|
|
Post by admin on May 26, 2009 11:14:19 GMT -5
freeholdvoice.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=planningboardtwo&action=display&thread=3981The above thread is about the attorney who wanted to turn a residence into an office on Court Street. Apparently, this attorney is adamant about opening her office. From what I understand, she is still in contact with some Court Street residents in an effort to get them to change their minds. I also understand that there is a meeting in borough hall tomorrow night and this issue will be brought up again by that attorney. The meeting is at 7:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Post by Bermuda98 on May 26, 2009 12:21:24 GMT -5
Ms. Davis has made her way to Monument and Court Streets as well, knocking on doors and making it known that she will fight this until she gets what she wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bermuda98 on May 26, 2009 12:22:16 GMT -5
Pardon me, Monument and Schanck Streets........
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 26, 2009 17:40:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bermuda98 on May 26, 2009 21:44:35 GMT -5
Well, since some have seen office furniture/supplies, clients and a secretary going in and out of the new location, I would say yes, she has switched offices. Oh, and someone made a call to her office and the new address was given out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bermuda98 on May 27, 2009 8:00:25 GMT -5
MEETING RESCHEDULED.....UPDATE!!!
I was told Ms. Davis was not aware she had to re-notify everyone, and people thought the last hearing would just be continued to the next meeting, both of which are incorrect. The next scheduled hearing for this application is June 24..
By the way, this application is for Ms. Davis to have her residence there, with an office in her residence, a permitted use along Rt. 537 (but not here). That would mean either she or a family member would be the only ones who could live in the house. I am uncertain if it means they MUST live there so the 'one-room' office is an auxiliary use....nor do I know the hardship that would make the variance necessary.
As of now, Ms. Davis is not permitted to do ANYTHING office related there...but I do not think she is adhering to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 27, 2009 10:21:03 GMT -5
there is also a rumor circulating that Ms. Davis went door to door after her loss before the FB planning board last year. It is alleged that she showed her neighbors a picture of a Mexican family and stated that this was the family that would rent the house to if she was not allowed to have an office there. I have heard this from more than one person from thge neighborhood. I hope the people that this was done to attend the meeting and let the board know what is happening. I especially do not think the board will like to hear that she is already conducting business from the house after already being denied. And since the boro council reads this site, I wonder if they are doing something about it. Here is what happened with another home office on Court Street a few years ago.. newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2005/1130/Front_page/024.htmlYou will note from the article, there were several provisos: - no sign, - no clients and therefore no additional traffic. |
|
|
|
Post by Bermuda98 on May 27, 2009 10:58:42 GMT -5
Novillero: That 'rumor' is indeed true. In fact, Ms. Davis went around a second time recently, with her son in tow, stating that he would be living there. A neighbor told her that several people were still very much against what she was trying to accomplish, and she responded by telling this person that she planned to fight it until she attained what she desired---a law office on Court Street.
LisaS: Ms. Davis wishes to conduct business on Court Street so that she may walk to work. To quote Ms. Davis: "The Monmouth County Court House dominates the area. It's Freehold Borough's saving grace. We have the courthouse here and it supports the borough's historic infrastructure and lawyers also support that infrastructure."
