|
|
Post by admin on Aug 16, 2010 10:57:33 GMT -5
The Freehold Borough Planning Board will be conducting a hearing (on Wednesday, August 25th at 7:30pm) to determine if the application of Veronica Davis for a site plan waiver and a use variance should be granted, to permit the property at 68 Court Street to be used as a law office and residence.
This is a remand hearing by order of the Superior Court of NJ, Monmouth County in the matter of Davis v. Freehold Borough Planning Board. By order of the court, the Planning Board will base if determination on the testimony, plans, documentation, and evidence presented at the numerous hearings on this matter which took place from June 24 to August 26th 2009. All of the testimony, evidence, plans, and audio recordings are available for public inspection at the office of the Planning Board Secretary (51 West Main St.) By order of the Court, no new testimony or evidence is to be presented by any party at the 8/25/10 hearing.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 16, 2010 11:00:05 GMT -5
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 26, 2010 4:55:39 GMT -5
Neighborhood preservation and revitalization are without question one of the biggest and most important issues that the borough faces. With that in mind, last night saw another big loss for the borough.
For reasons that are not clear to me at this time, and in the end really don't matter, the planning/zoning board did a flip flop and granted Davis her waiver and green light to go ahead with an office. By doing so, the board has effectively helped push this neighborhood to the point of no return.
Readers who have been following this will be aware that many residents of Court, Monument, and Shank streets have been very vocal and striving to preserve this once beautiful part of the borough. It is clear that protecting their investments did not mean a darn thing at the end of the day.
While this one issue is not a block buster, it certainly is a part of a pattern that is not in the favor of local residents. With a burned up home still sitting, this variance, and the Oxford house, the residents there have every reason to be very concerned. Instead of being an area that attracts home owners to the beautiful homes, the area is turning into something else all together that is not for the better.
This is more than just business for the home owners who are there, it is their neighborhood and community. They are losing day by day.
Eventually the economy will get better, and when it does, expect to see a mass exodus of people from these areas. Who knows what they will be replaced with. The infections that are causing this decline can and will likely spread to other fine areas of the borough too. We will know why. so don't be surprised.
The people spoke, and they lost. Not very inspiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Aug 26, 2010 8:04:58 GMT -5
Neighborhood preservation and revitalization are without question one of the biggest and most important issues that the borough faces. With that in mind, last night saw another big loss for the borough. For reasons that are not clear to me at this time, and in the end really don't matter, the planning/zoning board did a flip flop and granted Davis her waiver and green light to go ahead with an office. By doing so, the board has effectively helped push this neighborhood to the point of no return. Readers who have been following this will be aware that many residents of Court, Monument, and Shank streets have been very vocal and striving to preserve this once beautiful part of the borough. It is clear that protecting their investments did not mean a darn thing at the end of the day. While this one issue is not a block buster, it certainly is a part of a pattern that is not in the favor of local residents. With a burned up home still sitting, this variance, and the Oxford house, the residents there have every reason to be very concerned. Instead of being an area that attracts home owners to the beautiful homes, the area is turning into something else all together that is not for the better. This is more than just business for the home owners who are there, it is their neighborhood and community. They are losing day by day. Eventually the economy will get better, and when it does, expect to see a mass exodus of people from these areas. Who knows what they will be replaced with. The infections that are causing this decline can and will likely spread to other fine areas of the borough too. We will know why. so don't be surprised. The people spoke, and they lost. Not very inspiring. Great points! This is very sad! It seems lately, whats good for one person or group is more important then what a large group of residents would like, Not a great message less then 3 months before a election! |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Aug 26, 2010 10:10:43 GMT -5
For reasons that are not clear to me at this time, and in the end really don't matter, the planning/zoning board did a flip flop and granted Davis her waiver and green light to go ahead with an office. By doing so, the board has effectively helped push this neighborhood to the point of no return. Readers who have been following this will be aware that many residents of Court, Monument, and Shank streets have been very vocal and striving to preserve this once beautiful part of the borough. It is clear that protecting their investments did not mean a darn thing at the end of the day. While this one issue is not a block buster, it certainly is a part of a pattern that is not in the favor of local residents. With a burned up home still sitting, this variance, and the Oxford house, the residents there have every reason to be very concerned. Maybe someone should interview/inquire with a representative from the zoning board and find out why the variance was granted. I know that things are rarely as cut and dry as they appear on the surface. That said, I can speak to the burned up home and Oxford