Editor’s note: For nearly a year, Cohome Inc., a Morristown residence for adults with developmental disabilities, has been seeking zoning board approval to use a rebuilt garage as a caretaker’s apartment. Neighbors in the Historic District have voiced opposition. Cohome’s executive director submitted the following open letter.
Dear Morristown friends and neighbors,
Cohome soon will celebrate its fifth anniversary operating an invaluable, cutting-edge inclusion program for adults with special needs in Morristown. You may have heard about us. We run a shared home where neurodiverse adults live together and share the journey of independent living, and we feature a really effective social-learning program.
We’re also currently embroiled in a zoning controversy in Morristown’s historic district that is causing us to question the values and priorities of a vocal few in our community who seem intent on thwarting Cohome’s continued success.
The purpose of this letter is two-fold: (1) To explain Cohome’s vital mission to provide inclusive housing for adults with special needs, and (2) to explain the nature and merits of our zoning board variance application and debunk misinformation being circulated about the application.
To understand why Cohome’s inclusive housing goals are so important, one need look no further than the following facts. There are currently over 38,000 individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities in New Jersey, more than half of whom currently live in their family residence for lack of other options. More than 7,000 of them are registered on the New Jersey Department of Human Services housing waitlist.
In the face of this devastating housing shortage, Cohome operates the most advanced housing model serving individuals with disabilities in the State of New Jersey, if not the country. Our residents receive person-centered one-to-one support, facilitated social programs, easy access to the abundant resources of our amazing town, and many more intangible benefits. It is hoped that someday Cohome might serve as a template for other, much needed inclusive housing units nationwide.
The relief we seek before the Morristown Zoning Board is intended to serve one purpose: To make Cohome even more effective in providing our residents with the quality housing services and programming they so richly deserve.
By way of background, the town approved Cohome’s application in 2020 to demolish a long-unused and dilapidated detached garage and to build in its place a small, “accessory dwelling unit” behind our Miller Road home.
The unit has been built, and we think all would agree that its look and architecture conforms with the style, charm, and beauty of the surrounding neighborhood. The accessory-use designation means we can now use the unit for “storage” and “home office” purposes.
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of our residents’ daily programs moved online, where they largely remain. This new office space was designed to enable our residents to maintain their important life-skills learning and programming routines with separation from the residential space.
In 2021, we filed for a variance to utilize the accessory unit as a residence for a supervising caregiver, who would live on-site, which would free-up valuable additional space in the main house for the use of our residents.
Our plan is to use the unit’s first-floor space as a “home office” for residents during certain daytime hours, and to use the loft second-floor space as a modest but sufficient bedroom for the caregiver. This change in use would require one simple physical alteration: The addition of a small kitchen and bathroom on the first floor.
The benefits of this minimal and easily accomplished change in use are substantial. As indicated, it would create additional program space in Cohome’s main structure and provide a supervising caregiver with some separation from the daily activities in the home.
In this regard, it is well to note that across the supportive housing industry, burnout among caregivers is very high and the creation of separate staff quarters is considered a best practice. The separate but adjacent quarters provided by our proposed carriage house would ensure quality program and safety oversight for years to come.
Regarding the merits of our application, there can be little question that Cohome qualifies—to use zoning parlance—as an inherently beneficial use, given the vulnerable nature of the population Cohome serves, the public import of our work, the absence of viable alternative housing options, and the affordable housing benefits Cohome provides. This status in turn constitutes “a special reason” under governing law for granting our variance application.
Nearby properties with far less noble missions have variance-approved carriage homes; two other properties, one on Washington Street and the other on Malcolm Street, recently were granted variances in connection with nonconforming carriage houses, the former for residential use and the latter for use as a karate studio.
Despite the concerns voiced by some skeptical community members at recent zoning board hearings, the granting of a residential variance for Cohome’s carriage house would cause no negative impact whatsoever on surrounding properties, much less the neighborhood as a whole.
The structure, design, and outward appearance of the carriage house would remain unchanged. Nor would the property’s single-family zoning status be affected; the property would not somehow become a two-family home, as some community members have suggested at recent hearings.
All that a variance would accomplish is to allow a Cohome caregiver—not a commercial enterprise, a stranger, or a series of strangers—to occupy the carriage house for residential use and, to that end, to permit the installation of a small kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor.
Simply put, there are no downsides to the community—in legalese, no “damage to the character of the neighborhood as to constitute substantial detriment to the public good”—by making use of our carriage house in this way.
Moreover, we agreed as a condition of approval that the carriage house can only be used for a caregiver residence if the home is used for persons with disabilities. If that ever changes, a new owner operator would have to return to the board for a variance.
This project should be viewed as a long-term investment in our unique housing program and in the Morristown community as a whole. Consider in this regard that each year students with disabilities graduate from Morristown High School, and that many special-needs students who live in Morristown must travel to special schools or participate in special programs elsewhere for more supportive learning.
