Special meeting of the township zoning board of adjustment to hear an application for a Wawa on Route 33 set for earlier this week was canceled
by James McEvoy, Managing Editor
HAMILTON — A special meeting of the township zoning board of adjustment to hear an application for a Wawa on Route 33 set for earlier this week was canceled, according to Michael Balint, board attorney.
Mr. Balint said Delco Development, the applicant proposing gas station and convenience store, had asked for the application to be pulled.
He said the rationale had to do with the concerns on behalf of the applicant that the notice may have been defective.
”There was some question regarding the notice,” he said, noting there is an objector with legal counsel. Daniel Steele, owner of a BP gas station on Route 33, is suing the township months after the township removed separation requirements between gas stations.
William Juliano, chairman of Delco Development, confirmed they sought to re-notice, but only after a tenant in an adjoining building to the proposed Wawa site wanted to revise the size of their structure.
Mr. Juliano also suggested opponents of the Wawa, particularly other gas station owners, don’t want the competition.
”But America is competition,” he said, noting other communities have benefited from Wawa’s pricing policies.
Mr. Balint noted the applicant will re-notice prior to returning to the board, which he said will happen, but was able to confirm when.
Vanessa Krispel, board secretary, said no date has been set for when the applicant may return.
In April, the council approved an ordinance removing the separation requirement by a 4-1 margin at the April 16 meeting. Previously, the township’s ordinance prohibited gas stations from being built within 1,500 feet of each other.
The township council approved the measure after Lindsay Burbage, township attorney, and Gary Forshner, an attorney who represents the developer that may build a Wawa gas station on Route 130, said the ordinance as is would not stand up in court.
However, R. William Potter, the attorney representing Mr. Steele, disagrees.
”The basis for the repeal of that ordinance was gravely flawed by some inaccurate information claiming that it would never withstand a challenge in court,” Mr. Potter previously said.
He noted instances where such separation clauses have stood up in court, including the state Supreme Court.
In response, Township Business Administrator John Ricci said they will defend the ordinance change.
Like township officials, Mr. Juliuano believes the ordinance repealed in April was illegal.
”(The town) didn’t do anything out of the ordinary,” he said, noting that other court decisions have stated such restrictions could not be placed.
”We fully expect to answer any of the citizens pertaining to the development and we expect to have representation there,” he said.

