Planning Bd. carries SONIC application to Aug. 13

BY PATRICIA A. MILLER Staff Writer

BRICK TOWNSHIP – The senior citizens who live near a proposed SONIC restaurant at the corner of Brick Boulevard and Molly Lane want no part of “America’s Drive-In.”

They turned out in force for the July 9 Planning Board meeting to oppose the plans. But board members carried the application to the Aug. 13 meeting so more research could be done on the site’s history.

“I’ve never seen a subdivision handled this way,” Planning Board Attorney Joseph Coronato said. “I want to find out if there is additional information. I want to review it myself and find out what the township’s position is.”

“Oh, jeez, another stall,” a man in the audience said.

The residents are worried about noise and traffic from the restaurant, which would be open all year, attorney Ronald Gasioruwski said after the meeting.

The residents hired Gasioruwski to represent them at board meetings after the first Planning Board hearing on the matter earlier this year.

The applicant, Brick Boulevard Real Estate, wants to put up a 1,536-square-foot SONIC restaurant on the 1.35-acre tract in the northwest corner of Brick Boulevard and Molly Lane. The restaurant is a permitted use in the B-3 Highway Development zone, which calls for a minimum lot area of 2 acres, according to Township PlannerMichael P. Fowler’s report on the application.

The proposal includes a drive-up window service area, an outdoor covered seating area and three drive-up service canopies. SONIC features carhops who roller skate to customers’ cars to deliver orders and outdoor speakers.

The lot was part of a Planned Unit Development approved in the mid-1980s, which included a commercial building, adjacent offices, retail shops and senior housing. The SONIC site was partially improved as a pad site. It was later approved for an Arby’s restaurant with a drive-up service area. Arby’s did not follow up on the application, Fowler said in his report.

Gasioruwski held an informal information session with the residents in the Township Council caucus room after Planning Board members carried the application, to explain what board members were looking for.

“Right now, you’re sort of in a holding pattern,” he told the residents. “I said to you in the beginning, one of my goals was to have this go to the Zoning Board.”

The SONIC site was once part of the planned unit development, a mix of uses.

“All of the other uses, including your property, was built out,” he said. “As time went by, there was a foreclosure. In order to track the title clearly, there had to be a subdivision. My impression is that likely was never created. If the Planning Board determines it was not created, they will probably refer it to the [Zoning] Board of Adjustment.”

The application would have to meet stricter standards if it went before the Board of Adjustment, he said.

“This property was set aside for retail use,” Gasioruwski said. “But not the type of intense use SONIC has. It’s certainly different than a bookstore or a lingerie shop. They are really plopping it down in the center.”

The required lot depth in the B-3 Highway Development zone is 200 feet. SONIC is proposing a lot depth of 298 feet. The zone calls for a minimum front-yard setback of 75 feet, compared to the proposed 22.1 feet. The minimum rear-yard setback in the zone is 50 feet. SONIC is proposing a 117-foot setback, according to Fowler’s report.

The application contains a number of requestedwaivers. The zone requires 62 parking spaces, while the applicant is proposing 49 spaces. The canopy should be a minimum of 20 feet from the side property line, and SONIC’s plan calls for 10.5 feet from the westerly side property. Although street trees are required along all site frontages, the applicant is not proposing any on Molly Lane.

SONIC will have to show that the strict application of the zoning regulations would provide a hardship to the developer, Fowler’s report states.

“The applicant must also prove that the variances can be granted without substantial impairment to the public good, nor the substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the township’s master plan and zoning ordinance, Fowler said in the report.