By law, these important members of our community are entitled to live in the least restrictive housing environment that can meet their support needs. That is what Cohome provides. That is why we are here and what we do on a daily basis.
We share this with the hope that our friends and neighbors in the Morristown community—particularly those who up to now have opposed our variance application—will better understand what we are doing, why our application is so important, and how the residential use of the carriage house will enhance our program and help us reach our goal of providing sustainable, long-term inclusive living in Morristown.
We extend our heartfelt appreciation to so many of you who have offered unwavering support for our cause since Cohome began this amazing journey in 2017.
If you have any questions about our program in general or the carriage house project in particular, please don’t hesitate to contact us. You can reach us here. To stay involved and up to date with all things Cohome, including the ongoing carriage house saga, please visit us at our instagram page, @cohome_morristown.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Diskint
Cohome Executive Director
Opinions expressed in commentaries are the authors’, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.
In reply to Nate Diskint’s assertions of September 14 and 15, the owner of #52 Miller Road did not seek a variance to include a dwelling unit in the two-story building he was planning. The plans he submitted and which the board approved did not show a bedroom or a kitchen. Since he did not seek a variance for a dwelling, none was included in the resolution.
Forty years ago, as you noted, #68 Miller Road received approval to expand a previously existing dwelling in the carriage house. This indicates that sometime between 1931 and 1983, the carriage house included dwelling unit. The expansion was never done.
Im with Adam and Nate. This seems like a win-win-win; a win for Cohome as an operator, a win for the disabled, a win for the community. Home office vs. residential dwelling sounds like minimal difference in use. i don’t understand the debate here. My neighbor has a 45 year old developmentally delayed son, her husband passed years ago and I fear for her son when she passes, this seems like a standout for independence for people like him and all people who need the help. There is some irony here that Morristown will serve as a sanctuary city (to be exact, its “fair and welcoming”) provided you want to live at the far end of Speedwell Ave, but dont dare impose on the historic district, which it would seem is where Linda lives. I wonder if a resolution would be if Cohome offered to procure some deed restriction to limit the home to its current purpose and perhaps Morristown would limit property tax also.
Hi Linda – I appreciate that the appearance of the properties may make them seem historic, but neither accessory unit at 52 nor 68 were entirely “grandfathered.” 52 Miller’s permit, dated 2005, reads, “CONSTRUCT NEW DETACHED GARAGE RESIDENTIAL.” 68 was approved by the zoning board, in 1983 to expand the residential component of the carriage house. The board approved both a use variance AND a variance from the dimensional requirements of the ordinance for this. Ironically, the resolution reads “The proposal will improve the structure and the use of the premises and is an enhancement of the general area.” And further, “The proposal will not cause injury to the neighborhood in general or to adjacent or nearby property owners… the proposed conversion will have no affect on the neighborhood or on the zoning plan.” I would say that the same goes for Cohome’s proposed conversion.
Hi Nate, You have made an assertion that is not true. The zoning board resolution for the 52 Miller Road carriage house clearly states “no residential use.” The carriage house at 68 Miller Road was built in 1931. It is “grandfathered” much the same way your two driveways are “grandfathered.”
Hi Linda – I would have to direct your attention to your 2 other neighbors who both have accessory units approved for residential use. Is there an issue with them having changed the “master plan” for their properties as you say? I also don’t agree with your interpretation of conditional uses, but I think it’s beside the point. The zoning board approved both 52 Miller and 68 Miller to have residential carriage houses. Is that a problem for you?
Cohome has permission to erect a building but does not have permission to use it as a residence. The application seeks to use it as a dwelling. By asking to use the building as a dwelling Mr. Diskint is in effect asking to change the master plan for his property.
Zoning boards are not permitted to restrict the use of a dwelling to an owner or an employee. The permission goes with the land.
A Morristown zoning board resolution issued in 2017 restricting occupancy was struck down by a trial judge and an appellant judge in 2019
The trial court’s determination that the owner-occupancy condition of the use variance was unlawful: “a fundamental principle of zoning that a zoning board is charged with the regulation of land use and not with the person who owns or occupies the land.” The determination was upheld by the appellant court.
Zoning boards do not base their decisions on the goals of the owner, however well-intended they may be.
mtowngrl – How in the world are you construing that are they asking for forgiveness? They were approved to build it and use it for programming. Now, they’re going through the proper channels for permission to use it for residential. Programs evolve and change. The program is asking permission for this. They haven’t violated anything. If it makes their program better, I’m all for it. They clearly know what they’re doing and know what’s best for their program. I have a sibling with a developmental delay and although he’s still pretty young we’ve looked at a lot of programs. Cohome’s in a different league.
Asking for forgiveness vs permission. If it is so critical to the success (after 5 years), why wasn’t this included in the original proposal?