TOWNSHIP OF MONROE

ZONING BOARD MINUTES

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

November 29, 2022

Meeting called to order at 6:30 P.M. by Chairman Vincent LaFata who led the salute to the Flag.

Chairman Vincent LaFata read the Sunshine Law as follows: In accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act, it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following:

Posted on January 1, 2021 on the Bulletin Board of the Office of the Township Clerk, Municipal Complex, 1 Municipal Plaza, and remains on file at that location for public inspection;

Posted on the Bulletin Board of the Office of the Township Clerk;

Posted on the Bulletin Boards within the Municipal Complex;

Printed in the Home News Tribune and Cranbury Press on December 30, 2021;              

Posted on the Monroe Township website; and

Sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice.

MEMBERS PRESENT:      Chairman Vincent LaFata, Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani, Mr. Marino Lupo, Mr. Louis Masters, Ms. Rajani Karuturi, Mr. Donato Tanzi, Mr. Arnold Jaffe, Alternate #2 Mr. Manmeet Singh Virdi, Alternate #3 Mr. Thomas Kole and Alternate #4 Dr. Alton Kinsey.  Also present for the Board were Attorney Peter Vignuolo, Engineer Mark Rasimowicz, Planner Mika Apte and Acting Director of Planning & Environmental Mr. Joe Stroin.

MEMBERS ABSENT:                     Mr. Gary Busman.

A motion to approve the October 25, 2022 Minutes made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Louis Masters and passed with Mr. Gary Busman, Ms. Rajani Karuturi and Mr. Manmeet Singh Virdi abstaining.

BA-5216-22                          Concordia MZL, LLC c/o KPR Centers, LLC; Request for Use Variance with Preliminary and Final Subdivision and Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Bulk Variances; Block 27.02, Lot 27.01; Located at 1600 Perrineville Road, In the PRC Zone

Carried to the January 31, 2023 meeting with notice.

BA-5218-22                          283 Applegarth Realty, LLC; Request for Use Variance with Preliminary and Final Site Plan; Block 26, Lot 20.02; Located at 283 Applegarth Road, In the R-30 Zone

Represented by Walter toto who stated the the Subject Property is rectangular in shape and contains about 46,088 square feet (hereinafter “SF”)/1.058 acres.  It  is located along the easterly side of Applegarth Road (Middlesex County Route 619). The Property is located in the R-30 Residential District. It is currently improved with a one-story medical office building and accessory parking.  The Applicant is seeking to construct a two-story, 8,000 SF medical office building with a 35-space accessory parking area to be used in connection with the Cardio Metabolic Institute. 

Dr. Singal, Applicant stated that the Subject Property is currently occupied by a medical office building; and advised that the Applicant wished to raze the building and construct a new structure to be occupied by the Cardio Metabolic Institute.  The main office of the Cario Metabolic Institute is located in Franklin Township; with satellite offices in Edison, East Brunswick and Monroe.  He stated that there are two locations in Monroe at 283 Appelgarth Road and 294 Applegarth Road which will be consolidated at the Subject Property if the application is approved by the Board.   The program used in his practice is the Pritikin Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation program.  He indicated that the goal of the program is to teach patients how to change their lifestyle to avoid future cardiac issues.  This program includes nutrition, stress management and exercise.  He advised that he currently does not have access to enough space in the two (2) Monroe locations to operate the program.  The program lasts for twelve (12) weeks; during which patients are provided services approximately two hours-per-day/three-times-per-week. The proposed hours of operation were 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m./Monday through Friday; and 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturdays.  He confirmed that the facility would be closed on Sundays.  The number of individuals present on a daily basis at the facility; noting:  1-2 physicians; 2-3 medical assistants; 2 front desk assistants; 3 members of the wellness staff; and 1 technician (on days on which stress tests are performed).  He indicated that the maximum number of employees present on any day would not exceed 10 individuals.  The proposed layout of the facility.  He noted that the first floor would be dedicated to cardiac rehabilitation; while the second floor would contain medical offices.  He noted that the first floor would include a lobby, rehabilitation facility and demonstration area; while the second floor would contain a lobby and examination rooms.  He noted that the cardiac rehabilitation area would include a gymnasium; solely for use by patients of the facility.  Confirmed that patients would be monitored during their exercise and that a physician would be present at all times while patients were exercising.  The nutrition is the biggest gap in cardiac rehabilitation and that the Cardiac Metabolic Institute addresses this concern through the provision of cooking demonstrations.  He noted that the demonstrations provide patients with information on how to cook without oil or salt; while still creating desirable meals.  Confirmed that no attic or basement was proposed for the structure. The medical waste was stored separately and removed by a certified company approximately once per month.  He indicated that general waste (non-medical) would be stored in the refuse and recycling area on the Subject Property.  The proposed facility is not a subacute facility.  He noted that patients typically are discharged to a subacute facility to recover prior to being sent home.  We do not provide any transportation for the patients of the facility.  He further confirmed that no surgery is proposed to be performed at the facility.  No echocardiogram is proposed for the facility; noting that the Cardio Metabolic Institute has echocardiograms at two other facilities which it operates.  No generator was proposed for the building.  However, he confirmed that the Applicant would be willing to provide a generator for the facility if requested by the Board. 

