good evening. Um Karen Casey, our attorney, will be reading the opening statement. All righty, everyone. Uh, this is a special meeting of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment being held electronically via Zoom on June 24, 2025
at 7:30 p.m. Pursuant to section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the Sunshine Notice of the Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment. Such notice has been placed on the
official bulletin at the Princeton Municipal Complex and by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Princeton packet town topics, the Times, Tranonian, and by filing a copy with the clerk of Princeton on June 20, 2025, and
has been posted to the municipal website www.princenj.com.gov/meings. Pursuant to executive order 107, due to the state of emergency in New Jersey regarding COVID 19, notice that during the declared state of emergency, all regular and special meetings of the
Princeton zoning board of adjustment will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet town topics and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on the 24th day of April, 2020. Such notices have been
placed on the official bulletin board at the Princeton municipal complex and on the Princeton website and are to be maintained throughout the year and by transmitting a copy of same to the Princeton packet town topics, the Times, Trenton, and Comcast Media and by filing
a copy thereof with the clerk of Princeton. Notices have also been placed on all window doors of the municipal complex. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Claudia, can you call the role, please?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Miss Chen, here. Miss Coulson here. Mr. Floyd here. Mr. Shrivever here. Mr. Tannen here. Mr. Stein here. Miss Donna,
Mr. Dkin here. Chairman Cohen here. Thank you. Okay. Uh we have uh one resolution and two cases. Our first resolution is uh 353 Cherry Hill Road,
block 401, lot 10 in the R2T zone. It is case number Z24- 524. Uh the resolution is in your packets. Are there any questions, comments? Or if
not, if someone would like to make a motion. Sure. I'll move to approve. Thank you. Was a second. We don't have a second yet. Second, Michael Floyd. Thank you, Michael.
Please, Miss Chen. Yes, Mr. Floyd. Yes, Mr. Triber. Yes, Mr. Tenbomb. Yes, Mr. Doppen. Yes, Chairman Cohen. Yes.
Thank you. Okay, to the applications. Our first application of the evening is um 295 Western way block it looks like 87
03 lot 10 in the R5T zone. It's case number Z25-638. Karen, the noticing in order. It is. The noticing is in order and the board has jurisdiction tonight. Okay. Um, is the
applicant here? I see his name. They are. They're just He's not visible yet. Yeah, I'm I'm here. Can you guys uh can you guys hear me? We can hear you, but we need to see you too, Mr. Chen. I I don't see I don't see the option for me
to turn on the camera on my screen. Okay. Do you see any Do you see an icon anywhere that's or the words video? Yeah, I can only see the word audio. Yeah. So, it say here I just got a
notice say join as a panelist or join as attendee. There you go. You got to do panelist. Okay. Panelist. There you are. Yeah. So, so I'm here. Oh, Mr. Chen, hang on one sec. Um, I'm
going to swear Mr. Bridger in because I'm assuming the board would like him to present his uh memo. Do you swear from your testimony this evening, Mr. Bridger will be truthful? Yes, ma'am. I do. Now, I see we have Mr. Leco and Mr. Weissman
here as well. Um, well, we'll swear we'll swear them in if if they may comment. That's fine. Okay, Mr. Chen. Um, no, wait. Steve, don't do you want to hear Derek's uh Oh, yes, please. testimony. Okay,
thank you. Um, good evening. Richard Chen is the owner and applicant of 295 Western Way seeking C1 and C2 variance relief to permit the construction of a second floor addition and exception to the required height to setback ratio.
properties located in the R5T zone. Um, subject to the use regulations, bulk regulations in section 10B, 246, 253, 255, and 255.2 of the former Princeton Township land use ordinance. Um, the subject lot is non-complying with regard
to the required 21,780 ft lot area, the existing lot, 7,792 square feet. It's also non-compliant with the required 100 ft lot width requirement. Um the existing is 65 ft. Um the applicant is proposing to
construct a two-story addition to the rear of the existing home. The addition will expand the family room and kitchen and add a full bath and office on the first floor and the second floor will feature three bedrooms, sitting room, and two full baths. The proposed two-story addition does not comply with
required the height setback. Um the left side requirement is 1 one and the proposed is 1.25 to1. The right side has the same requirement and it is 1.3 to1. Um the applicant has requested consideration under the C1 and the C2
criteria. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them. Board members, any questions of Mr. Bridger? Okay, Mr. Chen, please uh present your case. Yeah. So, Mr. Chen, I just need to
swear you in. Do you swear or affirm your testimony this evening will be truthful? Yes, I do. Thank you. Hi. Uh, hi everybody. I thank to thank thank you uh Mr. Bridger and thanks to chair and the both members for your uh for your
service. So, I'm a homeowner of the 295 uh Western way and maybe I have a a few slides I would like to share with the board. If I can can I just project from my uh computer? Yes, if you can hearing the screen.
Yeah. So, can you uh can you see this? Oops. Uh can you see the PowerPoint uh slides? Yes. Yes, you can. Yeah. Let me just uh uh figure out the uh pointer options.
Mr. Chen, do you know how many slides you have? I have seven. I should um submit the uh the PDF file of this. You did. Okay, that's great. Well, why don't why don't we say collectively these are your exhibit A1. So, we'll make All
right, great. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe just before I present my case, just say a couple words about myself. So I'm uh a resident, a Princeton resident since 2005. Actually, being a non-time Princeton resident, it's a in great a
great place for me, for my family. And the uh 295 Western way is my uh the second house I have owned. And we sold our previous house. So sort of downsizing to the current location. and
I work uh locally at uh uh Red Foundation as a science director. So, it's a great um it's a great situation for me. So I would like to renovate the house for myself and currently for two
two uh yeah two of my daughters uh who currently live with me but going forward I would like I probably would use this as I I will use this as my primary residence and uh for myself and then
maybe for my kids to occasionally uh visit me. So the the the renovative house will have a um uh three bedroom and three four baths and uh and office and a separate office. I think it's a going to be a great space for myself and
and for my family. So as uh Mr. Bridges said that this is a C1 and C2 uh um application. But uh as you will see, I would probably say to my
understanding, this will be probably the typical C1 and and C1 hardship uh uh application due due to the laress of the uh lot. So on this slide, I hope you can see that this is just uh uh the copy
from the township map that the red uh rectangle um uh here is the uh the two line five western way and is on the uh uh the border I believe see the name and
north Harrison and street and again this uh this R5 zoning as Mr. Bridget mentioned that the current lot and most of the laws actually in this R5 zoning are not conforming and those laws along
the southern way and western way are particularly small. So in in uh in my case here the zoning requirement is around 21,000 square ft and my lot is
around uh 7800 and the required length is is 100 and my lot is 65. So this is a very lal lot and this slide just show like the Google
maps uh showing that I just give you a uh so like a a rough idea what the uh renovation going to be. So the renovation going to be near the uh rear end of the house and we'll be removing a current uh
structure that has the first floor so like a family room and the second floor like a like exposed uh uh patio deck which is now pretty much damaged. So the the placement will be a little bit
extension of this thing will be a two uh uh will be a twotory uh uh renovation and in addition will be you have a new uh new deck in the back of this in addition and then uh entrance to the
basement actually again as Mr. Bridger uh said that uh just a while ago the required um uh uh height to a height to setback ratio is one to one. My my
proposed work of this addition would be uh uh 2 1.25 over one on the uh on on the I believe on the uh left side of the house. The left side house will be uh this side of the house and then 1.3 to
one will be on the right side house will be this side. H please please interrupt me uh if you have any questions. So this slide just show you just just show you also
like a snapshot of the overall uh footprint of the house. This on the left side is the uh current survey the survey of the in current house and uh this one
will be proposed uh uh footprint of the with the addition. So that I put them side by side in approximately the same uh scale and I draw a few like lines just just just to show the uh so like
the overall uh uh uh match in the front uh middle and end. You can you can see from here is that the overall footprint of my proposed uh addition won't change much almost at all from the um from the
existing footprint. And this slide just show you the so like the uh so like the branch shot of the the the house the the on the left is just the uh existing uh house look and
on the right is the uh computer rendering of the front elevation and this overall the overall structure won't be changed at all. I would just replace the window siding
and the garage door maybe uh replace the the front porch. So the front uh front structure will not be changed and then on the two sides that's where
the uh uh variance is being uh sold. Uh the so on the top panel you can you see the left side is the garage side that uh this is the existing look and this is
just uh the side shot of the computer rendering and the new wall here is from the approximately from this green line here. This will be the new wall and some of the if walls on the first floors
already existing but the the new in terms of second floor will be new wall on this side and this will be a deck uh uh space here and the lower panel uh if you look at the look will be the right
side. Again this this picture here is a real uh time picture from the existing that's a chimney side is that this this going to be this going to be the uh the existing wall almost to here again it's
a uh approximate and the new wall will be will be will be added here and again some of the existing first floor already existing And then the new wall will be the second floor all the way to to uh
this end. And due to some uh requirement I cannot have a uh can use a wall longer than believe 25 ft. So this you you will have little bit dent into the uh into the middle she of the house. So this
wall is in continuously not no uh not longer than 25 ft. And this is the thing. This is really the uh the where the lumbers come from. This is the rear end shot of the uh uh uh uh uh elevation that would be the
proposed that again. So that this is it's just uh existing the wall from like extended from the existing wall. That's the uh setback and that's the height.
And again that's how the uh uh ratio calculate and the the both uh the green highlight will be the variance um um um applying for and I so I this will be my most of my
presentation and then the last slide I I just want to make a um confirmation statement here is so-called the I read the instruction I I need to confirm that the the the renovation the the variance
won't have a negative impact. So I would like to say that the variance if in granted will permit a proposed addition and renovation which one that will will bring a very old house in poor
conditions to modern living standards while retaining an overall appear consistent with the neighborhood. So I I would like to and ask is true we which I believe is true and then the second is
that this renovation will not bring detriment to the public good I'm not changing much it's more like a uh renovation with a small addition and then I also like to say that this will not impact the intent and purpose of the
current zoning plan and uh for the neighborhood So I would like to end here and thank you for your attention. Thank you board members. Do you have any questions of the applicant?
Miss, how would I see like like and end the show? Sorry. I guess my only question Mr. Chen. So basically the both sides of the house will not be any wider than they are now
or any closer to the property line. So this is basically just a height to setback situation because the existing house didn't conform as well. That's true, Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Okay. All right. That
was the only thing I had. I I have one question. Yeah. Go ahead, please. Sure. Uh I I'm just uh confirming. Is it correct, Derek, that you establish the height to set back? Um the height is established based on the bottom of the
eve. Is that correct? Um that's what I see dimensioned. The eaves are ex accepted, but it's the closest uh wall. So, you're allowed a 3-foot uh exemption from the eve of the wall, but
it's actually the height of the walls where the 196 is on the the left side. Okay. Okay. So, that's correct. Just Yeah. And it's actually the same on the right side. Okay. I just slightly changes. Thanks. Correct. Sure.
Thank you, Terry. Any other questions, board members? Okay, Mr. Chen, what we're going to do, if there are no other questions from the board, we're going to open this open this up to the public for comment. Um, before we do that, do you want to add
anything to your presentation? Uh, maybe actually. So, I I actually know through a mutual friend to uh one labor on my right hand, Mary and L. and I got to know my the other neighbor. So
I got a chance to uh talk talk to both H Mary and L were on vacation. I uh I emailed them the application and we had email exchange and I had a uh conversation with my the left side and
the neighbor uh Steuart and Beverly and I explained this situation to them and these are neighbor and both laborers very nicely said that they could they have no no uh no objections and and I
wish him Oh, okay. Um, unless we have a statement from them, it's nice to know that, but it doesn't do a lot of good. Okay. Yeah. Okay. No problem. There is a hand raised, I believe. I thought I saw one
in the attendance. Yes. Claudia, do we have anybody who would like to speak? We'll open this up to the public at this point. Claudia, has anybody indic You're muted, Claudia. Does anybody indicated they'd like to speak on behalf of this
application? I have one member of the public and he is moved over. Okay, there he is. Mr. Liverman. Yes. Uh, can you see me? Yes, we can. Mr. Lieberman, could you uh do you feel comfortable giving us your address? I
certainly do. I'm one of the neighbors. I 301 Western Way, Princeton, New Jersey. I do swear and certify to tell the truth. All truth. Truth. Thank you. Good evening everybody. My name is Stuart Lieberman. I live at 301 West
Way. I am Richard's new neighbor. What he stated to you is absolutely true. We completely wholeheartedly endorse this application. It is a narrow application. It clearly satisfies the requirements for a C1 variance because of the narrowness of the property and also it
satisfies the positive and negative criteria without any question. The property is run down. It was a it served for many years as a wonderful structure. But because the person who was living there was old, she wasn't able to take care of it. Richard's going to make an
incredible incredible wonderful improvement. Not only is he a great neighbor, but this is going to be a wonderful improvement and it will do no negative to the community or to the neighbors because the side setback lines are identical. So, I wholeheartedly wholeheartedly endorse this application
and I do ask the board to approve it in its entirety. Thank you very much for your courtesy in case you have any questions. I have nothing else to say. Hi, Eve. How are you? Well, Mr. Lieberman, I think you like it. We understand that. That's exactly right. Thank you. You're right. You got
it. Thank you, Boyd. I appreciate your courtesy and I appreciate your volunteer, too. Okay, Claudia, has anyone else indicated they'd like to speak? Claudia, you're muted still.
I don't see any. Sorry, I'm having issues here. There is no no more hands. Okay. Okay. Um, since we have no one else that'd like to speak, we'll we'll bring the public portion of the hearing to a close. Um, again, Mr. Chen, before we go into
executive session where we discuss and make a decision on the application, do you want to say anything else? No more. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks everyone. Welcome. Okay, board. We'll go into
executive session now. comments, questions, motions. Seems like a fairly straightforward situation. Um, I went by the house and it appears to be um in need of in need of a lot of work
and I think looking at the drawings and hearing Mr. Chen, I think he's uh going to really improve it. So, I would support the application. I agree with you, Steve. Yeah, I agree as well.
It's just keeping the same roof lines. I don't see an issue. Yeah, I agree with you, too. Um, and the house is a lot shorter than the maximum height. Um, there's a lot less coverage, impervious
coverage than is permitted. Um, and it's even just below F, so it's pretty modest. Any other comments or would someone like to make a motion? Yeah, I would just uh say one thing to clarify on the site plan, all the setbacks are called out as
15. So I I think one of them is actually supposed to show 157 um on the the site plan on on the drawing. I just noticed that. But otherwise I I move to approve it on Z sheet Z1 site plan.
Second. Okay. Questions on the motion? Okay. Claudia, can you please call the role? Miss Chen, yes. Miss Coulson, yes.
Mr. Floyd, yes. Mr. Shrivever. Yes. Mr. Tenbomb. Yes. Mr. Stein. Yes. Chairman Cohen. Yes. Thank you.
