only asking Ms. Gregory, and maybe the plan speaks for itself, but, Ms. Gregory, I'll tell you what the plan says, it shows that the addition to the first floor on the north side of the house is only 3 feet 9 inches in depth and only 8 feet 4 and a half inches on the other side. So, do you consider those to be substantial or significant extensions to the rear of the house?
Yes, they are, when they're exacerbating a nonconforming condition.
Okay. Well, there's not too many things that conform about this property. Isn't that correct?
That's not specific enough.
Okay. Well, it's certainly conforming as to lot width, correct?
Yes.
And it's certainly nonconforming as to lot area?
Yes.
And actually as to lot width, would you agree it's actually one half of what's required?
Yes.
And with lot area, at least within the first 140 feet, it should be about actually, the entire property should be about half as large as it is now, right? So that's a nonconformity. Do they have anything to do with the improvements that the Hogans are looking to build? They exist independent of what the Hogans are looking to do, do they not?
I don't understand the nature of the question.
I guess maybe it's obvious, but all I'm asking is that the lot width and lot area nonconformities have nothing to do with the improvements on the property or the improvements the Hogans wish to construct. Is that correct?
I
Okay. Let me withdraw it and ask it another way. If this property were undeveloped, let's just suggest for a moment that this were vacant land, and someone wanted to build a two story structure upon it, would you agree with me that variances would likely be required to develop this property?
Yes.
INGLIMA: I object. I mean, how can she know? He doesn't provide any design or structural size or any other attributes of development.
WHITAKER: The width of the lot itself prompts variance relief and it's pretty obvious, and that's why she gave that answer the way she did so quickly. Mr. Rutherford already couched his question as it's probably obvious.
RUTHERFORD: I agree. I understand that.
INGLIMA: I mean, this is cross examination.
WHITAKER: If they were building a two story home that the side yard setbacks have to be, what, 20 feet on each side, so a 10 foot wide house.
INGLIMA: It all depends on the design, Mr. Whitaker, but, you know, this witness never testified to what would be the case if this was a vacant lot. Obviously, if the slate was wiped clean, there would be an entirely different set of standards and an entirely different consideration
WHITAKER: But you still have to meet the bulk requirements of the R 1 zone.
INGLIMA: No, there would be no nonconforming conditions at the site other than the lot itself.
WHITAKER: That's what Mr. Rutherford said.
RUTHERFORD: That's what I'm getting at.
WHITAKER: He certainly has the ability on cross examination to go there, let him proceed.
INGLIMA: Are you overruling my objection?
WHITAKER: Yes.
INGLIMA: Exception.

BY MR. RUTHERFORD:

So, Ms. Gregory, again, and I'll try to make it quick, if someone were looking to build a house that's 30 feet high on this property, if you were to comply with the side yard setback, that house could only be 10 feet wide. Is that right?
Yes.
And the ordinance regulates coverage by above grade structures in the R 1 zone, both over the entire lot and the first 140 feet. What's the area of this lot within the first 140 feet?
It's 7,000 square feet.
Am I correct in saying the coverage by above grade structures is 20 percent. Is that right?
Yes.
So, if we take 20 percent of 7,000 square feet, we'd have 1,1400 square feet would be permitted for coverage by above grade structures. Is that right?
Yes.
So we're left with a house that would be 10 feet wide, and it would have a footprint of 1,400 square feet or perhaps as much as 140 feet deep. Is that right?
Yes.
That's kind of what we would be left with, without some sort of variance relief. In your estimation well, first of all, the house already violates the side yard setback requirements on the north and south obviously, correct?
Yes.
And in your estimation, does the fact that that violation already exists, is that of any relevance to the board or is that a factor to be considered at all by the board in reaching its decision?
No.
Okay. You're familiar with Section 70C of the Municipal Land Use Law, correct?
Yes.
And Section 70C(1)(c) specifically talks about conditions relating to structures lawfully existing on the property, does it not?
Yes.
And has not that section been considered by many boards to be a proper basis for granting variance relief when a home, as in this case, already encroaches into the side yard setback?
Yes.
So, in this case, you would agree that at least conceptually the ultimate decision is to be made by the board, that the board could consider the fact that there are existing side yard setback nonconformities that could be such a condition under section C(1)(c) that would justify granting variance relief?
INGLIMA: I'm going to object, because Ms. Gregory was limited during direct testimony to not offering an opinion as to what this board can do as a finder of fact or interpreter of the law, that's their job and we were told she couldn't opine regarding that. Now she's being asked on cross to do exactly that.
RUTHERFORD: Then I'll ask it in a different way, because it's not intended to be a question as to what the board should or shouldn't do.
All I'm suggesting is that in the law and in your opinion as a planner, when there are existing setback nonconformities as in this case a side yard, that is a factor that a board can consider when determining whether to grant variance relief. Is that correct?
WHITAKER: That was asked and answer earlier and she said yes.
RUTHERFORD: Okay. Thank you. Just give me a moment, please. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
WHITAKER: Okay. Any redirect?
INGLIMA: No redirect.
WHITAKER: Any further testimony?
INGLIMA: Yes, I have additional witnesses. Is Ms. Gregory excused? Were there any questions from board members?
WHITAKER: I asked that first.
INGLIMA: Oh, you did. Okay.
WHITAKER: Any questions by board members of Ms. Gregory?
INGLIMA: Thank you. Mr. Whitaker, members of the board, at the last meeting there was an accommodation given to members of the public who had attended the meeting and were here late and were concerned that they wouldn't be able to appear at a subsequent meeting to make their public statements, and I certainly consented to that at the time, Mr. Rutherford proposed it on behalf of his clients, and I know that people who were in the public who were both supportive of the applicant's side as well as supportive of my client's side came forward and made statements. I believe that to be the case tonight, and I know that it's 10:20 and I know that this board observes a strict 11:00 curfew, so I don't know if there are people who cannot come at another date. I know that we're trying to get this done tonight. But I would ask if there's any possibility for the people who are here who wish to make a public statement to be able to briefly make those statements now rather than wait?
WHITAKER: I asked the both counsel this afternoon that the board's intention this evening was to get as much testimony in as possible. There's nothing else on the agenda, this was selected as a special meeting just for that purpose as an accommodation to everyone, and I spoke to the chairperson already at the break and we are ready to proceed past the 10:30 timeframe, because this is the only application on.
INGLIMA: Oh, I thought it was 11:00.
WHITAKER: We're going to continue to go with it, because if this has to be carried over, the next available date might be January, so...
INGLIMA: I want to get it done tonight too.
WHITAKER: I would request, the board says this every time, is that any comments being made not be repetitive.
INGLIMA: Well, would it be
WHITAKER: Let's proceed.
INGLIMA: possible to have the public speak now. I just have two more witnesses, Mrs. Reynolds and Mr. Cron, and their testimony will be fairly brief, but a question had been addressed to me as to whether or not the public could speak now.
WHITAKER: Well, let's see how long they're going to be. We're not going to be here at 1:00 in the morning.
INGLIMA: Then I would like to call Lorraine Reynolds please.
WHITAKER: It has taken us five minutes to figure how long to go. Let's go, put your witness on.
INGLIMA: I called her.
WHITAKER: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: I swear.

