February 16, 2017

Mr. Steck stated that a family daycare is a permitted use in a non-residential zone and listed all of the detriments of having a daycare in a home. Mr. Steck stated that the applicant is volunteering conditions for the approval such as limiting the number of children to twenty (20); staggered morning drop-off; operating the daycare only on week days; drop- off in the parking lot and not on the street; the owner of the house owns the daycare center and cannot lease it out; owner is only utilizing a small component of the building and no signs will be on the property. Mr. Steck stated that the family daycare is also a second use on one site but the State permits it by right. Chairman Neuer stated that a family daycare was the basis for Mr. Steck’s testimony; the Chairman then stated that those criteria do not apply here because, among other things, the applicant is proposing a child daycare and that this different use is not permitted. Mr. Steck asked Chairman Neuer if the Board denies this application can the applicant can open a family daycare; he replied yes. Chairman Neuer stated that Mr. Steck’s testimony referenced a family daycare; he said this application is not the same because the Board has to approve a child daycare. Chairman Neuer asked Mr. Steck if the Board could reduce the number of children to ten (10) as a condition; he said yes. Chairman Neuer stated that the applicant testified that the proposed daycare will be affordable and asked Mr. Steck what affordable daycare is; he said today families need two incomes to own a house and that this is an alternative to allow a husband and wife to have two incomes. Mr. Steck did define affordable daycare. Ms. Weiss stated that there must be a reason that the State will only allow up to eight (8) children at a family daycare and that anything over that number requires Board approval. Mr. Steck said that more children means that there will be a greater impact but it does not take away that it is an inherently beneficial use.