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 27, 2009 11:10:02 GMT -5
Novillero: That 'rumor' is indeed true. In fact, Ms. Davis went around a second time recently, with her son in tow, stating that he would be living there. A neighbor told her that several people were still very much against what she was trying to accomplish, and she responded by telling this person that she planned to fight it until she attained what she desired---a law office on Court Street. LisaS: Ms. Davis wishes to conduct business on Court Street so that she may walk to work. To quote Ms. Davis: "The Monmouth County Court House dominates the area. It's Freehold Borough's saving grace. We have the courthouse here and it supports the borough's historic infrastructure and lawyers also support that infrastructure." I hope she fails for the sole reason of her tactics. She should have done here homework before buying the house, or bought the house subject to approval of a variance. And she should have kept her old office until the variance was approved. For the record, there are many bona fide offices that are within walking distance to the courthouse. We don't need another one. She can go ahead and rent to a Mexican family if she wants to. Most people in town have at least one Mexican or hispanic family living near them already - or, for goodness sake, have seen them in town!!! Clearly, Ms. Davis has a problem with Mexicans. What in the world do you think she is implying? Given Ms. Davis' alleged conduct, I would think it may be preferable to have someone else reside there - anyone but a neighbor that would behave like she has been alleged to! Who does she think she (allegedly) is? |
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 27, 2009 11:11:09 GMT -5
Veronica Davis should do this the smart way. She should get the LLA or Casa Freehold on her side and she will get what she wants. ;D
|
|
ka19
Junior Member
Posts: 356
|
Post by ka19 on May 27, 2009 12:26:01 GMT -5
The planning (combined planning/zoning) board seems to be handling this properly from the legal standpoint. It is very unlikely that the applicant can legitimately meet the "Medici" standard necessary to prove the grounds for a use variance. I won't go into the legal grounds or the standard of proof because I don't feel like typing it all out (let's just say that use variances are designed to be extraordinary relief for extraordinary circumstances). However, I will say that any approval that she receives would probably be an easy one to appeal if any of the neighbors wish to fight her on it. The good news for Ms. Davis is that she won't have to walk far before losing her approval on appeal. ;D
If I were advising Ms. Davis, I would tell her that she might have a better chance at a favorable outcome if she asks the mayor and council to revise the zoning ordinance to allow for mixed use/professional offices along that part of court street. This way, if the planning board was inclined to help her, they would would be able to do so (by way of recommendation to the mayor and council) in a way that won't be reversed on appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 27, 2009 12:37:58 GMT -5
She wishes to walk to work. She can do that from the Parker House too. She sounds fat. How does a fat person sound?  |
|
|
|
Post by admin on May 27, 2009 12:39:03 GMT -5
The planning (combined planning/zoning) board seems to be handling this properly from the legal standpoint. It is very unlikely that the applicant can legitimately meet the " Medici" standard necessary to prove the grounds for a use variance. I won't go into the legal grounds or the standard of proof because I don't feel like typing it all out (let's just say that use variances are designed to be extraordinary relief for extraordinary circumstances). However, I will say that any approval that she receives would probably be an easy one to appeal if any of the neighbors wish to fight her on it. The good news for Ms. Davis is that she won't have to walk far before losing her approval on appeal. ;D If I were advising Ms. Davis, I would tell her that she might have a better chance at a favorable outcome if she asks the mayor and council to revise the zoning ordinance to allow for mixed use/professional offices along that part of court street. This way, if the planning board was inclined to help her, they would would be able to do so (by way of recommendation to the mayor and council) in a way that won't be reversed on appeal. Ka19, Nice post!  Do you think she is banking on getting what she wants and then having nobody challenge it? |
|
ka19
Junior Member
Posts: 356
|
Post by ka19 on May 27, 2009 12:45:31 GMT -5
She wishes to walk to work. She can do that from the Parker House too. She sounds fat. How does a fat person sound? I always imagine the sounds of a tuba. |
|
ka19
Junior Member
Posts: 356
|
Post by ka19 on May 27, 2009 12:50:06 GMT -5
The planning (combined planning/zoning) board seems to be handling this properly from the legal standpoint. It is very unlikely that the applicant can legitimately meet the " Medici" standard necessary to prove the grounds for a use variance. I won't go into the legal grounds or the standard of proof because I don't feel like typing it all out (let's just say that use variances are designed to be extraordinary relief for extraordinary circumstances). However, I will say that any approval that she receives would probably be an easy one to appeal if any of the neighbors wish to fight her on it. The good news for Ms. Davis is that she won't have to walk far before losing her approval on appeal. ;D If I were advising Ms. Davis, I would tell her that she might have a better chance at a favorable outcome if she asks the mayor and council to revise the zoning ordinance to allow for mixed use/professional offices along that part of court street. This way, if the planning board was inclined to help her, they would would be able to do so (by way of recommendation to the mayor and council) in a way that won't be reversed on appeal. Ka19, Nice post! Do you think she is banking on getting what she wants and then having nobody challenge it? Who knows what she's thinking...in my opinion, she's wasting her time and energy by taking the route that she has chosen. As they say, the attorney who represents herself has a fool for a client. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 27, 2009 13:42:54 GMT -5