WHITAKER: Thank you. Please give your full name and address.

THE WITNESS: Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue.

Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLIMA:

Good evening. Ms. Reynolds, you're a client of mine and I've asked you to appear at this hearing. Although you could have made a statement as a member of the public, you are represented by counsel, so I've asked you to put whatever statements you want to put on the record in a sworn format based on questions directed to you by me, and I will state for the record that that's exactly what I will be doing with respect to Mr. Cron in a few minutes, but just to create a foundation for your comments, you are, with your husband James, the owner of the property located at 550 Wyndemere Avenue. Is that correct?
Yes.
And that would, just for the record, it's Block 3501, Lot 5. Your property is located immediately to the north of the applicant's site. Is that not correct?
Yes.
And how long have you owned that property?
Since 1990.
Earlier tonight there was a discussion first by Mr. Brown and then later by Ms. Gregory in response to questions directed to her by me. Those questions were addressed to the issue of whether or not variance relief had been previously granted with respect to your property, Block 3501, Lot 5. You're familiar with the questions, having attended this meeting. Are you also familiar with the application that was filed at that time and the approval that was granted?
Yes.
Very briefly, could you share with the board exactly what was the reason for the application, the subject of the application, in terms of the proposed improvements of your property, the approval that was granted by this board, and the nature of any variance relief?
Certainly. When my husband and I looked at the property in the fall of 1989, we liked the property but we definitely wanted a two car garage wherever we moved. So before we put an offer in on the house, I came to the building department and specifically spoke with Tony Merlino, and he looked at the property record records and told us that we could build a two car garage, as long as we had 15 feet on the side. No problem. Put the offer in on the house, closed on January 11th, meanwhile in between putting the offer in and closing, we had hired a builder, we had plans for the garage, we were set to go. The day after we closed, I went to get a building permit, Tony said, "I'm really sorry. I know I told you you could build this, but on January 1st the law changed, so now you have to go for a variance." So we went for a variance. We received it. Just one thing I want to mention, the dormer on the garage is not a dormer. It's completely fake. You know, there's no space in that area, it's totally a fake dormer. It's just to aesthetically make it look that it was always belonged with the house because of the hip roof. It's exactly the same.
So it's an architectural embellishment tore characteristic that was added to make it appear to be the same basic style and design as your existing dwelling?
Original house. Exactly.
Please continue.
That's it. You know, we received the variance, we built the two car garage, and that's it. I think it looks much better on the house than it did before. The house prior was a big, tall house with the little jut out was there when we bought the house. So it was a tall structure with a stupid little thing sticking out. It looked awful. So adding the garage aesthetically made it much more pleasing.
I'd like to show you a copy of a survey that was prepared by John Hooyman, Jr., of Hooyman Surveying Associates. It bears a date of January 2, 1990. Is this a copy of a survey that was prepared at that time in connection with your purchase of the property that you've been describing?
Yes.
INGLIMA: Would it be objectionable for a copy of the survey to be introduced as evidence as opposed to the original survey itself?
WHITAKER: A copy is fine, as long as you're confirming that it's dated the same.
INGLIMA: I will represent to the board that I do have the original survey with me tonight, and that this is a direct scan in color of that survey. What would this be?
WHITAKER: O 6.
INGLIMA: O 6.

(Copy of survey prepared by Hooyman, dated 1/2/19, is marked as exhibit O 6 in evidence.)

