FREEHOLD TOWNSHIP — A group of residents was expected to attend the Aug. 28 Township Committee meeting to press officials for answers on concerns about the number of group homes that are expected to operate in their Freehold Township neighborhood.
A small group of residents from the Adams Place neighborhood attended the July 24 committee meeting to publicly voice their concerns about the situation.
A much larger group of residents attended a private meeting with Mayor Anthony Ammiano and Township Administrator Peter Valesi on July 31 to further discuss the issue.
The residents’ concerns, according to Lisa D’Errico, include not knowing who will be living in the group homes, what those individuals’ ailments or disabilities are, safety concerns for children, the group homes’ tax exempt status, and zoning laws, among others.
D’Errico said residents are “concerned, angry and confused” about the group home issue and told officials as much at the private meeting on July 31.
“At some point, a few conversations became quite heated,” the township resident said, noting that about 70 people were in attendance. “They [township officials] are trying to help us.”
She said specific answers are still being sought in terms of who will live in the group homes and whether there is a law that governs the number of group homes that can be established in one neighborhood.
D’Errico said there are group homes on Oriskany Drive (owned by Opportunity Knocks), Adams Place (owned by the Association for the Multiple Impaired Blind), and Townsend Drive (owned by EIHAB Human Services).
According to its website, Opportunity Knocks Inc. helps people with disabilities to live, work and participate as active members of their community.
According to the EIHAB Human Services website, the organization provides a number of services to the physically and mentally challenged, including group homes.
“We were told the township does not know who is moving in or what their disabilities are until the owner of the home files for a tax-exempt status,” D’Errico explained.
She said the uncertainty concerns residents, especially those who have young children. She asserted that the group homes are businesses, not residences, and should be considered a business that is not permitted in a residential zone.
“When you buy a house you want a place where kids are playing outside and residents are riding bikes. You don’t want to see six or seven people smoking on a porch and a host of people going in and out of the house. You are buying a community. They are taking our community away from us and we were at that meeting to try to take it back,” she said.
D’Errico said there are 11 group homes within a 2-mile radius around the Freehold Township municipal complex at the corner of Schanck and Stillwells Corner roads. She said residents believe that is too many group homes.
“The people who are going to live in these homes are protected, yet we feel like we are being discriminating against,” she said.
Valesi responded to D’Errico’s comments and said, “Yes, the group homes are a business, but they are group residences. It’s like buying a home, subletting it and charging rent. Group homes are allowed to have multiple tenants because they are exempt from zoning laws.
“We had discussions with the (state) Department of Human Services in the beginning of August and again more recently. We want to alert them to the fact that these homes being proposed are in close proximity. We are waiting for them to review this and render a decision. Our thought is that they should not be that close together in a single-family neighborhood,” he said.
Valesi provided a state statute which says: “The geographic location of community residences for the developmentally disabled, community residences for the mentally ill, and community residences for persons with head injuries shall be monitored by the Department of Human Services or Department of Children and Families, as applicable. Through the granting or withholding of licenses, the respective department shall ensure that these residences are available throughout the state, without unnecessary concentration in any area.”