Mr. Hanley provided testimony concerning the existing conditions, the proposed improvements and the variance relief required by the Applicant.  He noted that the Subject Property is currently improved with a 2,000 SF medical office with 15 parking spaces and an access driveway.  Mr. Hanley advised that the Subject Property is located in the R-30 Residential District but that the bulk standards of the R-60 Residential District applied; as sanitary sewer service was not available for the property.  We currently did not meet the bulk requirements for lot area, lot width and lot frontage. 

Referring to  Exhibit A-2, a colorized site plan including site landscaping; he confirmed that the Applicant is seeking preliminary and final site plan approval to construct a 40-foot by 100-foot office building; containing a total of 8,000 SF. 

He acknowledged that the Applicant considered the adjoining property uses when locating the structure on the Subject Property.  He noted that the Applicant maintained the existing northly parking setback for the new parking area and structure; acknowledging that sufficient space was needed for a bank of 9-foot by 18-foot parking spaces, a 24-foot-wide drive aisle, a second bank of 9-foot by 18-foot parking spaces, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk and the 40-foot-wide building.      Advised that the desire to maintain the existing northerly parking setback resulted in numerous variances; including, parking stall size, parking lot setback from building, side yard setback for the principal building and lot coverage.  He noted that a design exception for driveway aisle width was also required.   Confirmed that the Applicant was proposing parking spaces measuring 9 feet by 18 feet and a 24-foot-wide aisle in the parking area; both of which did not meet the Land Development Ordinance requirements and required relief.  He opined that each of these proposed conditions met industry standards and was appropriate for the Applicant’s proposed use.  Acknowledged the Board expressed a desire that the Applicant provide 10-foot-wide parking spaces.  The setback of the parking area from the structure (approximately 6 feet) was also an industry standard.  He noted that the 6-foot setback provided sufficient space for a 6-foot-wide sidewalk for access from the parking area to the facility.  Indicated that the Applicant was proposing 35 parking spaces; including 2 handicapped spaces and 1 electric vehicle make ready space.  He advised that only 32 parking spaces were required.

Required variance relief for the proposed signage.  He noted that that Applicant proposed one freestanding sign and two building mounted wall signs.  Acknowledged that no signs are permitted in the R-30 District.  He noted that the proposed freestanding sign measured approximately 8 SF and was located in the front yard buffer area.  Mr. Hanley stated that the free-standing sign required a variance due to its location in the buffer.  He opined that the sign would not be visible or effective if placed outside of the buffer approximately 60 feet from the front property line.  The two wall mounted signs were proposed on the northerly and westerly facades.  He stated that the signs were approximately 15 SF and allowed for ready identification of the facility by patients.  Stated that a 6-foot-high berm was required in the front and rear areas of the Subject Property.  He advised that the Applicant would not be capable of providing the berms due to grading and drainage constraints and proposed a 3-foot to 4-foot-high hill at the front of the Subject Property with plantings on top of the hill.  Mr. Hanley stated that the Applicant proposed pole mounted LED lighting; but acknowledged that the proposed lighting would not meet the requirements of the Land Development Ordinance.  He confirmed that the Applicant would agree to work with the Board Professionals to modify the lighting plan to eliminate the dark corners at the northwest and southeast corners of the parking area on the Subject Property.  The Applicant was proposing an underground detention basin; and confirmed that the Applicant would confirm that the design of the underground detention basin and stormwater management system was satisfactory to the Board Professionals.  Water, gas and electric were available at Applegarth Road.  He reiterated that the Applicant proposed a septic system for the Subject Property

Ms. McGurk, applicant’s planner confirmed that the Subject Property consists of 1.058 acres; contains an existing medical office building and is located in the R-30 District (but that the R-60 District standards apply because sanitary sewer service is not available).  She indicated that the Subject Property is an interior undersized lot; with a single-family dwelling to the north; an open space parcel in the PRC District to the east; an office building to the south; and office uses to the west.  Stated she reviewed the Applicants proposed use and improvements; and reiterated that the use is not permitted in the R-30 District.  She confirmed that the Applicant required a (d)(1) use variance.  She reviewed the requirements which the Applicant needed to establish in order to obtain a (d)(1) use variance from the Board.  She noted that the Applicant was required to demonstrate special reasons for the granting of the use variance. She advised that special reasons could be established by showing that a denial of the variance would be an undue hardship on the Applicant; or by demonstrating that the project will carry out a purpose of zoning as defined in the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1, et seq.).  Ms. McGurk asserted that the Applicant’s proposed use could be characterized as an inherently beneficial use which presumptively meets the positive criteria necessary to establish a (d)(1) use variance.  She stated  the Subject Property is located adjacent to a minor arterial highway.  She indicated that the adjacent roadway mitigated against the use of the property for a conforming residential use.   

