It had virtually everything one possibly could imagine in a virtual five-hour zoning board hearing.
Frayed tempers. Charges and counter-charges. Clergy vs. affluent residents. There even was a blackout.
Yes, the Morristown Board of Adjustment had everything…except a decision. At 12:45 a.m. on Thursday, after listening to heated exchanges ever since suppertime on Wednesday, weary board members reluctantly punted their deliberations until next week.
“I have to get up for work in five hours,” said Vice Chairman Scott Wild.
Over the last year, the board has heard 17 grueling hours of testimony, spanning six sessions, involving Cohome Inc., a nonprofit group home in Morristown’s tony Historic District.
Cohome founder Nate Diskint seeks a variance to use a replaced garage as a caretaker residence.
Or a caregiver residence. Nobody could agree on the proper terminology.
Supporters praised Cohome’s services for adults with intellectual disabilities. They agreed with Diskint that a detached dwelling will prevent caretaker burnout and enhance privacy and independence for Cohome residents. Privately, some attribute opposition to “Not in My Backyard” syndrome.
Opponents cited concerns that an approval for the Miller Road property could spur neighbors to convert garages or add backyard tiny homes, eroding the character of a Victorian district in which they have invested heavily.
Some also suspect Cohome of seeking forgiveness instead of permission. They said the attractive 800-square-foot cottage that replaced an ugly garage was pitched as storage space, then as a recreational facility for Cohome residents.
On Wednesday, Diskint told the board that he and his new bride hope to live there, until a permanent caregiver is hired.
THE FIREWORKS:
- Cohome’s pro bono attorney, Frank Vitolo, accused Cohome neighbor Jeff Stiles of breaching ethics codes by testifying as an expert planner against the project.
- Stiles, who abruply quit the zoning board in 2019 to testify against Cohome, brushed off Vitolo’s allegation to lob his own: Cohome’s application was moot, he said, because town officials were hoodwinked into thinking the facility is state-licensed, when it’s not.
- Saying Diskint is “always hitting us up for money,” district resident Roger Kauffman compared him to a used car salesman.
- Diskint bristled that Kauffman had just insinuated that his developmentally disabled brother, who lives in the group home, was a used car. Nonprofits solicit funds to continue their good works, he added.
- Two local ministers–Anne Thatcher, rector of St. Peter’s, and Daniel Vigilante, new pastor of the Presbyterian Church– weighed in for Cohome, on behalf of the 18-member Morris Area Together consortium. Allowing a caretaker to inhabit a beautiful new outbuilding, they argued, is vital for the group home, and trumps zoning that bars such apartments.
- Noah Kane, a friend and supporter of Diskint, identified himself as a caretaker for a local temple–then refused to elaborate without an attorney.
- Rich Herbert, parent of an autistic client at Cohome, said he was “profoundly grateful” to the operation. Several Historic District homeowners applauded Cohome’s mission, too. But they warned a detached apartment sets a bad precedent, and defended themselves as “stewards” of a Victorian neighborhood, not a bunch of NIMBYs.
- Trish Grushkin, whose home dates to 1892, said her neighbors have invested heavily rehabbing old “money pits,” to preserve a district that is “effectively part of the economic engine that drives Morristown.” It’s where she said grassroots efforts sprouted in the 1990s to rescue the crumbling Community Theatre, now the Mayo Performing Arts Center.
- Cohome’s pro bono planner, Michael Tobia, dismissed precedent worries. Anyone intent on converting a garage would need a use variance. And that, he said, would entail proving the conversion was “inherently beneficial”–the arduous claim Cohome is making.
THE MAIN EVENT
Everyone almost got to call it a night about three hours into the Zoom session, when Vitolo’s house lost power and went dark. The lawyer said his cell phone was dying as well. For an eerie few moments Vitolo soldiered on–by flashlight, it appeared. He asked for a timeout and gassed up a home generator.
The meeting resumed with the main event: Jeff Stiles, a professional planner who lives within a few hundred feet of Cohome, finally made his case against the application.
Vitolo had fought this for months, calling such testimony a conflict of interest. But board Attorney Michael Brown allowed Stiles to proceed.
Stiles said Cohome’s arguments are flawed.
