A longstanding dispute over the operation of a junkyard has raised questions about procedural fairness and property rights, as an appellate court ordered new hearings for an auto salvage business seeking recognition of its operations. The conflict centers on whether the business is entitled to continue using its property as a junkyard under protections for pre-existing nonconforming uses.
Apache Auto Wreckers, Inc. filed an appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, challenging actions by the Village of Ridgefield Park Zoning Board. The appeal was argued on January 26, 2026, and decided on March 12, 2026.
According to court documents, Apache Auto Wreckers has operated a junkyard at its Ridgefield Park property since at least 1978, initially as a tenant and later as owner. The Village enacted its zoning ordinance in 1968 while the site was already being used as a junkyard by previous operators. In 1978 and again in 1998, Apache obtained certificates of occupancy for junkyard use at different addresses on the property. That same year, the zoning board granted a use variance with several conditions: storage and warehousing were limited to the company’s own vehicle parts inside buildings; sales from buildings were prohibited; sales could only occur from an onsite trailer; servicing was restricted to company vehicles; and any expansion required site plan approval.
The dispute intensified in 2021 when municipal officials issued two summonses against Apache: one for stacking junk above fence height and another for storing items outside required enclosures. During a subsequent municipal court hearing, Apache agreed to seek clarification from the zoning board regarding the scope of its permitted activities.
On August 2, 2022, Apache submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-conformity under New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68), arguing that its junkyard operations predated local zoning restrictions and should be protected as lawful nonconforming uses. Specifically, Apache sought confirmation that activities such as outdoor storage above fence height reflected continuous operations dating back before the zoning ordinance.
Hearings before the zoning board took place in September and October 2023. The construction official objected to what he described as overly broad claims by Apache regarding permissible uses under prior approvals. Testimony was received from Board member Garofalow about historic site usage without being sworn or subject to cross-examination by Apache’s representatives. Cross-examination of then-Construction Official Hansen was also cut short by the board before completion. When Apache attempted to call witnesses—including its attorney from the 1998 application and its current owner—the board refused their testimony.
Ultimately, the board denied Apache’s application for a certificate of nonconformity based on its interpretation of the 1998 resolution governing site use.
Apache responded by filing a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs in Bergen County Superior Court (Docket No. L-6579-23), alleging that denial of cross-examination opportunities and refusal to hear witnesses amounted to arbitrary action and violated due process rights.
After reviewing transcripts and arguments during a May 2024 trial de novo, the trial court found that “plaintiff’s due process rights had been violated because the Board failed to permit plaintiff to complete cross-examination” of key witnesses. The court ordered a limited remand so that cross-examinations could be completed and supplemental findings issued by the board.
However, in written findings dated May 29, 2024, the trial court also concluded that “the uses to which plaintiff is entitled are detailed in the 1998 resolution,” suggesting that broader junkyard operations were not authorized—a finding which influenced subsequent actions by both parties.
Despite this order for remand hearings, records show that “the Board declined to hold a hearing,” asserting that plaintiff’s application was moot given the trial court’s substantive findings regarding permitted uses under past resolutions.
Apache sought reconsideration from the trial court—requesting withdrawal of those substantive findings until after it had been allowed full participation at hearings—but this motion was denied on July 29, 2024. The court stated “the clarification issue is moot… [as] the Village has conceded plaintiff shall be permitted to cross-examine witnesses and present relevant witness testimony.” Still unresolved was whether further proceedings would actually take place before final decisions about land use rights were made.
In reviewing these developments on appeal (Docket No. A-3919-23), Judges Natali and Bergman wrote: “We concur with the trial court’s determination that the Board failed to provide plaintiff procedural due process at the initial Board hearing.” They affirmed that remand is necessary so Apache can fully cross-examine municipal witnesses and present affirmative evidence supporting its application—regardless of how clear some parties believe prior resolutions may be.
The appellate opinion vacated earlier substantive findings regarding what uses are permitted under past variances until after completion of proper hearings: “We conclude the court’s substantive determinations… were a misapplication of its discretion because a full record before the Board had not yet been developed on remand.” As such, they directed entry of an amended order requiring new proceedings before any final disposition on nonconforming use status is made.
Attorneys representing Apache Auto Wreckers included Thomas T. Kim (Law Offices of Thomas T. Kim). Representing Ridgefield Park Zoning Board were Jennifer Alampi and Carmine R. Alampi (Law Office of Carmine R. Alampi LLC). The case appears under Appellate Division Docket No. A-3919-23.