I just lost my connection. Can you Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay, good. Well, you can't see me, but you can hear me. No, we can see you. Oh, you can. Okay. I can't I can't see you guys, but that's fine. I remember you all. Okay. Um, our next
hearing, we'll move forward. Our next hearing is case number Z25-623 730 728 Bun Drive, blocked 2901, lot 11 in the office research district. Um, what
is that? O1 zone. Uh Karen, are all the notices in order? Yes, the noticing is in order. The board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Very good. Um I think Mr. Verger, can you present your
um your memo? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Uh TRU Princeton LLC is the owner and applicant of 728 Bun Drive. They are appealing my interpretation, the zoning officer's interpretation of a zoning
ordinance requiring site plan and conditional use authorization to permit a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility in the location of the former Princeton Care Center. Um the applicant filed a zoning permit on February 14th,
20 25 seeking approval to permit the use of the site as a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. zoning permit was denied on February 26, 2025, at which time the applicant was advised that a site plan and a conditional use
authorization were required to permit the change in Tennessee use. The site is the home of the former Princeton Care Center which operated as a nursing home. The center was abruptly closed on September 3rd, 2023 due to financial
mismanagement and the center was suspended from New Jersey Medicaid on March 28th, 2024. The site has been vacant since the closure. Subject property is in the O or office research district one zone and subject to the use
and bulk regulations in accordance with sections 10B 246 and 268 of the former Princeton Township land use ordinance. The nursing and rehabilitation use is listed as a conditional use in accordance with section 10B 272.4.
A property is surrounded by uh following land uses. a medical office building to the north. Bun drive across um from the Institute of Defense Analysis, open space, Princeton Community Housing and Residential Development to the east and
Campbell Woods and residential townhouse development to the south and residential single family dwellings to the west. Uh in terms of prior approval, a major site plan conditional use authorization and related variances was filed by the Princeton Care Center
with the Princeton Planning Board and it was approved on February 25th, 1995. It's copy of the resolution and pending a factor in your package. Two variances were granted. Parking variance uh to allow parking lot containing 47 spaces whereas the ordinance limits parking
lots to 30 spaces. The second variance was granted permitting certain parking spaces to have a length of 18 feet versus 19. Uh the approval was granted to permit the construction of a three-story 119 bed nursing home. The building is a Y-shaped building
containing a 21,628 footprint and a total area of 64,844 square ft. Site improvements include 60 parking spaces to the north and west of the building and a detention basin. The approval also included 20 bank parking
spaces. Um, in terms of the appeal of my interpretation, the operant's position is that the previous nursing home and rehabilitation center use is essentially the same as the proposed drug and alcohol rehabilitation center and that a site plan application and a
conditional use authoration are not required or applicable. Section 10B 320 of the code contains a table of allowable conditional uses in the municipality. Um the uses listed as conditional uses are only permitted
after approval is granted by the planning board in accordance with the provisions of the section and only if the regulations applicable to the district except as modified within that section are complied with. The table of conditional uses identifies nursing homes and assisted living residences as
a permitted conditional use in accordance with section 10B272.4. Nursing home is defined in that section 10B201 definitions as a facility which is licensed by the department of health in accordance with NJAC
839 to provide health care under medical supervision and a continuous nursing care for 24 or more consecutive hours to patients who do not require the degree of care and treatment which a hospital provides and who because of their physical or mental condition require
continuous nursing home level care. The municipal zoning code does not specifically define a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. The applicants presents a planning opinion and makes the argument that the two uses are so similar they are essentially the same.
The proposes the proposed facility's use generally complies with the nursing home definition above. However, the licensing requirements are not the same. The proposed use differs from the previously approved use in the following manner. Uh number one, there's an increase in the
number of beds. The original approval uh was for 119 beds. The applicant's proposal is for 148 beds. This is an increase of 29 beds. While this is within the ordinance allowance for the number of permitted beds and units, it
does represent a significant increase over the previous conditional use approval. And the parking requirement for nursing homes is based on section 10B 272.44. 44 which states that no more than the number of off- streetet parking required to meet the n needs of the
residents, employees and guests shall be allowed. The number the applicant shall submit a parking study prepared by an expert to justify its need for the proposed number of spaces. The applicant's proposed number shall not exceed the number produced by applying the following standards for determining
the number of required parking spaces. A 0.30 30 spaces per nursing care bed or assisted living bed, one space per staff member on the maximum shift, and C, an additional 10% of the sum of A and B
above um the additional requirement of section 10B 291.1 shall apply. The parking lot has 60 spaces. The condition requires um as I said earlier parking study by an expert to be submitted to justify the maximum
number of spaces on the site. Um the nursing home and the proposed rehabilitation center have different licenses. Section 10B 272.4A 4A requires that a nursing home approvable as a conditional use must be
a facility in a multif family structure which is licensed by the department of health in a accordance with NJC 839 to provide health care under medical supervision and continuous nursing care for 24 or more consecutive hours to
patients. The proposed drug and alcohol use requires a subacute non-h hospitalbased residential detox in short-term residential substance abuse treatment license for adults only in accordance with NJAC 10 col 161A
at all which is issued by the New Jersey Department of Health. This is a different license from the required for a nursing home and is in an exception to the conditional use section 10B 272.40. 4080. Um
10B 272.4J addresses the conditional use requirements for uh nursing homes. The only provisions of this chapter which shall be interpreted as conditions for the conditional use are subp paragraphs A, B, and C of this section 10B 272.41.
And section A requires a nursing home that a nursing home be approvable as a conditional use. It must be a facility and a multi family structure which is licensed by the department of health in accordance with NJAC8 col39 to provide health care um medical supervising
continuous care for 24 or more consecutive hours to patients who do not require the degree of care and treatment which a hospital provides and who because of their physical or mental condition require nursing home level care. For the purpose of this subdivision nursing care beds are provided are approved beds in a nursing
home which are used or available for patients. The room in in a nursing home in which two or more nursing care beds may be located are designated as nursing care units. Nursing home level care means care provided to individuals who have chronic medical conditions
resulting in moderate to severe impairment in physical, behavioral, cognitive and psychosocial functioning. It includes but is not limited to partial or total assistance with activity of daily living, assistance with self-administering or administration of medication and
provision of treatments and periodic reassessments as directed by the patients plan of care. It also includes the provision of psycho physiootherapy, occupational therapy, therapeutic counseling and rehabilitation services as indicated by the patients med medical
condition. Three, a multif family structure is a building containing 30 or more unit care units with each sharing with another unit or units one or more vertical common walls and with each having its own separate entrance from an
interior hallway or common area. The other criteria are uh conditional use standard is it relates to assisted living uh which I do not believe uh is applicable in this case. And then C, uh, the last condition for conditional use
standards is to qualify for a conditional use approval, the applicant must demonstrate that the nursing home or assisted living residence has received or will be eligible to receive a license from the state of New Jersey Department of Health pursuant to the provisions of applicable states and
regulations. Um, as I note, the licensing for the two uses, the rehab center and the um, nursing home are different. This is considered a deviation from a conditional use standard and accordingly a variance in accordance with NJS40
55D-70 D3 be would be required. Um in addition um site plan would be required as well. Section 10B 205 which addresses when site plan approval is required states that no use shall be changed without
site plan approval. Um, in addition, section 10B34 requires that the application for a conditional use authorization include any related site plans. In conclusion, it's my opinion that the proposed drug and alcohol rehab center use differs
from the previously opposed approved, excuse me, nursing home use in the following manner. The proposed use does not meet the conditional use standards of 10B272.4A 40A and the proposed use increases the number of beds in exception to the previous approval where 119 were
approved and 148 are currently proposed and site plan review is required pursuant to section 10B 205 and 10B 34. Um for the aforementioned reasons I believe the request for the approval of this new use by the submission of a
zoning permit does not allow for sufficient review of the proposed use and site conditions. The applicant could move this application forward by filing a major site plan and conditional use authoration and a variance pursuant to NJ as 40 col 55D-70D3
um in accordance uh with section 10B 272.44. The applicant shall submit a parking study prepared by an expert to justify the proposed number of parking spaces. Um that's my memo. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to
answer them. I have a question. Yes, sir. Um, if this were just going to be a nursing home as it was before, would our only discussion be about the parking spaces and the extra beds? I'm not sure it would be here um if it met that
conditional use criteria. Okay. So, it's really just changing its purpose. It's the license difference is is the main it's a it's a u conditional use criteria which they don't explicitly meet. Dave, you're muted.
I know. I was thinking um but you apparently read read my mind because I didn't even open my mouth yet. But I was thinking of saying something which is it I'm I'm I'm confused as to why this is has come before
zoning because it almost seems like it would be a different body that would be approved. You mean planning? You mean the planning board? No, we're the zoning board. I'm No, no, no. I know that. But are you saying that you think it belongs before
the planning board? I don't I maybe I I'm not sure. I mean, I don't see anything inherently. On the one hand, I don't I mean, leaving that aside, I don't from what's been
put forward by everything that I read from the applicant, it in some ways seems like a I mean, it's sort of a mixed bag. there were more people, but um from what I read, none of them who were staying
there would be allowed to either drive or have a car there. So, the parking issue seems if anything less of an issue than it would have been if it were a nursing home. Um, well, Eve, my I'm not going to speak for Derek, but my understanding is
that uh nursing homes are permitted as conditional uses in this zone. And pretty much the only criteria under the ordinance for the nursing home is does it have a license from the state of New
Jersey. So Derek has interpreted this to mean the applicant would need relief from that. Yes, their position is these uses are so similar that it's very hard to distinguish between them. But as
zoning officer, Derek's interpretation was well perhaps, but um this is a condition they can't meet. Whenever an applicant can't meet a condition of a conditional use, they have to come to the zoning board for a
variance. The planning board can't issue that variance. The zoning board can. So, uh, with Derek's interpretation, he's concluded that, you know, this is the board they need to be before. Now,
I'm not I'm not going to speak for the applicant either. The applicant is here tonight with professionals to explain to the board why they feel they don't, you know, this isn't necessary. Karen, y Karen, isn't the answer to her
first question? It's here before us because zoning and municipal land use requires the appeal to come to us when you appeal the zoning officer. That's the answer to your question. That's why it's here. There's no other
option. Correct. If they That is the That's what she Yep. Okay. Um any other Sorry, anything else? No. Okay. Um, any other
questions, board members, before we allow the applicant to make his presentation? Okay. Um, who's going to represent this case before us? And are all your witnesses here? Uh, yes. Good evening,
Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Michael Lario. I'm a partner at the firm of Nemat Davis and Goldstein. I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant TRU Princeton LLC. Uh this application, just for the record, uh concerns property at 728 Bun Drive. It's
block 2801, lot 11. It's approximately 6.272 acre site entirely within the O office research zoning district. Uh, as was stated, we are here this evening to appeal the February 26, 2025 determination of your zoning officer, uh, specifically the denial of a permit
for the operation of a licensed drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility at the subject property. This appeal is brought pursuant to NJSA 405D-7A, which authorizes this board to act in a quasi judicial capacity uh, and address
a misapplication of law. The determination at issue before this board this evening constitutes whether the establishment of that drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility constitutes a change in use requiring site plan approval and conditional use
authorization. We believe that that conclusion is incorrect as a matter of fact and law. As was stated, the subject property was previously utilized as a licensed nursing and rehabilitation center under approvals granted by the planning board back in 1999. It was
purposeuilt for that institutional medical use. Um the improvements include patient rooms, nursing stations, dining facilities, kitchen facilities, common areas, um all necessary medical infrastructure for that proposed nursing
home use within this existing six approximately 64,000 square foot building. The Princeton Care Center ceased operations in 2023. It was soon thereafter purchased by the applicant. um largely because of the existing
institutional healthcare improvements at the subject's site. Now, with the present proposal, the applicant is not proposing any changes to the site itself. The applicant intends to operate this use entirely within the existing building footprint and the existing infrastructure. The proposed use of
subacute non-hos-based residential detox and inpatient treatment center is functionally and operationally equivalent to the prior nursing home use. Both uses require 247 medical supervision. Both uses are licensed by the New Jersey Department of Health and
regulated by the commissioner. Both provide residential health care in an institutionalized setting. From a zoning perspective, there is no meaningful distinction between these two uses and this will be established through our professional and expert testimony here this evening. While the applicant is
proposing a modest increase in the total number of beds from 119 to 148, this is entirely consistent with what is permitted under your ordinance. Individuals in this facility are pro prohibited from having vehicles while they are within this facility and
visitations are extremely discouraged by the staff. Uh, our professional testimony will show that the parking currently on site, the parking that was approved in 1999 is more than adequate to meet the anticipated demand under your existing zoning ordinance.
And critically, you'll hear testimony this evening that state law recognizes nursing homes, hospitals, and rehabilitation treatment facilities as inherently beneficial uses. These are uses that are deemed to be so important, so encouraged um that that
municipalities should look to include them in in every community. And I think that classification is particularly important here when you're talking about uh an institution for addiction recovery. New Jersey, like many other states, is currently going through a
public health crisis here, a widespread addiction crisis. Facilities like this one are not just beneficial, they're critical for addressing this public health crisis today. Um, as indicated, while existing case law clar classifies nursing homes, hospitals, rehabilitation
facilities as equivalent uses from a zoning perspective, it does permit municipalities to provide for use standards in their ordinance. They can regulate them through the ordinance provisions. Princeton has done that through section T10B27240.
You have provided a list of conditional use standards for these types of nursing home uses. And I would add that a rehabilitation facility is not a term that is included in your ordinance. So we look to nursing homes here and the standards contained therein. You will hear testimony from our professionals
that we meet every applicable condition within that ordinance. Now there is a slight difference in the licensing citation under your ordinance. one for the nursing home, the other for the proposed residential rehabilitation facility, but both are issued by the Department of Health. Both pro both
provide for 247 medical supervision and they both contain the same oversight and regulatory framework. They're materially the same license required for each uses. It's only the class of individuals that is being served by these license. Nursing home is for elderly individuals.
