Converted garage at group home becomes flashpoint in Morristown Historic District

The Morristown zoning board listens to Co-home application at virtual meeting. Dec. 15, 2021. Screenshot by Kevin Coughlin
7

 

By Marion Filler

A converted garage at a group home in Morristown’s Historic District was challenged Wednesday by neighbors who contend it threatens the character of the neighborhood by violating its single-family zoning.

The town zoning board heard about an hour of virtual testimony from Nate Diskint, executive director of Cohome Inc., a Miller Road residence for developmentally disabled adults.

Diskint seeks a use variance to change a restored garage from a recreational structure to a residence, for a supervisor or caretaker to oversee programs and deal with the everyday business of running the group home.

Nate Diskint testifies for Co-home, Dec. 15, 2021. Screenshot by Kevin Coughlin

He serves as caretaker. He expects to live in the accessory building for at least two years, and then employ someone else to take his place, he has testified.

By all accounts, Cohome’s disabled occupants have caused no problems and are welcomed by neighbors. The Miller Road property has improved in appearance, too.

But the garage conversion sets a bad precedent, contend some neighbors, who have cited inconsistencies and a perceived lack of transparency from Diskint as the basis for their crisis of confidence.

Diskint and his brother Yehuda Diskent are founders of Morris Blue Inc., the company that owns Cohome and two other local properties intended to serve the same clientele. Nate moved into the Victorian mansion on Miller Road soon after it was purchased in 2018 for $1.1 million.

In October 2020, he obtained a permit to restore a detached garage into a recreational space for Cohome residents. Another permit to add a kitchen was granted in November 2020.

Nate Diskint’s testimony about the number of disabled occupants living in the nine-bedroom home (sometimes described as eight bedrooms)  has caused neighbors to question the need for an additional residence, and why the remodeled garage should not remain as originally intended social space.

During an Oct. 7, 2021, interview posted online, Diskint affirmed a maximum number of five clients can be accommodated at Cohome. Two additional resident advisors, or RAs, raised the total to seven occupants, according to the interview.

Appearing virtually before the zoning board last month, Diskint testified there are nine occupants– six residents and three RAs.

LEGAL QUESTION

Neighbor Denise Flanagan called Wednesday’s meeting asking what the role of caretaker entails. When told it involves oversight of the programs and grounds, she inquired why that person needs a separate house on the property.

“We want to use all the space that we have available in the home to serve and further our mission towards housing folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities, so available units in the home are best suited for those purposes,” said Diskint.

Board Chairman Steve Pylypchuk pressed Diskint on this point, asking if recreational space inside the home could be moved to the accessory structure to make room inside the house for a caretaker residence.        .

“The answer is no,” said Diskint. “There is no space that could be converted to residential in the home.”

Two brothers hope to convert this residence in Morristown's Historic District to a group home. Photo by Kevin Coughlin
Two brothers have converted this residence, pictured in 2018, in Morristown’s Historic District, to a group home for developmentally disabled adults. Photo by Kevin Coughlin

Caller Donna McNamara wondered why social programs cannot take place in the accessory structure as originally planned.

“Our programming is for residential housing, for folks with disabilities, so to move programming out there would mean to place some of our clients out there,” replied Diskint.

The former garage, now an 800-square-foot cottage, stands a few feet from the main house. That’s not a difficult journey for group home residents who regularly stroll through the neighborhood, and whose independence is encouraged, opponents suggest.

Linda Carrington, who lives across the street from Cohome and served for nine years on the zoning board, called with a technical question:

When Cohome attorney Frank Vitolo worded the Cohome application to specifically limit occupancy of the accessory residence to a caretaker, did Vitolo assume the board has that legal power?

Carrington has her doubts.

“I ask that because in 2019, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey State Superior Court declared a deed restriction invalid and unenforceable, as zoning is for determining the land use of a property, and not the identity status of the owners or the persons who occupy the land,” she said.

