Bid to turn home into office killed by board
Application centered on use of Court Street residence
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
FREEHOLD — In a unanimous decision, the Freehold Borough Planning Board voted to deny an application that would have allowed attorney Veronica Davis to operate a law office in a Court Street residential property.
Board members Kevin Mulligan, William Butch, Robert Oaks, Chairwoman Lisa Kristiansen, Danielle Sims and Lillie Hendry voted to deny the application.
Davis was seeking the board's permission to convert 68 Court St., a residential property, into law offices. The property is across from the Monmouth County Court House and Monument Park
Testimony was taken on Sept. 24 and the board rendered its decision on Oct. 22.
Residents of the Court Street and Monument Street neighborhood opposed Davis' plan. They said they believed the board's approval of the application would lead to additional conversions of homes into offices.
The board's decision on Oct. 22 was preceded by a discussion of the application among the panel members.
Davis asked if she could say something before the board's discussion was complete. She was told by the board's attorney, Patrick Accisano, that no testimony and no comments were to be heard. The only comment being allowed that evening was the board members' discussion of the application.
Mulligan, who eventually made the motion to deny the application, told his fellow board members it was important for them to weigh the criteria that would have a positive impact on the area and the criteria that would have a negative impact.
"What jumped out at me was that this is still a residential zone, and although there is some commercial (uses) on the map, there is a clear delineation here between the two zones," Mulligan said.
He referenced the Monmouth County Historical Association headquarters and museum at 70 Court St. as a "fire break" between the residential and commercial zones. The historical association is next door to the property Davis wanted to purchase and convert into a law office.
At that point Davis stood up again and insisted on being heard.
"This board is basing their decision on a belief that is not true," she said.
Accisano firmly instructed her to sit down.
"But you don't understand, what they are saying is not true. The historical association is not the last business in the residential zone," she said.
"Any attempt to say anything else must be put on the record," Accisano said. "Then it (the hearing) must be open to the public again."
"You are not allowing me due process," Davis responded. "I am exercising my right to freedom of speech."
Accisano told Davis the board members were in the process of examining the maps that would list the properties and said they would have accurate information in order to make a decision on her application.
Mulligan said, "We have heard from many residents that they want the residential neighborhood to remain that way, and rightfully so. The biggest burden this application has to overcome is that this is clearly a residential area."
He said there is sufficient office space downtown.
"My perspective of this negative criteria is that there is ample office space that doesn't require us to expand the business in this residential zone," Mulligan said.
He referenced a home office on Court Street that is owned by attorney Ray Raya and said Raya has no sign, no parking, no outside clientele and "just wanted to be able to work at home in his pajamas and be with his family."
Mulligan also referred to attorney Carl Danziger and attorney Patrick Durning whose law offices at 25 Monument St. recently received an approval by the Planning Board for a variance. He said the board members felt that the property at 25 Monument St., which had been used for rentals, was controlled by an absentee landlord and said the residence had already been divided. He said those two examples did not bear any similarity to Davis' application.
Sims had a concern about a carriage house at the rear of the property at 68 Court St. She said she was concerned that if the board approved Davis' application and if the carriage house was converted to a rental, there would be yet another absentee landlord in the area.
"We would be approving two separate uses on the same property," Sims said.
Kristiansen agreed with the points Mulligan made, saying, "If we allow this, it will establish a trend and residents want to maintain the privacy of their neighborhood. I don't want to turn it into a commercial area."
Davis again tried to comment on the situation, but she was not permitted to do so by Accisano.
Following the board's vote to deny the application, Davis, who was clearly upset with the outcome, told Mulligan that in the past several male attorneys "were all approved for the same variance I am asking for. The only thing that's different here is that I have a Ms. in front of my name and they had Mr."
Mulligan responded firmly, saying, "That is completely unfounded, Ms. Davis."
Although it appeared that Mulligan wanted to continue the exchange, Accisano stopped the interaction completely.
In a subsequent conversation with Davis, the attorney said public records showed the board granted Danziger a variance for a property that clearly was in a residential area.
According to Davis, records showed the board members felt that "the application demonstrated there is a need for proposed professional office use" and granted the variance to allow Danziger and Durning to operate a professional office at 25 Monument St.
She said attorney Thomas Mallon was granted a variance for a law office in 1994 and records showed the board members at the time said the professional use was "preferable to others because of the property's location and proximity to the courthouse." The records also stated that there was no interest in the use for retail properties. The property at 78 Court St. was granted a variance for a professional office to Peter J. Saker in 1975, stating that the variance "would reflect an ongoing change presently in the neighborhood."
Dittmar Insurance on Court Street and a building at 82 Court St. were also allowed to use residences as professional offices in the 1970s. The properties were also in close proximity to the courthouse. The variance for 82 Court St. belonged to Judge Thomas Schebell. The board said the use would be compatible with the area and "is the highest and the best use for the premises in question."
Davis said she believes the zoning in that area of Freehold Borough should be changed.
"The Monmouth County Court House dominates the area. It's Freehold Borough's saving grace," Davis said. "We have the courthouse here and it supports the borough's historic infrastructure and lawyers also support that infrastructure."
In a subsequent conversation with Debbie Esola, of Monument Street, the resident said people in the area of Court and Monument streets were "relieved and extremely happy" to know that the board has once again helped the neighborhood surrounding Monument Park.
She said a neighborhood alliance that formed several years ago was instrumental in helping to rally support to voice opposition to the recent zoning application.
"Our neighborhood is also extremely appreciative to Kevin Coyne, our town historian, who has maintained a very strong opinion that the town's master plan should be upheld to protect the neighborhood and has communicated that to the board several times" Esola said.
"For now, our family and the neighbors will sleep a little easier. But we know it will just be a matter of time before we go through this again. However, each time an application gets denied, it helps to reinforce the board's stance as well as the neighborhood sentiment that Monument Park should remain a residential area," she added.
Monument Street resident Ann D'Arrigo said she is "pleased and grateful" to the board for the decision.
"Although these few streets are convenient to the courthouse, we should not forget the original intent of this portion of Freehold Borough and the history that defines it," D'Arrigo said.
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2008/1105/front_page/005.html
