The most notable issue involved TRU Princeton LLC’s appeal against the zoning officer’s interpretation that transforming the former nursing home into a rehabilitation facility necessitated a new site plan and conditional use authorization. TRU Princeton LLC argued that their proposed use of the site as a licensed drug and alcohol rehabilitation center closely aligned with the former nursing home’s function, referencing state licensing similarities and claiming that the existing infrastructure would remain unchanged. The applicant proposed increasing the number of beds from 119 to 148, asserting that the facility would provide necessary services for individuals recovering from substance use disorders under the same regulatory standards as nursing homes.

However, the board expressed concerns about the parking requirements for the proposed facility. The applicant was prepared to use the existing 60 parking spaces, but board members questioned whether this would suffice, considering the change in use and potential increase in staff and client numbers. The lack of comprehensive studies from traffic engineers left some board members questioning the adequacy of the parking analysis. As the meeting progressed, it became evident that a examination of parking needs was necessary before any decision could be made. The board discussed potentially bifurcating the application process to evaluate the continuation of use separately from the parking requirements.

Public comments revealed split opinions on the proposal. Some residents supported Mr. Bridger’s interpretation that the facility should not be considered a continuation of the previous nursing home use, while others expressed concerns about safety, potential zoning violations, and the impact on property values. The applicant’s representative, Carl Kaplan, argued that the facility would address a significant need for rehabilitation services in the area, emphasizing that the proposal was within zoning limits for bed numbers and complied with healthcare regulations.

In addition to the TRU Princeton LLC case, the board addressed another application for a residential property on Western Way. Homeowner Richard Chen sought variances to construct a second-floor addition, addressing a height-to-setback ratio issue. The board unanimously approved the application after considering the non-compliance of the existing lot area and width with zoning requirements. Mr. Chen’s proposal included expanding the family room and kitchen on the first floor and adding three bedrooms on the second floor. He presented his plans to the board, highlighting that the renovation would not alter the property’s footprint and had received no objections from neighbors.

The meeting’s conclusion focused on scheduling future sessions to continue the deliberation on the TRU Princeton LLC application. The board agreed to reconvene on July 30th, with members emphasizing the need for the applicant to provide detailed documentation on parking requirements and zoning compliance at least ten days in advance. Board members expressed their willingness to hold additional meetings to ensure a review process.