The key aspect of the meeting was the extensive deliberation on the merits and implications of the proposed adult daycare facility. The applicant’s representative outlined the proposal, which called for a use variance to operate an adult daycare in a zone where it is not explicitly permitted. The facility is designed to provide comprehensive care for seniors, including medical and therapeutic services through the PACE (Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly) initiative, a Medicare program operating under Medicaid guidelines.

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the architectural and logistical modifications necessary for the facility. The applicant’s architect presented plans for a portico, measuring 62 by 52 feet, intended to facilitate safe ingress and egress for participants. The portico will also require a bulk variance due to its proposed front yard setback of 62 feet, whereas 100 feet is required by zoning regulations. The architect emphasized that the design would enhance safety, particularly during inclement weather, and comply with New Jersey state law requirements. The board confirmed that proper notice had been served and published, establishing jurisdiction over the application.

The board’s planner, Kevin O’Brien, argued that the adult daycare facility should be considered an inherently beneficial use due to its community impact. O’Brien asserted that the facility would serve a critical need by providing structured care for seniors, allowing them to remain within the community rather than being placed in nursing homes. He highlighted that the PACE program has been effective in maintaining over 90% of participants in their homes by offering comprehensive services either at the facility or directly in their homes.

The discussion also covered the operational aspects of the facility, including transportation logistics and parking requirements. The facility plans to use a mix of 12-passenger transit vehicles and accessible vans to transport participants. The traffic engineer, Rihanna Kersha, presented a traffic study indicating that the facility would generate fewer trips during peak hours compared to a standard medical office. The study concluded that the expected traffic increase would not necessitate state Department of Transportation permitting.

Parking concerns were addressed by the civil engineer, who confirmed that the site would have a total of 162 parking spaces, exceeding the required 131 based on township code. The adult daycare would share the parking lot with an existing child daycare and a doctor’s office, but the engineer assured that the overall parking situation would be adequate for all tenants.

Public comments raised concerns about potential traffic increases on residential streets, particularly Highland Avenue. A resident, Mary Gallagher, expressed apprehension about the impact of increased bus traffic. The traffic engineer responded by noting that the proposed facility would generate eight additional trips during peak hours compared to the existing medical office use.

The board also discussed the broader implications of the facility’s use variance request. Legal counsel and board members debated whether adult daycare should be classified as inherently beneficial, given the lack of judicial precedent. Despite this, the board ultimately agreed that the facility’s benefits to the community justified the variance. The board considered the aging demographic and the increased demand for senior care as significant factors supporting the application.

The meeting concluded with the board voting to approve the application, including the use variance and bulk variances for the portico’s front setback. The approval was contingent on several conditions, such as the relocation of a fire department connection, installation of a fence around a refuse area, and additional landscaping.