INGLIMA: I have copies for everyone. I've already provided a copy to Mr. Rutherford.
Ms. Reynolds, does the survey that I've distributed, O 6, reflect the conditions of your property immediately prior to the approval that was granted by this board in June of 1990?
Yes.
I'm sorry, in July of 1990?
Yes.
Is it your understanding that variance relief was granted to permit you to construct a garage that's located generally along the south side of the one story appendage to the house that's indicated at the farthest, well, opposite the stone driveway, I should say, the west end of the stone driveway depicted on the plan?
Yes.
And you made alterations to that one story area and built a garage in that location?
Correct.
With respect to the approvals that were granted by the board, is it your understanding that you were granted a front yard variance to permit the garage to be 37 feet from the street line of John Street where 40 feet was required under the ordinance, and that a rear yard along the south side of the proposed garage of 19 feet was approved where 30 feet was required?
Yes.
So the rear yard of 19 feet where 30 feet is required was to address the issue that you described in your prior testimony about the change in the law?
Correct.
So, originally, it was your understanding that was a side yard and that it would be governed by the laws in effect with respect to side yards in the R 1 zone. Then the law changed January 1st of 1990, and you had to get variance relief to construct something that would have been permitted under the former ordinance?
Correct.
At the time that you applied for the variance relief to construct the one story garage, were there any objectors?
No.
You've heard the testimony of Ms. Gregory. She stated a number of things that she considered to be attributes or elements of the existing development of your property as well as the proposed changes to the applicant's property. Do you agree with and did you find that that testimony reflected your prior conversations with her about your own property?
Yes.
Did you have any changes that you wanted to make or supplements to the statements that Ms. Gregory made from a factual standpoint?
RUTHERFORD: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm going to object to that. You can't ask one witness to modify or alter what another witness said. What Ms. Gregory said she said.
WHITAKER: The board is going to take into consideration what Ms. Gregory said. The board is not going to be concerned with whether Ms. Reynolds agrees or disagrees with Ms. Gregory.
INGLIMA: I should rephrase it.
WHITAKER: I think what you must do, and for expediency, is have Ms. Reynolds testify as to her position pertaining to this application.
INGLIMA: Yes, but I just wanted to make sure that you agreed with all of the statements that Ms. Gregory made with respect to the existing use and development of your property.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Okay. Do you have any particular concerns with respect to the impact of the proposal, if it were to be approved?
Yes.
As well as any structures that are shown on the plans that are currently before the board on the use and enjoyment of your property?
Absolutely.
Could you describe them briefly for the board?
Well, currently if we're in your backyard, we see about 6 1/2 feet of the two story structure and then about 10 feet of the one story structure. If this were to be built, we'd see approximately 28, 29 feet. Our backyard is 45 feet long on the Hogan side, so 28, 29 feet of it would have a 30 foot structure in front of us only 7 to 8 feet from the property line. So visually it would just be like a wall in our face.

And then beyond that is then another eight or so feet of a one story covered porch, which is about 16 foot in height, I think they testified to. So we'd have about 8 to 10 feet left of unobstructed backyard view along the Hogan side. It would just cover everything, you know, no air, light, space, etc. Our quality of life, I'd feel like we're in a fishbowl. Like, you know, they could see us right. Right now there's no second story hovering over the pool. There would be a second story. I think where there's no windows now, there would be an additional, I believe, five windows on that side of the house. It would just really, really destroy our quality of life. I don't know what else to say. It's just awful.

There has been a lot of discussion at prior hearings and tonight about the impact of the proposed roofed porch. When I say "impact," I mean impact upon your use and enjoyment of your own property.
Uh huh.
Do you feel that there is any distinction that can be made between the roofed porch and any other structural element of the house; in other words, will it have less of an impact, in your view, or will it be the same as any other roofed structure that's created 7 to 8 feet from your property line?
It would be the same. I mean, a roof is a visual mass of impact. I mean, there's a complete difference between a covered porch and a deck or a patio. I don't think anybody could deny that. I mean, in fact, you know, at one of the other hearings when I was here a long time ago one of the board members said that. There's a huge difference between a covered porch and a deck or a patio. It's a mass, it's a visual structure, and it's permanent.
The survey that's been marked as O 6 shows the pool on your property. Are there any covered areas of the pool or structures above grade that are used in connection with the pool or any accessories to the pool itself? Like there's no cabanas there, are there?
No, no. Absolutely not. No.
There's no roof structure over the pool itself?
No.
There's also deck areas that you've constructed since the date of this survey that extend from more or less the northwest corner of the dwelling depicted on the survey. Is that correct?
Correct.
Are there any roofs over the deck areas that have been constructed at your property?
No.
Earlier in her testimony, Ms. Phillips indicated that a factor that this board should consider is that the dwelling areas of your home are located farther away from the applicant's site than other structures such as your garage, and that that separation distance somehow justified the shorter side yards that would be maintained between the building addition and the roofed porch. Do you have an opinion with respect to that expression on Ms. Phillips' part?
I feel like if they're allowed to have this addition, it's going to make my property seem smaller. It's going to enclose it. It's going to, you know, block everything.
Do you feel that your viewshed or your use of any areas of your property, particularly those that are designed and maintained for recreation and outdoor purposes, should be protected to the same extent as the view from inside the building, inside the dwelling areas?
Yes. Absolutely.
Did you buy your property with the expectation that there would be a zoning ordinance that would provide for a reasonable side yard between you and your neighbor?
Yes.
Do you feel that if the proposal is approved and the structures are constructed at the Hogan property, that there will be a reasonable side yard or separation distance between the structure shown on their plan and your property?
No, not at all. It will be too small.
Do you feel that the impact of these structures on your property will reduce the level of your use and enjoyment of your property and create a negative impact on your residential use of Lot 5?
Absolutely.
Is there anything else that you would like to bring to the attention of the board at this time?
Yes. The trees that are in my backyard, I have had Downes Tree Service come, and they have told me that
WHITAKER: Objection. That's hearsay, "they told me that."
INGLIMA: She can testify to the evaluative process to the extent that she's aware of it. I would not offer her as a witness expressing an opinion as to any plant life but she is the owner.
WHITAKER: We're going into an area of hearsay when she says somebody told me something.
INGLIMA: All right. Well, let me ask her to state
WHITAKER: Rephrase the question.
What is it exactly that you know from an inspection of your existing plant life at your property that bears on the requirement for additional maintenance or any other type of work that would
Well, the trees that I have are maple trees, and the roots grow out. The trees are close to the property line, so the roots go beyond. And if there were to be an addition and digging, the roots would be cut, and the trees would be severely compromised, and, most likely, we would lose them. There's two trees there, and they're very big and they're very old. They were there when we bought the house, so they're probably 50 years old.
By reference to the survey, can you just identify the location where those trees are? Can I have her mark on
WHITAKER: Sure.
They're here and here. They're right next to each other.
Okay. The witness has indicated on what I've marked as O 6 as my copy, the location with two Xs using blue ink. I will provide this to the board. I'll scan it, and provide it to Mr. Rutherford.
RUTHERFORD: That's fine. Thank you.
INGLIMA: Do you wish to see it right now?
RUTHERFORD: No, I don't.
WHITAKER: Mark it as O 7.
INGLIMA: So we're going to call that one O 7.

