Developer seeks zoning change for 164‑bed senior living project at 2600 Filmont Ave; commissioners ask for more study

Developers of a proposed senior living complex at 2600 Filmont Avenue presented a revised sketch plan to the Lower Township Board on June 9 and asked the board to consider a zoning text amendment that would allow the proposed use in the BOI (institutional/office) district.

Attorney Michael Matting introduced the project team; principal Manny Mi described the redesign that reduced the earlier plan from roughly 195 beds to a 164‑bed facility. The proposed program includes 100 assisted‑living units, 32 memory‑care beds, 12 personal‑care and 20 independent‑living units, plus shared amenities such as a fitness room, theater, dining room and therapy/medical office space. The applicant said the revised footprint uses existing impervious parking areas where possible and preserves a wooded northeast corner of the site.

Emily Goldstein of Econole Solutions presented fiscal projections. Her team estimated an annual combined fiscal impact to county, township and school district of about $541,000, with the school district receiving roughly $300,000 of that total. After accounting for township service costs, Econole projected a small net positive to the township—about $18,000 annually—and one‑time development fee revenue of approximately $700,000. Goldstein described these numbers as conservative estimates based on comparable properties in the region.

Board members and residents raised several operational and community concerns. The township’s public safety staff and local emergency providers said assisted and memory care facilities typically generate more EMS responses than independent living, and commissioners and the chief asked for a clearer projection of call volume and any offsetting on‑site clinical capacity. During the meeting staff and commenters estimated the facility could generate roughly eight to 10 calls per month at steady state—higher than typical residential volumes—and cautioned the board to quantify how that may affect staffing and mutual aid arrangements.

Traffic and access were also highlighted as outstanding issues. The applicant’s traffic consultant said a full traffic impact study and a Pendot review will be required because the site accesses a state road; Bowman Consulting recommended that township and Pendot studies proceed concurrently. The board asked the applicant to pursue traffic analyses and Pendot coordination and said it would like to see those results before considering any zoning change.

Floodplain and stormwater questions were raised too. The site contains pockets of flood‑plain constraints and areas that routinely receive stormwater flow; engineers noted the proposal includes stormwater management measures, green roof concepts and off‑site infiltration options but said a full land‑development submission is required to satisfy township, NPDES and floodplain requirements.

Public comment was mixed: some residents expressed opposition to the scale, building height and potential strain on emergency services; others welcomed the fiscal return and the reuse of an underutilized site that could support supportive services for aging households. The board did not vote on zoning changes; members requested additional studies (traffic, EMS usage projections, and detailed stormwater design) and asked staff and the applicant to return with those materials for further consideration.

What's next: the applicant will pursue the traffic and Pendot review stream, advance stormwater/land‑development engineering and provide the board with the requested analyses; no zoning decision will be taken until those studies are provided and reviewed.