The proposed rehabilitation facility licenses for those in addiction recovery. I would note the federal law requires that people with disabilities, including those in active recovery, drug and alcohol recovery from drug and alcohol addiction be treated equally under the zoning law. Both the Americans with
disabilities act, the federal fair housing act. They classify such individuals, those in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction as disabled individuals as a protected class. The FHA al also requires that this board and local government make reasonable
accommodations for these individuals to allow them equal access to housing and services. Denying the use or attempting to differentiate the use based solely on the class of people provided for under the lensure violates both the federal fair housing act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. by prohibiting this facility to move forward by instituting regulatory hurdles on the applicant based solely on the population it will serve will work to deny people within this protected class within this disabled class the housing and care that
they need. It would expose municipality to potential liabilility including damages and fees shifting provisions. And with our testimony tonight, you'll hear from our professional engineer, you'll hear from a licensed psychologist. You'll hear from our planner and a representative of the
property owner which through their testimony will demonstrate that the proposed use does not intensify the site activity in any way. It does not require any physical changes to the building or to the site and does not adversely impact the surrounding area in any way. What it will do is take a currently
vacant institutional medical use and allow for a much needed and productive use of the site. For all these reasons, legal, practical, equitable, we respectfully request this board reverse his owning officer's determination and confirm that no site plan is required
and no conditional use approval is required. Now, I have with me and Mr. Chair, may may we ask a question now or would you like us to wait? Why don't you Why don't you um Well,
you want to finish You want to allow the uh attorney to finish his presentation, then you can question him before the other witness. I I'm sorry. I thought he was about to call. My opening is concluded, Mr. Chairman. I'm just going to go through my
witnesses who I plan on asking questions for and then have them sworn in. So, uh let's do that. Let's do that and then we can Okay. Then Harlon, you can ask your question. Thank you. So with me this evening I have Olivia Kono Nuk. I have
Dr. Allison Tarlo. I have our planner Andrew Janau. And I have on behalf of the applicant and owner Mr. Carl Kaplan. Okay. Um Karen, do you want to swear in the witness? Well, so I'm gonna I may mangle your names, but I will try. So
Mr. Can the people asking to be moved over, can they raise their hands? Okay. I don't think we can see everyone though. There's Miss Xiao, but we can't see her and she's muted.
you. Well, is it Irene Dao? She just Dr. Tarlo. I just saw her pop up her name. Yeah, I just we just can't see her. Let's see. And now we Hello there. There she is. There's Dr. Tarlo. And then there's Miss Xiao. Is that one of your
witnesses too, Mr. Laurio? It is not. No, it is not. Oh, okay. Fine. So, we have Mr. Kaplan, Miss Conac, Dr. Tarlo, and Mr. Janu. Correct. All right. Do you all swear or affirm your testimony this
evening will be truthful? I do. You do. I do. Thank you. Okay. Um Harlon, would you like to ask you a question now? You're muted, Harlon. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um
going back to um the opening statement um my ears kind of pricricked up when I heard the terms damages and fees shifting provisions. I was hoping um that council could please highlight what
that was or what was meant there. I I it was kind of read rather quickly. I I just want to get a better understanding of of that please. So again, when you're discussing those individuals in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction, they are protected classes under the law.
They're classified as disabled individuals under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act, and that entitles them to certain protections from the law. Um, we believe that really the only distinguishable characteristic here between a nursing care use and the
proposed residential facility is the class of people that is being served here. that it is those in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction would be pro pre prevented a reasonable accommodation and essentially provided additional regulatory regulatory hurdles that are
unwarranted under the law. Now if that is found to be the case there are fees shifting provisions and damages provisions applicable for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act. And again, I say that obviously on behalf of my client, but I think it's important for
the board to know as well in dealing with these disabled class of individuals there, if an violation of their rights under the ADA or FHA is determined, they are entitled to that relief. Okay. All right, Harland, is that uh answer
your question? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um Sharon. Yes, please. Michael. Yeah, I I kind of had the same type question. Um
cuz I heard what he said and damages. Are you Mr. Lario asserting that both Mr. Bridger's decision and if we concur with Mr. Burg's decision
that this stops here, that you're not just going to proceed and put in an application to be heard like most other applicants or cuz we are not
stopping the use here tonight. It's not even close to the end. what you do and what you will do because it's probably in in in your plans, you'll just go to the planning board. Is
that not correct? So, two things, m Mr. Floyd, I think once our professionals go through their testimony, you're going to see that this is a situation in which this board can grant the request relief because there is no distinguishable difference between the nursing care use
that was previously approved. No, I heard that before. My question is very simple. Mhm. You're basically asserted that we in the municipality would be liable if we don't see it your way at this
point tonight. So I I think to your Are you saying that? So I'm sorry. Are you saying that? What I'm saying is that when if a determination is made that there's a violation of the rights of this protected class, yes, the
municipality could be responsible for damages. Okay. I will leave you and go to our attorney. Do you have any observation or statement on his statement that after tonight we could be
liable and the municipality? or is that not even close to correct? I'm sorry. You're going to go to the planning board
if we turn it down. Can I and they can I don't think they can do that and here's why. It's a D3. Yes. That's why they cannot because they can't meet a condition of a nursing home
that's in the the uh O zoning code. They can't meet that. They can't get a nursing home license. They're not a nursing home. Can they ask for a variance?
Not from the not from the planning board. They can ask for a variance from this board. Okay. But not from the planning board. Then it would be here. But it's not over tonight. If if it's No, you just come in and ask for a variance. No, it's it's not over. And my understanding and Mr. Lario, you correct
me if I'm wrong. My understanding is in your noticing you actually asked as the catchall phrase is for any variances or waiverss that the board deems appropriate. That is correct. Yes. So,
I'm I'm going to think that the applicant would say, having heard their testimony tonight because as I understand it, they have the facility operator, they have a doctor, they have
an engineer, and they have a planner who are going to try and address tonight uh the concerns that were raised in MR Mr. Bridger's memo. So tonight, if the board was persuaded,
um, they could grant the variance at this application to I mean, that's possible, but they can't go to the planning board. Okay. That's not an option. Stand corrected. So Karen, are you saying
that this could be a full-blown hearing tonight or are we just supporting or rejecting Mr. Bridg's interpretation of what the documents say? The only
reason that I'm raising the possibility that it could be a full-blown hearing tonight is because as I understand it, they have a team of witnesses to testify tonight. Uh I
assume to address questions the board may have, the zoning officer has. We have other staff here at our meeting. Um so that if they were to present all this
then the board asks them to file an application now change the application say well we want a variance now from the conditional use standards they're just going to represent all that testimony they are here tonight they have all their witnesses if they didn't have
witnesses with them tonight and all they said was look we have an argument we think the zoning officer is wrong. But they've gone beyond that. They have brought uh their witnesses and have said, "Well, we're ready to present
testimony. We'll present our case to you tonight." So, the only reason I'm raising it is that having done that, if they're told, "No, come back. Change change the name of this applicant and bring it back to
us." I don't know what other testimony they'd present. So, this is why I'm raising that question. That's all because um it it normally the board, you know, does not get
appeals of the zoning officer's denial of a permit, but there certainly, you know, the MLU allows for that. An applicant is allowed to do it. Um, so I'm I'm simply raising it as a
consideration tonight because they have all their witnesses and they are ready to present testimony. Now I see our planning director is raising his hand and I've got to swear him in. Uh, Mr. Le, could you swear and or affirm
any testimony you give this evening will be truthful? Uh, Steve, is that okay if we have Mr. Leco any comment? Okay. Yes. Thank you, Chairman, and good evening, members of the board, members of the public. Um, I just want to note though for for the
context of that conversation, uh, we as staff outside of Mr. Bridger have not written any reports, right, uh, on this application. um if if we if this was an application that we would normally have a traffic engineer or another professional um uh
contribute a report to, we have not done so. So, just want the board to be aware of that. uh we've reviewed the application and that's why we're here and we could speak to the appeal uh that's that's occurring at this time, but in terms of a full application, full variance
uh uh hearing, we're not as prepared as we normally are. We have not done those reports that you're accustomed to. And I think also, and I won't take it too much further, even something like inherently beneficial,
there's arguments against that depending on proven market needs or not needs. There there measures related to that. You you can't just well you can just assert that it's inherently beneficial
and the town needs the drug and rehab, but technically you should be you should have to prove it. And we should be prepared if they're going that way to to to say yes or no in agreement with that.
And I don't know that we're prepared for that. That's a whole another type of hearing than just, you know, yes to Derek or no to Derek's opinion. I have one other question. Uh, sorry. Go
ahead, please. Uh, for an appeal of a zoning officer's determination, is there the same noticing for neighbors as there is? Yes, there is the same noticing. Okay. And they did. Okay. I did notice. Um,
any other questions at this point? Or should we allow the um applicant to go further with their presentation, which I think should Okay, proceed. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I'd like to start with our project
engineer, Livia, there you are. So, Olivia, you've been sworn in. If you could, could you please provide your qualifications to the board? Yes, absolutely. My name is Olivia Canon, spelled K O N O N I U K. I'm a project
engineer at Stonefield Engineering located at 15 Spring Street in Princeton, New Jersey. Okay. and your education. I graduated from Rowan University with a bachelor's in civil engineering and I'm a professionally licensed engineer in
the state of New Jersey with the license in good standing. And you've appeared before uh land use boards, planning, zoning boards like this previously. I have. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we'll accept the engineer as an expert. Thank you very much.
Let's start with the site in question first. anticipating anticipation of this meeting this evening. Uh you reviewed the prepared and reviewed the site survey for this subject site. Correct. That is correct. And you reviewed the prior approvals from 1999. Yes. Okay. Um
so and you're familiar with the site in question, the prior approvals. Um that was all reviewed prior to tonight's meeting. Yes, I have. I've personally visited the site and have um gone over the local zoning ordinance and the letter from the zoning officer as
well. Okay. So, let's start with if you have an aerial of the site. Yes. And I'm going to share my screen. Okay. Can everybody see my screen? Lar, do you want the Oh, you already have a date. Exhibit A. Okay, thank you.
Yes, I'm Yes, I marked it exhibit A1. That's good with the board. Okay, so utilizing A1, can you explain the existing surrounding sites and the site conditions themselves? Yes, absolutely. So, this property is
located at first 728 Bun Drive. Um, the subject site is a 6.27 27 acre lot within the office research district. Um site's pretty secluded with the existing building being tucked in over 200 ft into the property and screened well with
mature trees and robust natural vegetation. Existing on the site today is the 66 67,000 3t or 3tory building which previously operated as a nursing home. Access to
the site is provided via one full movement driveway along Bun Drive. And also on this site is 60 parking spaces, a storm water detention basin, as well as lighting infrastructure and landscaping. Okay. And just to confirm, we are not proposing any changes to those site
improvements you just mentioned. Correct. That is correct. Okay. For the ingress and egress to the site, you've reviewed it and in your opinion as a professional engineer, it allows for safe and efficient ingress and egress from the subject site. Correct. That is correct. Okay. Um let's you you
mentioned the 60 existing parking spaces. Can you speak a little bit as to the parking approvals as part of that 9 1999 planning board approval? Yes. So 60 parking spaces are on site and 20 parking spaces were approved um as a
bank parking spaces to allow you know for additional parking should it be required based on the use uh and the demand of the use in the in the future. So currently there's 60 parking spaces on site. Okay. Um, have you reviewed the
parking demands associated with this proposed use against the ordinance to determine the adequacy of existing parking? Yes, I have. So, um, well, there's no specific requirement for the drug and re uh drug and alcohol rehab
use. Um, the closest similar use would be a comolescent care facility, you know, which has the same requirements as a nursing home. This is related to people recovering from illnesses or surgery. The idea that it's a rehab is likely provides more of a close
comparison to to our facility. And per the Princeton and New Jersey code for nursing homes, the parking calculation require um approximately uh a total of 75 spaces for the total 148 beds. And
this would be if the facility was running at full capacity and that includes uh a number of spaces required for the patients themselves as well. Correct. Uh yes, this is including the 400 sorry 148 beds. Okay.
So with the 60 existing and 20 bank parking spaces, there are enough existing spaces to cover the parking demands associated with this use. Correct. That is correct. Okay. Um, and you're not anticipating any increase on chip trip generation given
the similarities with the prior nursing home use and the rehabilitation use. Correct? No, no trip uh generation changes. And that's based upon again the the number of individuals who will be residing within this facility and the
number of staff. Given the uh similarities between those two numbers, the traffic demands anticipated are the same. That is correct. Okay. So, let's talk about site infrastructure. You mentioned some of the site improvements, stormwater basin. Um, can can you
discuss a little bit as to what other site improvements are out there now, lighting, landscaping, etc.? Yes, absolutely. So, we've got the building. U we've got the building, the parking lot, um surrounding site features, uh
including landscaping, lighting, utilities, um and any storm water infrastructure on the site. The building and parking lot uh are in good condition. They just need a little bit of cleanup. There's no evidence of severe ponding or flooding on site. And
I visited this site this week after all the heavy rain that we've had and observed a dry storm water basin. So this indicates that the basin is functioning as designed even with minimal maintenance since the facility closed and the applicant will intend to
maintain the basin parking areas and landscaping as per the previously approved plans from 1999. Some landscaping on site is dead or dying due to the local deer population helping itself to dinner. But with regular site activity and continued
landscaping, dying plants uh will no longer be an issue once replaced. And the lighting has been constructed as approved and plans to operate as such. Um overall the site and the building is is suited for the proposed use. So just
to confirm because what we are proposing is a continuation of that nursing home use. All of the landscaping requirements that were conditions of that prior 1999 approval will have an obligation to adhere to all of those. Essentially all the conditions within that prior resolution will have an obligation to
adhere to all of those. Correct. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Essentially this site is going to continue to operate identically to its prior use, identically to how it was previously approved to operate. Correct. Correct. Would you agree that there's no intensification triggers here associated
with the proposed rehabilitation use? Yes, I would agree. And it's fully compliant with the O1 standards, the conditions and standards contained in the prior 1999 approval and the previous approval from an engineering standpoint.
Yes, that is correct. Okay. And if if you could just briefly, I believe you have a site survey that was prepared. if you could pull that up as well. So, this was previously submitted. Um, can you guys see this as well now?
Yes. So, this was previously submitted. I'm not sure if the board would like me to mark this as A2, please. That is quite small. This is the Alta survey prepared by my
office as well dated January 31st, 2025. At the north to the top of the page, you can see the building in the center of the page followed by all of or surrounded by all of the site improvements. Okay. And again, just to confirm for the record, no changes are
proposed as part of this proposal with any existing improvements on site. That is correct. There are no site changes proposed. Okay. Uh, Mr. Chairman, those are all the questions I have for the project engineer. I have a question. Um, I'm sorry I can't pronounce your name. I
don't Oh, good. Okay. Yeah, it's Polish. Okay. It's all right. Um you were testifying as to traffic and trip generation. Are you a traffic engineer as well as a civil engineer? I
am not. Um based on the use there would be no change uh per the IT but this is we would of course prepare you know the parking study and anything that the board would require to be reviewed. Um, should this
application the determination be approved? Well, I mean, it it's it may be necessary to do that prior to the application being approved. If you're, you know, I'm just I'm just trying to
make sure that that yes, the witnesses are testifying to all aspects of the of the project. and I just want to make sure that uh you know we're we're dealing with experts in their particular
expertise and if I can Mr. Chairman, I think ultimately your point gets to really the heart of the appeal here is it is the position of the applicant that what we are proposing is a continuation of the previously approved use that it is not a new use of the site. And because of
that, the traffic demands anticipated for this site, the parking demands will be substantially similar to the point that new traffic reports and parking uh adequacy reports are not required because this is a continuation of what has been previously approved.
