JACKSON – A township resident shared her frustration over what she described as a “prayer house” in her neighborhood that has caused noise and traffic issues.
During a recent council meeting, Carrie Smith, a resident of East Connecticut Concourse came before the governing body “to talk about how my life has been turned upside down because of the presence of a prayer house that is next door to me.”
She noted “it was so loud with them singing and banging and jumping and everything, I thought they would come through my dining room wall. This from indoors in my house. I can’t spend time outside. We have little kids walking up onto my property.”
“Cars are out of control and this is what it looks like every single day,” she said, handing photographs to the council. “As far as the eye can see is cars. We can’t plan to have parties because there is no place to park.
“My life has been turned in a 360. I’ve contacted Mr. (Terence) Wall (the township business administrator). I’ve contacted zoning because they are doing all kinds of construction in there that I know is just removing it further from being a residential home because I can see all the appliances now. They removed the kitchen all but the appliances on a Sunday,” Smith added.
She noted that, the owner of the home, had installed a fence because “they claim they were afraid of my dog who would lick you to death. They put a fence in but it was only done to a certain portion where a tree exists and they shaved the tree down, hooked the fence to it and never finished it.”
“So, I get to look at this now. Plus, they never removed their existing fence. It’s just one thing after another. Why should my life suddenly have to suck because they moved in? No one lives in this house,” Smith said noting the address of the prayer house as 71 East Connecticut Concourse.
She repeated to Council President Alex Sauickie that “no one lives there. It is used Friday through Sunday or when there is a holiday.”
“How long has this been going on?” Sauickie asked.
Smith said about a year and a half. “I’ve been contacting people for that long.” She said she had alerted authorities and provided video “about my lovely fence situation” and was told a violation had been issued.
“They don’t pay any attention to any of that. I know they went there from zoning and were denied entry and it just fell off. Nobody ever went back,” Smith said.
Sauickie asked Township Attorney Gregory McGuckin to clarify if zoning enforcement representatives investigating a potential violation could be denied entry.
“They can be denied entry. There is a process that would require court approval. They would need more information,” McGuckin responded.
Wall said that with this particular property “first and second violations are already on the property and they have commenced with the summons phase of the process. That is from Jeff Purporo, the zoning officer.”
Smith said, “I know a religious establishment has to be over two acres, has to be 100 feet from the street, and has to have ample parking, none of which this has.”
Wall said the issue was made aware to Andrew Cheney, the supervisor of the code enforcement office, Purporo in the Zoning Office and Wall also alerted the Jackson Police Department about the potential impact on traffic safety caused by the problem.
Smith said buses have a hard time navigating through that area on either side of the road. “They are barely squeaking by.”
Regarding a court summons, Smith wanted to know, “what if they don’t respond to that?”
“Eventually, they will respond,” McGuckin said.
“It has been a year and a half. I don’t have any hopes,” Smith added.
“The process is that they are given warnings and they have been given warnings. The next stage is the issuance of summonses. When the summonses have been issued it is now in the court’s hands and the court decides how long it takes to resolve the matter,” the attorney explained.
“In the meantime, they will be continuing to do construction and bringing it further and further from being a residential home,” Smith said.
Smith was told as further violations are noted, further summonses could be added. “In addition to what has already been issued,” McGuckin replied.
McGuckin said he didn’t know how far backed up the Jackson Municipal Court was. “I don’t know what their process is right now.”
Smith said that it “was good to hear” that summonses may have been issued.
“It sounds like a couple steps had to happen first and they happened and I sympathize with the time it has had to take and I’m sure the courts themselves are taking longer due to the pandemic but at least you have the status of where it is right now,” Sauickie said.
Purpuro confirmed on November 12, that a summons was issued and there was a court date and time of 9 a.m. December 17. Smith said as of November 14 that further construction was heard within the house.
