|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 4, 2007 12:20:47 GMT -5
Not sure where the non-clarity springs from in your question? No, I am not defending the Mayor. But, that does not imply that I am opposing him, either. Actually, I am challenging him to adopt a heavier hand in this matter.
I expect him to take the "lead" here and give us all a greater sense that his "outrage" translates into focusing all of our legal resources and our inherent energies on assuring that justice will be served the appropriate punishments be meted out and a strong message will being sent to everyone involved or contemplating copycat behaviors.
This is for the investigators; the regulatory bodies; and the judge to determine. We are not attorneys. I AM MOST interested in learning whether our people's actions (CE, Police) and their investigations were handled properly and will aid us in building a strong case against these violators. There were established protocols to follow and if they were not followed...I will be much more than just incensed. Remember, my career field is human resources and I full well know about performance and accountability.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by ls on Jun 4, 2007 12:26:45 GMT -5
Not sure where the non-clarity springs from in your question? No, I am not defending the Mayor. But, that does not imply that I am opposing him, either. Actually, I am challenging him to adopt a heavier hand in this matter. ... Marc so, is it safe to say that you are not, not defending the mayor? Or are you probably agreeing that your actions are not actually opposing the mayor in any negative way? I think we can all be in agreement about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 4, 2007 12:54:45 GMT -5
Still not sure what you are getting at or what I am supposed to be agreeing with. And, before I agree with this or any other view... I'm not doing anything in any "negative way, " because I generally operate with a positive spirit.
I'd much rather be optimistic that the Mayor and the rest of us will do the right thing here, than be pessimistic about his and our caring and concern for the town. Right now, I prefer to work with the Mayor and Council on this matter, rather than against them...unless, of course, I interpret signs of apathy or lack of resolve. Then, I am quite capable of going against the grain. My first vote, after returning to the Council in October 2005, was joining Bob Crawford in voting against the budget.
There's a council meeting tonight. Let's all see what the Mayor and the rest of Council have to say, if anything, about this situation. Beyond that, it's way too early to tell how this is all going to come out. All most of us know is what was printed in the Press. Not every detail is present, for sure.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 4, 2007 13:47:57 GMT -5
So are you against supporting the mayor or just not defending him? Why wouldn't you support him?
Anyway, if you are truly not supporting him, and you are not defending him, are you taking the position you are supporting the position of not defending him? Because it really sounds like you are defending the position of not supporting him. And that is indefensible. I do not support that.
|
|
|
|
Post by SHECKY GREEN jr on Jun 4, 2007 14:17:01 GMT -5
So are you against supporting the mayor or just not defending him? Why wouldn't you support him? Anyway, if you are truly not supporting him, and you are not defending him, are you taking the position you are supporting the position of not defending him? Because it really sounds like you are defending the position of not supporting him. And that is indefensible. I do not support that. SHECKY MASON, DAD I know thats you! "I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless I buy something." Eighty percent of married men cheat in America. The rest cheat in Europe. It's no longer a question of staying healthy. It's a question of finding a sickness you like. I talk to myself because I like dealing with a better class of people. England is the only country in the world where the food is more dangerous than the sex. It is more profitable for your congressman to support the tobacco industry than your life.” The nervousness never lasted more than a second because he was so congenial and comfortable. He made more stars on his show, probably, than anybody in the whole history of show business" |
|
|
|
Post by fiberisgoodforyou on Jun 4, 2007 14:25:19 GMT -5
So are you against supporting the mayor or just not defending him? Why wouldn't you support him? Anyway, if you are truly not supporting him, and you are not defending him, are you taking the position you are supporting the position of not defending him? Because it really sounds like you are defending the position of not supporting him. And that is indefensible. I do not support that. NO, you’re confused, he is not, not supporting the defense, rather he is defending his neutral non support, while defending the unsupportive alliance, except that there is no alliance of support, just an agreement to communicate acknowledgment of communication. I hope that clears up matters. IMO |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 4, 2007 15:44:17 GMT -5
LS Huh?  ? LOL! Who's on First? As Yogi might say, I agree with 100% of what you said and don't understand the rest. Marc Marc |
|
|
|
Post by Overstaying Guest on Jun 4, 2007 16:45:32 GMT -5
Slum-lording pays well....  Officer Doug Borst and his Main Squeeze |
|
|
|
Post by Lingering Guest on Jun 4, 2007 16:55:53 GMT -5
Sir...you live in Freehold...haven't you learned anything here? Better to go the illegal restaurant route. Call The Consultants, Borst and Hernandez. Dial 1-800-NOPERMIT.