House... The Borough/Fire Department is in the process of being sued by the homeowner whose house burned down as she blames the department for the tragic/sad death of her daughter - therefor the house cannot be touched at this time. As far as the Oxford House, the group behind these rehabilitation homes have successfully taken numerous communities in multiple states to court - and consistently won almost every case - whenever people have previously tried to prevent them from opening a new location in their town. (Personally I believe the town was wise in not pursuing litigation at this time.) That said, I agree the residential make-up of that section is changing, however one must remember that the private residences that have been converted to offices were sold by homeowners who obviously cared more about lining their pockets than with preserving the history of the neighborhood they were leaving. dfx |
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Aug 26, 2010 10:36:03 GMT -5
For reasons that are not clear to me at this time, and in the end really don't matter, the planning/zoning board did a flip flop and granted Davis her waiver and green light to go ahead with an office. By doing so, the board has effectively helped push this neighborhood to the point of no return. Readers who have been following this will be aware that many residents of Court, Monument, and Shank streets have been very vocal and striving to preserve this once beautiful part of the borough. It is clear that protecting their investments did not mean a darn thing at the end of the day. While this one issue is not a block buster, it certainly is a part of a pattern that is not in the favor of local residents. With a burned up home still sitting, this variance, and the Oxford house, the residents there have every reason to be very concerned. Maybe someone should interview/inquire with a representative from the zoning board and find out why the variance was granted. I know that things are rarely as cut and dry as they appear on the surface. That said, I can speak to the burned up home and Oxford House... The Borough/Fire Department is in the process of being sued by the homeowner whose house burned down as she blames the department for the tragic/sad death of her daughter - therefor the house cannot be touched at this time. As far as the Oxford House, the group behind these rehabilitation homes have successfully taken numerous communities in multiple states to court - and consistently won almost every case - whenever people have previously tried to prevent them from opening a new location in their town. (Personally I believe the town was wise in not pursuing litigation at this time.) That said, I agree the residential make-up of that section is changing, however one must remember that the private residences that have been converted to offices were sold by homeowners who obviously cared more about lining their pockets than with preserving the history of the neighborhood they were leaving. dfx Great points Dan. Also, for those who don't understand whose in charge here: Mayor and Council have no control over the unified planning board – it is an independent entity with its own attorney etc. The council rep cannot even sit on the hearing for a use variance. I am curious as to the planning board's decision too. I agree with Dan, many things are not as cut and dry as they first appear. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Aug 26, 2010 12:47:31 GMT -5
Maybe someone should interview/inquire with a representative from the zoning board and find out why the variance was granted. I know that things are rarely as cut and dry as they appear on the surface. That said, I can speak to the burned up home and Oxford House... The Borough/Fire Department is in the process of being sued by the homeowner whose house burned down as she blames the department for the tragic/sad death of her daughter - therefor the house cannot be touched at this time. As far as the Oxford House, the group behind these rehabilitation homes have successfully taken numerous communities in multiple states to court - and consistently won almost every case - whenever people have previously tried to prevent them from opening a new location in their town. (Personally I believe the town was wise in not pursuing litigation at this time.) That said, I agree the residential make-up of that section is changing, however one must remember that the private residences that have been converted to offices were sold by homeowners who obviously cared more about lining their pockets than with preserving the history of the neighborhood they were leaving. dfx Great points Dan. Also, for those who don't understand whose in charge here: Mayor and Council have no control over the unified planning board – it is an independent entity with its own attorney etc. The council rep cannot even sit on the hearing for a use variance. I am curious as to the planning board's decision too. I agree with Dan, many things are not as cut and dry as they first appear. Lisa aren't the planning board members appointed by the mayor? |
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Aug 26, 2010 15:56:43 GMT -5