(Copy of exhibit O 6 containing markings by Ms. Reynolds is marked as exhibit O 7 in evidence.)

INGLIMA: Thank you. I have no further questions for Ms. Reynolds.
RUTHERFORD: Just one.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. RUTHERFORD:

Ms. Reynolds, a moment ago you put some facts on the record with respect to the nature of the root system around the maple trees.
Yes.
Is that something that's within your own personal knowledge or is that knowledge that you gained from someone else?
Actually both.
Okay.
I'm a huge gardner, so I feel like I know a lot about trees and plants.
RUTHERFORD: No further questions. Thank you.
INGLIMA: Thank you. I'd like to call W. Robert Cron.
WHITAKER: Mr. Cron, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

WHITAKER: Thank you. Please, for the record give your full name and address.

THE WITNESS: Robert Cron, 74 John Street, Ridgewood.

Robert W Cron, 74 John Street, Ridgewood, New Jersey, having been duly sworn, testifies as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. INGLIMA:

I'm sorry. I put Mr. Cron's middle initial in front of his name. It's Robert W. Cron. Is that correct?
Yes.
And your wife is Linda Cron?
Yes.
And both of you own the property that's located immediately to the south of the applicant's site at 74 John Street?
Yes.
For the record, that would be Block 3501, Lot 30.06. How long have you and your wife owned that property?
30 years.
I'd like to show you a survey, which I will ask to have marked as O 8. And, once again, I have the original survey with me, and I'll represent to the board that what I'm circulating is a true copy in color of the original survey. This would be O 8?
WHITAKER: Correct.

(Survey prepared by Troast Surveying Associates, dated 2/8/88, revised 7/3/88, is marked as exhibit O 8 in evidence.)

Mr. Cron, are you familiar with this survey?
Yes.
This is a survey that was prepared by Paul J. Troast of Troast Surveying Associates. It bears a date of February 8, 1988, and revised as of July 3, 1988. Is this a survey that was prepared in connection with your purchase of the property located at 74 John Street?
I guess it is. I'm not really sure. I haven't seen this in 30 years.
Okay.

ACTING CHAIRMAN BROWN: Mr. Inglima, do you have a copy for the board?

INGLIMA: Oh, I'm sorry.
The survey which I placed in front of you, Mr. Cron, bears a certification by the surveyors to Mr. and Mrs. Cron, as well as their title insurance company and mortgagee. So I think it's safe to assume that this was the survey that was created when you bought the property. Does that date reflect when you purchased the property?
Yes, it does.
Now, with respect to your existing home, your existing lot, does this survey show the conditions that are found at the property today?
There's a pool in the backyard that it doesn't show, but, other than that, it looks good.
The pool, would that be in the area where the words "lot" and "block" in reference to your property appear next to the crushed stone drive?
Yeah, more across from the garage.
Okay. Farther to the west?
Yes.
You've had the opportunity to attend this meeting, as well as prior hearings of the board, and you've heard the testimony of not only the applicant's witnesses but also of Ms. Gregory and Ms. Reynolds tonight. Do you agree with the testimony of Ms. Gregory as far as the consideration of impacts that this proposal will have upon your use and enjoyment of the property located at 74 John Street?
Yes.
Do you feel that the maintenance of plant life or shrubs, whether they're arborvitae or other species, along the common boundary between your property and the applicant's site should be a factor that the board should take into account in granting relief to the applicant; in other words, should your shrubs form the basis for their approvals?
I don't believe so.
Have those plants been installed and maintained by you over the passage of time from when you owned the property to today?
Yes.
Have you dedicated expense and maintenance and taken steps to ensure their viability and continued growth?
Yes.
Previously Ms. Phillips had indicated that those shrubs screen your view from areas of your property of structures that are located on the applicant's property, and that they would continue to provide such screening in the future.

Do you have any particular testimony or opinion with respect to that issue?

No. They do provide some privacy.
Do those shrubs screen the entire view of their property or do they allow you to see through them in different locations?
You could see through them in different locations.
With respect to the areas of your home, you have a two story dwelling on the property in the location shown on the survey. Is that correct?
Yes.
Is that more or less alongside the applicant's property, in other words, located more or less due south
Yes.
from the applicant's house?
Yes.
Are you familiar with the plans that have been submitted to the board in connection with the application?
Yes.
Have you compared the structures that are proposed to be added to the existing dwelling at the applicant's property to the location of improvements on your property?
Yes.
Do you find that the structures that are proposed at the west or rear of the existing home on the Hogan property will extend farther to the west or behind the rear line of your house?
Yes.
Would it be fair to say that those structures will also be alongside or immediately due north from the wood deck that's shown on your survey?
Yes.
If you were in the second floor areas of your home and you were looking out a window in the direction of the applicant's site, do you currently see the applicant's home?
Yes.
Do you have a conclusion as to whether or not, based on what you know about the application, the plans, and your existing viewshed, whether you would see the areas of the dwelling that would be added to the house farther to the west on the Hogan property?
Yes.
What is your opinion on that?
Well, I think that it's going to substantially block out my view of that side of the house. It's a pretty big structure that's going up there, and it's going to block my view.
Do you feel that the creation of additional two floor areas that are setback only 9.16 to 9.21 feet from your common boundary line with the Hogan property will have a negative impact on your use and enjoyment of not only your dwelling with but the rest of your property?
Yes.
Do you feel that it will constitute a reduction in the degree of privacy and reduce the views that you currently enjoy from your home in the directions generally to the northwest towards the site?
Yes.
With respect to the proposal to create, for lack of a better word, a dormer or a set of windows that extend through the roof line for the master bathroom suite, do you have an opinion with respect to how that will have an impact on your property?
Just the closeness of it, and it's going to close everything in.
Right now your survey indicates that there is a distance of 17.98 feet between both corners of your home, your existing home, and the common boundary between your property and the applicant's site.

