Wawa tries again for Eatontown location

Gas station-convenience store proposed for former mobile home site

BY NICOLE ANTONUCCI
Staff Writer

EATONTOWN — Four years after its application was denied, Wawa Inc. is once again seeking to build a gas station-convenience store in Eatontown.

Residents filled the zoning board meeting room on March 4 to hear the first round of testimony for the new Wawa proposed at the former Circle Manufactured Home Park on Route 35, only to learn that the application was being delayed until April 1.

“We were planning to proceed this evening except that two of my witnesses informed me by email over the weekend that they couldn’t be here because they were carrying another case in another jurisdiction,” Peter Falvo, attorney for the applicant, Fidelity Eatontown LLC, told the board.

“I was going to go with the engineer tonight, but he had another case in Matawan. I respectfully ask that the case be carried,” Salvo added.

The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new retail center that includes a 5,051 square-foot Wawa convenience store with eight fueling islands, a 4,475 squarefoot Chick-Fil-A fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru, and a 12,020 square-foot mixeduse commercial building that will house a bank and retail-office space.

The site is located at the intersection of Route 35 and Wyckoff Road, which is in the B-2 MH business zone that permits retail, bank, office and gasoline stations, and conditionally permits fast-food uses.

The 6.17-acre parcel is currently the site of an abandoned manufactured home community and an auto-service facility.

The site plan was slated to be presented before the planning board, but according to borough engineer T&M Associates, the application does not comply with the conditional uses for the fast-food building, which requires approval from the zoning board.

The applicant is also seeking a variance from a borough ordinance that restricts the construction of a gas station within 200 feet of a residential property line or within 2,000 feet of another gas station.

The same variance drew opposition from borough residents in 2008, when Wawa Inc. proposed a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week convenience store and 12-pump gas station at the site of the former Eatontown Roller Rink on Route 35.

“This variance has been put into effect to protect the homeowners and the businesses,” resident Frank Januszewski said in an interview. “That is very important. There is a reason why you don’t put a gas station 200 feet near someone’s house.”

Januszewski was among a group of residents who retained legal counsel to fight the 2008 application, which was denied by the planning board.

He said that many of the residents are waiting to hear testimony at the first meeting before making a decision whether to fight the application.

“I don’t want to make this about ‘us versus Wawa,’” Januszewski said. “I don’t have a personal vendetta against Wawa. It’s about us standing for good development and the ordinance in place is to ensure good development.”

“I will stop [by] Wawa once it’s built,” he added. “It’s a good product. It’s just that this location is not the place for it.”

However, he said that many of the impacts to traffic, environment, police and surrounding businesses are the same, if not worse, than the 2008 application at the roller rink site.

“It seems appropriate that the meeting was moved to April 1,” Januszewski said. That’s April Fools Day, and a Wawa super gas station at that location is a foolish proposal.”

The applicant is also seeking variances for setbacks, parking, building height and impervious coverage.

After zoning board Chairman Robert Carnevale announced that the application would be heard on April 1, residents expressed frustration.

“How many times can they prolong this?” one resident asked.

Marc Leckstein, board attorney, said there is no legal requirement about the number of times an application is carried, but the board could require the applicant to re-notice owners of property within 200 feet of the site.

“It is up to the board,” Leckstein said. “Typically the board will say that they have to re-notice. There is no legal precedent.”