Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allendale Land Use Board denies proposed expansion of assisted‑living facility at 85 Haritton Road
Summary
After yearlong hearings, the Allendale Land Use Board denied an application for an 8,541‑square‑foot addition to Allendale Rehabilitation and Healthcare, citing insufficient proof to grant multiple D‑ and C‑variance requests; the denial was adopted in a formal resolution.
The Allendale Land Use Board on Wednesday voted to deny a proposed 8,541‑square‑foot expansion to Allendale Rehabilitation and Healthcare at 85 Haritton Road, concluding that the applicant had not met the burden of proof required to justify multiple variances.
Council for the board summarized the yearlong public hearings and the relief sought by the applicant, saying the proposal required “D‑use variance relief, additional use variance relief, a number of bulk variance items and waivers.” After hearing witness testimony and reviewing the application, “the board was not compelled to vote affirmatively based upon the proofs presented,” Council said. The board moved to deny and then adopted a resolution documenting that denial.
Why it mattered: The proposal would have expanded a nonconforming assisted‑living and skilled‑nursing facility in a residential zoning district. Board members emphasized that the scale of requested departures from the zoning ordinance and the application’s demonstration of need and mitigation measures were insufficient to warrant approval.
Vote and next steps: The board recorded a motion and second to adopt the resolution of denial; the motion passed with the members present voting in the affirmative on the resolution to deny. The denial resolves the pending application; any future expansion would require a new application and fresh proofs.
Board process and context: Council explained that some nonconforming conditions on the property would be exacerbated by the proposed addition and that, despite multiple rounds of testimony, the board found the applicant’s proofs did not justify the requested relief. The resolution memorializing the denial was adopted at the meeting and closes this phase of review.
