EDISON — A decision on whether a township woman will be able to open a petgrooming business on her property is again in the hands of the courts.
Donna Seredy is looking to open a business called Pretty Paws on her property at 947 New Durham Road. She had pursued this effort last year, and the zoning board had approved the variances for building a new, 1,200-square-foot structure on the property, which is zoned for light industrial uses. Seredy’s existing home on the property, which is also 1,200 square feet, is a pre-existing nonconforming structure.
Neighbor Joseph Bartonek, owner of Barton Nursery, fought the approval and took the issue to court. Access to Pretty Paws could only be through a 20-foot-wide easement through the Barton Nursery property, which surrounds Seredy’s property on three sides.
Both sides were back at the zoning board on April 28 — a year after the original approval — because Superior Court Judge Douglas Wolfson had required supplemental testimony.
Seredy’s attorney, Jeffrey Lehrer, said Wolfson’s instructions were to gain additional information as to whether the business would create an intensification of the pre-existing nonconforming use — Seredy’s house — and whether the site could be reasonably adapted to conform to the light industrial zone.
In addressing the first question, Seredy’s team explained that the business use would be very limited in nature. Seredy would handle a maximum of six dogs per day by appointment 8 a.m.-2:30 p.m., four days a week.
As for the second issue, representatives of Seredy covered the potential impact of an allowable business, which could perhaps use the site all week long — potentially with trucks — and require upwards of 35 parking spaces.
“This is a very, very benign low-intensity use,” said Christine Cofone, planner for the project. He added that if Seredy had a regular group of friends over, that could create more foot traffic than her proposed business would.
“We’re talking about six cars in a six-hour period,” Lehrer said.
Lewis Goldshore, attorney for Bartonek, also presented testimony on the issue, rebutting Seredy’s experts.
“This is common sense. If there’s going to be additional activity at the site, there’s going to be additional intensification of use at the site,” Planner Lester Nebenzahl said.
Nebenzahl and Lehrer disagreed as to whether there was a permitted use that would create less intensification than Seredy’s business.
Bartonek himself also testified, saying that Seredy is already illegally operating the business. He complained about her clients unsafely using the easement and his potential liability in the case of an accident.
“They’re going to sue me. They’re going to sue the person they think has the deep pockets,” he said.
Bartonek said the business is better-suited to a commercial building, and that Seredy’s clients, who he said went to her home over the winter and were often lost trying to locate the house, are inconveniencing him and his family.
Zoning officer Steven Lombardi said he had received Bartonek’s complaint from Goldshore about Seredy operating the business, but said he found no evidence of such.
“There was no other signs of anything happening there,” he said. “After they left that day, I heard nothing more about it.”
Following the testimony, Rosemary Feterik, vice chairwoman of the board, made a motion to approve the application, saying she felt that Wolfson’s criteria had been satisfied.
“Any other use that is a conforming use would just be more intensive than this use here,” she said, adding that traffic and noise would be worse with any other use.
Zoning board member Bhavini Shah asked for a condition that the variance would be valid only as long as Seredy owned the property; the variance would not transfer to another owner.
In the end, only board member Ralph Errico voted against the motion, so the application was again approved. The issue will now go back to Wolfson for review.