The planning (combined planning/zoning) board seems to be handling this properly from the legal standpoint. It is very unlikely that the applicant can legitimately meet the " Medici" standard necessary to prove the grounds for a use variance. I won't go into the legal grounds or the standard of proof because I don't feel like typing it all out (let's just say that use variances are designed to be extraordinary relief for extraordinary circumstances). However, I will say that any approval that she receives would probably be an easy one to appeal if any of the neighbors wish to fight her on it. The good news for Ms. Davis is that she won't have to walk far before losing her approval on appeal. ;D If I were advising Ms. Davis, I would tell her that she might have a better chance at a favorable outcome if she asks the mayor and council to revise the zoning ordinance to allow for mixed use/professional offices along that part of court street. This way, if the planning board was inclined to help her, they would would be able to do so (by way of recommendation to the mayor and council) in a way that won't be reversed on appeal. After the prior home-office variance on Court Street, the council met on the issue of an ordiance for home offices and completely rejected it. Should Ms. Davis try to get the whole area re-zoned (as KA19 suggested), well, I think the neighbors on Court Street would be out to fight that as well. I also think the master plan was re-done within the past 5 or so years, and obviously nothing was done here. I would find it odd that council would re-zone based on the wishes of one person. I don't know if this sort of thing is done, or if this is what KA19 was saying, but it would smack of unfairness. I think Ms. Davis is in a losing battle. Her first mistake was not doing her homework; her seocnd mistake was being adversarial to her neighbors and her third mistake is blatantly disregarding the current ordinance. Of course, these are mistakes if she doesn't get approved... Right now, IMO, everything is her own doing. If she claims a "hardship," it is her own doing. She bought the house (and owns another one). She moved out of her law office and now has no office - her fault, not the neighborhood's. I also do not think she can claim that what she is doing will benefit the community. She bought a house in the area - sure she is fixing it up which is nice - but that is something that another owner might've done just as well. She is bringing a law practice, but we have many already here, and in fact, there are plenty of vacancies. So her having a law office at this address does not really benefit anyone else but her. Meanwhile, she is slowly eroding the residential aspects of the neighborhood. Lastly, her other problems may be making her building ADA complaint and having sufficient off-street parking. I think she needs these, but I am not 100% sure. |
|
ka19
Junior Member
Posts: 356
|
Post by ka19 on May 27, 2009 13:50:53 GMT -5
The planning (combined planning/zoning) board seems to be handling this properly from the legal standpoint. It is very unlikely that the applicant can legitimately meet the " Medici" standard necessary to prove the grounds for a use variance. I won't go into the legal grounds or the standard of proof because I don't feel like typing it all out (let's just say that use variances are designed to be extraordinary relief for extraordinary circumstances). However, I will say that any approval that she receives would probably be an easy one to appeal if any of the neighbors wish to fight her on it. The good news for Ms. Davis is that she won't have to walk far before losing her approval on appeal. ;D If I were advising Ms. Davis, I would tell her that she might have a better chance at a favorable outcome if she asks the mayor and council to revise the zoning ordinance to allow for mixed use/professional offices along that part of court street. This way, if the planning board was inclined to help her, they would would be able to do so (by way of recommendation to the mayor and council) in a way that won't be reversed on appeal. Should Ms. Davis try to get the whole area re-zoned (as KA19 suggested), well, I think the neighbors on Court Street would be out to fight that as well. I also think the master plan was re-done within the past 5 or so years, and obviously nothing was done here. I would find it odd that council would re-zone based on the wishes of one person. I don't know if this sort of thing is done, or if this is what KA19 was saying, but it would smack of unfairness. ... Lastly, her other problems may be making her building ADA complaint and having sufficient off-street parking. I think she needs these, but I am not 100% sure. Nov, I agree with you that it would be unfair to the neighboring owners, who would surely fight it. Simply as a tactical exercise, I do not see how she will ever get the result she wants by variance for the reasons I explained above. Slightly less unlikely is her ability to get a zoning change, which is in the hands of the mayor and council. While they would listen to public comment on any ordinance change, they are not bound to defer to public opinion, and if the procedures are followed correctly, then it would be very difficult to successfully appeal an ordinance change. But since you say she already tried this, then I guess that's that. She is wasting her time. The last part of your post also speaks to how difficult it will be for her to get her use variance approved. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on May 28, 2009 8:35:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bermuda98 on Jun 4, 2009 11:17:10 GMT -5
Okay. So now Madame Davis has paintedVeronica Davis, Attorney on the glass of her front door. According to Hank Stryker, who is well aware of the fact that she is indeed practicing there, she was given a thirty day violation on 24 April. According to Mr. Stryker, nothing further can be done until the meeting on 24 June. What's going on here?! Does the Board's decision mean NOTHING?!
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 4, 2009 12:58:37 GMT -5
Bermuda... just so you know. Most of the Freehold Borough Council, as well as the mayor, read this site on a regular basis.
So... let's see if they do anything about it, or will they pretend that they did not see these posts?