Board Attorney David Brady did not have an answer, but agreed with board member James Bednarz that the matter needs further discussion. Brady said he will research the question and respond at next month’s hearing.

Caller Heikki Uustal asked if the cottage eventually could become a rental property.

“My intention is to use it for employees as far as I foresee,” Diskint replied.

But what if Cohome falls on hard times or leaves 44 Miller Road entirely, the caller queried. Would Diskint aver that it never will be a rental?

Diskint declined to say so, preferring to leave it to the lawyers.

WARY NEIGHBORS

Local homeowners are wary. The track record for area group homes is mixed; many have gone under. When the Morristown council rescinded a $100,000 grant to Co-home from the town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund in July 2019, people became concerned about its viability.

According to town Administrator Jillian Barrick, sticking points included questions about the nonprofit’s funding, mortgage and insurance. A big item of disagreement was the town’s insistence on placing a member on Cohome’s board, Barrick acknowledged at the time.

Cohome’s finances are beyond the scope of the zoning board, which has not accepted public questions on the topic. But as a nonprofit, Cohome is required to publicly disclose some information.

Records show Cohome is the beneficiary of federal funding, grants, donations and client fees. It carries mortgages from the former owner of the property, and from the New Jersey Community Capital Fund, a nonprofit that promotes community health and neighborhood revitalization, according to its website.

Diskint invited his critics to attend an open house at Cohome this Sunday, Dec. 19, 2021.

MORE ABOUT COHOME INC.

If you’ve read this far… you clearly value your local news. Now we need your help to keep producing the local coverage you depend on! More people are reading Morristown Green than ever. But costs keep rising. Reporting the news takes time, money and hard work. We do it because we, like you, believe an informed citizenry is vital to a healthy community.

So please, CONTRIBUTE to MG or become a monthly SUBSCRIBER. ADVERTISE on Morristown Green. LIKE us on Facebook, FOLLOW us on Twitter, and SIGN UP for our newsletter.

7 COMMENTS

  1. I live on Miller Road and have been dismayed at the apparent disregard for our community standards. What is to stop this organization from housing an employee and their whole family in this garage?

  2. The permit application was received by the town on August 20, 2020. The permit was issued October 19th, 2020 and, as Mr. Diskint noted, refers to the plans. However the plans were not supplied at that time. The plans are dated November 2, 2020.

  3. Linda – the permit issued October 19th, 2020 specifically states, “Construction of new detached carriage house as shown on supplied plans…”

  4. The public would like to know why Mr. Diskint misled the town construction department by filing for a permit to build a garage and then erect a building without garage doors and fill in the driveway with grass. I would call that devious and misleading and, in my opinion, is not a good role model nor does it point to an industry best practice. The zoning board can rule on whether the building is to be used as a residence or not. The zoning board cannot limit the occupancy to a caretaker. The ruling goes with the property forever.

  5. The accessory building was designed with versatility in mind. However, providing a space for an on-site caretaker would do the most to further Cohome’s mission and support our residents. Several oppositional commentators at the zoning meeting suggested that the caretaker space should be in the house – in a living room or even in the basement. Separating residential space from caretaker space is critical to fostering independence and is considered an industry best practice. Caretakers who share space with their clients have high burn-out rates creating instability for the program. Further, considering the national staffing shortage and financial constraints, being able to provide on-site housing is also a great incentive to attract a high caliber of person for the caretaker role.

  6. J. Esposito, builder, distributed a notice of intended demolition for the old garage in August, 2020. The town issued a building permit for construction of a new garage in October, 2020, to be used for storage purposes only. The new garage lacks garage doors. This building is not a renovated garage as stated in the story above. Why didn’t Mr. Diskint just apply for a variance for an accessory residential unit, which seems to be what he intended to build from the outset? I support Cohome’s mission but I ask that the board not approve the accessory building as a residence.

LEAVE A REPLY