The proposed senior living facility, to be managed by Bright View Senior Living, will be age-restricted to residents 62 years and older and will feature a mix of independent living, assisted living, and memory care units. The plan includes a four-story building to the east and a three-story section to the west, covering a gross floor area of about 46,000 square feet and a total area of approximately 172,500 square feet. The board’s discussions revealed a particular focus on the breakdown of the different types of living units and the corresponding parking requirements.

One of the topics of the meeting was the parking layout, which proposes 101 spaces, including six ADA-compliant stalls that necessitate a design waiver for their dimensions. Concerns were raised about the sufficiency of ADA parking, the potential for designating certain stalls for employees, and the potential impact of flooding on the rear parking area. The board also discussed the orientation of the building and requested detailed explanations from the architectural firm regarding the proposed deviations from the town’s ordinances, which included setbacks, parking requirements, and sidewalk compliance.

Landscaping and the environment played a role in the discussions, with the board examining the proposed shrubs along South Livingston Avenue, the preservation of existing woodlands, and the need to protect mature trees at the skate park. Additionally, the lighting design for the site was scrutinized, focusing on minimizing light spill over to adjacent properties and ensuring safety through the installation of ballard lights in the courtyard.

Another central aspect of the meeting was the site’s logistics, including the size and functionality of the loading area, the drainage plan compliant with local and state standards, and the emergency generator power. The board took a keen interest in the proposed utilities for the building, which include sanitary sewer service, water service, electric, and gas services. They also discussed details like the operations of the site, expected deliveries, traffic flow, and the availability of electric vehicle parking.

The applicant’s presentation outlined the need for minor deviations from the redevelopment plan, including setbacks and parking stall size. The discussion on variances was intense, with the board members weighing the benefits of the project against the need for such deviations. The project was touted for its provision of senior citizen housing and the coordination of public and private procedures.

The meeting concluded with the board voting in favor of the application, subject to conditions such as revisiting mature trees at the skate park, reviewing lighting levels, and reaching out to adjoining properties for potential parking arrangements during flooding incidents.