The public hearing on the proposed medical facility was a focal point of the meeting, with extensive dialogue on the procedural integrity of the application process. An attorney representing a local resident raised several jurisdictional objections, emphasizing that the notice provided for the meeting was defective. He highlighted three main issues: the notice’s adequacy, the appropriateness of bifurcation, and the completeness of the application. The attorney argued that bifurcation was unsuitable in this case, as the site plan elements were closely intertwined with the use aspects. He cited case law, stating, “How could you possibly as a board assess particular suitability of a site to a use when you haven’t seen a site plan with all the accommodating elements?” Critical considerations such as traffic, stormwater management, and septic system placement were also underscored as areas requiring comprehensive evaluation alongside the proposed use.

Further compounding the procedural debate, concerns were raised about the adequacy of the notice provided to adjacent property owners. The notice reportedly did not include the street address of the property in question, a requirement under Section 11 of the municipal management law. The applicant’s representative, Drew Piscatelli, defended the notice’s sufficiency, insisting it met all legal requirements. He shared personal anecdotes to highlight the project’s potential benefits, including improved access to medical care for seniors.

Traffic and parking implications dominated the subsequent Q&A session. Audience members expressed skepticism about the applicant’s claims regarding minimal traffic impact. Piscatelli referenced New Jersey traffic and parking requirements for medical facilities, asserting that real-world experiences showed lower-than-anticipated parking needs. He pointed to other managed facilities, noting that even larger buildings did not fully utilize their parking spaces. However, audience members remained concerned about potential congestion, especially given the high vacancy rates in existing office spaces in Holmdel.

The proposed medical facility’s design and operational specifics were also scrutinized. Piscatelli described his vision for the project, drawing inspiration from local architectural landmarks. He emphasized that the facility would primarily operate during conventional office hours and would not include overnight facilities. Board members and the public questioned the necessity of a three-story structure, with Piscatelli attributing the choice to “maximum efficiency” and financial feasibility. He estimated that each building would house around six medical practices, with varying doctors’ schedules.

Environmental concerns were also raised, particularly regarding the property’s current state and compliance with environmental standards. An engineer representing the development presented an aerial image of the property, confirming the absence of wetlands. However, a board member questioned the validity of the letter of interpretation (LOI) used in the application process. The engineer defended the LOI’s validity, asserting that it was based on a comprehensive evaluation.

As the meeting progressed, the council emphasized the need for additional information and future discussions to address the raised concerns adequately. The date of December 4th was proposed for a follow-up meeting, with a suggestion to reserve September 18th to focus solely on engineering aspects. Participants agreed that any additional materials submitted by the applicant should be shared with the public in advance to ensure transparency.

The applicant maintained confidence in the project’s necessity and potential benefits, while the council and public underscored the importance of procedural adherence and community impact.