Diskint’s team contends the outbuilding is not a principal home, but rather, an accessory dwelling to a group home, which the state purportedly deems “inherently beneficial” and immune to local zoning.
To allay neighbors’ concerns, Cohome is proposing a deed restriction to eliminate the apartment if the group home folds.
Whether the town would enforce such a restriction has been hotly debated. Any future buyer who continued the apartment use would risk lawsuits, said Vitolo, suggesting vigilant neighbors remain the first line of defense.
But Cohome cannot be presumed inherently beneficial, according to Stiles, because it’s not licensed by the state.
(Diskint acknowledged being unlicensed, calling it a strategic choice to minimize red tape. He said he’s learned his trade on the fly since launching Cohome as a 26-year-old biology major in 2018. Third-party service providers are licensed, the facility has state inspections, and resident assistants undergo background checks, he said.)
Nor is the structure an accessory, Stiles said.
“This is a single family house that one or two people are going to live in. It’s used for people to eat, cook, sleep and use the bathroom,” on a tract not zoned for two houses, Stiles said.
Vitolo challenged Stiles’ claims about Cohome securing building permits under false pretenses, and questioned his professional expertise.
He pressed Stiles to admit that over a 37-year-career, as a planner for at least 15 municipalities, he never has dealt with a group home application.
Pushed some more, Stiles confirmed that board Chairman Steve Pylypchuk recused himself because he applied to Stiles’ firm for a job.
Angrily rejecting any whiff of impropriety, Stiles denied personal involvement and said Pylypchuk merely answered an employment ad.
It was Vitolo’s turn to get hot when board member James Bednarz, cross-examining Stiles, appeared to point out errors in a Vitolo letter to the board.
“He’s talking about me!” Vitolo interjected.
Wild, the vice chairman, repeatedly admonished the lawyer: “Please stop interrupting.”
It wasn’t Vitolo’s first clash with the board.
Over the summer, the board dismissed Cohome’s application when Vitolo missed a deadline. He blamed it on a miscommunication and threatened to sue. The application was reinstated.
Before adjourning early on Thursday, the board tasked town Planner Phil Abramson with clarifying details of permits issued to Cohome.
When members deliberate next week, Abramson has advised them to parse three factors:
- Is the group home itself inherently beneficial?
- Is the proposed apartment a principal residence or an accessory dwelling?
- That answer will dictate which case laws to apply when determining whether to grant the variance.
Will Meeting 7 be the charm? The sports betting apps are missing a golden opportunity.
Historic District residents feign concern with zoning compliance as it is a means to an end; such vehement objections in session and this forum is transparent. There was a 30 year old precedent project for a handicap resident on Farragut Place (#6) and it hasn’t made Mr. Diskint’s application any easier. Thus, the notion that this is a paradigm shift and that kitchens will appear in every room and in every auxiliary building doesn’t merit the stonewall defense of zoning exhibited here. Another point is that affluent historic district residents don’t need to rent garages as apartments so zoning is a strawman fallacy. Mr. Diskint’s variance application seems like an elegant solution for his family (and others) that will struggle with planning for care for a handicapped child/sibling beyond their own days, so better to ask the question “why wouldn’t you allow this”? Isn’t this what a community is for? The historic districts’ response seems to be, “sure, Morristown is ‘fair and welcoming’ however, not on this street”.
To John Q Public: you are so totally off base and incorrect by applying the NIMBY label to me. I have totally supported the mission of CoHome from its inception. In fact, I even tried to help Nate purchase a home on Hill St. Prior to his purchase of Miller Rd. From a different realtor. My sellers on Hill St. We’re very excited to sell to Nate at the time. Unfortunately, his financing did not work out, come through, at the time and we had a fall through.
For the record: I totally support Cohomes’ mission in my backyard! What I object to is the building of a second home on the same lot as the existing home in a single family neighborhood. Clearly, the single family zone does not allow for a second single family home to built on the same lot. Just because it’s beautiful or cost a lot of money (who’s money?) does not make it legal. The argument of “Inherently beneficial” is hogwash in this case since the main building has 3 or 4 bedrooms with bath on its third floor which was intended for help to live in when the home was built in the 1880’s. The space can easily house a caregiver or caretaker. Building a second structure was not necessary and the fact that Nate built it first and then sought permission is very disturbing. This is a very bad precedent for the entire town…..for homeowners to know that they can build a second home on their property and then seek permission later is not good. Nate has already told the board that he will be looking for a new home with his bride so he will not reside in the Carriage House he just. Hilt. Who will?
