Court involvement may not stop warehouse project Resident group plans to appeal board's latest approval of development BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer Upper Freehold's Meirs Road residents may have won the courthouse battle, but they seem to have lost the warehouse war. Despite a court order to disregard testimony it heard about the Meirs Road warehouse proposal at a June 26 meeting and to only consider information presented about the application before April 26, 2006, the township's Planning Board on Aug. 28 reaffirmed its earlier decision to approve the project. Board member and Mayor Stephen Fleischacker was absent from the meeting and therefore did not vote on the application. Bob Freiberger did not attend the June 26 meeting and was unable to review the recorded version because he could not get the CD to work. He was deemed ineligible to vote, even though the board was not supposed to consider anything raised at that meeting. The rest of the board voted unanimously to reaffirm its original approval. A group of residents called Meirs Road Residents Against Warehousing had brought a lawsuit against the Planning Board for its earlier decision to approve the project on the same date that the applicant submitted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the development. The residents argued that the board and the public did not have enough time to appropriately review the document before the final vote on the application. Freehold's JAC Raw Land Co. submitted an application to the Planning Board last year to build an 18,098-square-foot building at the intersection of Meirs Road and Route 537. At that time, the applicant's attorney, Michelle Tullio, said that the warehouse is a permitted use on the site, which is in the township's highway development zone. The board approved the project in April 2006. However, as a result of the lawsuit, on Jan. 12, state Superior Court Judge Alexander D. Lehrer, sitting in Freehold, remanded the warehouse application back before the board so the applicant could address items that the EIS should have covered, including how the project would affect stormwater runoff and water quality, as well as threatened and endangered species in the area. The applicant gave testimony regarding the EIS issues and submitted both a revised EIS and site plan at the board's June 26 meeting. Also, at the June meeting, Tullio told the board that the project would comply with new stormwater regulations that the township has not yet adopted. Kyle Weise, of Trident Environmental Consultants in Toms River, also appeared before the board on behalf of the applicant during that meeting. He told the board that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on wildlife in the area and that the property does not have habitat for species that are considered threatened or endangered. However, on Aug. 27, as a result of the lawsuit, Superior Court Judge Daniel Waldman, sitting in Monmouth County, ruled that the Planning Board could only consider testimony it heard regarding the project by the April 2006 hearing and could not consider the June 2007 testimony, nor the amended EIS and site plan. At the Aug. 28 hearing on the project, Planning Board Attorney Tim Hiskey said, "What is wrong with this Judge Waldman? This doesn't make sense." Planning Board Chairman Richard Stern said, "The judge made us go backwards." When she appeared before the board again on Aug. 28, Tullio said, "In a nutshell, the Planning Board tonight, as instructed by the court, is to decide if the plan decided on April 26 is still an approved plan." Tullio told the board that the project has approvals from the township's Board of Health, the Freehold Area Board of Health, the Monmouth County Planning Board and the Freehold Soil Conservation District. Tullio said, "The objectors want you to say they're right and we're all crazy. "I ask the Planning Board that they not be bullied by Phil Sinicropi and his attorney," she continued. "They've turned the proceedings into a three-ring circus." She alleged that Sinicropi, who lives on Meirs Road and has been a spokesperson for the group against the warehouse development, once said that he does not want anything in his backyard. "He decided to move into a house in a commercial zone," she said. She told the board that it would be difficult for the group to get a Planning Board approval - for an application without any variances - overturned. "It is so difficult to overturn Planning Board approval on a use with no bulk variances," she said. "They have to prove your decision was arbitrary and capricious." Stuart Lieberman, the attorney for the resident group, told the board that his clients believe that the Planning Board's initial decision regarding the application is legally inappropriate. He said an appeal of that decision is still pending in the courts. Lieberman said that the application lacks a maintenance plan for the development's stormwater facilities. "If the [stormwater] system fails, under state law the town is ultimately responsible," he said. Lieberman also alleged that the application has to include a definition and evaluation of all potable wells within 500 feet of the project. He said that Sinicropi has concerns about water quality and what runoff from the new development could do to wells in the area. Upon hearing Lieberman's arguments, Tullio claimed that the complainants are alleging that her client is not complying with laws that aren't even on the books. "They're not the law, they're not applicable," she said. Township Engineer Glenn Gerken said that the applicant complied with all the laws that were in place at the time the application received approval. Although the hearing did not have a public comment portion, Sinicropi insisted that the public be heard and Stern acquiesced. "My name has been dragged into this by the applicant's attorney," Sinicropi said. Tullio replied, "You filed a lawsuit. We didn't drag you into this." At that point, Lieberman asked for an adjournment because Fleischacker was not present. Hiskey replied that the Planning Board would never get anything done if it were unable to proceed when one of its members is absent. Sinicropi told the board that he is not a bully. He said he is a father, a member of the community and a volunteer firefighter. He said that the applicant has a duty to build responsibly, and he called the proposed development "irresponsible." "In my opinion, just because it's a permitted use doesn't mean it has to be approved," he said. After the board rendered its decision, Sinicropi said that the resident group would appeal the board's latest decision regarding the application