Lisa, Dan, and Mike, We can pick apart each of those mentioned issues and spin them any way we want, but that is not my point. Who knows, maybe Davis will become a pillar of the community make friends, and do some good. But that is not the point. I agree with Dan about the Oxford house, litigation would be real bad there. As I mentioned in another thread, I doubt neighbors will have many if any problems with it. ( right next door is a magnificent house that has been on the market for about 125,000 dollars less than what it was on the market for last time. We should be very concerned about what happens to that house) The fire is a real tragedy, I know every body's heart goes out to the family. But it is still hard for locals to live with. On the positive side, that Munoz fella just lost a court battle with the borough. That issue was well detailed on this site. The big picture I am getting at in this thread is that a nasty pattern has established itself. A pattern that is not in the favor of the people who invested and bought homes here. Their voice was lost and cast aside in this recent case and that is just plain wrong. They are not wrong for trying to preserve their areas. I wasn't going to get into the planning board reasons, I really don't care much about the reasons- it is the end result that counts. But, I saw FinNJ and read Strykers comments freehold.injersey.com/2010/08/26/court-street-law-office-decision-overturned/His comments are abysmal, as reported by FinNJ. If I were a resident of that neighborhood, I would be infuriated and ask just who is trying to push people out of that area. Strykers logic is backwards and dismissive of resident concerns. Last but not least, Dan brought up that home owners have been selling to rentals and offices for some time. He is right. Those rentals were not always that way. That is exactly my point behind this thread. I think we know why home ownersstarted to leave and rental moved in. We will be seeing more of that when the economy picks up. People will lose faith and we cannot blame them. Too many areas have been blighted. All of the above issues are symptoms of an area in decline.That has got to be reversed. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Aug 26, 2010 16:19:54 GMT -5
Lisa, Dan, and Mike, We can pick apart each of those mentioned issues and spin them any way we want, but that is not my point. Who knows, maybe Davis will become a pillar of the community make friends, and do some good. But that is not the point. I agree with Dan about the Oxford house, litigation would be real bad there. As I mentioned in another thread, I doubt neighbors will have many if any problems with it. ( right next door is a magnificent house that has been on the market for about 125,000 dollars less than what it was on the market for last time. We should be very concerned about what happens to that house) The fire is a real tragedy, I know every body's heart goes out to the family. But it is still hard for locals to live with. On the positive side, that Munoz fella just lost a court battle with the borough. That issue was well detailed on this site. The big picture I am getting at in this thread is that a nasty pattern has established itself. A pattern that is not in the favor of the people who invested and bought homes here. Their voice was lost and cast aside in this recent case and that is just plain wrong. They are not wrong for trying to preserve their areas. I wasn't going to get into the planning board reasons, I really don't care much about the reasons- it is the end result that counts. But, I saw FinNJ and read Strykers comments freehold.injersey.com/2010/08/26/court-street-law-office-decision-overturned/His comments are abysmal, as reported by FinNJ. If I were a resident of that neighborhood, I would be infuriated and ask just who is trying to push people out of that area. Strykers logic is backwards and dismissive of resident concerns. Last but not least, Dan brought up that home owners have been selling to rentals and offices for some time. He is right. Those rentals were not always that way. That is exactly my point behind this thread. I think we know why home ownersstarted to leave and rental moved in. We will be seeing more of that when the economy picks up. People will lose faith and we cannot blame them. Too many areas have been blighted. All of the above issues are symptoms of an area in decline.That has got to be reversed. Well -- this is a tough one. The area is dotted with law offices, which is traditional because of proximity to the Courthouse. The same is true all across this Country. Very few courthouses sit in a residential area. The property becoming a law office is certainly not likely to diminish the value of any home. Indeed, to the contrary, it is likely to increase the property value, result in a better maintained property, and keep one more home from falling into the hands of renters. It is true, however, that the value of surrounding homes being sold as residential likely will drop. The area loses its residential flavor, and instead is targeted by a much smaller group of buyers looking for period or historic homes. Honestly, it is hard for me to see what could have been done to stop this given the existing uses of homes as law offices. Once that happens, well, denying a variance becomes mighty hard. In this case, I think the Board may have also felt some real pressure given the remand from the Court. Sometimes that can spoke a Board who may then feel that their gut notion on an issue may not be legally strong enough to survive challenge. Practically speaking, it is hard to stop a change that is set in motion by reality. The best and highest use and demand for those homes in the reality that is Freehold now is professional use. That is of cold comfort to the many people who made that neighborhood a great area -- but that is essentially the reality of proximity to a Courthouse. The neighborhood courthouse is a thing of the past. The good news, if there is any, is that the home will not be rented to 29 illegal aliens all paying for a place to sleep -- or selling food in an illegal restaurant in their basement. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 21, 2010 13:14:29 GMT -5
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Sept 23, 2010 9:20:03 GMT -5
Freehold Borough to appeal decision to allow law office in residential area www.app.com/article/20100922/NEWS/9220351/Freehold-Borough-to-appeal-decision-to-allow-law-office-in-residential-area"The loss of one residence here is more amplified than it would be in other neighborhoods," said Yvette Cataneo of Schanck Street, who added that her neighbors have talked about moving because of what they say is the gradual erosion of the area's residential character.
