By Lea Kahn
After listening to three hours’ worth of testimony in Sunrise Detox Center’s application for a use variance last week, the Zoning Board of Adjustment has scheduled two additional public hearings this month.
The zoning board will meet May 11 and May 25 to hear more testimony and possibly public comment on the application filed by the Simone Investment Group LLC. The 7:30 p.m. meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Building.
The Simone Investment Group LLC and Sunrise Detox Center are seeking a use variance to permit a 38-bed residential detoxification center in a vacant office building at 100 Federal City Road. A use variance is needed because the Professional Office zone does not permit residential detoxification centers.
Last week, the zoning board listened as planner Michael Mueller reiterated his belief that the proposed residential detox center which is the first step in helping people to overcome their addictions to alcohol or drugs is an inherently beneficial use.
Mr. Mueller testified at the April 27 meeting that the Professional Office zone permits “offices of a recognized profession including but not limited to medicine.” He repeated his contention that a clinic would qualify as a medical office and that it could be expanded to include a residential detox center.
Mr. Mueller also testified that uses such as a hospital or rehabilitation facility are considered inherently beneficial uses and that as such, a use variance is not needed. An inherently beneficial use is one that serves the public good and general welfare.
”Even if the zoning board does not automatically identify the Sunrise use as inherently beneficial,” there are additional factors that should be considered, Mr. Mueller said. He pointed to previous testimony by other experts that in Mercer County and the five surrounding counties, there are 173,000 people with untreated alcohol and drug abuse issues.
In that testimony, it was noted that up to 40 percent of Mercer County residents in need of residential detox services must seek help outside of the county and that of the 643 Mercer County residents who sought such help in the last two years, none found treatment locally, Mr. Mueller said.
He also told the zoning board last week that there would not be any detrimental effects if the application were to be approved. There would be no changes to the lighting requirements or traffic and off-street parking.
Mr. Mueller also said last week that there would not be any outdoor recreation permitted. The proposed deck addition would only be accessible from the inside of the building. All Sunrise staff would be trained in security, and security cameras would operate around the clock at all entrances.
”There is nothing about the Sunrise use that is out of character with the other uses of the property, including the sleep clinic,” he said. The Sleep Center of Princeton, which is also located at 100 Federal City Road, helps patients who suffer from sleep-related disorders.
When zoning board chairman Peter Kremer asked Mr. Mueller about the relevance of the sleep center, he replied that the uses are similar because patients stay overnight for treatment. It is also a medical use, he said.
Mr. Kremer pointed out that the sleep center does not provide meals or laundry services, but the detox center would provide those services. Patients at the sleep center are undergoing evaluation based on medical needs, not treatment, he said.
When the meeting was opened up to the public to question Mr. Mueller’s testimony, Federal City Road resident Marvin Vanhise challenged the planner’s statement that a residential detox center is an inherently beneficial use on the basis that Sunrise Detox Center is a for-profit facility that is not part of a hospital or drug-rehabilitation center.
Mr. Vanhise estimated that based on prior testimony from another witness on behalf of Sunrise Detox Center, the company would earn about $12.5 million to $16.6 million annually, before deducting business expenses.
When Mr. Mueller was asked by Mr. Vanhise whether he was aware of any New Jersey court decision or that another zoning board in the state had declared that a for-profit, residential short-term detoxification facility that is not part of a hospital was an inherently beneficial use, Mr. Mueller replied that he had not heard of any such decisions.
Finally, when Mr. Vanhise asked him whether this use variance application for a profit-making, short-term residential detoxification facility that is not associated with a hospital would set a precedent if it were to be approved by the zoning board, Mr. Mueller replied that “I view applications to stand on their own merit.”

