ltr Diane Chandler encl application package 9624

We submit that the proposed facility is a “hospital” under either of the two NIDOH definitions. It will provide for “the diagnosis, treatment or care of individuals suffering from illness ...” and it will provide for “other medical and nursing care” for “periods exceeding 24 hours.” While it will not provide for “emergency, outpatient, surgical, obstetrical,” or convalescent care, the definition is not limited to those services and also includes “other medical and nursing care” where provided for periods exceeding 24 hours. Therefore, we submit that the proposed use is a permitted use and ask the Board to make this determination as well. Use Variance In the event that the Board upholds Ms. Gary-Adams' determination, then the Applicant requests a use variance. The proposed operator will use the existing structure without any exterior improvements that would trigger the need for site plan approval. The existing conditions also provide sufficient parking under the Ordinance. Therefore, we submit that the only relief required from this Board is a use variance, should it uphold the Zoning Officer's interpretation. As the Board is well aware, it's jurisdiction includes the authority to grant a variance, “for special reasons,” to permit a useina district restricted against such use. The proofs for demonstrating special reasons, generally referred to as the positive criteria, are substantially reduced when the use proposed is an inherently beneficial use, which is defined as follows: A use which is universally considered a value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare. Such a use includes, but is not limited to, a hospital, school, childcare center, group home, or a wind, solar or photovoltaic energy facility or structure. NJ.S.A. 40:55D-4. See also Med Ctr. v. Princeton Tp. Zoning, 343 N.J. Super 177, 201 (App. Div. 2001); Kunzler.v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966 )(nospitals are inherently beneficial uses, including a private hospital for the emotionally disturbed in a residential district). See also Scerbo v. Orange Bd. of Adj., 121 N.J. Super. 378 (Law. Div. 1972)(residential narcotic rehabilitation and treatment center under the supervision of the missioner of Health was a “hospital” and qualified as an “institutional use” under a municipal zoning ordinance)(decided priorto adoption of “inherently

d treatment center under the supervision of the missioner of Health was a “hospital” and qualified as an “institutional use” under a municipal zoning ordinance)(decided priorto adoption of “inherently beneficial use” provisions to the MLUL); Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Wall, 127 N.J.152 (1992) (use variance upheld to permit 40-bed residential facility for the rehabilitation of head trauma victims in a residential district). Whether the proposed use qualifies as a “hospital” or not, it is abundantly clear that this facility is inherently beneficial. Our community and region, like the rest of the country, are greatly in need of facilities that will provide care for those suffering with mental illness and co-occurring disorders like substance abuse. The proposed facility will bridge a gap in the chain of services available to these individuals. Some individuals may find themselves at times in a condition, on a temporary basis, that prohibits them from living at home or in other residential settings, like a group home, but 4889-4793-0337, v. 1