HOWELL – Those hoping the local planning board would decide on the Victory Road warehouse proposal must wait a little longer. The application is back on the schedule for November 2, 2023.
Planning board members heard over three hours of testimony on the proposal from AAVRHW Property, LLC on October 5 before deciding it was too late in the evening to deliver an outcome on the project.
That meeting was the fourth time the application’s presentation continued before the planning board. Since November 29, 2022, it had been listed and rescheduled more than a dozen times.
The proposal, which includes cutting down a large portion of the woods and constructing a 203,802 square-foot warehouse/office building, 25 loading dock spaces and multiple parking spaces for trailers and passenger vehicles, has been met with strong opposition from area residents.
Over 100 signs have been erected in protest of the approval, and a group collectively referred to as the objector neighbors has retained attorney Brittany W. DeBord to represent their opposition to the application.
One of the initial concerns raised by DeBord revolved around whether the planning board was the appropriate venue for the application. She highlighted the applicant’s intentions to enhance an access point located on private property at the intersection of Victory and Route 547.
DeBord contended that this off-site improvement should be integrated into the warehouse application. Notably, the private property falls within a zoning district that does not allow warehousing. Therefore, she said, the developer should go before the town’s zoning board to get approval to get a commercial use on residential land.
“It is also my understanding that the developer intends the space to be more of a flex space,” added DeBord. “The developer has added a number of office spaces to this warehouse development and has discussed this development as a flex space. That is not a permitted use in this SED zone.”
The applicant’s attorney, Robert Simon, argued that the application did not need to be referred to the zoning board because the improvements to the public right of way are not necessary for the warehouse to operate and are a public safety benefit.
Simon also denied allegations that the applicant intended to change its current warehouse application to flex space. Although Simon had submitted plans as a courtesy that included more than the original two spaces, no testimony was given to introduce the alternative plans.
The planning board voted to retain jurisdiction after listening to counsel from the board’s attorney, Ronald Cucchiaro, who referred to the road issue as unnecessary to ingress and egress the property. Cucchiaro also said that since the application had not changed, it should be considered in its present form.
Storm Water Management
The attorneys discussed new inland flood protection rules from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Howell Township has not created a new ordinance that reflects those changes.
Debord argued that the new rules should apply because they relate to health and public safety. She also said that the board has the authority to apply the new rules even if they are not an ordinance.
However, Simon countered that the new rules should not apply because the application was submitted before the state adopted the new rules. The planning board attorney agreed, saying that the time of application rule should be used. The developer will still need to obtain approvals from the DEP.
Tung-To Lam, PE, the engineer appearing on behalf of the applicant, discussed some of the highlights made to the application. These included changes made as a result of comments from the objector residents and an expert retained on their behalf.
Although Lam did not feel that the seasonal high groundwater table would be high enough to potentially go above the French drain, he added an impermeable liner to the design to address the objectors’ comments.
Lam noted that although there was some area of pipe length where the seasonal high waters were above the invert, he felt it did not represent a problem. He added that it is his usual practice to include vegetation on the side slope of a basin.
Geoffrey M. Goll, PE, the engineering expert for the objector neighbors, countered Lam’s testimony. Goll explained that the original intent of the drain was to capture surface water, not groundwater. However, he is concerned that the drain may also capture groundwater, negating the trench’s infiltration volume.
Goll said that putting trees on an embankment could also become problematic because of issues with roots creating conduits through the embankments.
Overall, Goll’s testimony suggested that the proposed design could be a concern for residents in the area, as it could lead to increased flooding and other problems.
The Residents Speak Out
Betty Velez-Gimbel, whose farm is across the street from the proposed warehouse, expressed numerous concerns, starting with its environmental impact.
Velez-Gimbel highlighted the significant amount of soil and building construction involved, which could have potential impacts on the area’s groundwater and the stability of surrounding properties. Velez-Gimbel worried about the effects of thousands of heavy truck trips bringing materials to the site and the potential for soil settling to affect nearby homes and her farm.
She also emphasized concerns about changes in drainage patterns and increased surface water runoff, especially given the recent rise in rainstorms leading to flooding. She noted that climate change might be altering rainfall patterns.
She expressed concerns about potential air and water pollution due to the project’s large-scale operations and raised questions about septic system approval. Velez-Gomez pointed out that the removal of more than a thousand trees would severely impact the area as well.
At one point, Velez-Gimbel said that some of the design problems were not rectified until the objector neighbors’ expert pointed out the problems.
“We (the objector neighbors) are emotionally spent and in debt financially upwards of almost $60,000,” said Velez-Gimbel. “Our lives have been completely disrupted and my future as a Howell resident is in question here.”
“I take offense to those who have called me an activist,” Velez-Gimbel continued. “I am not an activist; I’m a resident trying to protect my whole way of life and offer something to the community which has always been in my heart.”
Others who spoke at the meeting addressed concerns about the increased traffic that would come to the area. One woman, a single mother, worried about the potential for accidents as her daughter waited for the school bus.
“I live north of the proposed warehouse,” said Peter Guilfoyle. “I believe you’ve said there will be no trucks going north. After hearing from Fairfield Road residents, we know the trucks don’t obey (rules) there, and I’m sure they won’t obey them here, and the trucks will come north on Victory.”
Nicole Woolley, who lives on Victory Road, wanted to know if the applicant had done what she referred to as a quality of life study. She said that a warehouse would turn a quiet rural backroad with farms and residences into a high trafficked, unsafe, loud, aesthetically unpleasing street that would negatively affect property values.
“I’m concerned with the effects that pollution and disturbances will have on the health and quality of life of the residents, pets, farms, animals, and numerous wildlife species,” said Woolley. “Due to the increased human activity and tractor trailer traffic, increased cars and trucks and construction vehicles creating noise, air, and light pollution during the construction phase and once the warehouse is operational.”
The last of the residents to speak about the proposed warehouse was Marc Parisi, who raised several areas that concerned him. He questioned whether the proposed off-site improvements to accommodate tractor trailers were consistent with the goal of discouraging high-intensity uses on lower classification roads.
“I think it’s important that the board know that the Monmouth County Planning Board has designated 547 as a scenic road,” Parisi said. “This project is going to increase traffic that’s going to be using 547, which is inconsistent with the Monmouth Planning Board.”
Parisi said he also did some research and determined that approximately 90 percent of the frontage on Victory Road was residential, with the exception of the steel factory and the proposed warehouse project. He said there were very few permitted uses that would operate 24/7 with the exception of warehouse distribution.
“I ask this board not to deny this application,” said Parisi. “But if you’re not inclined to deny the application that you condition any approval with a limit on the hours of operation on this warehouse.”
“You have the authority to do that, “ Parisi continued, “You would limit the hours of operation to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. or whatever discretion you believe is appropriate since you’re now putting a non-residential use in a residential neighborhood.”
Planning board members Councilman Fred Gasior and Joseph Cristiano have recused themselves from making a decision on this application.
