Allendale board carries nursing‑home expansion after neighbors cite parking, lighting and trash concerns

At a public hearing, the Allendale Land Use Board carried to Feb. 12, 2025, an application by Allendale Rehabilitation and Healthcare to build an 8,541‑square‑foot addition to its existing nonconforming assisted‑living and skilled‑nursing facility at 85 Hariton Road.

Board counsel opened the hearing by confirming the application file number and that the matter had been continued from earlier sessions. The applicant’s witnesses described three principal unresolved issues: where to locate the trash enclosure, how to screen the parking area that sits along the northern property line, and whether the plan requires relief for employee parking to allow effective landscaping.

Traffic consultant Scott Kennel of McDon and Ray Associates testified that the site generated about 600 two‑way vehicle trips per day on the Route 17 access and that the weekday peak hour produced roughly 50–70 vehicles. Kennel said parking counts done in August and October 2023 recorded a maximum of 107 vehicles parked during a shift change in an existing supply of 170 spaces. "We determined the subject site is generating approximately 600 vehicles a day," Kennel said, and projected that bed expansions (from 294 to 316) would raise peak parking demand to about 120 vehicles, leaving an estimated surplus of roughly 50 spaces.

Neighbors disputed whether the study reflected on‑the‑ground impacts and pressed operational issues. Jim Briggs of Nottingham Road told the board the facility’s ownership has changed and that the new investor group, Trico Partners, "looks to maximize investor returns with diligent acquisitions and value‑added capital improvements," a line he said was taken from Trico’s website. Briggs and other residents said the proposal would substantially increase parking and lighting visible from their back yards and could depress property values and quality of life.

Several residents presented a 13‑photo exhibit showing sight lines from private yards into the northern parking area and said employees regularly loiter, smoke and leave litter near the property line. One neighbor said garbage trucks had been arriving before the agreed daytime hours; the board and applicant discussed a prospective condition limiting refuse collection to daytime hours (roughly 8 a.m.–5/6 p.m.).

Applicant counsel and operations staff told the board they would accept a set of prospective conditions intended to mitigate neighbor impacts. The list—described on the record by counsel—includes removing 12 parking spaces along the northern lot line (eight proposed spaces and four existing), installing landscape buffering with plantings 6–8 feet tall at planting, shielding and post‑construction testing of exterior lighting with timed or motion‑sensing fixtures where appropriate, tying the emergency gate to a Knox/SOS box and the facility generator, prohibiting employee loitering in perimeter parking areas, requiring stormwater updates to address increased impervious coverage, and performing a radio survey for first‑responder access.

Board members repeatedly said several operational concerns needed verification before a final vote: whether promised controls on early refuse collections had been implemented, whether the northern parking reduction and plantings would be reflected in revised plans, and why ambulance call volumes to the facility had risen sharply in recent years (the board recorded ambulance‑call counts on the record and asked the applicant to investigate the drivers of that increase). The applicant agreed to return with operations staff and additional documentation.

With those outstanding items still under review, the board accepted the applicant’s consent to carry the matter. The chair announced the application will be placed on the agenda for Feb. 12, 2025, so the board’s professionals may review revised plans and the applicant can return with follow‑up testimony and evidence of the agreed conditions. No final vote on the variance or site changes was taken at the hearing.

If the applicant returns with the promised plan revisions and documentation, the board can consider a resolution and formal conditions at the next session; otherwise the public and board members said they expect tangible proof that operational problems have been addressed before any approval is granted.