So, okay. All right. I'm I'm okay. I mean, let's continue on, but I'm I am concerned that that uh that we have adequate traffic testimony. Okay,
Mr. Lario, will someone uh I didn't understand with the backgrounds of the witnesses that were presented that somebody would be explaining sort of the first point in Mr. Bridger's um interpretation
about the use being essentially the same uh a nursing home and rehabilitation c center's use being essentially the same as a proposed drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. It seems to me we're talking about peripheral issues. The um parking won't be all that
different. The traffic won't be all that different. Will someone be speaking to the actual use or is that not going to be presented tonight? Because that seems to me that's the crux of the issue before we go into, you know, air rights and and riparian
water and whatever else we want to discuss. Seems like that's a fundamental thing that we need to address. I agree with you Harlon. I think that should be the first order here. Yeah. What we will be able to provide on the record is operational testimony as to what is being proposed here. Additionally, we'll
have our planner indicate that under existing New Jersey case law and your ordinance, these two uses are functionally equivalent, that there is no difference between a nursing home use or a rehabilitation use. Now, obviously, there is the license citation question,
which we will address, but I think what was said at the beginning of this meeting as to well, what if a another nursing home wanted to use this and it was said, well, they likely wouldn't be before this board. It's our position that that is what is going on here, that another nursing home is essentially looking to operate this site just
because New Jersey law has consistently found hospitals, nursing homes, and rehabilitation facilities to be identical uses from a zoning perspective. Could I ask a question, please, from your engineer, Mr. Mario? Could she break down the parking in the
context of the ordinance where 03 spaces per bed, maximum number of employees per shift and then a multiplier? So we can take the that in that context please.
Sure. So uh with the 148 beds uh one parking space for every three beds approximately 49 spaces then assuming one staff member per eight beds that would be 18.5 spaces so 19
spaces um altogether 68 with the 10% multiplier brings us to 75 spaces. Thank you. And again, while we do meet that requirement with the existing and banged parking, I do think it's important to
know for the record 49 spaces are being reserved for the individuals who arrive reside within this facility and none of the individuals will have access to a vehicle while they're here. So, it is is fully our anticipation that this site will be overparked in the same way that
the nursing home site was overparked and that additional banked parking spaces were never required to be constructed. But there were issues with the nursing home parking because they asked me about how they could get additional spaces. So just put that on the record. Okay. Well, again, I
think the most the critical point here is this has been reviewed against the parking ordinance which states the requirements for this type of use. Um and we are we meet the requirements with the number of parking spaces previously approved. Okay. Um Mr. Chairman, before we move on
from that, uh would you mind if I ask a few questions? Certainly. Please move. Thank you. Because I just want to dig deeper on that. So, we've heard that it's identical to the prior use. Do you have the numbers of what was approved uh previously with that use and what is
being prepared now? I know I just caught the 75 parking space uh but I'm trying to look through my notes now. Um, is that what was uh testified to in 1999 and is that what was ultimately put on the site there? It was 80 parking spaces
what was approved in 1999. 60 60 to be constructed, 20 banked parking spaces. Okay. And that was based on the number of beds which you're now that number is changing correct with this new application. It it is based on the number of beds and
the number of employees. Correct. Yes. Okay. Got it. Um, okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Board members right now. Okay. Please uh continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd next like to call Dr.
Allison Tarlo. Dr. Tarlo. Hi. Good evening. If you could, could you please introduce yourself to the board and provide your qualifications? Yes. Hello. Good evening everybody. My name is Dr. Allison Tarlo. I am a licensed clinical psychologist and I am
licensed in the states of Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Massachusetts. I have been licensed since 2002. I am also a Florida Supreme Court certified family mediator and parent coordinator and I also hold a
certificate in addiction professional and also international certificate for uh drug and alcohol counseling and uh also I have a certificate in recovery residence administration. I have been working for um substance
abuse treatment facilities since uh about 2008 and I am currently the chief clinical officer for BOA recovery center which is a um multi-state substance use disorder treatment facility providing substance
use disorder and co-occurring mental health treatment. Um, Vocal Recovery Center opened a facility in New Jersey in South Jersey Galloway in um, 2021 and uh, we've been open in Florida since
2016 and we continue to operate and grow successfully. Um, we are a for-profit facility and um, we are in the business of helping people to recover from substance use disorders and co-occurring
mental health treatment. Mr. Chairman, I offer nice to meet you all. Tarlo as an expert in substance abuse treatment. Yes, I will accept that. Continue. So, let's start with the proposed facility. You indicated that
you are currently employed by Bokeh. Bokeh will be the operator of the uh proposed site. Correct. Correct. Yes. Okay. Can you provide a little bit of information as to what is being proposed here? what a licensed non-hospbas-based subaccute detox and residential
short-term rehab facility is. Yes, absolutely. So, we are a freestanding non-hosp facility um and we provide treatment and care both medically and clinically to individuals who are seeking recovery from drug or alcohol
addiction and co-occurring mental health issues. And what that looks like is two different levels of care. The first level being what we call subaccute medical detox where an individual will come in and they will stay with us for
anywhere between 3 to 10 days for that medical detox process. But I would like to say on average they will be at that level of care for about 8 days at which point in time the individuals will then step down within our facility to a
shortterm residential level of care where they are then able to focus more on their clinical uh treatment planning and we are helping them establish um in addition to the treatment planning goals their afterare so that when they are completed treatment with us they will
generally go on to another lower level of care somewhere else um for continued treatment or they may return home you know based on the needs of the patient and also the recommendations of the staff. Okay. What's the the average length of a patient stay? So an average
length of stay is um approximately about 22 days and again there are some individuals that will stay up to between 28 and 30 days and some who will be in and out within about 10 days but I would say in general approximately 21 to 22
days is the average length of stay. Okay. And there is a process for patient intake and discharge. Correct. Absolutely. the individuals are um go through a screening process. Initially we do um medical and clinical
pre-mission screening to ensure that this is an individual that um can um benefit from the type of treatment and care that we are providing and that they meet criteria per governing bodies, for example, the joint commission and the
state of New Jersey um for that level of care. And then they will be brought into our facility where they will be um provided with a a pretty in-depth intake process. Um as you stated earlier, Michael, the individuals do not come
with vehicles. So the patients do not have vehicles that they park at our facility. Um and so also when they are staying with us in our care, we typically do not have visitors coming in and out because they are with us for a
brief amount of time. Any visitation that does take place typically will be over zoom um or virtual sessions where there is a professional present as well. Okay. And those individuals they will re reside full-time in the facility while receiving treatment. Correct. Correct.
they will reside in our care and they do not leave our care unless there is an a medical emergency um and that they for some reason needed to for example visit a dentist because they had terrible tooth ache and we were not able to provide um the dental care for them and
then at that point they are brought by our staff to that for example dental office where they would get that treatment and then come back into our care. Okay. And all patients while they're within the facility are being monitored 24/7 by the health care
professional. Is that correct? Correct. Uh one of the criteria for the subaccute uh medical detox and the short-term residential level of care is that we do provide 24-hour clinical and medical supervision which includes um registered
nurses. We have um medical doctors and um nurse practitioners, specifically psychiatric and family nurse practitioners on site every day. Um and we also have what we call behavioral health technician staff that are also at
the facility 24 hours a day. So there is always um staff at the facility, qualified staff at the facility. So that 247 monitoring requirement that is something that is required by the state of New Jersey and the department of health in order for you to obtain and
keep your license. Correct. Correct. And the state of New Jersey has pretty stringent requirements as as far as that's concerned. So for example um you know several nurses per x number of clients which I can give you that information if it's needed. Um but
because of that we know uh pretty pretty specifically what we are required to have and we as a general rule and per our own policy and procedure go above that in order to provide just a a higher quality of care. Okay. Well let's talk
about the staffing plan. You mentioned the the employees that are required. Can you speak a little bit as to what the staffing demands are for this type of facility? Yes, absolutely. So in the state of New Jersey specifically um the clinical therapy staff is required to have one therapist per every eight
patients on their case load. Um we are required to have um a nursing ratio of one RN to every 22 patients. um for a case manager who's responsible for helping the client with any needs they may have that don't involve treatment
but involve paying bills or housing or uh things of that nature like sort of day-to-day life functioning. Um we require one for every 25 patients. Um we anticipate having um five housekeepers but not all there at one time. So
they're rotating to about um two housekeepers that would be there at any one time. Um and then we have some administrative staff um with 148 beds um if it were to be filled to capacity of 148 which in my experience doesn't
usually happen. Typically you run at um you know 80% capacity usually in these facilities. Um we would be looking at having approximately 36 members of staff in the building at any one time. We also
have um nurses who are there for 12-h hour shifts. So, for example, 7:00 am to 7:00 p.m. and then 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. So, um there is a staff change over at that time. And then we have the clinicians who will come in typically anywhere between 8 and 9 and work for
you know an 8 or 9h hour day. And then we have the behavioral health techs that will also work on shifts um first, second and third. So we have some people coming and going but it is not everybody coming and going at once. Okay. Now in connection with this use, you've
reviewed the floor plan of the prior nursing home use and the anticipated floor plan for your use. Correct. Yes, I have. And the nursing home layout, the proposed uh residential facility layout that's required that they're very similar. Is that correct? That is
correct. In fact, so similar that in um other facilities um we have been able to take a nursing home that was previously used for the nursing home purpose and we have um been able to put a substance use disorder treatment facility there because it is so well fitting for our
needs and that's largely driven by the requirements provided by the department of health for these types of uses as to hallways, room sizes, access, kitchen facilities, etc. How this was designed was consistent both with the nursing home and with the proposed
rehabilitation facility. Correct. Yes, that's correct. And it allows for continuity in care in use for this proposed use. Correct. That's correct. Okay. So, let's focus in on the licensing requirements for this use. Can you speak? Can I ask a question? One one
question. Sure. the the behavioral health texts that you mentioned, do they provide security for the residents? Who provides security, which in in your staffing that you talked about? Who
provides security? Security from what? security if if uh again and I'm not an expert in this but uh if if a patient in the recovery process is acting out
um who provides assistance. Anybody who is staffed and in the building would be able to provide assistance including behavioral health techs all the way to licensed clinicians and registered nurses. And we also have
um LPNs in the building as well. Um but anybody who is working there has to be onboarded and has to come with qualifications in order to be able to work with that population. I I have a question. Will the residents
be able to leave of their own free will into the neighborhood? We are not a locked facility. So the residents that come there are 18 years old and up and they come there of their own choice. Um and so therefore they come for
of their own free will and if they choose to leave the treatment facility um we are not a locked facility. However, we have protocols in place in which we are working with the individual and oftent times family members and
other, you know, staff who um are working in the facility to help them with their decision-m processes because it's in everybody's best interests for the individual to complete treatment and transition to a lower level of care. So in general there are not people trying
to escape like uh I don't even know what people would try to escape from these days I guess prison but um people are typically not trying to escape um they are there of their own free will and I was just going to say the reason for that is they've made the determination to seek the medical treatment through
the rehabilitation facility they're there to get better so in your experience you don't find a situation where people are leaving frequently leaving the facility because they're there because they They chose to be there. Correct. And they are not typically they are not coming to us because they've been court ordered. Um
they are adults. So they are making a decision to come there of their own free will. But while they're receiving treatment they are not authorized to come and go as they please. Correct. Correct. They understand that in part of the rules they are in they remain in our care in our building and we they do not leave the facility unless as I said
there was a medical need for them in which case they are supervised and taken wherever they need to go. I understood you to say that typically they're not court-ordered. What is atypical? Atypical is that a a parent may get guardianship of their child if their ch adult child
was not capable of making um sound decisions as a result of their substance use disorder. And so, um, on occasion, not very often, um, we may have somebody who has a family member who has, uh,
guardianship over that individual. So, they would be involved in signing consents and things of that nature, but that doesn't happen, um, very often. In fact, I don't know that we've ever had that situation occur in New Jersey. Okay. Just to follow up a little bit, if
so, if someone checks themselves in either by themselves or through their guardian um and they decide they want to leave before the treatment is complete, what happens? We meet with the individual. We find out what their barriers are to remaining in treatment
and completing. And in the event that they are not able to um make an appropriate decision to complete treatment, we then help to facilitate them either transitioning back home or to their families or loved ones or to
another facility um that better meets their needs. There are occasions where individuals decide they want to be, you know, in a different area or closer to home or, you know, there are different factors that can come into play and we work with the case management team. um
to facilitate a transfer or transition to that next facility or back home. And what would happen if you considered in the state that they're in that they pose some sort of danger to the community? Then we would be um contacting the night
emergency services just the same as we would in an outpatient level of care if somebody presented as a harm to themselves or others. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Turlo. Is that something you experience frequently in? No, we do a heavy screening process on the
front end because we are looking to um intake individuals that are going to need our services and benefit from our services. And you know, in in this day and age with medical insurance providers, there are very stringent
requirements as to who can be placed at certain levels of care. And the goal is always to place the patient at the least restrictive level of care. Um but what we're providing with the um subaccute medical detox facility is a way for
these individuals to get significant medical relief from that medical deto from detoxing from alcohol for example um or benzo for example bzzoazipines that are um can be risky to their health and also um incredibly physically
uncomfortable without that medical detox protocol in place. Dr. Sorry, Michael. Yeah. Uh, quick question. I don't have my in my notes, but um I know you have housekeepers
uh five two at any time might be there. You is there kitchen staff? How is food handled? Yes, we have we have a we have usually we will have two chefs in the that work in the kitchen but they are you know they they work different
schedules so they are there at some points together but they are also you know covering for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Um but we do have um two chefs on staff at any one time and and they would utilize the existing kitchen facilities within the site. Correct.
Correct. And is anything regarding your staffing written down and submitted to us? I haven't seen anything, but I Well, I haven't I haven't written anything down and submitted it, but I have a feeling that that's something
that we could provide to you because we do have uh protocols and policies and procedures in place that have been um approved by the Department of Health, the governing bodies, joint commissions, the state of New Jersey in the instance
of our facility in Galloway um in order to meet the requirements that the state has for these types of facilities. So it's driven not by your demands or your your determinations as to staffing requirements. The state essentially drives what is the employee requirements
for these types of uses. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Uh Dr. Tarlo, on that question of staffing, um could you tell us what the staffing levels were at the Princeton Care Center, the former use of the building?
No, I can't. Okay. So, you're not aware if they're the same as what you're proposing, even just in raw raw numbers even? Um, I I've never worked in a nursing home facility, so I cannot speak to that. Okay, understood. Um, and then
just going back to a a previous thread with a similar question um that I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I imagine we might get a similar answer. Um, are you aware of if the Princeton Care Center, the former use, um, had a similar policy where a a resident could
leave? I'm not aware of any policy that the Princeton nursing home facility would have, but based on my knowledge of nursing homes, I would imagine they don't want their patients loosely wandering around.