Is that the current distance

Yes.
as you understand it?
Yes.
There have been no changes to that dimension as far as your house is concerned?
None.
The applicant is proposing to construct additions to its home at exactly the same setback as the existing home; in other words, just to extend them to the west behind what's there now, and to create a second floor addition that would be above the existing one story portion of the house that's located on the west side of the main structure. Are you familiar with that?
Yes.
Do you feel that the distance of 9.16 to 9.21 feet from the common boundary would be inadequate to provide separation distance between your two dwellings, your dwelling and the Hogan dwelling? Do you feel that that distance is too short?
Of course. Yes.
Based upon the review of the ordinances and the changes to the architectural plans and other elements of the design of the proposed building, do you have any concerns about how much closer the existing structure is getting to your house? For example, let me do one at a time. Earlier tonight we talked about the fact that the roof structures, as shown on the current plan SK 4, is moving nine inches in the direction of your home. What is your position with respect to expanding the roof in the direction of your property?
It's too close.
There are proposals on the plans to create additional windows facing towards your house. Do you have any concerns about the impact on privacy from the addition of windows to the south face of the existing house as well as the additions to be constructed behind them?
Yes.
And what are the concerns?
The closeness of the house, the proximity of the house, and the window, the privacy issues that that would cause.
I pointed out in my cross examination of Mr. Schlicht that structures would be created immediately north from the common boundary between your property and the applicant's site; in other words, in the area where the driveway on the applicant's property is currently located. I've asked him to describe what would happen to runoff that is collected, or, I should say, moves across the surface of the ground in that area. Do you have any concerns regarding the impact of runoff that would be created by additional impervious surfaces in that area?
Yes.
And what are your concerns there?
My concern would be drainage and potential flooding. I mean, just like excess water coming off that side of the property and across the driveway and impact my property.
Is there any existing drainage collection system, any trench drain or catch basin or grate with a collection point below it, that's located between your home and the applicant's home along the common boundary?
Well, there is in the way the driveway widens out towards the garage. There's a grate there that has a drain that accumulates water there.
This is a grate that's in your driveway?
Yes. Well, it's actually not in the driveway, it's actually on the edge of the driveway on the lawn.
And where, in relation to the driveway that's depicted on O 8, where would that driveway be?
The driveway was here. This is the
I'm sorry. Would the drain be that you describe?
Right here, right by the number five on the drawing.
So this would be in the location that is behind your home?
Yes.
In the area where the five in the number 552 is located?
Actually it's more in off the side of the garage. This is all driveway here, so it would be over here.
So this is a drain that collects water that's running across your driveway?
Yes.
Well, I was questioning you about any drainage collection features, structures that are located along the common boundary that collect water from the applicant's site?
No.
So, is it fair to say that everything that currently flows across the blacktop on the applicant's property just passes generally through that area without regard to any collection points?
Yes, sir.
So some of it may cross the property line, the common boundary, and some of it may move towards the southwest?
Yes, sir.
Is it your opinion that the impact of the proposed construction of improvements on the applicant's property will create detriment to your use and enjoyment of your property?
Yes.
RUTHERFORD: I think we've heard the question asked and answered probably 15 times by now.
WHITAKER: It's over 15. You asked it earlier.
INGLIMA: It's my last question, so it's a good way of drawing attention to it, I guess.
Is there anything else that you would like to add that I haven't covered?
No.
INGLIMA: Thank you. No further questions for Mr. Cron.
WHITAKER: Mr. Rutherford?
RUTHERFORD: No, no questions.

THE WITNESS: Done?

INGLIMA: Yes, you're excused. Thank you. I have no further witnesses.
WHITAKER: The members of the public can come forward and be sworn in and testify, if they wish. Unless there's any rebuttal or anything, Mr. Rutherford, that you have?
RUTHERFORD: I don't think so at the moment, no.
WHITAKER: One at a time come to the podium. By law, you have to be sworn in and loud enough so that the stenographer can make a record of it. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you have about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: It is.

WHITAKER: Thank you. Please give your full name and your address.

THE WITNESS: I'm Jane Shinozuka, S H I N O Z U K A, 825 Norgate Drive in Ridgewood. So, I know it's late, and I don't want to keep everybody, but I've just been following along here, you know, as a former member of the planning board, I'm listening to the discussion of the Municipal Land Use Law and stuff, and I know that that offers the directives about air and light and space that you've been talking about, but, you know, it's supposed to ultimately promote desirable living environments, which means visual environments. So, I think this board has an obligation to look at carefully and reject overexpansion on the existing spaces in Ridgewood. This is not only happening, you know, on this street, but this is, I guess you said you've all been past this property, this is a small property. And, you know, it would just be a tremendous amount of house on the lot. So, I don't see how you could make an argument you want to make a hardship argument, but that's the property, you bought it that way, you knew, it's kind of like you knew the rules. It fits in the neighborhood. It's a nice neighborhood. But if you give a variance like this, what's to stop every similar property from coming to you and saying, well, these people have made this very large enhancement

WHITAKER: I'll answer that question, so we don't have to go down that road.

THE WITNESS: But this is my point, it makes people

WHITAKER: Mr. Inglima and Mr. Rutherford would concur with me, I believe, that the law is very clear that each case is decided on its own merits, and that's the state law. So you can't say what one person gets everybody on the block is entitled to.

