ltr Diane Chandler encl application package 9624

medical professionals have concluded that this condition can be improved with a limited stay in a residential setting not requiring long term treatment. Without facilities like the one proposed, clients who are experiencing one of these periods of shortterm crisis would be remain in their current living situation, which could exacerbate their condition and or create safety concerns for themselves, their families and the community. Therefore, the proposed facility will clearly address an important health care need in our community and region and qualifies as an inherently beneficial use. Where a use is deemed to be inherently beneficial, that use presumptively satisfies the positive criteria required for a use variance, because such uses are assumed to promote the general welfare. Burbridgev Mine Hill Tp., 117 NJ 376, 386 (1990 ). In addition, an applicant seeking this relief, including an application involving an inherently beneficial use, must demonstrate that granting this relief can be accomplished without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. N.J.S.A.40:55D-70(d). To meet this burden, the Sica court identified a four-step balancing test including the following elements. First, the board must identify the public interest at stake. Second, the board must identify the detrimental effects that would ensue from the granting of a variance. Third, the board must determine whether it can reduce any detrimental effect by imposing reasonable conditions on the use and, if so, the weight accorded the adverse effect reduced by the anticipated effect of those restrictions. Fourth, the board should weigh the positive and negative criteria; thatis, the public interest against the public detriment, and determine whether, on balance, the grant of the variance would cause a substantial detriment to the public good. At the hearing on this application, we will present operational testimony and planning testimony to justify the conclusion that this proposed use meets the Sica test. First, as explained above, this facility will meet a critical public need. Second, granting the variance will not

anning testimony to justify the conclusion that this proposed use meets the Sica test. First, as explained above, this facility will meet a critical public need. Second, granting the variance will not result in any detrimental effects. To the neighbors and the surrounding community, the use will not appear any different than the assisted living facility that occupied this property for decades. The only traffic and parking associated with the proposed use will be employees and deliveries. Because no exterior changes are proposed, there will be no detrimental‘environmental impacts. The existing facility is well landscaped and screened from neighboring properties. Third, while the Applicant will entertain any suggested reasonable conditions, we do not believe any such conditions are required because we do not identify any detrimental effects. Finally, balancing the important public purpose of this use against any conceivable negative impacts, we submit that granting of the variance will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good. Furthermore, granting the relief will not result in a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. It is our position that the use is permitted in the zone. However, as our planner will explain, in the event a use variance is required, this type of use is very consistent with the zoning and current uses in this vicinity and, in fact, it continues the residential care use that operated on this facility for decades. 4889-4793-0337, v, 1