She advised that the Township Master Plan notes that the community lacks commercial development; and that more commercial development is desired to increase the tax base.  She indicated that access to essential services and amenities is limited for most residents; requiring them to travel long distances into other municipalities to meet their needs.  Ms. McGurk indicated that using this previously approved medical use property for the Cardio Metabolic Institute is an appropriate location which will preserve open space.  She testified that that the Township zone plan will not be negatively impacted by the Applicant’s Medical Office Use.  She indicated that the Applicant’s Medical Office Use fits within the neighborhood in which it is located.  Ms. McGurk stated that the Medical Office Use was an appropriate use adjacent to the medical office to south and the medical uses to the northwest; and that the Medical Office Use will not impact the residential use to the north with the Applicant’s proposed buffering.  Also the bulk variance relief sought by the Applicant for minimum lot area, minimum lot width and minimum lot frontage were all existing conditions which could be granted under a (c)(1) hardship and a (c)(2) basis.  She noted that all of these conditions would not change with the granting of the application.  And that the remaining bulk variances can all be granted under a (c)(2) analysis.  She opined that the design of the building, parking improvements and other site improvements will provide a site that provides light, air and open space; and fits within the surrounding community.  Ms. McGurk indicated that the granting of the variances will provide community access to needed medical services and improve the general welfare.  She stated that the bulk variance relief provides the same purposes of zoning as the (d)(1) use variance; namely, purposes (a), (b), (c), (g), (i) and (j).  Finally, Ms. McGurk proffered that the bulk variance relief was subsumed within the (d)(1) use variance for the Medical Office Use. 

Mr. Mark Rasimowicz, Board Engineer, has no objections subject to applicant’s compliance with report dated October 12, 2022.

Mr. Mika Apte, Board Planner, has no objections subject to applicant’s compliance with report dated September 22, 2022.

Public:

(No public to be heard.)

Motion to close public portion made by Mr. Gary Busman and seconded by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to approve made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Louis Masters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

BA-5222-22                          Ravishanker Kovi; Request for Bulk Variance; Block 62.05, Lot 6; Located at 43 Keswick Circle, in the R-20 Zone

Represented by Mr. John Rentschler who stated this application is seeking a bulk variance for impervious lot coverage.  The property is located at 43 Keswick Circle.  The applicant’s Engineer started to refer to plans that were not submitted to the professionals.  It was determined that the plans be revised and a TRC meeting be scheduled before their next appearance before this Board.

Motion to carry to the January 31, 2023 meeting with notice made by Chairman Vincent LaFata and seconded by Mr. Louis Masters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

BA-5214-21                          Esposito Construction, LLC; Request for Use Variance with Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Bulk Variances; Block 31, Lot 1; Located at 20 Federal Road, In the RR-FLP Zone

Represented by Mr. Lawrence Sachs who stated this applicant is seeking approval for a contractor’s maintenance facility and yard.  The property is located at 20 Federal Road in the RR-FLP zone of the Township.

Mr. Kevin Scelly, applicants Engineer, refer to exhibits A1, A2 and A3.  He stated no curbing or sidewalk.  Ran through the professional reports and will go into detail throughout the presentation.

Mr. Matt Esposito, owner was sworn in.

Several Board members had concerns about exhibits and not part of the packet.  Raised concerns about environmental commission review.

PUBLIC:

Mr. Hans Wilden, 24 Federal Road, has concern of hours of operation.

Mr. Patrick Hye, 228 Mounts Mills Road, also has concerns of weight of truck on Federal Road.

Chairman Vincent LaFata stated too many questions have been raised and maybe things need to be worked out and sent in before this Board takes action.

Motion to close public portion made by Mr. Marino Lupo and seconded by Mr. Gary  Busman and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Motion to carry without notice made by Mr. Marino Lupo and seconded by Mr. Louis Masters and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

MEMORIALIZATION

(No resolutions to be adopted.)

DISCUSSION

(No discussions.)

PUBLIC PORTION

(No one in the public wanted to be heard.)

Motion to close public portion of the meeting made by Chairman Vincent LaFata and seconded by Dr. Alton Kinsey and passed unanimously by all members of the board present.

A motion to adjourn at 10:55 p.m. made by Vice Chairwoman Carol Damiani and seconded by Mr. Donato Tanzi and passed unanimously by all members of the Board present.

Respectfully submitted,

LAURA ZALEWSKI

ZONING BOARD SECRETARY