It's an election year guys... don't wait until October to do your good deeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 4, 2009 13:32:11 GMT -5
PEOPLE NEED TO RE-READ THIS ARTICLE: 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 |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 4, 2009 13:33:25 GMT -5
And I have a question for our resident attorneys.
- Has the time lapsed for this matter to be reconsidered?
- Is this a new application?
- Shouldn't an appeal have been filed? (or is she trying to create a better record for an appeal?)
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 4, 2009 16:09:15 GMT -5
Okay. So now Madame Davis has painted Veronica Davis, Attorney on the glass of her front door. According to Hank Stryker, who is well aware of the fact that she is indeed practicing there, she was given a thirty day violation on 24 April. According to Mr. Stryker, nothing further can be done until the meeting on 24 June. What's going on here?! Does the Board's decision mean NOTHING?! That is truly amazing! These acts are defiant and brazen. I saw the posts by Novillero after yours, Bermuda and he is not far off. It is situations like this that build the reputation that CE does not do enough. Many people have gotten fed up and puzzled over the actions like this one. I will say one thing, I have heard compliments about CE, as well. But your reaction is not the first. Many others have felt the same. When I read this, it really gets my goat. This is why people need to get involved and learn about what goes on in this town. At the last CE forum, the issue of why complaints appear to move slow was a topic of discussion. While there was a decent turn out, there should have been far more people. People have got to go to council meetings, rental board meetings, and planning board meetings. Make the right noise and ask the right questions. To this day, I am still a firm believer that this town needs an independent group of concerned citizens to get together and watch over things a bit more. A fair minded group, not affiliated with any party, who will press these issues. This is a good town with great people. There is a lot of hope in this town. But, that requires that people get involved and care! We, the legal and lawful residents of this town have got to be far more proactive in defining this town, our home. If we sit on our buts, other, outside influences will do it for us, and not to our advantage. I hope the Court Street residents are getting together. From what I hear, they do associate with one another. It is in their best interest to do so. A Lawyer office is one of the least concerns for them. Things could easily get far worse if people do not pay attention. Unfortunately, people wait until problems are staring them in the face before they do anything. By then it could be too late. Instead of a lawyer, they could wind up with an illegal restaurant, illegal day care center, brothel, over crowded homes that are run down and so on. Now, enough of my psycho rambling. Getting back on topic, I would love to know the answers for this situation. I understand that a notice is fairly SOP. That makes sense to me in most cases. But, this is ongoing and defiance. Why wait for the meeting? afraid of a law suit? I don't know. I will make an effort to be at that next planning board meeting and find out. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 4, 2009 16:13:12 GMT -5
Novillero, your posts are a good follow up. Good questions and a good reminder with that article.
|
|
ka19
Junior Member
Posts: 356
|
Post by ka19 on Jun 5, 2009 9:51:33 GMT -5
And I have a question for our resident attorneys. - Has the time lapsed for this matter to be reconsidered? - Is this a new application? - Shouldn't an appeal have been filed? (or is she trying to create a better record for an appeal?) If the matter had already been denied, and the board published a "notice of decision" in the newspaper indicating that the application was denied, then a 45 day appeals period begins to run. During the appeals period, she could have appealed the board's decision in the superior court. After the 45 days has run, any appeal is time barred. If the board never voted on the application, then the application may still be ongoing, meaning it would not be a new application. If the board did vote, and has already formally denied her application, then the concept of res judicata applied, and she would be barred from making the same application. Perhaps she is making a record for appeal, and if that is her plan, then best of luck to her. Her burden on appeal would be first to demonstrate to the court that she was able to prove the legal grounds for a variance; namely, that the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Then, she would also have to prove that "special reasons" existed for the grant of a use variance. "Special reasons" could mean the property owner would suffer "undue hardship" if compelled to use the property in conformity with the permitted uses in the zone. Undue hardships are those which are not self inflicted. I believe she falls way short of meeting this standard. "Special reason" could also mean that the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use. Let's assume she is successful in demonstrating that she proved these grounds (Even though I do not think she would be). Meeting this burden of proof is only the beginning. No one is entitled to a variance, especially a use variance. By proving the legal grounds, the applicant merely proves that the zoning board has discretion (not compulsion) to grant the variance. In other words, when the applicant fails to prove the legal grounds for a variance, the zoning board is not even authorized by the state to grant the requested relief, and must deny the application. So, where the legal grounds have been satisfied, the board has discretion to either grant or deny the requested relief. If the board elects to deny the variance, then the appellant has to prove to the court that the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or abused their discretion. This is intended to be a very difficult standard to meet. She is really up against tough odds here. CE should be fining her each day that she violates the zoning ordinance. I frankly do not know why they aren't, but maybe they have been and we just don't know about it. Maybe they fined her and suspended the fine pending the disposition of the application. Who knows what's going on there. I doubt CE is just pretending like there is no violation. Interesting case, will like to see where it goes from here. |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 5, 2009 11:54:27 GMT -5
I am aware of complaints being made to CE and swift CORRECTIVE action being taken. Not 100% to my satisfaction, but adequate results that have remedied each particular situations!
