Fighting to Preserve Neighborhoods

[admin]

A reader brought some good concerns to my attention. I was sent some pictures to back it up which will be posted on the Hall of Shame Pages very shortly. We have seen similar battle time and time again whereas residents want to preserve their quality of life. The business in the pictures on the Hall of shame certainly is not a neighbor that most would want. I was sent a lot of photos, but only posted a few. Below is an excerpt from what I have been told by a few people:

This is a Grocery on Broad Street . They are trying to get zoning approval to move this to 75 Throckmorton, across from the candle factory, which is 5 times the size. The residents and property owners of Broad, Court, and Throckmorton are trying to fight it. The next hearing in on September 9 and 7:30 pm. The focus is on the fact that they only have 7 parking spots and need between 47-70 spots per the two engineering reports; That this proposed use will create increased traffic between the hours of 6 am - 9am and 5pm - 10pm, the hours that the surrounding businesses are not open while this one would be; that the noise, trash, food waste would change the character of the neighborhood.

[admin]

I suppose this would help if I provided the link to the Hall of Shame.

www.freeholdvoice.com/mission.html

I have been finding out some more interesting details about this situation. There are bigger issues attached. I am trying to verify what I am hearing. When I do, I will be keeping up with this topic.

[admin]

I have been in contact with a number of people in reference to this thread and the topic contained in it.

The following post is related to the topic of this thread. Everything I am writing is based on documents in my possession. All are related to the grocery and bakery in question. For the purpose of erring on the side of caution, I will not be providing names, just incidents and facts relevant to the incidents.

There are a lot of problems here. Rose colored glasses, anyone?

June 17th 2007 @ 1 AM ..... Police responded to location for a 911 call. Police observed 50-60 people inside and outside the bakery consuming alcohol. This was a private party held by person who had rented the space. There was a band playing music. Coors light beer was being stored on premises.

Borough Code enforcement had been aware of problems at this location and were dispatched to assist the police. Several drunk party attendees antagonized the police. Police informed the party promoter that the party had to be shut down by 1:30 am.

By 2 am police observed more people going into the party with no attempts at the party being shut down. People were still openly drinking Coors light beer and carrying packaged goods.

Reports are that the partyers were drunk, arguing with one another and attempting to coax patrols into physical altercations.

By 3 am the party was still going. People were still fighting and failed to comply with police to leave the area.

After all was done, the police had offered numerous warnings to disperse and shut the party down. One person was arrested for an outstanding warrant for attempted murder. Others received charges for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, obstructing the administration of law and noise violations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




January 19 2008 @ 11 PM

It was found that the same location was the site of a large party with about 200 guests. It was found that this location was being used on a weekly basis as a night club where alcohol has been sold.

On this date, police were dispatched for a fire alarm. The front glass of the establishment was taped up to prevent anyone from seeing what was inside. On the front door was a sign with admission charges for twenty dollars for men and ten dollars for ladies. The sign was in Spanish. There were people inside collecting money from guests. The front door was staffed with private security officers who stated that a smoke machine from the live band had set off the fire alarms.

Inside there was plenty of music, dancing and drinking of alcohol.

The fire department did respond, and the head of Code enforcement requested that the party be shut down for fire safety violations.

The police did start to shut the party down. People became belligerent to them.

It was noted that many people in the crowd were displaying the colors of known gang members. These gang members were the ones giving the police the hardest time.

Among charges filed this night were borough ordinance violations, ABC laws, and maintaining a nuisance.

[admin]

This is a Grocery on Broad Street . They are trying to get zoning approval to move this to 75 Throckmorton, across from the candle factory, which is 5 times the size. The residents and property owners of Broad, Court, and Throckmorton are trying to fight it. The next hearing in on September 9 and 7:30 pm. The focus is on the fact that they only have 7 parking spots and need between 47-70 spots per the two engineering reports; That this proposed use will create increased traffic between the hours of 6 am - 9am and 5pm - 10pm, the hours that the surrounding businesses are not open while this one would be; that the noise, trash, food waste would change the character of the neighborhood.

Last night was the planning board hearing for this issue. It has been moved to the December meeting. This is an issue with a lot of good questions attached. Is this a good idea for the town? With the track record of problems on this property, is this a welcome addition? How does if fit into downtown development and the vision study?