Certainly not. And in fact, in fact, one one could argue that believe it or not, the individuals who are coming in for substance use disorder and co-occurring mental health treatment um and we're talking about depression and anxiety. We're not talking about um serious mental illness. We're talking about, you
know, depression and anxiety and and things of that nature. Um but, uh one could argue that they would be of a more sound mind um than perhaps people who are going into a nursing facility. Um, you know, again, from dealing with my own relatives who've been in nursing
facilities, I know that, you know, co the cognitive impairment typically at a nursing facility will be higher than something that we are dealing with. That that's a conversation I I'm not qualified to get into. I'm just trying to understand if the uses are the same. But thank you. Absolutely. Just to
follow up, I think, with one of those questions as to staffing demand. You've obviously reviewed the um the layout, the nursing stations, the doctor's offices of the prior nursing home and have you found those employee staff
areas to be consistent with the demands of what you are requiring for a residential facility? Absolutely. Yes. Okay. And again, those demands are are uh the requirements are all promulgated by the state through the licensing requirement as to how many staff members
the nursing home facility would require. Correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, I think unless there's any other questions, I think that's a good segue into the licensing requirements specifically. Um, if you could you speak a little bit as to the specific license
that is required for this type of use and under whose supervision it is issued by? Yes. Um so we operate under the um I believe it's the office of the attorney general um in the state of New Jersey.
um and the um department of health and so we are we our license is what we call um subacute medical detox and that is um also considered by the American Society of Addiction Medicine to be level what
they call level 3.7 which um again provides for certain number of hours of treatment and services that need to be provided for example meeting with the physician um at that level on a daily basis. So there's a higher level of medical monitoring in that first
subaccute medical detox level of care which is again as 3.7 and then the other license would be the short-term residential license which allows for us to continue with that medical supervision. Um the the patients at that
point don't need um as much medical supervision but they still do require to be um monitored medically. And then at that point also they're having um upwards of 25 to 30 hours of
psychotherapy um services also provided to them at that short-term residential level of care that is um required by the license. Okay. And and there's inspection requirements, oversightes in connection with the license. Can you speak a little bit to those? Yes. So we have to develop
um very detailed policies and procedures that are submitted for us to then be um eligible for lenture. And then we have um upon opening we have um an initial um what we call an audit where the um
department will come out and review the facilities and look at the staffing and look at our human resource records and you know to ensure that we are qualified to be doing what we're supposed to be doing and that we're doing it correctly. Um and then again um typically the
licensing is up for renewal. Um I I want to say it's every two years. It could be in New Jersey that it's every year, but I I believe it's every two years. And actually with Joint Commission also, they do um every 3 years, but um annually they also have like a sort of
mini uh review or audit of care as well. Okay. Again, just just for the record, the license that that is being issued for the Department of Health for the residential facility, um the rehabilitation facility, um it's authorized under the Healthcare
Facilities Planning Act. Um notably, again, just for the record, um that is the same authority that authorizes the issuance of the license for the nursing home uses. Dr. Tarlo, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for Dr.
Tarlo. Board members, any questions for Dr. Tarlo. Okay, please proceed. Next, I'd like to move on to the Sorry, I just had one more question before we move on from Dr. Tarlo. Just
one last question. are uh based on those licensing requirements, going back to the staffing, are the staffing levels the same under the uh subaccute non-hosp-based uh residential license as they are under
the nursing home license under NJAC 839. I don't know what the specifics are for a nursing home as far as the staffing requirements. I am only wellversed in the staffing requirements for substance use disorder and co-occurring mental health treatment. Okay, understood. Does
anyone uh on your team, Mr. Lario, uh know of that that information? So again, I think the answer to that question is that the employee areas within the existing facility are consistent with what is required for for our use. So
while we don't have an exact number, I I don't think an exact number is ultimately going to allow this to be the same or similar use. I mean they are they require certain level of staffing to allow these uses to take place. There are employee
areas within the existing facility which are similar to what we will require for this use. Um could there be a slight difference between the total number of employees? Yes. But I think ultimately under your ordinance if there isn't a difference as to the employees we still
meet the parking requirement. So from an intensity standpoint this any change within the number of employees required it's not going to impact the intensity of the use in any way without having gotten that information in a traffic study. How is the board or
us as professionals? How are we supposed to to determine that? because it's the same use that the board previously reviewed and approved. That that that's our position that the law requires this board to review the nursing home use and the rehabilitation facility use as the
same. Okay. Can I uh ask a question? I I don't want to be too focused on the parking, but I'm just curious. The uh the patients are there of their own free will, so they're adults. um
checking into the facility, how does it typically work? Is it somebody is always dropping off the patient if there's no I understand they're not using cars while they're there, but are there some percentage of patients that drive themselves there and the car is there
for the duration of their stay? Um h how does that factor in? Are are they always dropped by somebody? what at at the pre-mission um when we're screening and we're setting them up for admission, we're setting all of that up and so
either they are dropped off by a loved one or we are we have vehicles that we would bring to go pick them up and we bring them in. Okay. I just wanted to ask for clarification on parking. I don't know if anybody else has the same
question, but Derek, your memo says, and I see that in the resolution from 1999, 47 parking spaces and 20 banked, but so is this is this where we're getting the number of 60 spaces? No, there's 60
spaces and 20 bank. There's that's incorrect. And when did that when did it go up to 60? Because the resolution talks about 47. The resolution I think speaks of 47 in reference to the limitation on 30 spaces in a parking lot. Okay. I think that was the a
variance was granted for that. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. But I had a question. I thought Dr. Carlos said that at one point there were 36 staff members on at at any at any one time if we at if we
had 148 beds but we had approximately 120 of those beds filled, we could anticipate having 36 staff in the building. Does that seem to be different than what the traffic engineer said? I thought she said 18 to 19 parking spaces. If if I can I think that's
what's required under your ordinance. I'm just saying it just seems to be a different what's required on our ordinance is the maximum number of employees per per shift which I'm trying to get a number on that. Is that 18 or 19 or is it 36? So if it's 36 then we're
at 86 plus the multiplier for the visitors um would put you past what's on site. If if Mr. Chairman I can certainly go back to our engineer to answer that question. I think that's a more appropriate person to answer. I think
it's a staffing question. I mean, it's the engineer can do the math. Anybody. It's 03 time 148 beds plus employees plus a multiplier. So, that's what when I heard 36 staff members from Dr. Tarlo just kind of triggered my thought process. This is just the whole thing
and not having anything to really review. Um, yeah. And that's truly Mr. Bridg's question is an operational question, not not uh a civil engineering question. Well, ultimately I think that the question is the parking demands under
the ordinance and what the ordinance requires for the site. And I think my understanding is that we are compliant with the ordinance requirements based upon the calculations provided that variance relief is not required. I'm just I'm asking
Dr. Tyler said 36 staff members it seem to be on staff at one time. So if you take 148 *.3 you're at like 49, you add 36, you're at 77. And if you add the multiplier,
you're over the 80. So I'm just trying to get an idea. Um because there was a parking issue there before. And granted, it under your view, it's the same use, but you know, it could be an issue. I'm just trying to iron that out.
I understand the concern that's being raised, but but ultimately given the number of parking spaces on site, given the fact that these residents will not have vehicles there, we believe that the parking is more than adequate to meet the demand anticipated. Do you think it's a variance? I I do do not know because it's it's a continuation of the
use, but any use would have to deal with the parking. If somebody came in said they had more spaces, we'd want to know. And obviously it's a maximum number they're looking for, not a a minimum because they don't want too much parking on site, but you know, it was a was a case
before for whatever reason the previous nursing home never built the 20 bank spaces. I don't know if it was financial, but um that's just there seems to be a discrepancy between the engineers staffing and I would rely
more I think on the operational guidance of Dr. Tarlo um in that situation. So what I can do is I can certainly speak to the applicant. I know this this setting makes it a little difficult to to have that conversation as to the the
employee requirements, but I understand the question that's being asked and and I certainly think that's something that I can try to get some more clarification from the applicant on. Thank you. Any other questions at this point? Okay, please continue. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. So, next we have our planner, Mr. Andrew Janau. Andrew. Yes. Good evening. If you could, before we begin, could you provide your qualifications to the board, please? Certainly. My name is Andrew Janu. Um, I've been a principal in the firm of
Beacon Planning and Consulting Services for the last 27 years, founder of that firm. Uh I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey as well as a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I'm currently serving as the planner for the Burrow of Freehold in Mammoth County, the Burrow of Carter Wright and Middle
Sex County, Livingston Township and Essex County and redevelopment planner for the city of Bon and the city of South Awa. I've testified throughout the state of New Jersey, been qualified as an expert in land use by the Superior Court of of New Jersey. And in 2022, Governor Murphy appointed me to the
state board of professional planners. step two is an expert in your field. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cho, in anticipation of this meeting, could you please explain to the board what you reviewed? Um, certainly. Uh, I'm sure the board
has a copy of the report that I have prepared dated February 11th, 2025. Uh, in preparation for that as well as for this evening, I've been to the site several times. I reviewed uh the prior approvals, the survey of the property, uh the correspondence related to this
property, as well as Mr. Bridg's uh memorandums dated June 5th and June 6th. Uh and I certainly have an opinion with respect to those conclusions and to the uh uh conclusions within my report. Uh in summary, Mr. Bridges essentially uh
conceds that there are two issues that he has concern related to uh regarding this application or or the use of this facility as a uh drug treatment and rehabilitation facility and one is related to parking uh which we've heard testimony about and I understand there's
some issues that we'll be addressing further on that and the second is the n nature of the lensure uh the nature of the lensure while uh you are very specific speific in terms of a license uh citation within your ordinance uh is
remarkably similar and under the same jurisdiction of the uh New Jersey Department of Health uh it's the uh facility would be administered by the department of health and and would have the same uh oversight essentially as a nursing home under the same agency. So,
uh, there is a specific case law that I cite within my report on page six. Um, and as Mr. Leco, I'm sure, is familiar with the Cox Treatis, um, which goes through land use, there is a a citation that's very much on point in section
32-5.2, to uh under the inherently beneficial uses. There are three uh legal citations that kind of walk us through how a hospital, a nursing home, and a uh treatment facility are from a zoning
perspective identical. Um and if anybody wants to kind of follow along, that's on page six of my report. Uh and it starts with hospitals or uses that have been found to be inherently beneficial and promote the public good. Uh Ksler v. Hoffman permitted a private hospital for
emotionally disturbed uh people in a residential use citing it as an inherently beneficial use. Uh medical center v Princeton Township uh uh basically concluded that hospitals are indisputably inherently beneficial uses and that hospitals have been confirmed
as such by the legislation through NJS455DF4 which was adopted in 2009. Uh it has also been held pursuant to Serbo v. Orange board of adjustment which is a 1972 case that uh residential narcotic
rehabilitation and treatment centers under the supervision of the commissioner of health and this facility is was a hospital and qualified as an institutional use under local zoning. And then finally, it was held that nursing homes and hospitals are uses that are so similar physically and
functionally that their dispar classification for zoning purposes cannot be justified. And that was Urban Farms v. Franklin Lakes uh a 1981 appellet division case. Um, so as you can see, Cox kind of walks us through uh not only the fact that these uses are
universally beneficial to the public good, but that from a zoning perspective, hospitals, nursing homes, and residential narcotic rehabilitation and treatment centers are identical pursuant to zoning. Um, furthermore, in Mr. Bridg's letter, he uh cites that
your code does not specifically define a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility and as such your ordinance doesn't specifically permit them anywhere within the community. Uh you do define nursing homes, you do define uh um assisted living, you also define hospitals, uh
but the definition of a of a treatment facility is absent. And once again, we rely on that treatise and that walkth through of the various case law that leads us to the conclusion that hospitals, nursing homes, and residential narcotic rehabilitation and
treatment centers under the supervision of the Department of Health are equivalent from a zoning perspective. Why is that important that the a definition for a residential treatment facility like this is not included in the ordinance? Well, essentially it's an
omission in your ordinance and you'd have to look at what are essentially equivalent uses. And we have case law that determines that nursing homes are an equivalent of that use and should be treated the same. Essentially, the only distinction in classification is the
nature of the people seeking treatment at that facility. And if you distinguish and prohibit treatment of people with such such disabilities, you're essentially discriminating against the people. Okay. So, and again, I I think I know
you mentioned those case laws. They they obviously disfavor distinctions between these uses and they've consistently overturned board determinations. they've been overturned and and they've been determined to be zoning equivalents
because zoning trying to make zoning distinctions on these two uses is something that again the courts have continuously rejected. Obviously from a licensing standpoint the licenses may be slightly different for a rehabilitation hospital or nursing home use. That's correct. But the nature of operations
are identical from a zoning perspective. From a perspective correct. Okay. So, let's talk a little bit as to the specifics there because I think in the ordinance it talks about obviously the specific citation for a nursing home, but it talks about 247 care. Can can you
speak a little bit as to what's required under the ordinance and what's provided for with the proposed residential treatment use? Sure. Let me uh let me walk through the ordinance and the conditional use standards. Uh so that those standards are contained within uh
section T10B272.40 within your ordinance and that pertains to nursing homes and assisted living uh residences conditional use requirements. So uh requirement and I I'll go through these as they're listed in your ordinance. A requirement A is that a
nursing home approvable as a conditional use must be a facility in a multif family structure which is licensed by the department of health in accordance with NJAC830 to provide healthcare under medical supervision and continuous nursing care for 24 or more consecutive hours to
patients who do not require the degree of care and treatment which a hospital provides and who because of their physical or mental condition require nursing or home level care. Uh so what we're proposing uh is an in residence treatment and recovery facility that will be licensed by the New Jersey
Department of Health and will operate pursuant to the oversight of SAG. Care will be provided under medical supervision and continuous nursing care of these individuals for 24 more consecutive hours to the class of patient as described having a disability
related to a drug or alcohol addiction. uh essentially within that standard. The only distinction is the the the license uh statute that is being referred to. We are uh licensed under the department of health. It is a different license
number, but for all intents and purposes, the patients that'll be uh at the facility that we are proposing will be receiving uh very similar care. They'll be the same classification uh as a nursing patient in terms of the type of care they require for 24 more or more
hours. They're not at the level where they require hospital care, but do need 24-hour uh supervision. So, we are on point with that requirement. Uh under A1, your uh ordinance requires that nursing care beds are the approved beds
in a nursing home which are are available for patients. the rooms in a nursing home in which one or two nursing care may be located or designated as nursing care units. So, we are proposing 74 care units and within your definition of a care unit, a a care unit can have
one or two beds. Our facility will have two beds in each unit. 74 care units, 148 beds. And that is consistent with what your ordinance permits within this zone. Uh the ordinance permits the lesser of I believe it's 120 care units
or 240 beds or 30 beds per acre. We are a little bit over 6 acres. I believe if we were to go to that letter of the of the law, we would be permitted up to 188 beds. We are we are uh 148 beds. And that's why Mr. Bridger said that we are
within the threshold of what your ordinance under the conditional standards permits for the number of beds. Uh point two within that citation reads nursing home level care means care provided to individuals who have chronic medical conditions resulting in moderate
to severe impairment in physical behavioral cognitive or other psychoso psychosocial functioning. It includes but is not limited to partial and total assistance with activities in daily living, assistance with self-administering or administration of medications, the provision of
treatments, and per periodic uh reassessments as directed by the patients plan of care. It also concludes that the provision of physiootherapy, occupational therapy, therapeutic counseling and other rehabilitative services are uh indicated by the patients medical condition. Again care
will be provided to the individuals who are suffering from a chronic medical condition. Uh addiction is defined as a chronic medical condition and that it results in uh moderate to severe impairment and need of behavioral health care. They are going to provided that kind of health care at this facility. Uh
curiously the language within that uh section reads nursing home level care. Um, and that that's I I thought that was curious because nursing home level care essentially defi you're defining as providing medical conditions to severe
and moderate uh behavioral issues, cognitive issues as the like. So the New Jersey courts have recognized that individuals addicted to drugs and alcohol uh meet the definition of a handicapped person requiring such care and that's uh was adjudicated in the
matter of uh Khill 245 New Jersey uh superior court. That was a 1991 decision. Uh the conclusion was reinforced by the federal Americans with disabilities act and the federal fair housing act which said that persons with h handicaps are a protected class and
this includes persons that have alcohol and drug abuse issues. So they are a protected class of individual. They are deemed to be handicapped and they do receive what you define as nursing level care at this facility. So again we are on point and thus far in reading those
three points uh of your ordinance. The only distinction is the specific citation of the department of health uh lensure that's required and again we are required to be licensed by the department of health is a different license citation but is still under the
supervision of the same organization and the and the additional uh requirements within that section nursing care for 24 more consecutive hours patients who do not require degree of care and treatment which hospital provides we do meet all of that as well. It is absolutely on point with the type
of care that's provided to the individuals that will be served by this facility. Okay. Um and finally, three, under that provision, a multif family structure is a building containing 30 30 or more nursing care units and each unit sharing
with another unit or units one or more vertical or horizontal common walls and each unit having its own separate entrance from an interior hallway or common area. Again, we are more than 30 care units. Uh we will be 72 care units
with I'm sorry, 74 care units with 148 beds. We meet that definition of a multif family structure. That definition was applied to the nursing home and it was uh testified that that nursing home uh is ideally suited if not specifically suited to this use because there are no
improvements required to the exterior. the facility can function with the facility as it is uh situated today. Um and that there will be some minor modifications to the interior in order to uh increase the bed count and create uh bathrooms and the like but that the
facility is is particularly suited to the use as it is essentially an equivalent level of care, provides for common kitchen, common areas, common eating facilities. Uh very much on point. Um, section B within your ordinance on the conditional use standards are
related to assisted living residences. So, I'll skip over those. Uh, C is to qualify for a conditional use approval, the applicant must demonstrate that the nursing home or assisted living residence has received or will be eligible to receive a license from the state of New Jersey Department of Health
pursuant to the provisions of the applicable state statutes and regulations. Dr. Tarlo indicated to you the type of lensure that will be uh issued to this facility. This this facility will be under the supervision of the department of health and will have a will be eligible to receive
lensure from that division for the operations at this facility. So again but for the specific citation number of the license it will be under the care of the department of health and will have license and oversight from that department.