Some landlords unfortunatley have adapted to loopholes, that must to be pluged.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 5, 2009 15:59:01 GMT -5
And I have a question for our resident attorneys. - Has the time lapsed for this matter to be reconsidered? - Is this a new application? - Shouldn't an appeal have been filed? (or is she trying to create a better record for an appeal?) If the matter had already been denied, and the board published a "notice of decision" in the newspaper indicating that the application was denied, then a 45 day appeals period begins to run. During the appeals period, she could have appealed the board's decision in the superior court. After the 45 days has run, any appeal is time barred. If the board never voted on the application, then the application may still be ongoing, meaning it would not be a new application. If the board did vote, and has already formally denied her application, then the concept of res judicata applied, and she would be barred from making the same application. Perhaps she is making a record for appeal, and if that is her plan, then best of luck to her. Her burden on appeal would be first to demonstrate to the court that she was able to prove the legal grounds for a variance; namely, that the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Then, she would also have to prove that "special reasons" existed for the grant of a use variance. "Special reasons" could mean the property owner would suffer "undue hardship" if compelled to use the property in conformity with the permitted uses in the zone. Undue hardships are those which are not self inflicted. I believe she falls way short of meeting this standard. "Special reason" could also mean that the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use. Let's assume she is successful in demonstrating that she proved these grounds (Even though I do not think she would be). Meeting this burden of proof is only the beginning. No one is entitled to a variance, especially a use variance. By proving the legal grounds, the applicant merely proves that the zoning board has discretion (not compulsion) to grant the variance. In other words, when the applicant fails to prove the legal grounds for a variance, the zoning board is not even authorized by the state to grant the requested relief, and must deny the application. So, where the legal grounds have been satisfied, the board has discretion to either grant or deny the requested relief. If the board elects to deny the variance, then the appellant has to prove to the court that the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or abused their discretion. This is intended to be a very difficult standard to meet. She is really up against tough odds here. CE should be fining her each day that she violates the zoning ordinance. I frankly do not know why they aren't, but maybe they have been and we just don't know about it. Maybe they fined her and suspended the fine pending the disposition of the application. Who knows what's going on there. I doubt CE is just pretending like there is no violation. Interesting case, will like to see where it goes from here. Ka19, very nice response. Good job! |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 6, 2009 6:26:24 GMT -5
A little bird told me that some site participants may have some better and updated information. Can anyone share?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 6, 2009 7:23:58 GMT -5
A little bird told me that some site participants may have some better and updated information. Can anyone share? Well, that did not take very long. In less than an hour, I received emails from people with more thorough information. It is always VERY important and appreciated when people come forward with accurate and the most complete information we can find. Here is what we have.... 1. The notice went out April 24. 2. There is an application pending before the Board for June 24 - all court matters are stayed pending the Board decision. We can issue a summons, which will be stayed. Hank Stryker never said that we couldn't do anything until the 24th. He said any court action would be stayed. 3. Attorneys were informed that Davis' sign guy put the sign on her door without authorization. Her attorney was addressed on this and said he would advise her to immediately remove it. 4. Mr. Stryker will investigate and if Davis agrees to take down the "sign" within 24 hours, and there is no evidence that she is working out of the house, no action will be taken. If the sign is up and she does not agree to remove in 24 hours, he will issue a summons. The court action will be stayed as set forth above, but the summons will issue. Mr. Stryker advised that, prior to this sign on her door, which just went up, there was no indication that she was using the house as an office. She did move desks in upon her hope that she would get approval before the Board. 5. The application before the Board is a new application based on different circumstances. There will be a full public hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by novillero on Jun 6, 2009 13:31:55 GMT -5
3. Attorneys were informed that Davis' sign guy put the sign on her door without authorization. Her attorney was addressed on this and said he would advise her to immediately remove it. That is a laughable statement. Some crazy sign guy is just going around putting up signs and hoping to get paid afterwards? I realize that my prior posts abut CE was exaggerated, and am removing them. |
|