When the next meeting gets closer, I will post a reminder. Neighborhood preservation is a real issue.

[admin]

Good article, very important to pay attention to this:

newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/1104/front_page/002.html

Owner proposes to move grocery to new location
2 homes on Throckmorton St., Freehold, would be demolished
BY CLARE MARIE CELANO Staff Writer
An application to move a Freehold Borough business that serves as a grocery, deli and warehouse distribution center from its present location in the Boro Plaza shopping center on Broad Street to a property on Throckmorton Street was heard by the Freehold Borough Planning Board on Oct. 28.

The applicant, Atanasio Munoz, is proposing to demolish two homes on Throckmorton Street and to use an existing building that is set back from Throckmorton Street as the location of the grocery, deli and warehouse distribution center.

The homes to be demolished are owned by the attorney and engineer who are representing Munoz before the Planning Board.

Some nearby property owners have raised issues of parking, vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic and the generation of trash at the site.

The property lies between Throckmorton and Court streets.



Attorney Leonard Coates, of Hightstown, presented the application to the board on behalf of Munoz. A site plan approval with parking waivers is being sought for the business that would be known as Market 75.

Planner Michael Geller, testifying on behalf of the applicant, said the first floor of the grocery store totals 6,385 square feet. Of that total, 3,372 square feet would be used for the grocery store and deli, and the remainder would be used as a warehouse.

Geller said the building Munoz wants to use for the grocery was previously used to sell computers and also served as a distribution center for computers. He said the building has been vacant for some time.

The plan calls for a paved area to be located in front of the building.

There is also a dry basement, which will be used for storage, Geller said. A 6-foot-high solid fence will be placed around the building.

Geller said the plan "conforms to and further advances the goals of the borough's master plan and looks better than what is there now. This is a good example of what Freehold Borough should have in the B2A zone, and eliminate non-conforming uses."

Landscaping and lighting will be provided on the site by the applicant.

Coates said 80 percent of the store's customers will walk to the business. He expects there to be three or four employees, in addition to Munoz, operating the business. Deliveries will be made during the day and trucks will not be parked overnight on the property.

The applicant is applying for a parking waiver because the borough ordinance requires 34 parking spaces and the plan is proposing 17 parking spaces (16 standard spaces and one handicapped space).

Coates said, if necessary, Munoz may ask his employees to park in public parking areas.

Jeff Friedman, a rental property manager whose business is nearby at the corner of Broad and Court streets, said he is concerned about trash from the grocery-deli and also long-term issues such as how the business will impact the area.

"We already have a stray-cat problem here. This will only make it worse and serve to reduce our property values. This is not what the borough needs," Friedman said. "The traffic is definitely a serious problem and they don't have enough parking for their customers.

"Overall, the borough has spent a great deal of effort in the downtown redevelopment trying to revitalize the town, and a project like this doesn't draw visitors or prospective residents to the town. It is not a long-term positive redevelopment project," Friedman said.

The public hearing on the Market 75 application will resume at a special meeting of the Planning Board to be held at 7:30 p.m. Nov. 30 at Borough Hall.

[admin]

On Monday November 30th @ 7:30 PM, the planning board will be taking public comments in reference to the proposed opening of the grocery on the location on Throckmorton.

All members of the public are encouraged to attend to learn, listen, ask questions and express their views.

[adefonzo]

I am a bit confused after reading this thread, and I am hoping someone can clear this up for me.

One issue is what's confusing me, the police reports about parties and the location being used as a night club by the owner. My first question is simple...is the owner who is currently trying to move the business to Throckmorton St. the same owner who was throwing these "parties" and using the building as a night club?

My next question is what ever happened to the owner of the establishment when these parties were discovered? There is mention of alcohol being present...was it being sold without a license? There is mention of the Boro's code enforcement being present with the police...did they take any action against the owner?

How about the Fire Department? Were they ever called in to check on the maximum capacity of the establishment to be sure there was no overcrowding? There is mention of fire alarms going off...but no mention of anything else.

Just some questions to help clear up the issue a bit.

[admin]

Nov 25, 2009 16:34:20 GMT -5 admin said:

On Monday November 30th @ 7:30 PM, the planning board will be taking public comments in reference to the proposed opening of the grocery on the location on Throckmorton.