Neighbors rail against restaurant plan
Matawan board to hear proposal at meeting tonight
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 06/4/07
BY SAMETTA M. THOMPSON
KEYPORT BUREAU
Post Comment
MATAWAN — Residents of Jackson Street say approval of a proposed restaurant in the neighborhood would intensify the existing commuter traffic and have a negative impact on their quality of life.
Tonight,the borough's Planning/Zoning Board will hear the case of Giuseppe Scottodirosano, a business owner who purchased a 2 1/2-story single family home at 915 Route 34, between Jackson and Main streets, and wants to transform the vacant house into a restaurant with parking spaces for 24 cars.
Residents plan to voice their opposition at the public hearing, set for 7:30 p.m. at 201 Broad St. They say that Jackson Street is already too narrow, and two cars traveling in opposite direction cannot pass unless one pulls over. Neighbors complain that cars cut through the street at a high rate of speed to avoid waiting at the traffic light at adjacent Main Street and Route 34.
Scottodirosano, of Freehold, purchased the 16,910-square- foot property in 2002, according to public records. He recently applied for eight variances, one of which seeks permission to have two driveways within 25 feet of each other on Jackson Street. Scottodirosano also wants to add 1,209 square feet to the structure.
Emily Jones has lived on Jackson Street for 10 years with her family. Her property abuts the proposed restaurant.
In April, Jones and her husband, Bill, received a letter from Scottodirosano's attorney, Salvatore Alfieri, asking them to consider selling their lot or a portion of their lot to make Scottodirosano's lot "conform or more nearly conform with the current Matawan Zoning Ordinance."
Jones, a mother of two small girls, said she felt insulted. What bothers her even more is that if this restaurant is approved, she will have to deal with a trash bin that is proposed to sit next to where her daughters' swing set is stationed, along with the stench from an existing fish restaurant.
A 35-year Jackson Street resident, Adele Sposato, said she would prefer to see the property turned into a professional building because traffic would be minimal. She said she is concerned because at the other end of the street is a bar undergoing renovations to also include a restaurant.
Patricia Hasemann said she opposes the restaurant because "our property value and quality of life are going to go down the drain as fast as the speeding cars that cut through over very small street."
"There are so many children on the street, and we don't want to see them get killed," said Hasemann, a resident for 10 years.
For Steve Rosenberg, father of a 4-year-old, it is a matter of dealing with noise pollution from garbage pickup early in the morning, strange people walking in the neighborhood and the "riff raff" the restaurant would draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neighborhood Watch on Jun 5, 2007 16:05:39 GMT -5
Apparently our newly appointed Chief likes the Real Estate Market too
Block Lot
83 19.01 49 CONOVER STREET ROTH, MITCHELL & JOANNE
6 2.03 6 AVENUE C ROTH, MITCHELLE E. & JOANNE C.
