Plan for Millstone car wash kicked to the curb Zoning Board votes against proposed Route 537 facility BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer MILLSTONE - No car washes in Millstone. That was the Zoning Board's unanimous verdict at its Aug. 22 meeting, when it denied a variance for the construction of a 9,820-square-foot car wash and oil lube service center on Route 537. The board heard applicant 537 ABR, LLC's, proposal for the facility over its last three meetings. Prior to the vote, Michael Geller, the applicant's engineer and planner, presented the board with a map of the area near the 4-acre site for the proposed facility. He said the area has a mix of retail buildings, gas stations and single-family houses and noted that Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, the Jackson Premium Outlets and various fast food businesses are also located nearby. Geller said that ordinances specifically exclude automotive services from all township zones. However, he said that the township's master plan has an economic development element, which includes a goal of diversifying the economic base. He provided a copy of a zoning map, showing that only 8.2 percent of township land is zoned for nonresidential development, and said that his client's proposal would expand the economic base. In July, the Township Committee indefinitely tabled an ordinance that would have allowed car washes as permitted "conditional uses" in the township's highway commercial (HC) and HC 1 zones along Route 33 and Route 537. Geller said that his client's application met every standard in the ordinance, even though the ordinance was not moved forward. Geller also presented an exhibit showing the car wash and oil lube facilities within a 10-mile radius of the applicant's site. All the facilities in the exhibit were located seven miles or more from the site. The exhibit showed 14 facilities, only one of which - on Route 33 in Manalapan - has both a car wash and an oil lube service on the same premises. Zoning Board Chairman Michael Novellino said that other facilities, such as Wal-Mart and Sears, are located within the geographic range of the exhibit but had not been included in it. Other board members also said that they knew of additional facilities that were not included in the exhibit. When Novellino questioned Geller's methodology for determining the need for such services in the area, Geller alleged that his exhibit showed a demographic need based on the location of the site for the proposed use. Geller said that a responsible car wash operation on a managed site is superior to individuals washing vehicles in their driveways or in parking lots. He presented a N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) poster that promotes the use of car washes to prevent runoff from home washings. Township Planner Richard Coppola told the board that the township's master plan is silent on the car wash issue and that the tabled car wash ordinance would not have permitted oil lube facilities. Novellino said that uses not expressly permitted by the master plan are not permitted in the township. Coppola said that the Township Committee is in charge of changing township zoning. While the master plan may currently be silent on car washes, the governing body has the ability to amend zoning ordinances to allow them. "The town is saying, 'at least not yet,' " Coppola said with regard to the committee's recent vote to table the issue. Township Engineer Matt Shafai noted that the proposed facility would consume more water than any other uses currently permitted in the HC zone. Board member Steven Lambros asked Geller what he thinks is a reasonable distance for a resident to drive to a car wash. Geller responded that a car wash is not a "destination-type use" and said that five miles may be a long distance for some people to drive but not others. Kenneth Pape, attorney for the applicant, said that car washes are not sites of environmental contaminants and that modern systems are designed to be environmentally safe. He asked if the board would consider voting on the car wash and oil lube facility separately. Vella said that the presentation, over the last three hearings, seemed to marry the two uses. He said that he did not think it would be unfair for the board to consider the application based on how it was presented. After Pape said he would be comfortable with the board taking a single vote, the board voted unanimously against issuing the variance.