Uh D uh within your ordinances, a single facility may include both nursing care units and assisted living units. The extent that they are somewhat different quantitative regulations in the subdivision for nursing homes and assisted living centers. The the applicable number shall be computed by
inter interpolation based on number of nursing care units and number of assisted living units. So here I mean the ordinance indicates that there is some flexibility in terms of the type of care. This facility uh operated previously specifically as a nursing home facility under nursing home
lensure. The care that will be uh administered in residents for behavioral health and rehabilitative care here will be specific uh and it will be specific to substance and alcohol abuse dependency issues. Uh it will not be kind of a hybrid issue but it and it
will be under the department of health care. So I think uh we are on point with that. E in its design of the site for a nursing home or assisted living residence, the applicant shall attempt to achieve the integration of the proposed nursing home or nursing home,
excuse me, or assisted living residence with existing and proposed land uses adjacent to the site. And here I'm going to cite the 1990 uh 999 approval which was on point with that condition. and it read, "The board finds that the applicant has attempted to achieve an
integration of the nursing home with the surrounding area. This will be further enhanced by the landscaping to be installed. The testimony was that this use would be a good transitional use between the existing office uses to the north and east and the residential uses to the south and west. So that 1999
uh resolution acknowledged the efforts to integrate to the community to integrate to the surroundings and the success of that uh and it warranted an approval from that board in 1999 based on that achievement. Uh you then heard testimony from our engineer tonight that
the uh operation will not alter the exterior. There will be some supplemental landscaping to replace some damaged landscaping. But that was the very landscaping that was cited in 1999 as appropriate in screening the facility from the neighbors. Uh section F uh is
anformational section regarding conditional units under subdivision. Uh same with G and H. I is as part of this subdivision, the applicant must seeking approval for a nursing home shall submit a document describing its plans for helping people remain at the home or
facility after they've exhausted their own uh financial resources. Again, that's something that will be supplemented to this case. But you heard testimony in terms of the the volunteer nature of the admission here, uh the pre-mission requirements here, and I'm certain that uh payment and resources
are explored at that time. um operations can discuss that a little bit further. Um uh J the only provisions of this chapter that shall be interpreted as conditions uh are subp paragraphs A or B or C in this section. Again that'sformational.
We need all those conditions with the exception of the specific citation of the license number. And then finally, nursing homes and assisted living uh residences shall not be allowed or permitted as conditional uses in the RA or RB zoning districts. Uh the nursing
home uh was uh permitted in the O1 district. This facility, again, a zoning equivalent of a nursing home will be in an O1 uh district and uh through Mr. Bridg's letter, uh it specifically indicates that your ordinance does not
define such a care facility. uh and as such given the zoning equivalency uh I think we are appropriately situated in a proper zone. So when we look at the standards here but for the one distinction of the lensure number we do meet every conditional standard for a
nursing home um and you've heard my testimony in terms of how we are interpreted by law uh and by established case law as a zoning equivalent to a nursing home. So, do you believe that the proposed rehabilitation facility constitutes a continued use of that
prior nursing home use? Absolutely. And that's based upon your analysis of the ordinance that you just went through along with the impact of uh case law in New Jersey. I would say not only the ordinance, the case law in New Jersey, federal case law in terms of protecting the class of citizen that would be
treated at this facility and how those citizens are protected and failure to protect those citizens would essentially be a discrimination of those citizens. And then finally, uh, understanding through Mr. Bridg's letter that the ordinance does not specifically distinguish the use anywhere within the
community, essentially creating a gap for the use within the community. Uh I certainly believe that that's a distinction worth note. And and lastly in terms of parking, there was a lot of discussion about it. I would say the one distinction here with respect to parking
as opposed to potentially a nursing home is that the patients here specifically are not permitted to drive. They will not be arriving in vehicles. They will not be receiving visitors on site. Uh in my discussions with the applicant and Dr. Carlo, I don't think it came out in testimony this evening, but it is my
understanding that not only are visitors uh in person discouraged, but they would if visitation was to be permitted, it'd simply uh be limited to a Zoom or a FaceTime call so that there could be that kind of interaction, but it would would not be face-toface interaction. So
if we're looking strictly at a level of staffing and even applying the uh percentage over uh as the ordinance requires we we have sufficient parking for the operation of this facility without resorting to building the green spaces and contemplating the the fact
that there are 20 green space uh green bankked spaces available to this. Uh I think the parking here is more than adequate for this facility to operate. And finally, would you agree that the language as to the licensing requirement, the citation specifically provided the distinction between the
nursing home and the rehabilitation facility utilizing that as a distinction between these two uses would be the type of um distinction the courts have routinely rejected here that functionally these two licenses are the same. I do and I think that Michael I
think that's actually reinforced within the own language within the language of their very own conditional use requirements whereas they give us a distinctive license for the nursing home care but later on they they refer to it as nursing home level care uh which
isn't distinctive to a specific license. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions for Mr. Janell. Members uh do you have any questions of the planner? Yes. Okay. Yes. Yes, I do. Um
on the um on the case law. Yes. I know you you know you cite a couple in your report. You have said that the courts have continuously said that there's no difference. you probably about a minute
ago said there's a whole lot of case law out there. Could you provide our attorney with a listing of all that case law because we will be relying on her? I I specifically relied on the case law I
cited in my report. Those citations are included in my report. Um and I'm sure your attorney has access to Lexus Nexus in terms of being able to download that. That's how I was able to get the uh the case law itself. But certainly to the extent that there's any assistance
required in terms of the case law, we'd be happy to help. I can certainly thank you because you've you're implying there's a lot out there and you stated it's continued and and it's very specific. Okay. um regarding
um the rehabs um and and health and maybe this question for you maybe for someone else. Does health issue prior to a license early on uh
certificate of need like they do for a assisted living? I think hospitals where you have to demonstrate a need is really there. So no there is no certificate of need required here but I
will site and I I believe it's in my report there was a essentially declaration of emergency with respect to addiction and the need to provide addiction treatment. Um, and I'm just looking to see where I And bear
with me for a second. I'm looking for that citation. Okay. Yes. on page 11 of my report uh where we talk about uses equivalent as a matter of law uh there's a citation from the New Jersey Healthcare Facilities Planning Act uh wherein it's it's
specific that it's and I'll just read you the first couple of lines uh it is hereby declared to the public policy of the state that hospital and related health care services and behavioral health care services the highest quality of demonstrated need efficiently provided and accessible at reasonable
cost at reasonable cost are of vital concern to the public health is f further declared that integrating physical and behavioral health care is the most effective way to improve health of individuals of the population at large in order to provide for the protection and promotion of the health
of the inhabitants of the state. The department of health shall have the central responsibility for the development and administration of the state's policies with respect to health planning, hospital and related health care services and healthcare facility costs. Um and it goes on to say that
this relates to uh residential health health care facilities, nursing homes, facilities for the prevention, diagnosis, care or treatment of human disease, mental illness, substance use disorder, pain, injury and deformity. So there was a declaration and the New
Jersey Healthcare Facilities Planning Act specifically gave the Department of Health the oversight for such facilities. And and I would just add briefly and I know we mentioned it earlier. It's through that act that the re excuse me regulations were promulgated for the license issuance
both for the nursing home use and the rehabilitation use. Correct. That's correct. And that's why there's a distinction in the way that's licensed versus assisted living and healthc care facilities under that act specifically is defined to include nursing homes,
rehabilitation facilities, and hospitals. behavioral health and substance abuse centers. Yes. Yes. Yes. Essentially same breath. Um my other question is um regarding
and it might not be for you but someone else regarding market area that you envision for this facility. Where will you draw? Will you be drawing only locally or is this statewide? Now that that's an operational question. Yeah,
that's what I thought. Um, could someone else respond? Sure. I'd be happy to have Dr. Tarlo, if she's available, try to answer that question. Let's see. She's muted. Just trying to see. Dr. Tarlo, can you hear me? Hi, yes, I'm here. Okay. There
was a question. Mr. Floyd, if you could, it may be easier if you could just repeat your question, please. Yeah. Where do you where do you plan on drawing your clients? What's your market area? Hello, here I am. Can you hear me? Okay.
Yes. Okay. My the market area is um the surrounding area of um New Jersey, New York, the eastern seabboard. We have individuals who come to our facility from locally and all over the country.
Um and on occasion we have people coming from like you know the Caribbean. Um but that's that's where we get our uh patients from. We would not turn anybody away. However, we also have um you know
an admissions team that help to place people. So if they are not suitable for our care for any reason um that we then find them placement and we also work with um you know Rutgers University and
um NJ SAMS and various other um state New Jersey state bodies that work with um helping to reduce um addiction and the collateral damage that occurs with it.
And I guess a a a question um perhaps uh for your attorney maybe not. Um I asked that question because inherently beneficial my experience deals with the immediate
area. Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. So if you're going to maintain this is inherently beneficial and you're you're drawing internationally on occasion multiple states.
I wanted to know that Mr. I think what you're referring to is if we were seeking a use variance, the arguments in favor of this board granting that use variance under the inherently beneficial standard. That that is not what we are requesting right now. But you are correct. That would be okay. I didn't
bring up inherently beneficial. You and your documents did correct. Yes. Because this is an inherently beneficial use, but ultimately that that is not the relief upon which we are seeking a use variance here. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. It's It's not a
pressure point on us. Correct. Thanks. Okay. What's next? So, finally, we have the a representative of the applicant and property owner just to answer a few quick questions. Mr. Carl Kaplan. Hi, I'm here. Good evening.
Carl, you've been sworn in previously. If you could, could you please introduce yourself to the board and your relationship to this application? Carl Kaplan, K A R L K A P Live in Mawa, New Jersey, 7 Fox River Crossing. I'm one of
four individuals that is part of the partnership that owns this property. Okay. And when did you purchase this property? Uh November of 24. We closed on the property, but we had been, I guess, looking at this property for about a year, a little bit after it had
unfortunately closed. Okay. And can you explain some of what interests you in this property back when you were looking at it? Sure. I think part of that goes I I have a relationship with Boka Recovery where they're a tenant of mine in a new facility in Anglewood, New Jersey, uh
property that I own and just getting to know them, uh the people they are, the individuals that they're serving and understanding that they were expanding into Massachusetts and Indiana. And I always ask them, you know, why are you
not expanding more here? uh you know there was some statistics that were shared with me maybe two years ago that in New Jersey alone there's only about 13% of the beds available to satisfy the need and I said why won't you find
anything here and they said well you know it's difficult to go and build out a new location if we could find a nursing home okay it's good that's what we did in Massachusetts that's what we've done in Indiana so when this property became available we
started discussing ing that with them. They had some other projects that were going, but they had agreed that this would be a good location for them and based upon the uh the prior use uh that it would be something that would satisfy their needs. Again, that that's coming
from the fact that as an institutional medical use, it meets many of the criteria that's required for for the type of use that they were proposing at this site. That's correct. Okay. Um you heard testimony as to the prior 1999 approvals, the conditions of that approval, landscaping, storm water
improvements, etc. Um obviously as part of any establishment of this proposed use, you will as property owner update the landscaping to meet that prior approval, perform any on-site maintenance that's required in order to
again bring that site that now vacant site into the modern age and beautify it as needed. Correct. Yes, that's correct. Okay, Mr. Chairman, those are all the questions I have for Mr. Kaplan. Ward members, uh, any questions of Mr. Kaplan?