All members of the public are encouraged to attend to learn, listen, ask questions and express their views.

Just a reminder to interested people, tonight is the night of the meeting for public comments.

[admin]

Nov 26, 2009 20:11:22 GMT -5 adefonzo said:

I am a bit confused after reading this thread, and I am hoping someone can clear this up for me.

One issue is what's confusing me, the police reports about parties and the location being used as a night club by the owner. My first question is simple...is the owner who is currently trying to move the business to Throckmorton St. the same owner who was throwing these "parties" and using the building as a night club?

My next question is what ever happened to the owner of the establishment when these parties were discovered? There is mention of alcohol being present...was it being sold without a license? There is mention of the Boro's code enforcement being present with the police...did they take any action against the owner?

How about the Fire Department? Were they ever called in to check on the maximum capacity of the establishment to be sure there was no overcrowding? There is mention of fire alarms going off...but no mention of anything else.

Just some questions to help clear up the issue a bit.

I do not know anything more than what was found in the police reports. I have no idea what the outcome was in the courts.

This is the same guy who is trying to open up on Throckmorton.

[admin]

Last night was a special planning board meeting dealing with just the public comments portion of the process. Planning Board chair Kevin Mulligan was absent so board member Daniel Sims was acting chair. Other planning board members present were councilman George Shnurr, Joy Goetz, Robert Oaks, Adam Reich, and Lillie Hendry.

There were about 15-20 residents in attendance. A total of seven of those people provided comments about he opening of the grocery on Throckmorton. Three of those people provided character references in favor of the applicant, Atanasio Munoz. All three of those people in favor of the applicant were very brief.

The other four residents who spoke were a bit more detailed and against the applicant. The parking issues were the common theme and concern among those in protest. It was well noted that the area does not have parking to accommodate the over flow parking that the grocery may create. One person brought up the credibility of Munoz saying that the planning board could not trust his claim that the business would cater to 80 percent foot traffic. One resident brought up the foot traffic issue and mentioned that there is already a pedestrian problem in the area that would be aggravated by more foot traffic.

A couple of residents brought up the concerns pertaining to past problems at the location of Munoz's current business. ( Those are outlined in this thread). Those residents were told that those issues had no bearing on the application and could not effect the vote.

Others questioned the need for another market and especially questioned the value of this market to the neighborhood. There were concerns of a very negative impact on the surrounding neighbors.

The planing board took no official action tonight, but in a 5-1 split in the negative, did authorize the board attorney to draft a resolution in the negative. That resolution and board action will be made on 12/09/09 at the next planning board meeting.

Each of the planning board members mentioned how they plan to vote with an explanation. Councilman Shnurr started off with the comments and made clear that he is following the "letter of the law" on this issue. He stated that although the borough has granted parking waivers in the past, this one would be very different. The number of spaces waived would be very high in an area that has no place to catch the overflow traffic. Munoz is asking for 47 spaces to be waived.

Goetz, Oaks, Reich and Hendry all echoed Councilman Shnurrs sentiments and also indicated they would be voting no. There was a common concern of the parking for this type of business to be too much for the area that cannot accommodate.

The lone planning board member to indicate a vote in favor of the applicant was Danielle Sims. Sims concern is that a no vote will impose a hardship on the current and future land owner of the site.

After the meeting, people in attendance gathered outside to discuss the events. Common belief is that this is a temporary victory for those who are opposed to the applicant. The belief is that there will be an appeal and possibly a suit against the town. After the planning board votes on Dec 9th, the issue may go before the council.

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Dec 1, 2009 8:03:41 GMT -5 admin said:

a no vote will impose a hardship on the current and future land owner of the site.
.

This building sat vacant and unused for over 10 years, WHY had this building been unused for soooo long? One could postulate that there is little hardship on the part of the current owners since they had made little effort too find either a tenant or buyer only till recently.

About the parking issue, as I testified last night, there is borough Master plan and a vision study that both concur....,Freehold Borough's Downtown needs MORE parking not less parking, so by the Planning-Zoning board to approve the requested parking waver, will only contradict the Master plan and Downtown Vision Study.