|
|
|
|
Post by Concerned Resident on Jun 5, 2007 16:18:39 GMT -5
The problem with Freehold is that the Mayor and Council don't have, and never had a vision for Freehold. Mike Wilson knows he will be reelected as many times as he runs. It's because of him and the Council that the town is in the condition it is. I will say that Marc,seems to have a handle on the issues. But, the recent reaction of the mayor and town council, illustrates the problems with Freehold. They are in over their heads. How can you explain the lack of coordination between the local authorities and state and federal officials ? Why hasn't Freehold taken advantage of having a cop trained to act as an immigration officer? Why hasn't Freehold reported these individuals to ICE? We can go on with what Freehold has not done, but you get the idea. Until there are new leaders in Freehold don't expect things to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 5, 2007 17:19:19 GMT -5
The problem with Freehold is that the Mayor and Council don't have, and never had a vision for Freehold. Mike Wilson knows he will be reelected as many times as he runs. It's because of him and the Council that the town is in the condition it is. I will say that Marc,seems to have a handle on the issues. But, the recent reaction of the mayor and town council, illustrates the problems with Freehold. They are in over their heads. How can you explain the lack of coordination between the local authorities and state and federal officials ? Why hasn't Freehold taken advantage of having a cop trained to act as an immigration officer? Why hasn't Freehold reported these individuals to ICE? We can go on with what Freehold has not done, but you get the idea. Until there are new leaders in Freehold don't expect things to change. The New Transcript has a good article in it about this case. There are some more details in the article, which I am sure will be posted here for discussion. My point is that we have to put away the pitch forks and torches for now and let the system do what it has to. That is just how things work. And no, I am not saying this to defend the Mayor or Council as some like to believe. There will be plenty of time for criticism as this unfolds and we see the results. Every resident has good reason to be ticked at this issue and we will have more reason if the justice system fails us or the town drops the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by Concerned resident on Jun 5, 2007 20:23:37 GMT -5
Brian The pitch fork has been away for too many years. The mayor relies upon people forgetting how incompetent he is and has been. For all the years he has been mayor, you can probably count on one hand the good things he has done for this town. As stated by someone else, he has intimidated those that have dared to challenge him. I would bet that they tried the same tactics with the "day workers" but ran into lawyers, and were not able to get away with their usual methods. The mayor and the majority of the council must go !!!! They are at the root of the problems that Freehold is facing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Concerned Resident on Jun 6, 2007 2:15:18 GMT -5
Has anyone looked into what kind of residents are living at the Roth properties? Wouldn't this be a conflict of interest if some action had to be taken with regard to these properties? Would the cops really respond to this particular site if called, and then issue summonses?
|
|
|
|
Post by Concerned Resident on Jun 6, 2007 2:18:11 GMT -5
On what else is our Mayor "misinformed"? The idea that if we pulled the CO, we'd have to relocate the residents, does not sound right. In any event, after 20 years in office, being "misinformed" is inexcusable. A leader should have his finger on the pulse for just these very issues, no excuses.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 6, 2007 5:44:36 GMT -5
newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0606/Front_Page/034.htmlAuthorities claim illegal restaurant had returned Absentee owner and tenant charged for second time in a year BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer Individuals sit at a table in the living room of a home at 58 Mechanic St., Freehold Borough, while a police officer (r) investigates. Municipal officials allege that the tenant in the rental home has been operating an illegal restaurant at the residence.\ FREEHOLD - A Wall Township police officer and a Freehold Borough resident have been hit with charges of code violations in connection with what authorities said is the operation of an illegal restaurant in a residence. The current charges mirror allegations that were lodged and upheld against the same two individuals less than a year ago. Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina said a joint operation involved the Freehold Borough Code Enforcement Office, the Freehold Area Health Department and the Freehold Borough Police Department. The investigation resulted in an alleged illegal restaurant being shut down in a home at 58 Mechanic St. The owner of the home, Wall Township police officer Douglas Borst, and his tenant, Petra Hernandes, were both cited last week with the following violations: zoning ordinance infractions (operating a restaurant in a residence), overcrowding, failure to provide all the names of the home's tenants on the borough's landlord registration form, failure to provide fire extinguishers, and having nonworking smoke detectors and carbon monoxide monitors in the home. In addition, Freehold Area Health Department officer Margaret Jahn said a summons was issued to Borst and Hernandes for a violation of a law which states that no food may be prepared or offered in a retail food establishment in a residence. Borst and Hernandes were also cited for not having any food documentation from a regulatory facility or distributor for the food being offered in the home. Borst and Hernandes pled guilty to similar charges in August 2006. On Oct. 24, Borst was cited for residential overcrowding and fined $1,200 on the Mechanic Street home. In addition, at that time, it was determined that the home on Mechanic Street was being used as a retail food establishment and/or a community residential bed and breakfast retail food establishment without the approval of the Freehold Board of Health. Hernandes was also cited with residential overcrowding in 2006 and fined $1,200. She was also fined $250 for having a person