JACKSON – A business that is proposing to construct a recycling center on Wright-Debow Road in Jackson has said it would be willing to pay its fair share to improve an intersection near the property where it wants to operate.
A and A Truck Parts is seeking a use variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to operate a recycling center. Recycling is not a permitted use in the Commercial Office/Light Industrial zone on Wright-Debow Road.
Previous testimony presented to the zoning board has indicated trucks will be brought to the site, broken down in a building and their parts resold.
The public hearing continued at the board’s Sept. 5 meeting. The company is represented by attorney Ray Shea, traffic engineer John Rea and Chief Operating Officer Tom Kerwin.
During the previous meeting when the application was heard, zoning board members suggested Rea examine two nearby intersections so he could provide pertinent testimony.
The intersections being discussed are Wright-Debow Road and Route 537, and Wright-Debow Road and West Commodore Boulevard (Route 526).
On Sept. 5, Rea said, “What I found … is that at the northwest corner of Wright-Debow Road and West Commodore Boulevard, there is a difficult radius that makes it difficult for trucks, particularly large trucks, to make the right turn to continue going west on West Commodore.
“Of course we are going to add some truck traffic to that (location). Plus passenger vehicle traffic, and employees to and from the site … I believe the northwest corner needs an improved radius so trucks and cars can make the right turn to go west on West Commodore,” he said.
Regarding the intersection of Route 537 and Wright-Debow Road, Rea said there is “really no reason” for trucks leaving the applicant’s property on Wright-Debow Road to travel north on Wright-Debow Road and turn left (heading west) onto Route 537.
Doing that would “only take them to the same intersection (Route 537 and Route 571) they can get to by going south on Wright-Debow Road and making a series of right turns, which are easier to make,” Rea said.
He said if it is determined improvements are needed at the intersection of Route 537 and Wright-Debow Road, the applicant would be willing to pay its fair share for the upgrades.
During his testimony, Kerwin said the heavy truck traffic would be a combination of roll-off trucks, similar to garbage trucks with roll-off containers, and tractor-trailer trucks.
“(The trucks) are not always 80,000 pounds, that is the maximum we would run, that is the maximum allowed by law. We do not run 80,000 pounds 90 percent of the time, so it would be a very small amount of trucks that would be at that kind of a weight. I do not think it would be one a day, it would be less than one a day,” Kerwin said.
Kerwin said most of the trucks run somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 pounds, with some at 50,000 pounds on the heavier end of the scale.
“We do get some low-boys or dump trailers that come close to the (maximum) 80,000 pounds,” he said. “The majority (of trucks coming to the site) will be roll-off trucks, a straight body truck.”
Attorney Ron Gasiorowski represents resident Charles Baker, an objector to the application.
The A and A Truck Parts application was approved by the zoning board several years ago, but Baker took the issue to court and won when a court ruled the board’s resolution describing details of the approval was insufficient. The case was remanded back to the board for reconsideration.
On Sept. 5, Gasiorowski said the application before the board now is a new application and not just a court remand waiting for a “rubber stamp” approval. He read a statement made by Shea at the beginning of the application.
According to Gasiorowski, Shea said, “This project was approved in 2014 by this board, it was approved by the Superior Court after that, then it went to the Appellate Division and the Appellate Division did not reverse (the zoning board’s) decision, it reversed the court order and vacated the resolution.
“It is an important distinction because as we sit here right now, the application before you has been approved. It was just sent back (to the zoning board) for additional testimony and to adopt a new resolution. That is the only reason we are here, we are not here to re-establish special reasons that are already established in 2014,” according to Shea’s statement.
Gasiorowski said Shea’s statement was “factually and legally” incorrect. He read from the Appellate Division’s decision that vacated the board’s “inadequate” resolution approving the application that remanded the application back to the board.
“I really want to disabuse the notion this is a rubber stamp type of approval coming back just for a new resolution. This is a new application, a new hearing and the burden of proof is on the applicant,” he said.
The zoning board’s attorney, Sean Gertner, said Shea and Gasiorowski “are both right in the sense that Mr. Shea is correct and (the applicant) has already done this, you (zoning board members) have the right to re-read the transcripts and review the evidence from the previous application.
“However, and in addition … the Appellate Division did not foreclose the board from reopening the hearing and considering additional evidence prior to that final decision. So it may not be from scratch because you cannot separate the fact that there has been previous evidence before the board and a conclusion had been reached,” Gertner said.
Gertner said the applicant must still meet criteria that is required to obtain a variance from the zoning board.
The A and A Truck Parts application was carried to the board’s Dec. 5 meeting for additional testimony.