THE WITNESS: Okay, I can't say that, but I am saying that is the concern, you know, of people in general in town and that's what I'm very concerned about. And I think that, you know, part of the reason people move to this town is to get away. It's not a crowded feeling. It's not overdone. They don't have unreasonable zoning, and, you know, the laws of the Board of Adjustment.

RUTHERFORD: I have one question. I'm going to ask this question. How far do you live from this property?

THE WITNESS: Far. A long way.

RUTHERFORD: How long? How far?

THE WITNESS: I've never measured it. I live over on the other side of 17.

RUTHERFORD: And I am also compelled to ask, when is the last time that you came to a zoning board meeting to express an opinion about an application?

THE WITNESS: I don't know, but I'm interested in this property.

RUTHERFORD: All right. Thank you.
WHITAKER: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
PASH: Yes, I do.
WHITAKER: Thank you.
SEYMOUR: My name is Diane Seymour. I live at 560 Wyndemere Avenue, on the southeast corner of Wyndemere and John. My house faces Wyndemere, and the side yard is across the street, John Street, from the Crons, the Hogans and the Reynolds. I've given a lot of thought to the proposal you are considering this evening. I think it would be a mistake to allow the proposal, the proposed addition, to go forward. I have two main concerns. First, I think the regulations, that Ridgewood has in place regarding property development are correct and reasonable. Allowing an exception to those regulations could set a precedent for other properties to also be overdeveloped. This is not good for this neighborhood, nor is it good for our village. We run the risk of becoming a city instead of a village. Second, our environment is very important to me. I am concerned about the environment in our village, in our state, and in the world. Open space is a big part of the environment and our quality of life. Once it is gone, it is gone. A large addition to the Hogans' house, that is on a narrow and small piece of property, will certainly impact the open space in our neighborhood.

My recommendation is that the proposed construction not be approved. I appreciate all of your time, and I thank you for your consideration.

WHITAKER: Any questions, Mr. Rutherford?
RUTHERFORD: No.
WHITAKER: Thank you. Raise your right hand.
RADOSSI: My name is Angela Radossi.
WHITAKER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: Yes. My name is Angela Radossi, R A D O S S I, I live at 534 Wyndemere, which my side yard abuts the Hogans' backyard. I'm very concerned about this, the application for all of these variances. I'm in agreement with one of the previous public comments that said you bought the property knowing it was small, the building already apparently does not conform to the size of the lot, and worsening that doesn't seem to make sense. I was a former resident on Circle Avenue. I lived in Ridgewood for 27 years. My first five years were on Circle Avenue. My husband and I had a family of three children, and we knew we needed a bigger house. We simply picked up and moved versus trying to get a larger home onto a small piece of property. That never seems to make sense to me. The houses in Ridgewood appear to be getting larger and larger on lots that stay the same. I also believe that it's a precedent. And I know, you know, you said that it's on an individual by individual basis. I seem to think that that is a precedent for the future, if these variances were approved. I also respectfully wonder if the town wants more real estate taxes from these smaller lots. It would have been much easier and much less expensive for me to stay on Circle Avenue and try to get a massive home on a tiny lot. I would have saved myself a lot of money in going to find a bigger property. When I bought my house on Wyndemere, it was a house that needed to almost be bulldozed. And when we reconstructed that house and built an addition, we made sure we stayed within all of the zoning regulations and purposefully did not come for any variances, even though we could have used a few. So I really think it's responsible to start to allow people to build bigger and bigger houses on small lots. It's already too big for the lot that it's on. Thank you.

WHITAKER: Any questions, Mr. Rutherford?
RUTHERFORD: No. Thank you.
WHITAKER: Good evening. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: I do, sir.

WHITAKER: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: My name is Ellie Gruber, G R U B E R. I live at 229 S. Irving Street. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I do appreciate it. I've lived in Ridgewood since 1968, first on George Street, and since 1976 on S. Irving Street. In the 1980s, I covered the board of adjustment for The Municipal Reporter for many years, so I'm quite familiar with your deliberations. You have a very difficult job. You have to use your judgment based on the size of the variance and the hardship stated as the reason for the variance. But hardship is never defined as a need to just have a bigger house. In this case, the applicant's do have a small lot and a growing family, and it's natural for them to apply for a variance. As well, the Reynolds have a large family, and they have already been constructed, and they will be negatively impacted by this application. I read some transcript. I heard the neighbors of the applicant describe them as a good family, active in the community. Well, the Reynolds are also good neighbors and active in the community. While this is well and good describing how they are, the families, it has nothing to do with the application. The more relevant question is the hardship to the immediate neighbor, and that is the Reynolds. Whether or not the lot is undersized and the applicant wants more room for its growing family is not a valid reason for these variances, in my opinion. This takes away the value for the neighbor's home, and that's the real hardship. This application for at least five variances negatively impacts the immediate neighbor. When hardships are recognized in an application, both the applicant and any objectors have to be carefully measured. A variance is granted only when there is no other option. In this case, even though the applicant said it's only a few feet here, a few feet there, soon you are adding up to many feet, and, in one area, overlooking and ruining the backyard of the adjoining neighbor. When you look at the existing house and then the overlay, with how it would look if all these variances are granted, it really looks it's almost 50 percent larger and you could see how it would impact the neighbor. The key phrase in the law is whether or not it is a "detriment" to the public good, and, in this case, the immediate neighbor. Other neighbors who are not impacted may not object, but it's only the house that's directly impacted that should be considered. What makes this so difficult is that a real problem exists. You've got a growing family, which we want to keep in Ridgewood, as they add to the fabric of our town and they provide community cohesion. Nobody should tell them they have to move, but certainly more compromise is needed. I understand that some of the square footage has been reduced but definitely not enough. The board should seek a reduction in any of these variances, especially the ones that ruin the Reynolds' backyard. Hopefully an architect can reimagine this 50 percent addition to the house with less impact on the immediate neighbor. Thank you.