sleeping in the basement of the home and $100 for violating Board of Health regulations. Mayor Michael Wilson said on June 1 that while borough officials were upset last year when the restaurant at the Mechanic Street home came to light, they are "outraged" it could happen again and that "a law enforcement officer could break the law like this twice." Officials told the News Transcript the code enforcement office was contacted on June 1 by the New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control in order to follow up on the incident. A significant amount of beer was among the items discovered in the home after law enforcement authorities entered the residence. Bellina said officials received a tip on May 21 from an anonymous caller who said many people had been observed going in and out of the residence that appeared to once again be operating as a food service business. The borough arranged surveillance and on May 30, after obtaining an administrative search warrant, a team of officials arrived at the residence at dusk, according to Bellina. Upon their arrival, code enforcement official Hank Stryker III said, five people were found to be sitting at tables eating in the living room. There also appeared to be a take-out food service operating. Business cards were found scattered about and officials found refrigerators and freezers full of food and alcohol. Stryker said water and other products, in addition to 30 cases of beer, were found in closets and in the basement of the residence. Hernandes was found wearing an apron, cooking for the guests who were seated at tables in the living room. Stryker said the code enforcement office wants to remain "diligent and proactive in its efforts to keep resident safe." "We follow up on all complaints and take the proper course of action for all infractions," he said. "Our office is here to protect the health and welfare of all borough residents. What Wall Township does as far as Borst is concerned is up to Wall. We wouldn't want one of our cops doing the same thing in their town. Why should they do this in Freehold?" Wilson said any fines or penalties that may eventually be issued to Borst and Hernandes if they are convicted of the charges will be at the discretion of Municipal Court Judge Scott Basen. "We have complete faith in our municipal judge and know he will see that justice is done," the mayor said. A message left for Wall Township Police Chief David Morris was not returned. Borst was unavailable for comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 6, 2007 6:03:34 GMT -5
Freehold right to fight ongoing code violations Freehold Borough Mayor Michael Wilson has every right to be good and ticked off that law enforcement authorities once again had to shut down what appears to be an illegal restaurant operating out of a home on Mechanic Street. For the second time in less than a year, code enforcement personnel and health officials were called upon to respond to a home that is owned by an absentee landlord. Significant amounts of food, drinks, alcohol and supplies were found in the home. Making the situation all the more galling to municipal officials and employees is the fact that the home is owned by Wall Township police officer Douglas Borst. Wilson did not hold back when he said the town is "outraged" this situation could happen again and that "a law enforcement officer could break the law like this twice." Borst and his tenant, Petra Hernandes, were both cited last week with operating a restaurant in a residence, overcrowding, failure to provide all the names of the home's tenants on the borough's landlord registration form, failure to provide fire extinguishers, having nonworking smoke detectors and carbon monoxide monitors in the home, violating a law that states that no food may be prepared or offered in a retail food establishment in a residence and failure to have any food documentation from a regulatory facility or distributor for the food being offered in the home. Borst and Hernandes both paid fines in 2006 on charges related to running a retail food establishment and/or a community residential bed and breakfast retail food establishment in a home. Borough officials were tipped off to the situation by a person who observed many individuals coming and going from the home. It did not take much for officials to consider the fact that the illegal restaurant operation had returned to Mechanic Street. There may be social and economic reasons why this type of situation is occurring in the borough. A large population of immigrant workers has made Freehold Borough its home and requires food and shelter. While that may be the reality of the situation, it is also a reality that Freehold Borough officials must protect the health and safety of all its residents - immigrants and non-immigrants. Restaurants operating out of homes in residential neighborhoods simply cannot be permitted to operate. If the two people charged in this latest incident are embarrassed enough and fined enough, perhaps they and anyone else who is thinking about going into the "restaurant" business will get the message that Freehold Borough is serious - and rightfully so - about protecting the health and well-being of the community. newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0606/Editorials/061.html |
|
|
|
Post by Concerned resident on Jun 6, 2007 8:55:01 GMT -5
The mayor is "outraged" and the town is serious about not allowing situations like this to exist. Yet less than a year after being fined, the same two dirtbags are back in business. It took a "tip" to let the ever-vigilant Hank Stryker become aware of the situation. How about some proactive investigation! What made anyone think that these individuals would not go back to their illegal operations? Obviously this cop is a law breaker and should be fired, he has no respect for Freehold or the law. I don't expect much to happen other than a fine. But it would be nice for our mayor to do a little more than say he is "outraged". It's time for the residents of Freehold to show their outrage at the incompetent leaders that this town has had over the years. But I will not hold my breath waiting for this to happen. After all, Mike is a friend of the "Boss" and a local guy. That's all that matters in this town !!
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 6, 2007 9:14:21 GMT -5
I would like to compare what is happening to what the Rental Board's advisements are.