NIMBY is alive and well. Its so plain that the historic district residents (e.g. Linda and Denise) don’t want this. Remember the 2017 resolution the Morristown council passed that said “Morristown is fair and welcoming” …oh, that only applies if you move to the other end of Speedwell Ave. Cohome and Mr. Disknit have prepared a good variance application that will allow for the developmentally disabled to live beyond their parents (or, in this case, brother) and acquire some independence. it very much seems like the right thing for a community to do. Cohome has already implemented every thought they could to make this a “one and done” instance and not necessarily Town precedent and yet the historic district residents won’t relent. Cohome has a deed restriction, will still require others to seek a variance and yet it still NIMBY. What happened to the welcoming part? Oh, that’s only if you live as far as possible from the historic district. Its so plain from these articles; it pretty shameful how hard hearted they seem and you can see through their motivation.
Please correct this. No one asked me to “elaborate.” Rather, a board member attempted to cross examine me—at 12:30 AM.
Yes, I refused to be cross-examined after midnight, while I was under oath, subject to penalty of perjury. I was too tired to be cross examined, as that board member should have known. It was totally inappropriate to ask me pointed questions at that time of night, when I was under oath. Testimony in a trial usually ends around 5:00PM, not 12:30AM, for a reason. Because it’s unfair to ask someone pointed questions, when that person is sleepy! If the board wanted to grill public commenters, they should have postponed public comment to a more reasonable hour, at the next meeting. And yes, I asked for an attorney, who would have told me I did the right thing by not allowing myself to be bullied by an overzealous board member.
This article is totally disingenuous, because it implies that I did not specify what synagogue I am the caretaker for. But I did! I testified that I am the live-in caretaker for my synagogue, and I identified my address on the record, which is the address of a local synagogue. It doesn’t take a high-priced attorney to put two and two together! (With antisemitism spiking, including the recent FBI warning in New Jersey, you’ll forgive me for not spelling out any more details about my location or job here. The editor should feel free to contact me via email.)
Please correct this. It implies I am a liar with something to hide. I, totally reasonably, refused to be cross examined under oath, after midnight. The real lead here is the fact that that board member attempted to cross examine me in the first place!
In a 2016 hearing, an applicant sought approval from the zoning board of the Town of Morristown to convert a two family home to a three family home with the condition that the owner would occupy one of the units. The board granted the appeal with that condition. A neighbor filed suit against the zoning board and the applicant. Following a hearing, the Law Division judge modified the Board’s resolution by exscinding one condition—the property be owner-occupied—but otherwise upheld the Board’s action and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. An appeal followed. In 2019, the appellant court upheld the law division’s decision that a zoning board cannot determine who or what class of resident can occupy a dwelling, only whether or not it can be used as a dwelling. See Docket A-1860-17T4, Superior Court of NJ, Appellant Division.
Can a resolution be written that would limit any future owners from using the second dwelling? Can such a resolution survive a legal challenge? Can Cohome solve part of the problem by being licensed as a community residence?
Hi Denise. According to guidelines recommended by the town planner, the board’s first task is determining whether Cohome qualifies as a beneficial use under applicable laws. If it does not, this might hinder the applicant’s ability to claim the outbuilding as an accessory dwelling.
Kevin,
Unfortunately I think you have missed the point and the real issue in your last three bullet points in the Cohome coverage. Having been in the Zoom meeting I can see that your coverage of the meeting was accurate. However, in your bullet points where you point out the Board’s issues for approval, you missed the point. The issue is not whether or not Cohome is inherently beneficial. All agree that it is but that is not necessarily a reason to allow a second home on a small lot with a large home which the the single family zone does not allow. This town considers a second kitchen within a home to violate single family zoning. In this case, the new structure that was to be for storage or recreation is now clearly a second home with a kitchen. Morristown even has a Code Enforcement department that checks for second kitchens when they issue CCO’s before the sale of a property takes place. The neighbors are merely asking the Board to uphold and support the single family zoning for the neighborhood and not allow a second home on the property which would make it a multi-family property within a single family zone.