Okay, thank you for your time. Hey, is that does that conclude your presentation? It does, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask for a brief summation following uh the public comment portion.
All right. Board members, do you have any questions of uh of the applicant, the witnesses, the landowner? I have one quick question, Steve. Yes.
Are there any equivalent centers like this in Princeton? Now, are there drug treatment centers in Princeton? Princeton House, which is run by um the hospital pen It's
on Herontown Road, Stephen. Yeah. Yeah, it's right in that same area. Um, what about the one on the Great Road? Is that a drug? 10 acre. 10 acre. So, it's a foundation. I don't know what
it does. Okay. It It doesn't matter. I'm just curious. Thank you. I think there's there's nothing this big. Um I I guess I I thought maybe the applicant will have surveyed, but
there's a few small ones around in West Windsor, Mama Junction, um uh a couple other places as far as in this area, but you know, are they Michael? Are they group homes
or are they uh No, they're drug drug rehab. Are they living? What are you asking? Excuse me. Um clarify. What are you asking me? Yeah. I mean, no. I just wanted to know what group homes, I guess, is what Oh, group homes are just, you know, very for six people,
something like that. The ones I've some look like 20, you know, 25. I I didn't see any big big big structures and they're usually one story or two at best small twotory
but just a little bit of research I tried to do. Thank you. Okay. Um board members any other questions or comments before we allow the uh applicant to sum up? We go into
public comment. We take a quick break please. That's fine. Um 5 minutes. It is 10:02. We'll reconvene at 10:07. Thank you. Hey
Mike. Hey You Just coming. Okay. Um, it's 10:07. Um, I guess we'll we're missing Bernice and Harlon is
Okay. Um, we're back in session. So, um, Mr. Lario, are you there? I am, Mr. Chairman. Okay. All right. So,
um, we finished your witnesses. Um, board members, do you want to ask any last questions? Any final questions before we allow Mr. Lasco to sum up and we go to public comments? Mr. Chairman, if if it's okay with you, just in case
there's any questions or concerns raised during the public comment portion of the meeting, I would appreciate the opportunity to summarize the application following public comment. Yeah. Typically after public comment, we allow you to make a closing statement before we go into executive session. Thank you.
Okay. All right. And just forformational purposes, we stop at 11 o'clock. Okay, it's it's 10:08, so plenty of time. Okay, so if you don't have anything to
uh sum up on now before we go into ex to the public comment, then I'll open the hearing up to the public. Uh Claudia, has anyone indicated they want to speak on behalf of this application? Yes, Mr. Chen. Eric Chen.
Yes. Yes, Li. Hi. Good evening everyone. Hi, my name is Eric White Chen and I'm the owner of Seven Campbell. Hold on one second. We can't see you. Oh, okay. Hang on.
Well, can you see me now? Yes. Hi, Mr. Chairman and the Loning Ber and everyone. Um, thank you for your time and uh I'm the owner of Seven Kimbo Way in Princeton and I do have Sir One second. One
second. You need to be sworn in. Karen, you're muted. Karen, you're muted. Very sorry. My apologies. Mr. Chen, do you swear or firm your testimony this evening will be truthful? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Yes. I just want to speak um on behalf of my neighborhood. Um I just oppose uh this application. Um simply because the common sense that first the patient structural differences. We all know that nursing home is serving the elderly and disabled person especially the elderly
person um versus the younger uh drug or alcoholic addict uh which may include the violent uh you know tendency the people that are coming into this facility. Um secondly is safety safety safety location.
Okay. And the third is a concern to the community, to the neighborhood, and most importantly the property value of all the Princeton Township. And uh that's my three u major um concerns. And I do have a question for the for the owner cap,
Mr. Kaplan. What is your next step if your application has been denied before the zoning board? Because you already purchased a property. So what's your next step if you can repurpose into this um substance treatment facility? Thank you.
Well, I wouldn't expect that the board would deny our appeal. So we haven't given consideration to that seeing the facts that were laid out. I would have to discuss that with council. Okay. Any other comments,
Mr. Chen. Uh, no. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Claudia, is anyone else indicated they'd like to talk on this application? Mr. Vasquez. Yes. Good evening, Miss Casey. If you
could swear me in, please. Mr. Vasquez, are you comfortable giving your address? Yes, I am. I'm a resident of seven Campbell Woods Way, the Campbell Woods uh development that's directly due south of the proposed uh uh project. All righty. And do you swear affirm your
testimony this evening will be truthful? I do. Thank you. Yes. Good evening. I want to thank the board for their service. I want to thank uh uh Mr. Larry for his presentation. I want to go on the record stating that I uh support Mr. Bridg's interpretation of the current
zoning. I would also like to bring to the board's attention as a practicing litigator for over 25 years that a lot of the experts that were uh opine today were not subject to cross-examination and in my opinion strictly as a tenant.
They spoke outside. They opined on legal issues. They cited case law. They're not registered attorneys. They're not licensed attorneys. They cited law that is over 30 years old in some cases. We don't know if that case law is still uh
valid has been subjected to uh different interpretations. Uh so there's a lot of questions based on Mr. Lario's presentation that I have, but it's not my position at this particular point. It's the board's position to ask these tough questions. uh a lot of these uh
experts were not subject to cross-examination based on a lot of the opinions that they site a lot of alleged uh alleged law alleged zoning. Uh and again these are a lot of questions that I walk away with and again the best
evidence that we have here is Dr. Jan's testimony that the what she said does not sound by any reasonable interpretation like a nursing home. At least the way I know it by having had uh friends and relatives in nursing homes.
Also, what Mr. Lario would have us believe is just because we're licensed by by because they would be under the supervision of the New Jersey Department of Health that that automatically uh gives him leave to get uh an approval by this board. And that's not the case. That's not a reasonable interpretation,
at least from a layman's point of view, because that would lead the New Jersey Department of Health, for example, licenses over 20 different types of facilities from acute care facilities, ambulatoratory facilities, hospitals. So, under his interpretation, any of
those types of facilities would be able to be built and put into operation just because they're under the supervision of the New Jersey Department of Health. I don't think as a lay person that's a reasonable interpretation and that's why I support Mr. Bridget's interpretation that would be leading if we were to
believe Mr. Lario's logic that anybody licensed by the New Jersey Department of Education would be able mathematics teacher could teach a Spanish course or a physical edge teacher could teach an English course just because they're all licensed by the New Jersey Department of
Education. And that's strictly I I think from a common sense point of view not a reasonable interpretation. I've heard Mr. Bridger's uh uh report. I've read it and I think it's reasonable and and I think it would withstand from a layman's point of view any type of scrutiny.
Also, Mr. Lario tries to intimidate this board by bringing up well not just Mr. Ario, but his expert claims of a violation of the ADA and uh court costs and all these types, attorney cost. That's not the point we are here. We're
strictly based on the four corners of this appeal, and that would have to be discussed and judged in any type of future litigation and or appeal beyond before a judge or a jury. So, I think those allegations that Mr. Larara brings up this particular one are premature and
misguided by trying to cowtowal and to try to intimidate by bringing up those points which are not necessary at this point at this point in the in the presentation. So uh with that said I fully support Mr. Bridger's interpretation. I think it
will withstand scrutiny by reasonable tri of fact and I as a resident do south of the adjoining development do not wish to have this type of use uh approved because it does not fit the
the interpretation that Mr. Bridges says it's not a nursing home and and if we look at Mr. Dr. Jan, it doesn't sound like a nursing home. And to use the old adage, you know, it's just not. It's not. So, once again, with all due respect to Mr. Lario and his experts, I
highly disagree. And I think that if his presentation was subject to cross-examination uh in either an arbitration or a courtroom, a lot of this testimony and a lot of his facts would fall apart, especially his citation of 30-year-old or 35, even 1972 case law. With that
said, I want to thank the the board for their time, for their volunteer work, and and for their service to our community. And once again, I ask this board to reject the appellants application based on the the uh reasons
and the reasons and logic found in Mr. Bridg's report. Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh Claudia, has anyone else indicated they'd like to speak? There are no more hands. Okay. All
right. Um, since we have no more hands up, we're going to close the public portion of the hearing. Um, Mr. Lario, do you want to make any closing comments before we go into
executive session? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um, one quick procedural issue before I get to my closing statement. And I think there was a question as to the parking demands for this proposed use given the number of employees. Um I think your zoning
officer raised a question as to whether or not that would be in conformity with the ordinance with the number of beds and anticipated number of employees and whether a variance would be required. Um what the applicant would be willing to do is provide a detailed zoning analysis to the zoning officer indicating
compliance with the ordinance requirements by way of parking calculations. And if ultimately in order to comply with the ordinance requirements as to parking and not seek a variance, there has to be a reduction in the total number of beds or total number of employees. That's what the
applicant will have to do. Um ultimately, we are not seeking a variance tonight from this board as to the number of beds. We're seeking a continuation of the previously approved use and we will be able to provide that documentation to the satisfaction of your zoning officer that no variance is
required as a condition of any approval granted by this board. Um over the course of tonight's presentation, you've heard testimony from our professional engineer. You've heard testimony from our licensed clinical psychologist, our planner, and a representative of the applicant and
property owner. Um, these witnesses have confirmed that the proposed use of this site, the use of the site as a licensed subacute non-hosp-based drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, falls squarely within the previous zoning framework of
the nursing home use and is in both form and function equivalent to that previous use. And again, I I think it's important to note that is not my opinion or that is not Mr. Janau's opinion. That is New Jersey reported case law which indicates
that these uses are the same. The property was purpose-built for institutional care. The building includes patient rooms, nurses stations, kitchen facilities, medical infrastructure, all support areas consistent with a high level of residential healthcare. Importantly, the
applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the site. no changes to the building, the footprint, circulation, access points, parking, all will remain consistent and compliant with the O1 zoning standards in the plans previously provided to the planning board in 1999. And I would
suggest to this board that is not a coincidence that there are no site changes required here. The reason is because a nursing home use and a rehabilitation facility are viewed the same under the regulations and existing case law. As you've heard from our
professional witnesses, the proposed use involves the same level of 247 medical supervision. It's licensed by the New Jersey Department of Health and operates under the same regulatory framework as the prior nursing home use. The only material change here that we're talking is the license that's issued and that
goes directly to the patient population served with the proposed use. There's no change to the nature, intensity, or structure of the use. From a zoning perspective, there is no meaningful difference. It's a continuation of what was previously approved for this site. It is not a new use. We respectfully
submit that the zoning officer's February 26, 2025 determination that this proposed rehabilitation facility constitutes a change in use requiring new site plan and conditional use approval misapplies the law and we would ask that this board under 40ome 55D7A
correct that misapplication. Now, obviously, in addition to the functional and legal equivalency of these two uses, our planner testified that the proposed rehabilitation use complies with all conditional use standards set forth section T10B 27240 of your ordinance.
While the licensing citation may differ, both licenses are issued by the Department of Health. They impose operational and care standards and they're heavily regulated and inspected by the New Jersey Department of Health. Again, I know we keep reiterating this point, but I think it's critical that the license citation and the class of
people served by this use is the only thing changing, not the actual regulatory framework and supervision required under the law. Additionally, both nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities represent the same inherently beneficial institutional use class under New Jersey law. to deny compliance
simply because the regulatory citation in your ordinance differs between a nursing home use and a rehabilitation facility. While the function, supervision, intensity all remain consistent, would be inconsistent with applicable New Jersey case law. As was
stated, there are important federal protections implicated by this application. And again, I don't bring that up to threaten the board. I bring it up because it's my responsibility and I bring it up for the board's benefit. The Americans with Disabilities Act, Federal Fair Housing Act protect the specific class of people at issue here
to deny this proposal based solely on the fact that the citation differs from a nursing home use to a residential rehabilitation facility when every other material aspect of the proposed use remains unchanged would constitute, we believe, discrimination under federal
law. The proposed the proposal before you this evening will restore a vacant building into a productive use. A use that is desperately needed both this state in the area nationally to meet a critical public health need. It's going
to do so without burdening the surrounding community in any way or increasing site intensity. There's no conflict with local zoning ordinance. We're not seeking any variances as part of this proposal. We're not proposing any change to the physical condition of the building. And no, there's no legitimate reason to impose additional
regulatory hurdles on the applicant to apply for conditional use variance relief and site plan approval when the use itself has consistently been found by New Jersey Supreme New Jersey courts to be a continuation of what was previously approved at the site. In
short, it is our position that what we are proposing is supported legally, practically, and equitably. For those reasons, we respectfully request that this board overturn the zoning officer's determination and confirm that the proposed use of this site constitutes a continuation of the previous approved
use and the requirement for a site plan and conditional use approval is no longer required. I thank you for your time and attention tonight. If there's any additional questions, we're happy to address them. Thank you. Thank you. Um board members, before we
go into executive session, do you have any questions of the applicant, the applicant and witnesses? Okay. Um M Mr. Chairman, I would say just before just I I understand you're about to go into executive session. I just want to make clear I guess clarify
exactly what the board will be deciding on. Um I I I think what we are appealing is the determination that the proposed facility does not constitute a continuation of the previously approved use. I think that that's the critical
inquiry before before the board right now. So I I would ask as the board considers the the presentation made um that that's ultimately what we are appealing because if this is found to be a continuation of that previously approved use um I think ultimately
no site plan no conditional use standard is required. I I believe that is the question for for the board. Uh we are agreeable as I stated certain conditions including providing documentation to the zoning officer indicating conformity with the zoning ordinance parking
requirements. But essentially the question is whether or not under New Jersey law this constitutes a continuation of what was previously approved. Okay. Thank you. Karen, I have a question. Yes. If we find
if we find that that this use is a continuation of the other use, what action other than saying we agree with that do we take this evening?
I think this All right. What this evening you would say that you uh are overruling the zoning officer's interpretation that you find it's a continuation of the nursing home use and
uh that they do not need a site plan. Uh nor do they need a variance. and the variance being uh uh a deviation from what the uh ordinance governing nursing
homes in the zone uh what the condition of the nursing home license. So what you'd be say if that's what you find then you would be saying you're overruling the zoning officer's interpretation and
they don't need a site plan because they're not changing the use nor do they u need any variances. Would that mean that that Mr. Bridger would have to sign off on this and allow
it to move forward without correct? I mean, I think the applicant has said they're willing to condition that on providing a parking study to Mr. Bridger. Uh,
I'd want Mr. Bridger's input on that. They're saying if it turns out the parking doesn't comply or their study is not compliant, they are willing to reduce the number of beds to get to a point where it is compliant. I think I understood that correctly, Mr. Larry, is
that what you said? That's correct. Uh, obviously, if the board were to find this is a continuation of previously approved use there. There's certain leeway with the parking demands, but we we need to comply with the ordinance and and you have an ordinance which sets requirements for this type of use and the park and the associated parking
demands. What we are saying is we will comply with that parking demand or we'll submit an application for a variance. But either way, we will ensure that what is being proposed here meets what your ordinance requires to the satisfaction of your zoning officer.