4. Review and update all ordinances on the books with the purpose of enforcing all of them. It is the committee's opinion that strict, vigorous, non-discriminatory enforcement of all ordinances, while not always done at present, will go a long way toward alleviating undesirable conditions. This will be facilitated by the hiring of additional staff (recommendation No. 2). STRICT ENFORCEMENT. I.E. not just whatever the judge says. The prosecutor should be told to be tough.
5. Increase fines for violations of borough codes and ordinances. These fines should reflect the severity of the offense. This increase in revenue could offset the cost of recommendation No. 2. That is, more than $1,200 from last time. Clearly, that fine was a joke.
7. Discontinue the practice of fining only one owner in a multiply owned residence. Fine each owner, thereby increasing revenue and further inconveniencing landlord(s). Similarly, in the case of overcrowding, a fine should be issued for each resident occupying the premises beyond the legal limit. Were the tenants that overcrowded fined. What about other registered tenants and tenants on the lease?
8. For landlords whose properties are overcrowded, request jail or community service. Post names of landlord offenders in the newspapers in order to discourage future offenders. Forward offenders' names to the IRS and New Jersey Division of Taxation (landlord is likely not reporting the income from all tenants), as well as to their mortgage company and insurer. 'Nuff said.
9. Institute restitution measures against landlords who violate ordinances. For example, require landlord to 1) reimburse a tenant for relocation expenses upon issuance of overcrowding violation; 2) reimburse the school district for children of illegally housed tenants who wrongfully attend Freehold Borough schools. In the case of fire in an overcrowded or otherwise unsafe unit, landlord should be forced to reimburse the borough for its remediation expenses. Ohhh, charge the landlord for relocation expenses...
11. Increase fines for each repeat occurrence of a violation. For subsequent overcrowding violations, revoke certificate of occupancy and/or landlord registration. Require landlords with prior violations to post bond with the borough. Place a lien on the property when landlord has outstanding fines due to the borough.
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 6, 2007 9:15:56 GMT -5
I think the mayor should be front and center in leading the charge. His response on this forum was very laid back. Otherwise, everything the council has said previously, and everything laid out by the rental committee is just talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 6, 2007 9:57:06 GMT -5
LS...first of all..you shouldn't have to compare what "you think" should be happening with with actually can or is happening. This is the Borough's fault. The Council met weeks several ago and with the Borough Attorney's input, hashed out the OFFICIAL status of the Rental Property Advisory Board recommendations. Why we haven't released the findings to the Press, I'm going to look into. Letters were supposed to go out to the committee updating them on the status of each item. A press release should have followed to limit yours an any other public confusion. This is not my job (to release them), but I will find out whose job it is and push to get the information out.
Frustrating as it may be - not every single thing the board "wanted" to do to violators is legally prudent and allowable under law. As a committee, we are not lawyers and only recommended ideas without offering any jurisprudence. Everyone understood that the "final tally" would be determined by the Council and Borough attorney.
The good news is that MOST of the recommendations ARE, to some degree, do-able and are -in fact- already approved. For example.... Those $1200 fines you mention are now $2000, except for overcrowding. Here is a good example where common sense (of the law) must rule. If overcrowding fines were $2000, we'd have to give the landlords 30 days right to cure. In that time, everybody would be "hidden elsewhere" to make the situation look prettier than it really is. At $1200, we can collect the fines right away.
Here is another item that may not be as clear cut as it seems. Fining each owner for violations. We will do this, but in the case of a partnership or LLC, it's still only one fine they receive. In some other cases,maybe we'll luck out - but perhaps, not with husbands and wives.
Forcing the tenant to relocate his tenants, at his/her cost? Sure, we could. But, WE have to pay, up front, and then try to collect from the tenant. In the past, we had not always gotten our monies back and we currently do not have any such fund to lay those big dollars out, in the first place. If there are 13 tenants, do you know what that can cost us? And, that's only one property under violation.
Also, like it or not, we can't tell the courts what to do. However, when we look back at their performance, we can choose not to reappoint the judge an prosecutor. Actually, the current team - overall - is doing better than any of their recent predecessors.
Again, the problem here is that the results of our discussions have not been released - and it should have been. I will bring this up and see when that will be.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 6, 2007 10:11:58 GMT -5
One final thought on the rental recommendations. You have no way of telling how they are doing (those already in practice) and it is much too early to measure their effects since they only got the green light about a month or so ago. There still may be a few items that need official votes, while other items are just in progress (we just signed the agreement for code enforcement new tracking software - installation an training are to follow). We are also into the fourth weekend of Saturday Hours for CE...and the restaurant investigation/bust took up one of the Saturdays.