WHITAKER: Thank you. Mr. Rutherford?
RUTHERFORD: No questions.
WEBER: Good evening.
WHITAKER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: I do. Good evening. Laurie Weber, Weber with one B, 235 S. Irving Street. That was my neighbor. So, basically, I'm a 34 year resident. I think this is my third or fourth time joining the board of adjustment for one reason or another over the years. I also am in the unique position of having a corner lot with a neighbor who did have major construction done and a major push out done, so I feel I bring a little perspective here. I know you're going to ask me questions. So, basically this is about 20 years ago, so I've been in the house maybe I guess 12, 14 years. And my neighbor, I found out, could come a lot closer. Their setback is a side setback, my setback is a rear setback, so I found out the hard way that they could get a lot closer to my backyard than I could get to them. And what happened was they took what was a relatively modest home and they pushed out toward the edge of my backyard, the width of my backyard. They added an addition onto the back, two stories for both, so it's kind of similar to what's going on here. And so I guess I want to give you a perspective on what happened to my life since then, for your consideration and for the consideration of the people who were applying for the application, so they can really think about this. For me it's not imagining, it's what happened. So, basically there is the adjustment. It's darker. There's less light, there's less air, and that is an adjustment, and there's no question that whatever happens is going to be an adjustment. But the difference, it goes beyond that. I mean, the one thing that became immediately apparent to me right away is that my privacy was gone. Basically they had a beautiful home with windows, it was gorgeous, overlooking my lovely landscaped backyard. I was their view. And I'm a person who enjoys sitting out in the sun, we dine in the backyard, we would have company sitting in the backyard. And I found that over these past years, when the furniture died, we didn't replace it because we really don't use the backyard very much anymore. I actually feel more privacy there than I do in my own backyard, which is a problem. And the other issue that came up, which I heard kind of mentioned here, which I'm glad I came, is the drainage issue. Any decent size rain is going to leave my backyard soggy now, which means that one problem is that there are certain areas closer that I can't even grow anything, and then it's the insects. I mean, there's, you know, a myriad of insects that come into your yard and into your home when the property around your home becomes damp on a regular basis. So, you know, those are concerns. I also kind of have another unique perspective, because I actually grew up in a home with an in ground pool, and I know from the experience in the home that I lived in for 18 years, that when the ground is moist around your pool, as it happened to us, actually it can very quickly deteriorate the integrity of the structure. And during one good season of bad rain, because of where we were, our pool collapsed. Had this been an ongoing issue of drainage, the pool would have collapsed. So it will put pressure on the Reynolds' pool, which, you know, it's not something to take lightly. Just give me a second now. And the trees. Anybody in this town knows, who has big trees, and I used to have seven more than I have now, that when the ground is wet and the winds are whipping, we all hold our breath and hope that our trees don't fall over. And again, 10, 12 years nothing, and a few years in, I had two trees come down during one rainstorm. So I found out the hard way and took out five more trees besides them, because that's how unnerved I was. One of them barely missed my bedroom that I was sitting in and it felt like an explosion when it came down. I put my kids in the basement until the storm was over. So, you know, these are all things that I hope not only you will consider but that the people that are making these plans will consider, because, you know, at the end of the day people want to be able to improve their homes, and that's understandable. People want to be able to preserve what they have, and that's also understandable. And then the onus comes on you nice folks here, who have to hopefully find a nice middle ground, because, really, whatever you do, I hope you please really do that, because whatever you do here today is going to affect two families, three families actually, every day for many, many years to come. So I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I sincerely hope that you'll take what I'm saying into account, because there's not a day goes by that I don't look out into my backyard and sit there and notice the difference. Thank you.

RUTHERFORD: No questions, Mr. Chairman.
McNAMARA: Good evening. My name is Linda McNamara. I live at 575 Knickerbocker Road.
WHITAKER: Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: I do. Linda, L I N D A, McNamara, M c N A M A R A. I currently live at 575 Knickerbocker Road. I've been there for 20 years, I can hardly believe it. Prior to that, I was on Overlook Road for 20 years, so I know the neighborhood very well. I moved here from the city. I was impressed, like everybody else was, with the schools, trees, downtown library, and the character of the neighborhoods and the homes therein. Whenever there are additions or new properties seeking multiple variances, it is like a red flag. Land use regulations are formulated for a reason, and tonight's hearing is a case in point. I came with a different set of things I was going to say, but as I was sitting in the back, I realized not only do I know the Reynolds property so well, because prior to them living there I knew the people living there prior to '90s. And now I find out that the Cron's are old, old fine friends. They are in the house that I thought they had moved from, and I remember when they built that house, and how they tried so hard. I don't even think they had to come for any variances or anything. They checked with their neighbors, they tried to make a house, and it's hard to make a brand new house in an old neighborhood and have it look well and have not everybody be jumping through the windows to have that changed. Okay. So this is what I had written. I'll try to be very brief. I am very familiar with the area in which the Hogans and the Reynolds live. We recently had an issue on Knickerbocker Road where a developer was looking to divide a property into two lots which would have required several variances. The largest one being reduction of a 50 foot frontage requirement for each house. Neighbors were concerned that this would change the character of the neighborhood and open the door for similar requests. The variances were not approved. The resulting development is lovely in keeping the surrounding neighborhood properties. The applicant's are asking for seven variances. This alone is a concern because of the fact it will have on properties on either side and what it might mean for further applications in that particular neighborhood. Presently there are at least 30 other homes in the John Street and Wyndemere T area that exist on lots with 50 foot frontage/width. The waiving of the existing land use regulations will most likely start a precedent that will then lead to more applications of overbuilding. The Reynolds property will be greatly affected by current plans to significantly increase the square footage and the second story height increase of over 21 feet on a second floor and approximately 19 feet on the one story structure. This will demonstrably change the area abutting the Reynolds property. I urge you to consider how the approval of seven variances for a single property addition will affect the Reynolds property and this charming old neighborhood may be changed forever. The property regulations have served us well for many years. A drastic change may have unintended consequences for our village. Thank you.

