Neighbors object as zoning board hears testimony on container storage and chassis assembly at 568 Englishtown Road; application carried to Oct. 29

The Monroe Township Zoning Board on Aug. 27 heard multi‑hour testimony on a D1 use‑variance sketch for 568 Englishtown Road (Lots 19 and 20 in Block 36), an application filed by New Jersey Cars LLC and Monroe 568 LLC that would formalize container storage, truck‑chassis assembly, and a reduced auto‑salvage operation on a 7‑acre property in the NC (neighborhood commercial) zone.

Attorney Walter Toto opened the presentation saying the property has operated as an automobile salvage yard since the 1920s and that the owners had transitioned some activities during the COVID era. He introduced a team of witnesses: Eugene Mesh (operations), Sharif Ali (Ameritech, site engineer), Justin Taylor (traffic), and Mark A. Remsa (planner).

Eugene Mesh described the site's history and a business pivot that began during the pandemic. "Pre‑COVID, the facility was an old fashioned junkyard...we would process close to about a 100 cars a week," Mesh said, and he told the board that since 2000 the operation has shifted toward exporting vehicles in containers and assembling truck chassis. He testified the on‑site vehicle inventory is now roughly 7590 cars (down from the 1,000 vehicles he said the site previously stored) and that most dismantling has moved indoors, which he described as a cleaner, lower‑impact operation. Mesh said deliveries and pickups are performed by appointment only to limit traffic surges.

Site engineer Sharif Ali walked the board through revised exhibits (an updated aerial and a colorized site plan) and described the proposal: demolish six existing small buildings and construct two consolidated buildings (including an indoor salvage/dismantling bay), create defined truck circulation and two primary driveways (the north driveway proposed for inbound only), provide 38 parking spaces including ADA spaces, relocate the parking behind the fence, and add an eight‑foot solid fence and double rows of evergreen plantings along the north property line to screen views. For container storage, Ali said the applicant would stack containers up to three high: 20‑foot units stacked to about 26 feet and 40‑foot units up to roughly 29 feet in the central portion of the site.

There were inconsistencies in testimony about how many containers would be on site at a given time. Ali's early figure on the exhibit was corrected in discussion: he initially mentioned an estimate of about 240 containers, then corrected to 260; another consultant said a total capacity could be up to 500 depending on layout. The transcript shows both numbers in testimony; the board and professionals requested clarified, quantified inventories and site‑plan stacking diagrams for the next submission.

Justin Taylor, the traffic engineer, presented parking counts from two days in December 2023 that found a peak of 27 vehicles on site and said the proposed 38 spaces plus consolidated access would be sufficient. He said he included conservative truck percentages and doubled truck trip estimates in his capacity analysis and still found both primary access points would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) under projected peak conditions.

Planner Mark Remsa framed the application under the municipal land‑use law (citing NJSA 40:55D) and told the board the project advances several purposes of zoning by improving circulation, reducing the effective intensity of the traditional outdoor salvage operations, decreasing impervious cover in his testimony (from an estimated 98% to a projected mid‑70s percentage), and adding screening and landscaping. He said bulk variances tied to specific dimensions will be addressed at the site‑plan stage, while the board must evaluate the D1 positive and negative criteria for the use variance.

Board members and professionals pressed witnesses on operational details that the application did not fully quantify at hearing: delivery windows and appointment processes (applicant stated deliveries/pickups would be 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and general operations 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.), number and type of mobile equipment (two container handlers plus additional forklifts and a crane), whether chassis assembly and other work would be indoors or outdoors, hazardous‑materials storage and annual DP inspections, stormwater management and impervious‑cover calculations, and the absence of a professional noise study.

Residents from Sarah Lane and Englishtown Road gave extended public comment. Neighbors said they already see high stacks of containers and large equipment from their yards and described recurring issues they attribute to the site: loud slamming noises when containers are handled, strong odors and alleged burning, and significant stormwater runoff that they said floods adjacent properties. One resident asked for immediate stormwater remediation; others urged lower stacking heights, earlier planting and maintenance of evergreen screening, and restrictions on after‑hours activity.

After hearing testimony and public comment the applicant's counsel asked that the board not vote and offered to return with additional material. The applicant agreed to meet with neighbors and to supply supplemental information requested by board professionalsincluding:

- Environmental documentation and any Phase I/II reports or other DEP correspondence cited by the applicant; - CAD files and calculations supporting impervious cover reductions and stormwater design; - Clarified container inventories and stacking diagrams showing where 2‑high vs. 3‑high stacking would be placed; - A noise study or agreed conditions on noisy operations; - Details about gate operations and stacking/set‑back to prevent truck queues onto Englishtown Road; and - A proposed maintenance/planting bond and clarification of whether berming and minor walls will be used to augment screening.

The board agreed to carry the application to Oct. 29, 2024 (no vote was taken at the Aug. 27 hearing). The applicant reserved the right to return earlier and said it would attempt to meet with neighbors and submit the requested materials to the board professionals in advance of the next hearing date. The record shows the board emphasized the importance of technical exhibits (stormwater, noise, environmental) and clearer operational commitments before the application could be decided.

No formal action was taken on the substance of the use‑variance request at the Aug. 27 meeting; the application remains pending and will be re‑noticed for the board's continuation on Oct. 29, 2024.