By Marion Filler
After seven hearings before the Morristown zoning board, Cohome Inc. has one more hurdle to clear.
The board on Wednesday unanimously authorized its attorneys to prepare a list of conditions for consideration before members decide whether to grant a variance for a caretaker to inhabit an outbuilding on a single-home lot in the town Historic District.
That vote is possible later this month, at what will be Cohome’s eighth virtual meeting since November of last year.
Following guidelines suggested by town Planner Phil Abramson, the board spent most of Wednesday’s two-and-a-half hour Zoom session focusing on these basic questions:
- Is the group home itself inherently beneficial to the community?
- Is the proposed apartment an accessory dwelling or a principal residence?
- If the group home is beneficial, should the apartment be considered beneficial, too?
The first question was the easiest one. Board Vice Chairman Scott Wild, running the meeting, and fellow members Noelle Nish, Anthony Murphy, Barbara McNally, Rachel Blacker and Tom Ferrara agreed Cohome’s mission of integrating developmentally disabled adults into the community is an asset to Morristown.
James Bednarz abstained, after arguing Cohome is not a state-licensed facility and may not satisfy requirements for an “inherently beneficial” designation.
McNally countered: “Just because it’s not licensed, it’s still beneficial.”
The second question of how to define the building — as an accessory or a second principal residence — was not so simple. By a 4-3 vote, the board determined the apartment is a second residence, and not an accessory to the group home. Wild, Nish, Bednarz and Ferrara comprised the majority.
Despite this, the board held that this second residence still falls under the “inherently beneficial umbrella” of the main house. Ferrara cast the swing vote, joining Murphy, McNally and Blacker.
‘THIS IS UNIQUE’
The 800-square foot cottage has one bedroom, a kitchen, bathroom with shower, and a loft. Cohome sought and received permits to replace a garage with a recreation center. After the structure was completed, Cohome requested a variance to make it a caretaker residence. Cohome founder Nate Diskint and his new bride would be the first occupants.
Wild saw a contradiction. “How can you have an accessory use which is a second principal residence?”
Nish thought it clearly is a second primary home. “It’s an independent unit of the primary structure,” she said, questioning why a caretaker needs a separate apartment, especially since things appear to run fine without one.
Bednarz felt the role of a caretaker could be handled from any location, without a live-in presence. He compared it to a building manager who dispatches contractors to fix and maintain whatever is needed.
Murphy responded. “It is an accessory structure to the main building. This is unique.”
Echoing Diskint’s prior testimony, Murphy said a separate living space is essential to prevent caretaker burnout and “would help the program work better.”
Carving private caretaker quarters within the Miller Road group home would not be appropriate for the historic building, he added.
CARETAKER OR CAREGIVER?
Questions were raised about the difference between a caretaker and caregiver, something Diskint has not defined to the satisfaction of some board members,
Diskint has described himself as a jack of all trades, who manages schedules of a fluctuating number of residents, hires resident assistants who live in the main house, raises funds, and oversees improvements to the property, along with anything else that comes up.
The actual care of Cohome residents is delegated to licensed professionals. Caring for group home clients “is not a caretaker’s role,” according to Bednarz.
McNally disagreed. “It’s not a black and white definition,” she said, asserting a resident caretaker might not have specific duties. Her experience with social services organizations, she said, is that everyone pitches in and gives care when needed, blurring formal job descriptions.
Diskint, whose intellectually challenged brother resides at Cohome, has stated he does not plan to live in the cottage indefinitely.
What then? Nish inquired.
“What if the next caretaker is not the owner and does not have a brother who lives there?” asked Nish, addressing concerns of neighbors wary of allowing dual homes on properties zoned for single families.
Wild directed the board to consider potential detrimental effects of granting the variance.
Opinions continued to be at odds.
Ferrara noted that Cohome has improved its property, just like its neighbors. Murphy felt the same way. “People are taking care of their property, and so is Cohome,” he said.
“But does how much you spend allow you to discount the zoning rules?” asked Bednarz.
“You are asking the board to do something that is prohibited in this zone. It cannot be undone easily,” added Nish.
McNally felt each case should be considered on its merits. “This is a unique situation. All changes cause concerns, and I don’t see a negative impact in this situation.”
“Be careful of ‘reasonable conditions,'” said Bednarz. “If you have to spend a lot of time specifying conditions, you have to wonder why we are approving it?”
‘CAN’T WE CALL IT A NIGHT?’
The discussion then shifted to what restrictions could be attached to the variance. Board Attorney Michael Brown called it a slippery slope. Deed restrictions would apply as long as Cohome operates as a residence for developmentally disabled adults.
It remains unclear how such conditions would be enforced.
For instance, what happens if Cohome defaults on its mortgage and goes into foreclosure?
Suppose a new buyer is a family and not an institution? Could it rent out the cottage? Conversion back to a garage would be the buyer’s responsibility. A buyer probably would need board approval to keep the improvements.
Board Attorneys Brown and David Brady are aiming to draw up conditions in time for the next virtual hearing, on Dec. 21, 2022.
The rush is to ensure a decision before year’s end, when terms of three board members expire.
This application has been debated so intensely, for so long, that even kudos ignite sparks. As the session wound down, Cohome’s pro bono attorney, Frank Vitolo, praised board members for their diligence.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a board give so much thought and consideration to a lot of these issues. I do thank all of you. I know it’s volunteer work. It showed that you guys really did your homework. I really appreciate it. And the client appreciates it,” Vitolo said.
But when Bednarz asked if objector Jeff Stiles also should be allowed to say a few words, Vitolo objected.
“Just to note, I gave a pleasantry, Mr. Bednarz. If Mr. Stiles gets into arguments, then I have to respond. He doesn’t have a role here. Come on. Can’t we call it a night?”
They called it a night. A hearing on the Iron Bar’s pitch for rooftop dining was rescheduled to a special meeting on Dec. 20.
Kevin Coughlin contributed to this report.