Area residents have long protested attorney Veronica Davis' efforts to run an office at 68 Court St., a house across the street from the county courthouse."Ms. Cantaneo hit the nail on the head. She said what I have been writing on this site for the entire time this issue has existed. I intentionally highlight the voice of the people because that is what it is about- the people who have invested their homes here and want to protect and preserve their neighborhoods. It is good to see that this issue isn't dead. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 23, 2010 10:22:29 GMT -5
Brian - Does that mean you are backing Mayor Wilson and the rest of the Town Council who voted to appeal this decision? (Don't look now, but I think you may be supporting a democrat.)  dfx Interesting sidenote: Apparently "all" of the people responding in the comments section of the APP article misunderstood what they read as they failed to realize that the Mayor & Council are APPEALING the decision - not affirming it. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Sept 23, 2010 11:08:36 GMT -5
Brian - Does that mean you are backing Mayor Wilson and the rest of the Town Council who voted to appeal this decision? (Don't look now, but I think you may be supporting a democrat.) dfx Interesting sidenote: Apparently "all" of the people responding in the comments section of the APP article misunderstood what they read as they failed to realize that the Mayor & Council are APPEALING the decision - not affirming it. The Borough pretty much has to appeal this decision or the entire area will be free game for a variance. There really won't be any basis to deny one. The Mayor adroitly, though more subtely, points that out in his comment. The standard of review on an appeal like this is one tough hurdle. This seems like a loser. But -- one never knows. The key is always in the justification and basis for the vote supporting the application. If that is significant factually, the Borough will lose. |
|
dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Sept 23, 2010 11:28:39 GMT -5
It's true, the Borough may lose this fight - but nobody can say they are idly sitting by and doing nothing. The idea/myth that the Mayor and Council are doing nothing to protect the integrity of the Borough is simply that...a myth.
dfx
|
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Sept 24, 2010 5:36:16 GMT -5
Brian - Does that mean you are backing Mayor Wilson and the rest of the Town Council who voted to appeal this decision? (Don't look now, but I think you may be supporting a democrat.) dfx Interesting sidenote: Apparently "all" of the people responding in the comments section of the APP article misunderstood what they read as they failed to realize that the Mayor & Council are APPEALING the decision - not affirming it. DAN!!! SSHHH!! Don't say that too loud. People may actually read this site and see the many times that I have agreed with and supported the Mayor and Democrats in this town. If word of that got out, my malcontent image would be ruined! ;D Your right about the main APP site. I rarely even read those comments anymore. It has a tendency to attract comments from people who do not even know this town. That is why I really like FinNJ, the comments are at least from people who know this town. ( that site had a strange week this week, it attracted more nuts than a Snickers bar) |
|
BrianSullivan
Full Member
Good ideas never cross burned bridges. Practice unity in our community
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by BrianSullivan on Oct 23, 2010 8:57:34 GMT -5
|
|