If the parking waver was to be issued...., there would be a hardship imposed on future downtown development . This 47 parking space waver, will have further limited the amount of parking for any future owner of this property (any future owner other than the current prospective buyer), thus limiting the prospective value and type of business that would consider buying or renting this specific commercial space with a seriously "limited parking" wave attached to it.

what I forgot to mention last night, but have been saying for the last several months..., Can the current property owners look to find a more suitable buyer, a prospective business that fills a REAL need, a business that will help build up our Downtown Business district, a business that will serve our entire community, not a hand full of "possible" pedestrians customers, what about a new location for our much needed BOROUGH POST OFFICE? OK, you can not tell a property owner who you can , or can not sell to, but...,

IMHO, if I was the current property owner, looking to liquidate this property from my inventory of commercial property holdings, I would be looking at ways to appease the community and absolve ownership of the property that has not been used in over 10 years..., I am sure that there is a creative way to resolve the sale of 75 Throckmorton street commercial property, and resolve the pending loss of our "temporary" post office trailers.

I think we can all agree we need a Freehold Borough Post Office more than we need a "Market 75", it is just a matter of vision and action to make this happen!

[ka19]

Is there any reason why the land cannot be used for residential purposes?

[fiberisgoodforyou]

Dec 1, 2009 11:37:46 GMT -5 ka19 said:

Is there any reason why the land cannot be used for residential purposes?

zoning issues, and would require a variance. Also this is in the SIDS zone. good commercial use would be preferable at this location..

[ka19]

Dec 1, 2009 13:46:33 GMT -5 fiberisgoodforyou said:

Dec 1, 2009 11:37:46 GMT -5 ka19 said:

Is there any reason why the land cannot be used for residential purposes?

zoning issues, and would require a variance. Also this is in the SIDS zone. good commercial use would be preferable at this location..

What is the current use of the lot?

[admin]

Dec 1, 2009 8:03:41 GMT -5 admin said:

Last night was a special planning board meeting dealing with just the public comments portion of the process. Planning Board chair Kevin Mulligan was absent so board member Daniel Sims was acting chair. Other planning board members present were councilman George Shnurr, Joy Goetz, Robert Oaks, Adam Reich, and Lillie Hendry.

There were about 15-20 residents in attendance. A total of seven of those people provided comments about he opening of the grocery on Throckmorton. Three of those people provided character references in favor of the applicant, Atanasio Munoz. All three of those people in favor of the applicant were very brief.

The other four residents who spoke were a bit more detailed and against the applicant. The parking issues were the common theme and concern among those in protest. It was well noted that the area does not have parking to accommodate the over flow parking that the grocery may create. One person brought up the credibility of Munoz saying that the planning board could not trust his claim that the business would cater to 80 percent foot traffic. One resident brought up the foot traffic issue and mentioned that there is already a pedestrian problem in the area that would be aggravated by more foot traffic.

A couple of residents brought up the concerns pertaining to past problems at the location of Munoz's current business. ( Those are outlined in this thread). Those residents were told that those issues had no bearing on the application and could not effect the vote.

Others questioned the need for another market and especially questioned the value of this market to the neighborhood. There were concerns of a very negative impact on the surrounding neighbors.

The planing board took no official action tonight, but in a 5-1 split in the negative, did authorize the board attorney to draft a resolution in the negative. That resolution and board action will be made on 12/09/09 at the next planning board meeting.

Each of the planning board members mentioned how they plan to vote with an explanation. Councilman Shnurr started off with the comments and made clear that he is following the "letter of the law" on this issue. He stated that although the borough has granted parking waivers in the past, this one would be very different. The number of spaces waived would be very high in an area that has no place to catch the overflow traffic. Munoz is asking for 47 spaces to be waived.

Goetz, Oaks, Reich and Hendry all echoed Councilman Shnurrs sentiments and also indicated they would be voting no. There was a common concern of the parking for this type of business to be too much for the area that cannot accommodate.

The lone planning board member to indicate a vote in favor of the applicant was Danielle Sims. Sims concern is that a no vote will impose a hardship on the current and future land owner of the site.

After the meeting, people in attendance gathered outside to discuss the events. Common belief is that this is a temporary victory for those who are opposed to the applicant. The belief is that there will be an appeal and possibly a suit against the town. After the planning board votes on Dec 9th, the issue may go before the council.

The resolution to deny the application did pass last night in a vote of 5-1.