I had one other I had another question, Karen. Uh Mr. Lasco brought up the fact that he didn't have adequate information to review
the application. If we again assuming that we agree that this in this constitutes a continued use would that negate the requirement of m
not requirement but the suggestion of Mr. Lazco that he get the necessary paperwork to review the application. Well, I think so because if your finding is that it's a continuation of the
prior nursing home use and that they don't need a variance or a site plan, then I don't know what Mr. Leco would be reviewing at that point. I'm I mean you tell me Justin if you disagree with that is do you feel that if that's what the
board determines then then there's no further information that goes to me except in the case that we just discussed which you know I guess it still wouldn't necessarily go to me uh it would just go to Mr. Bridger. Um, but the case that we just discussed was
you would be determining it's a continuation of the existing use while at the same time determining it's different enough to have a study or
potentially a variance. that that sounds a little uh you know I don't really understand uh the the logic of that one. Um so if I may ultimately what we are proposing is if it is a permitted use within the zone
and there is a change that impacts parking demands but it is still still consistent with your ordinance and existing parking that does not require by itself an site plan application or a change in use application. What what we are saying is any change to parking will
comply with your ordinance requirements. If it doesn't, we'll either have to submit a variance application or reduce the bed count to a way that does comply with the existing number of parking spaces the planning board approved back in 1999. You're basically asking us to approve
this and then you would submit information which may result in a change in your application. What I'm saying right now is any approval the any approval granted by this board can be conditioned upon conformity with what your ordinance
requires by way of parking requirements just as you would require for any applicant that's not seeking a variance. The only difference, Mr. Larry, is that normally the board would have information about parking. I mean, that would be something that they would have
asked for uh the staff would have asked for. So, I mean, another alternative would be to carry this so that the applicant can provide that and then uh uh that point the board could make its
decision. That's that's another alternative. so that staff has seen it and can respond. So, so ultimately though the question is whether we comply with the ordinance or we don't. I mean that that's the legal
question where if we are below the the number of parking the 80 parking spaces that is approved for this site. I would say that no variance is required and this board can grant that relief. If we're over it that creates a problem. What I'm saying right now is we will not be over that 80 or we'll have to come
back before this board and that 80 includes the banked parking spaces too. What was approved? Correct. Yes. Okay. So, we're potentially talking about changing the physical layout of the site as well pursuant to an approved site plan. Yes. Okay. A previously
approved site plan or a newly approved site plan. Previously approved. the bank parking spaces were part of the 1999 approval, but they would create impervious coverage and the ordinance on impervious coverage has changed dramatically since 1999.
Again, it's an approval that's that's I think arguably that's a different question as to whether or not it's vested. That's why it's a site plan. I mean, it's uh you know, could have filed one and I'm just concerned that you don't know what the parking demand is. was
brushed over very quickly and when I asked a follow-up question, I didn't get a clear answer. There's conflicting data from your doctor who I would expect would be the expert in that with the engineer and that's I haven't got an answer for that and it seems like you're
punting it and you've had since February, you know, you you you basically submitted the same application as a zoning permit for the appeal of the uh the interpretation. though it just seems like that that information is not
provided is somewhat troubling. So ultimately because it's continuation of a a previously approved use and we are not proposing right now to go above what the ordinance allows for parking. We're not seeking a variance. I think your question is to what is the parking demand going to be? Obviously there's
only we can't go above the 80 parking spaces that were previously approved. So it will be a maximum of 80 parking spaces will be the demand. I just don't understand why you did all the other research and you kind of scuttled over that important piece of information. Oh, again, I I think we we've determined a
way in which we can address the concern as to keeping the parking demand within the 80 spaces that are provided for in the approved plan of development. So in a way I guess what's being proposed is kind of bifurcating the
application to be about whether the lensure use allows it to be a continuation of what was approved but we're bifurcating out whether the parking study conditional use
requirement is met and then we're putting that to staff potent potentially to determine rather than the planning board or the zoning board. So I I would agree that the yes the introductory legal question is
whether or not this constitutes a continuation of the previously approved use. If ultimately it is then it becomes a question as to whether or not the parking demands associated with this use trigger the need for variance relief or whether the applicant can rely upon the
parking spaces that were included as part of that original approval. What I'm saying is we will provide documentation indicating that we are compliant with the parking provided for in that 1999 approval. But if the conditional use is based on
the parking study and the parking requirement, it's not from 1999. It's not. Isn't that the standard that was mentioned in in Mr. Bridger's memo memo? T10b 272.44. And then that's where it goes into the
number of nursing care beds, staff members, all the questions that we've been asking. So that's a site plan requirement. It's not a conditional use standard. Conditional use requirements under the ordinance. Question for staff. Um
the 1999 approval is now what about my NAF is right 26 years ago. Um if if there was no question being raised
let's say another nursing home took over and they said we need the 20 bank spaces now we need them. We have more staff. uh issues such as impervious coverage and storm water management and drainage.
Is that something that you would be raising in that situation? Yes. And I would say ultimately if the the use is confirmed as a continuation and that becomes an issue as to the impact on impervious, that's a separate conversation that that we can certainly
have. I mean, I I'd have to look into those approvals, but then you're talking about a site plan for a continuation of a permitted conditional use. No, we'd be talking about a site plan because you want to add 20 extra parking spaces. Correct. Yes, but ultimately if
it's found determined to be a continuation of that 1999 approval, it's a continuation of that previously approved conditional use and then a corresponding site plan application which is different than the appeal before this board which challenges the determination that D3 variance reliefs
required. is would well let me phrase this um this is carried to I'm not sure what date um would and if the parking information is provided to staff
that would eliminate this question wouldn't it Eric Justin, I guess it depends on the information. What are we going to get? Oh, no, I understand. No, I understand that. But what I'm saying is it it would um
provide a basis now to assess whether this is an issue at all or whether it's not correct. Yeah, that's correct. I And I think the reason that I've been asking so much about staffing is because the parking is based on the staffing. So if we had that number and then could deduce
the number that Derek was getting at earlier, then we could compare it to the uh existing approval there appear to be there two separate issues. One is the continued use and the other I guess a sub issue is the
parking. Okay. And um but it would seem to me that we need to we need to resolve both and we need to get the information on both before we can make a decision.
Is that correct? Mr. Chairman, yes. Um my thoughts or my my opinion is I've heard the testimony. I've heard I I understand things. I've um
I understand Mr. Bridger's memo because it was short and sweet and very you know the four corners of the ordinance and his decision in my opinion was correct. Now, the whole debate regarding
continued use, quite honestly, I'm used to seeing after a discussion like this, not with the zoning board, but in my past profession, a confidential
attorney's opinion letter by board's attorney looking into this whole basically threshold issue That can only be resolved in my opinion with a continuence
and consultation with Karen. That's that's that's where I am. I mean, you know, a a drug and rehab is not a nursing home is not an assisted living. Assisted living is not a nursing home. I've I've been involved in the financing
of 10 assisted living jobs. I've dealt with health health, you know. So, we got to get over that hurdle and I'm doing it or would like to do it
in consultation with the board's attorney. That's all I have to say. I I think it ought to be continued. I actually agree with Michael. Um
because my next question was Karen was a confirmation that the case law and all the comparisons that the applicant has you know brought forth during this thing are accurate.
So I mean that's my question which is exactly I believe similar to what Michael's saying. Yeah. And what were the opposing arguments? Or were there some opposing uh decisions that don't support the applicant?
I don't know. But I'm not voting one way or the other without an attorney opinion letter. I agree with both Michael and and Stephen. Um, I do not in any which way,
shape, or form think that council or the witnesses um have deliberately misrepresented the law. I I I don't believe that they would do that. Um, I do think it would I'm not suggesting that, by the way. Nor am I.
Nor am I. Um but I do think it would be prudent for us to make certain that um that we have the answers that we need and we don't solely solely rely upon um upon what's being presented to us. So I
completely agree with with an attorney letter on this. I if if I may miss I I see I'm one second. Not a problem. Wait, no. Go ahead. I was I was motioning to I was mentioning not to
Bernese. Do you want to The only thing I would add and I understand some of the concerns, but I I would just put on the record obviously from the applicants point of view. This site is sitting vacant right now. They are they're unable to do anything with this property while this works its way through the
process. Um the application materials have been on file. I I don't I think the question as to the accuracy of the legal citations provided in the planner's report and discussed on the record. If there is a question as to the AC accuracy of it, I'm sure everything has
been reviewed by your professionals. We can certainly raise that now. But I I'm just and I can talk to my client, but I think it's going to be hard for us to be agreeable to to allow additional time for for this when this has obviously
been on the agenda for for a while. And again, I would just say, if you don't allow additional time, then you may not be happy with the answer we come up with this evening. So, if that's a risk you're willing to take, then by all means, um but um you may not be happy
with the result. I understand. And you and I'm sure you understand that it's I have a question. I'm sorry. With the appeal with the appeal process, Karen, I know we had to hear this within what 20 days or something. Well,
they had Yeah. Yeah. But do we have to come to a decision tonight? I don't I don't think so. And then why do you need to discuss it with your you know I'm I'm I think Mr. Lario you're taking the position that your
client would need to I mean ordinarily if the board seeks more information and they want to carry it they would take that action. If you're saying also order to 11 well that's true we can carry it. Are you saying that you're you want to force the
board to make a decision tonight? That's what I'm hearing. All I'm saying is I'd like the opportunity to discuss with my client before I I take a position one way or the other. And I understand that adds a little bit of a wrinkle here because we're in this virtual format, but yep, a few minutes for me just to converse with my client and make sure
there's there's no issues and then I can report back to the board. What's the board's uh pleasure here? Well, I mean, look, we we are going to wrap it up at 11. if you want to take a
couple of minutes. I don't have a problem with that. Board members, what do you think? Yeah, I think it's fine. Sure. But yeah, I just wanted to to add uh in in addition to other information that we haven't um that that we don't have uh we don't have any information on
I I know that you're saying the building is not essentially going to change. What about the use the outdoor space? I would imagine that the type of facility you're proposing is different from a nursing home where people aren't very
ambulatory. They're they're they're probably much more confined and part of the the therapy might involve use of outdoor space. So just understanding a little bit of that would be helpful. Understood. That that's certainly
something that that we can provide that information um to you. I would like to also add something that I just kind of realized in the last couple of minutes in the discussion which is the um you know that we have heard from you and
others that there is not and should be no distinction between the what we might think of as a nursing home population and the population of a treatment center that you're proposing. But there is one
distinction that we've heard about all night um which I saw in your report which is how many parking spaces are needed. And it strikes me that if for some reason you decided that a treatment center wasn't um viable or that you
didn't want to be in that business anymore. If those two populations are interchangeable, you might say, "Okay, I think we're going to do a it seems to me you'd be within your rights to turn it into a nursing home, but then you'd need more
parking." So, it it is kind of it's the same, but it's not the same materially and how you would set up the uh the building. So I I think it's something we need to have a chance to to understand better and should be heard as us um
discriminating. And I think in response to that question, I understand the inquiry as to how parking demands could change. And I think as I stated in the beginning, municipalities while they can't differentiate these uses from a
zoning perspective, they can regulate it. You have a zoning ordinance on parking on the books which talks about how you compute the minimum required parkings for these types of uses. Now again, a a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility is nowhere in
your ordinance. So you look to the next closest use, which in this situation is a nursing home. Um we believe and what we've put on the record is we'll comply with those requirements. But I I I understand though and that's why we're willing to agree as a condition to provide that documentation establishing
conformity with that ordinance because we have to. And I think we're just asking for the information now before we make a decision. We're not saying we're not going to approve it. We're not saying we are going to approve it, but we just want the information that we questioned
during the hearing. So if I Mr. Chairman, can I take one one quick minute? Yes. Okay. Let's uh it is 10:48. Let's say 2 minutes work. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the
board providing me with that time to speak to my client. Um, we understand the concerns, the requests from the board. Um, we can provide the parking information that's required. Um, if the board elects to carry this to another date, I know a special meeting was
chosen for for this hearing, we would just ask if at all possible, I know the board is is very busy with the queue of applications. If the same courtesy could be provided again in a special meeting be scheduled um fitting within the schedule. I know it's summer time and everyone's busy. That would be greatly
appreciated on behalf of the applicant. When when will you get back to us with the information we're asking for? So, I would say it we we want it on file at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Um, and we probably require at least two
weeks to assemble it. So, I guess Well, would it be would it Mr. Bridger Karen, would it be acceptable just to hold the date open until we see when we get the information and then again you'll have to look at the schedule and
see when the next available time we have a special meeting if we can't carry to a date certain that can be announced tonight then the applicant will have to renotice. So we're trying to find a date certain so they don't need to do that.
We'd prefer obviously Mr. chairman not to have to renotice for this application if at all possible. Can I speak to the scheduling? Um, sure, please. We have a special meeting in July and a regular meeting and the regular meeting at that
case times out. It's a site plan. I think they're going to give us an extension. I'm away for the first two weeks of August. I mean, I think the next available meeting, and I'm not trying to delay this, Mr. Ario would be the the August meeting which would be the
I believe the 28th 20 27th I think it's the 27th you're correct and obviously Mr. chairman, that that gives the applicant pretty significant concern here. Is there any way the meetings in July, we're not going to have to go through the same
testimony again. I think the questions that are being asked as to the legal citations provided and the parking analysis, it it really shouldn't require the level of discussion that has taken place tonight. I I would ask for the board's consideration in allowing us to try to get through this information at
one of those July meetings. Eric, we have two meetings scheduled in July. We have the 16th and the 23rd. We could do the 30th possibly. Members, do you
are you uh agreeable to three meetings in July? I can do it. Sure. I'm okay with it. Yeah, it should work. I can do it. I can do it.
Hopefully, you available. What's the third one? The 30th. The 30th. Okay. I was on the wrong month. Excuse me. Sorry. That would mean we have a special
meeting on the 16th. Yeah. Regular meeting on the 23rd and a special meeting on the 30th. Yeah, I can do it. Yes. Valario, is that acceptable? It is, Mr. Chairman. I just want to specifically thank all the board members for your
cooperation and flexibility here. It's greatly appreciated by the applicant. We get overtime pay for the special meeting. You know, that'll be right around my 10th anniversary on on the board. So, you know,
all right. So for the benefit of the public, uh this application is now being carried to July 30th and it would be 7:30. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. So I guess that's it. Thank
you very much, board members. Uh Mr. Lario, thank you and your team. and uh we'll be waiting for the information you're going to provide. Understood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board members. And we'll see everyone in July. Okay. Thank you. Thanks.
Good night all. Good night. Good night. Thank you.