Board to hear Meirs Road warehouse application Officials must consider water quality and endangered-species issues BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP Staff Writer UPPER FREEHOLD - Meirs Road residents have put a temporary stop to warehouse development in their neighborhood. Superior Court Judge Alexander D. Lehrer sitting in the Monmouth County Courthouse in Freehold on Jan. 12 remanded Freehold's JAC RAW LAND Co.'s warehouse application, which received final approval on April 25, back before the Planning Board. A group of residents called Meirs Road Residents Against Warehousing filed an appeal with the court in June asking for a reversal of the Planning Board's decision that authorized the construction of an 18,698-square-foot warehouse on the corner of Meirs Road and Route 537. The 2.4-acre property is located in the highway development (HD) zone. Regarding the decision, Phil Sinicropi, a spokesperson for Meirs Road Residents Against Warehousing, said, "We're pretty excited." The judge has given the group a limited opportunity to refute JAC RAW LAND Co.'s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with regard to stormwater runoff, water quality, and threatened and endangered species issues, Sinicropi said. "But we are not limited to only disputing those issues once the application goes back before the board," he said. The judge ruled that Meirs Road Residents Against Warehousing has to furnish its expert reports by Feb. 12. Lehrer also ruled that JAC RAW LAND Co. would have to submit any reply reports by March 12. "The Upper Freehold Planning Board shall consider this application at its last meeting in March or at the first regular meeting in April," Lehrer ordered. He said the court would continue the matter at 1:30 p.m. on April 27. The Planning Board conducted hearings on the application on March 9 and April 25, when it also approved the application. The resident group alleged that the public was not treated fairly when the applicant submitted a revised EIS for the project on the night the board voted in favor of the plan. Sinicropi had urged the Planning Board not to vote on the matter so that the public could have a professional evaluate the revised environmental impact report. The group's lawsuit alleged a number of deficiencies throughout the approval process. The suit said the applicant determined that there is no habitat suitable for endangered or threatened species on the proposed site, yet the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) had determined that the proposed site does consist of habitat suitable for three endangered/threatened species. The suit also alleges that the applicant failed to comply with a number of provisions of the township's stormwater control ordinance in that it routes all discharge to a single point on the property and does not provide off-site stability calculations or sufficient settling of pollutants in the detention basin, among other infractions. The resident group has hired Ringoes-based Princeton Hydro, an environmental engineering firm, to dispute the applicant's EIS. "Their EIS is elementary and doesn't address the letter of the law, and our environmental engineer will probably disprove the whole thing," Sinicropi said. Sinicropi said the EIS contends that the warehouse development would not affect neighbors' drinking wells and that the applicant planned to install filters in the project's catch basins. "The only thing those filters do is filter out leaves," Sinicropi said. "In towns where they have sewer systems, this type of project requires the applicant to install a separator to separate the toxic flow from sewer systems." When asked if he would be satisfied with the development if the developer used a separator, Sinicropi said, "If they build a garden center, yeah, greenhouses, yeah, a roadside stand that sells produce, yeah, but otherwise, no." He continued, "We don't have a public sewer system or city water, and a project like that needs both and needs to be built in an area where there are no endangered species." Sinicropi said Upper Freehold is an environmentally sensitive farm and agricultural community with a country code that was established to protect its way of life from both large-scale development and overdevelopment. "The professionals in this town are not sensitive to that," he alleged. "I'm not against developing land - I am against developing it irresponsibly." Sinicropi said he's optimistic about the application having to go before the board again. "The application and use for that particular project is so environmentally damaging that I don't think they could revise their plans so that they're kind to the environment," he said. Sinicropi said his group does not fault the Planning Board members who voted to approve the project. "The board took bad advice from its professionals," Sinicropi said. Sinicropi alleged that Township Planner Mark Remsa does not have a handle on what the community is about and that the Planning Board's attorney gave the board the go-ahead on approving a project without following "the letter of the law." "What's discouraging here is not only do we as residents have to pay legal and professional fees to defend our environment, but we as taxpayers also have to pay the township to defend themselves," Sinicropi said. "We have to pay twice for something our professionals didn't do right in the first place." With regard to Remsa, Sinicropi said, "Who's pulling the strings? I don't feel he's got a good feeling for the community." When asked if he thinks Upper Freehold politicians have some sort of agenda, Sinicropi said, "I don't know the inner workings of the politicians. I do know from my limited experience with the Planning Board that Planning Board officials gave bad advice and it was just proven by a judge in Freehold." Sinicropi had some planning advice of his own to offer. "The open space tax is the best investment I as a property owner can make," he said. When asked for comment regarding the issues Sinicropi brought up in relation to this article, Mayor Stephen Fleischacker, who is also a member of the township's Planning Board, said, "Any comment on your article could potentially disqualify me from participating in the rehearing of this matter." Fleischacker and Township Committeeman Sal Diecidue, who is also on the Planning Board, voted against approving the warehouse application on April 25. Fleischacker, who had visited the site of the potential warehouse development, had previously expressed concerns that the development would discharge runoff onto neighboring properties including Sinicropi's.