Zoning Board acts quickly
on Ridgeway project
FAIR HAVEN — It did not take long for the borough Zoning Board of Adjustment to restore approval for John and Donna Ridgeway’s plan for an addition to their Brown’s Lane home.
The Ridgeways were back before the Zoning Board after an Appellate Court decision determined that the board did not provide proper fact-finding when it granted the couple approval to build the addition in October 1998.
Neighbors appealed that decision to the courts where it was first affirmed before being returned to the Zoning Board with instructions to more fully provide the facts, upon which the board made its decision.
After a 30-minute closed session on Dec. 7, the board came out and adopted an amended resolution without a public hearing by a 4-0 vote. Richard Unice, Marilyn D’Ambrosio, John McGuire and Sonia Reevey voted for the ordinance. Board members Neil Briody, Dennis O’Brien and Lawrence Quigley were not eligible to vote on the resolution because they were not part of the original approval, according to borough officials.
The original vote in 1998 was 4-1, with the same four board members in favor and Briody opposed.
The new resolution added findings about "unique property conditions … to wit, the age and location of the existing dwelling," and "the historical significance of the home."
Also noted in the resolution passed last week was that putting the addition where the Ridgeways request to build it rather than where it is permitted (at the rear of the house) would advance some of the purposes of the borough’s municipal land use law regarding the provision of light, air and open space on neighboring properties.
David Smith, one of the neighbors who appealed the original approval, said he was disappointed that the board did not hold a public hearing on the application before reinstating the approval.
He said evidence about a possible graveyard on the Ridgeways’ property, that was gathered after the 1998 approval was granted, was prevented from being entered into the record, and information about the Ridgeways’ failing to comply with conditions of the earlier approval also was not allowed into the record.
Jim Gorman, the attorney representing Smith at the Dec. 7 hearing, said he was surprised the board did not hold a public hearing.
"We expected they were going to take testimony from the applicants and hear from objectors," said Gorman, whose office is in Shrewsbury. "I don’t think they [the board members] acted reasonably. There should have been opportunity [for the public] to be heard."
He noted that a great deal has happened in the two years since the board gave its approval for the project, including amendments to the borough’s master plan and changes in borough ordinances that could have an effect on the project’s approval.
Smith said by acting as it did, the board made certain the case would again be appealed to the courts.