If you expected the illegal restaurateur or anyone else to be effected by the rental recommendations, publication of them in the Press (and they were listed in the area papers several times) should have done the trick. Mention of "community service and jail time" should have turned a few people off to becoming a slum landlord in FB. If nothing else, the implied message was that Freehold Borough is tightening up in this area. We certainly shook up the advocates in town when our set of recommendations came out. So, maybe a few "would be" landlords also got the message, too. We may never know this.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 6, 2007 10:44:36 GMT -5
I am already working out the details for their public release. LS...I'm glad you brought this up, even indirectly. The public should know where we stand on the recommendations. Too much hard work went into this effort for it to be left to some to fill in the blanks with misinformation and negative thought.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by LS on Jun 6, 2007 14:19:35 GMT -5
7. Discontinue the practice of fining only one owner in a multiply owned residence. Fine each owner, thereby increasing revenue and further inconveniencing landlord(s). Similarly, in the case of overcrowding, a fine should be issued for each resident occupying the premises beyond the legal limit. Were the tenants that overcrowded fined. What about other registered tenants and tenants on the lease?I am really wondering about how many peopel got tickets. Because the overcrowding is not only the problem of the absentee landlord, but by the tenants on the lease (if any) and by the people that are overcrowding. |
|
|
|
Post by unwelcome guest on Jun 8, 2007 5:41:55 GMT -5
When is the court date and is it open to the public?
Court date set in eatery case www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070608/NEWS01/706080431/1004/NEWS01
FREEHOLD: A Municipal Court date has been set in a case involving an alleged illegal restaurant operating out of a Mechanic Street residence.
A hearing has been scheduled for 1 p.m. June 26. The Municipal Court is located at 38 Jackson St., inside the same building that houses the Police Department.
Petra Hernandez of 58 Mechanic St. and her landlord, Wall police officer and resident Douglas Borst, are accused of zoning, code and health violations.
They pleaded guilty to similar charges in the fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 8, 2007 6:24:39 GMT -5
To Concerned Resident,
See the above court date. This is the time when we need to bring out the pitchforks and the torches. Let us show up in numbers and make the point loud and clear that the slumlords and their rotten tenants should be run out of town. The welcome mat is gone.
I also liked Pete DeFonzo's idea of going to a Wall TWP. meeting and telling them to keep Officer slumlord in their own town, not ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 8, 2007 8:42:07 GMT -5
Great Town Wall. Try sending an email to the police through their web site. Both the direct e-mail and webmaster links failed. Maybe it didn't like my poison pen letter. In any case, I support going to a Wall Township meeting, by our residents. If it doesn't jeopardize our local case (I'll ask Kerry Higgins), I'll go with you! It's also important that I get a green light from the Mayor and Council to go representing the town., especially since the Mayor has already been in touch with those folks and shared his angst.
As you know, I am never in favor of outsiders going to another town's meeting and making a fuss. We didn't like it back in '03 regarding closure of the muster zone. But, in this case, it is entirely proper for us to let Wall know that we are very unhappy about what has taken place in our town and that we won't stand for it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 8, 2007 10:17:25 GMT -5
Great Town Wall. Try sending an email to the police through their web site. Both the direct e-mail and webmaster links failed. Maybe it didn't like my poison pen letter. In any case, I support going to a Wall Township meeting, by our residents. If it doesn't jeopardize our local case (I'll ask Kerry Higgins), I'll go with you! It's also important that I get a green light from the Mayor and Council to go representing the town., especially since the Mayor has already been in touch with those folks and shared his angst. As you know, I am never in favor of outsiders going to another town's meeting and making a fuss. We didn't like it back in '03 regarding closure of the muster zone. But, in this case, it is entirely proper for us to let Wall know that we are very unhappy about what has taken place in our town and that we won't stand for it. Marc Marc, If you think you can get away with going, let me know. I will round up a posse and we will storm the castle! We will try to bring Nick Petruncio and Claire Celarno to document it. |
|
|
|
Post by Marc LeVine on Jun 8, 2007 14:25:27 GMT -5
May be best for any and all of us to go to Wall AFTER the Freehold hearing, later this month. Better to send our message after he declares his guilt or is found guilty. Then, we can see what our judge doles out to him and can tie that to our words out there.
