By: Cara Latham
UPPER FREEHOLD The Planning Board last week gave approval, for the second time, to a warehouse application that has faced opposition by a group of residents for more than a year.
The application submitted by Freehold-based developer JAC Raw Land Co. LLC, to build a 13,940-square-foot warehouse in a highway commercial zone on Meirs Road was approved Aug. 28. The warehouse would contain 750 square feet of office space on the first floor and 4,450 square feet on the second floor.
The Planning Board approved the application after Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Daniel Waldman ruled the day before that the board could only consider information it received before April 26, 2006, with the exception of three expert reports and testimony pertaining to them.
That’s because the board gave the original approval in April 2006, but opponents of the proposed warehouse the Meirs Road Residents Against Warehousing who live either adjacent to the warehouse site or across from it, filed an appeal in Superior Court in December.
Residents argued that following their appeal in which the court sent the application back to the board in January because JAC’s environmental impact statement documents weren’t submitted 10 days prior to the board’s approval the developer made changes to its EIS documents. Judge Waldman ruled that the board could only consider two reports from Princeton Hydro and one from Geller, Sive and Co. that were reviewed after April 26, 2006, before giving approval, again, to the application.
"It was refreshing that the board had the confidence to stand by and defend the previous approval, despite what I consider to be many misrepresentations by the objectors," Michelle Tullio, attorney for JAC, said after the hearing.
Stuart Lieberman, attorney for the resident group, called the board’s decision predictable, but said he was optimistic that the decision will be overturned in Superior Court, where the issue was already scheduled to return as part of the residents’ original appeal.
"We’re going to go over that transcript, and I’m prepared to explain to the court where it is that the board made some errors, and they did make errors, and they were big errors," he said. "It’s clear that the board relied very heavily on its professionals, and I don’t think that went so well."
During the hearing last week, Mr. Lieberman found issue with three main areas of the developer’s application.
He said the detention basin provided in the developer’s plans provided no water treatment whatsoever, as required by a township ordinance; there was no maintenance plan for stormwater facilities, as required by state law; and there was no discussion about the surface and subsurface water quality.
"One of the things that really sticks out like a sore thumb is this issue of water quality," he said. "The EIS statement required an analysis of background water quality information," which he said the developer never did.
He referenced a section of the township’s ordinance that states that the developer had to provide an analysis of the potential impact of the warehouse on the surface and groundwater quality of the adjoining properties, which also was never done, he said.
"I believe the reason that they don’t want to provide it to you is that they are concerned about the effect this warehouse is going to have on their (residents’) water quality," he added.
However, Ms. Tullio told the board that the stormwater management plan met all of the requirements of the township’s ordinance and state requirements, and that the board and engineer found them to be satisfactory when they approved it last year.
If the board were to change its decision, "that would be disregarding all of your professionals that are hired and retained by this township, your own township engineer, and all the outside agencies," Ms. Tullio said.
The application already has received approval from the township’s Board of Health, the Freehold Area Health Department, the Freehold Soil Conservation District and the Monmouth County Planning Board, she added.
"What the objectors want you to basically say is they’re right and we’re all crazy," she said. "That’s just too far-fetched, too ludicrous and absurd to take that position, and I would ask that this board not be bullied and intimidated by (resident) Mr. (Phil) Sinicropi or his attorney that has basically turned all of these proceedings into a mockery and a three-ring circus."
"Our position is that those don’t apply because the ordinance wasn’t in effect," Township Engineer Glenn Gerken said during the meeting, referring to Mr. Lieberman’s arguments.