WHITAKER: Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Hi. My name is Patricia Pechko. I live at 965 E. Ridgewood Avenue. So, for the past 26 years, we've lived on a 50 foot lot. I have a unique perspective. I can appreciate what it's like to live on a 50 foot lot. During the course of those 26 years, we've hired three well-known local architects to draw up plans for our house. In each instance, it just didn't work out, there were too many compromises to be made, and ultimately we had to live with what we had. You know, it's just when you buy a 50 foot lot, we loved the neighborhood, we loved the people, you know, our friends and our family, and we just decided to stay there. There are always going to be compromises with a 50 foot lot, so I sympathize with the Hogans. It's not an easy situation. I would want the second floor laundry, I always have, it's my dream. And on the other perspective, a few years ago they wanted to subdivide the property next to us, and we would have wound up with two very, very large homes along our side property, that's a corner property, and we would have been looking at a 30 foot high wall along 220 feet of our property. Thank goodness they decided not to build those. The planning board denied that. But we were saved the fate of the Reynolds and the Crons, should this go through, the 30 foot high wall. So I think, you know, we've been through both of these nice families' dilemmas. You know, I just want to say, you know, I became very familiar with the code when we were going through this subdivision. It was written to preserve and protect the integrity of the property and the neighborhoods. When multiple variances are sought, you know, that adverse impact increases considerably. And I think it's reasonable for adjacent property owners to expect the village code be adhered to and enforced. The adjacent property owners have made decisions about their own properties based on this expectation, and the impact to them should be part of your deliberative process. If approved, both adjacent properties are going to be adversely impacted, primarily by the high walls that they'll be looking at on either side. The Crons, I understand they're going to lose a lot of light in their kitchen, the side. The Reynolds, obviously you're going to have a huge side wall along most of your backyard. You're going to lose all the privacy you've come to expect and enjoy. You know, southern exposure. You know, for me light, air is everything. A breeze. I'm a person who throws the windows open all the time. Noise is definitely a factor. And I just think, you know, overall, one thing to me, because I walk in this neighborhood often, and the one thing that sticks out in my mind is that when you come down John Street from Linwood, you see the Reynolds' beautiful house there, and you're going to have this big house sticking out visually along their side yard now. You know, of course I worry about overbuilding. You know, my house occupies 10 percent of my lot, you know, and it is a 50 foot, and it's a vertical house, you know, to be honest, and we have squeaked out every usable inch of it. Ridgewood is known for open spaces, and the distances between houses just seems to be getting smaller and smaller. And, you know, the total footprint of the lots are just getting too small. We moved here from North Bergen. And if you've ever been through North Bergen and Palisades Park, I really don't want Ridgewood to become Palisades Park or North Bergen. Thank you. Any questions?

RUTHERFORD: None.
WHITAKER: Any other members of the public wish to provide comment? Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Inglima, back to you. You want to proceed tonight with the brief summations and then a vote?
RUTHERFORD: I think, Mr. Chairman, we only have five eligible members on this matter, we need three, obviously. I think it would benefit everyone if a fuller board heard the matter. So I realize we want to finish this too. Please understand we do. This is our fourth hearing, and there's obviously been a lot of testimony this evening on both sides, and I totally understand and respect that. If the board could give us a quick date. We won't have any further testimony. I'm prepared to offer a summation and Mr. Inglima will as well. Give us a date for deliberation and discussion.
WHITAKER: Are you going to provide a transcript of tonight's meeting?
RUTHERFORD: Yeah, I can do that, because, Mr. Negrycz, I know it will be easier for him to read a transcript.
WHITAKER: Jane, knowing how long the transcript would take, will it be the 27th or the second meeting in November.
WONDERGEM: This will just be for summation and vote.
WHITAKER: Mr. Rutherford, how long do you believe your summation would be?
RUTHERFORD: 15 minutes.
WHITAKER: Mr. Inglima, I'm not going to hold you to it, but give us an estimate.
INGLIMA: I would try to make it very brief, but I would probably estimate somewhere in the order of 20 minutes.
WHITAKER: So we should probably determine that we need at least an hour, Jane. So what do the agendas look like?
WONDERGEM: We would have to wait until December, December 11th.
INGLIMA: December 11th.
WONDERGEM: December 11th.
WHITAKER: So the meeting will be carried until December 11th, without any further notice.
RUTHERFORD: No further testimony.
WHITAKER: No further testimony, summation.
RUTHERFORD: Summation and board vote.
WHITAKER: Summation and vote.
RUTHERFORD: Thank you. We appreciate your time this evening. Thank you.
WHITAKER: For the members of the public, in case there's an issue of a member not being able to come that night, somebody calling and checking with Jane, our secretary, to see if it's going to be on that night is certainly something you can do. These are volunteers. Sometimes things come up, somebody gets ill. Mr. Rutherford has requested for a full board, those that are available to vote, so we will do it December 11th.

The hearing was carried to December 11, 2018 without further notice.

Meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Minutes submitted by: Jane Wondergem, Board Secretary

Date Approved: March 26, 2019

Hits: 2012

20190423 Zoning Board of Adjustment

20190409 Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda

20190226 Zoning Board of Adjustment

20181030 Zoning Board of Adjustment

20190326 - Zoning Board of Adjustment - Agenda

More Articles ...

20190423 Zoning Board of Adjustment

20190409 Zoning Board of Adjustment Agenda

20190226 Zoning Board of Adjustment

20181030 Zoning Board of Adjustment

20190326 - Zoning Board of Adjustment - Agenda

More Articles ...

Feedback