If I am around I may sit in the rear of the court room and see what comes down. Some of the other councilpeople also mentioned wanting to attend.
Marc
|
|
|
|
Post by unwelcome guest on Jun 8, 2007 16:55:46 GMT -5
Wall cop in trouble again over rental By Dan Zomack WALL TOWNSHIP — For the second time in less than one year, a Wall Police patrolman has been cited for operating an illegal restaurant out of a house he owns in Freehold Borough, a charge he had pleaded guilty to the first time in municipal court. Ptl. Doug Borst, who owns the home at 58 Mechanic St., and Petra Hernandez, who rents the home and is listed as a tenant, both received summonses after a surprise visit by Freehold Borough officials on Wednesday, May 30. Freehold Borough Business Administrator Joe Bellina said that on May 21, the borough received an anonymous tip that a business was being operated out of the home — a charge the borough takes very seriously, Mr. Bellina said. Henry Stryker, director of code enforcement for Freehold Borough, said two of his associates had placed the property under surveillance for one day, then went to the municipal court judge to obtain an administrative search warrant because of the past infractions that occurred at the home and what the officials observed under surveillance. Mr. Stryker said it was “obvious” the residential property was operating as a business restaurant. Upon the surprise inspection, Mr. Stryker said officials found boxes of food stored throughout the house, freezers and refrigerators full of food and beer, an additional 30 cases of beer, take-out food containers, a table set up in the basement and a propane tank in the basement — all indicators to officials that a restaurant was being operated out of the house. According to Mr. Bellina, Ptl. Borst was issued a summons last Thursday from the Freehold Area Health Department stating that a “person in charge shall ensure that retail food establishments are not conducted in a private home.” Mrs. Hernandez was issued summonses stating that food sources were not documented from a regulated facility and that food prepared in a private home is not to be sold in a retail food establishment. Mr. Stryker said that his office had issued zoning and property maintenance summonses for overcrowding, operating a business out of a residential zone, non-operating smoke detectors, people living in inhabitable areas and improper cooking facilities, among others. Jeffrey Palatini, principal registered environmental health specialist for the Freehold Area Health Department, said there was “adequate food for service for a large amount of people.” Mr. Palatini described there being tables set up on the first floor of the home, in the basement and additional fold-away tables meant for mass consumption of food. “There was clearly a means to feed more than just a family’s worth of food,” he stated, adding, “There were signs the food was meant to be served to the public.” At the time of the surprise inspection made by officials, Mr. Palatini said that about five men had been gathered at an upstairs table in the dining area and were eating food. When asked if it is common for landlords and tenants to be caught a second time operating an illegal restaurant, Mr. Palatini replied, “No, actually it’s not,” further calling it “unacceptable.” “We were clear to the owner the first time this could not occur again, and it did,” Mr. Palatini said in regards to the first time Ptl. Borst and Mrs. Hernandez were cited in August 2006. After the initial charges were filed in August, Ptl. Borst was fined on Oct. 24, 2006 in the amount of $1,500 for the charge of overcrowding and tenants sleeping in the basement, while the tenant, Mrs. Hernandez, was charged with overcrowding, sleeping in the basement and other health department violations. She was fined a total of $1,600 in municipal court. Mr. Bellina said there are as many as four Wall Police officers who own approximately 28 properties in the borough. Mr. Stryker said that Ptl. Borst owns five other properties in the borough, as well as owning other properties along with Wall Ptl. Dan Mason, who co-own the properties under the company name, Bormas LLC. Mr. Stryker said he was not aware of any other major problems associated with any of the other properties owned by other Wall patrolmen in Freehold borough. “I’m sure they [Wall officials] wouldn’t allow this to go on in their town,” Mr. Bellina said. When asked how the Wall Police will handle the matter, Wall Police spokesman Lt. Gerald Ihnken said, “We are currently in the process of gathering information and reports. It is going to be handled as a personnel matter,” and declined to comment further. Ptl. Borst and Mrs. Hernandez have a court date set for Tuesday, June 26, to answer the charges in Freehold Borough municipal court. Ptl. Borst could not be reached for commenT. starnewsgroup.com/weekly/2007/06.07.07/wall_cop_in__06.07.07_66067.html?featured=* |
|
? LOL! Who's on First? As Yogi might say, I agree with 100% of what you said and don't understand the rest.
