Nutley planning board continues hearing on proposed 24,000‑sq ft warehouse at 536–544 Washington Avenue

The Nutley Planning Board on June 17 heard a presentation from Galaxy Invest on a proposal to redevelop 536–544 Washington Avenue into a two‑story, 24,740‑square‑foot building that would include a warehouse and second‑floor office space, 28 parking stalls (including one EV stall) and four truck bays. Attorney Matthew Gillson said the use is permitted in the MO zone and the applicant’s professionals will respond to municipal review comments.

Why it matters: The site is surrounded on three sides by residential properties. Neighbors pressed the applicant and its experts for concrete answers about likely tenants, hours of operation, truck traffic, noise, lights, stormwater impacts and visual effects from grade changes. Those concerns drive the board’s request for more technical detail before any final approval.

Attorney Matthew Gillson opened the presentation, saying the team seeks preliminary and final major site plan approval for block 1502, lot 12. “The subject site is approximately 1.5 acres,” Gillson said. The applicant’s representative, Rich Labarbiera, testified the building would be constructed on spec and that “that tenant would comply with all regulations including hours of operation, noise requirements.”

Residents repeatedly questioned that answer. “Are you saying 9 to 5 weekdays? Is it going to be weekends? Is it going to be 24/7?” asked a Wilmington Drive resident, reflecting a broader pattern of uncertainty the board heard from multiple neighbors.

Town code official Dave Barry told the board that local Ordinance No. 538 sets hours restrictions for certain commercial zones but does not explicitly include the MO zone covering the subject property, so specific operational hours for a future tenant would need to be imposed through conditions or ordinance changes. “The ordinance doesn’t apply to this section,” Barry said, adding that the town enforces noise limits by decibel thresholds at property lines and that the applicant may need a sound‑engineering review.

Engineer Matthew Clark reviewed the applicant’s 10‑sheet site plan set, noting the team’s interpretation that no bulk variances are required. Clark said the plan provides required parking, stormwater controls for a major development (the project disturbs more than one acre) and a green‑roof element intended to meet state stormwater requirements. “We are subject to the higher tolerance of storm water management,” Clark said, and added the design includes green‑roof area to reduce runoff volume.

Clark also told the board the applicant modeled circulation and loading for a WB67 template (a roughly 67‑foot vehicle) so a large truck can access the loading bays, but he acknowledged the submission lacked the truck‑turning exhibit and other graphics the board requested. “We looked at the largest possible vehicle… and we modeled that to design the entryway,” Clark said, and agreed to provide explicit turning templates at the continuation.

Board planner Paul Ricky flagged that the applicant’s submitted floor plans are blank for tenant fit‑outs and warned that leaving interior layouts open makes it difficult for the board to assess future subdivision of the building. “If they want carte blanche approval and then do whatever they want later, those floor plans are incomplete as submitted,” Ricky said.

Neighbors and several commissioners also raised visual and drainage concerns after Clark explained the site grading: parts of the site will be raised as part of the stormwater strategy, and the applicant proposes new buffering and a three‑foot barrier/retaining wall in places. Commissioners asked for cross‑sections showing existing vs. proposed grades and the relationship between light poles, truck headlamps and adjacent second‑floor bedrooms.

Architect Elizabeth Heisick described the building’s appearance, saying the design emphasizes a smaller, less industrial look with brick at the front and metal panels on the upper and rear walls. She said the front office portion would reach roughly 48–50 feet, while the rear warehouse steps down to about 25 feet. Heisick said most warehouse windows would be non‑operable for code and odor control reasons and that rooftop mechanicals will be screened where visible.

Operational commitments and controls were discussed but not finalized. The applicant repeatedly stated it would work within town codes and that tenant operations would be constrained by any conditions the board imposes; the applicant also said overnight truck parking would not be permitted under the current approval and that a different approval would be required to allow it.

What the board asked for: before the board will take any final action the applicant must submit (among other items) truck‑turning templates for the largest vehicle to be accommodated, pavement‑section upgrades appropriate for heavy vehicles, building elevations and cross‑sections showing adjacent homes, detailed retaining/ barrier‑wall drawings, material and color boards for façade treatments, a downstream stormwater analysis coordinated with the town engineer to resolve the plan’s “terminus unknown” connection, and a green‑roof maintenance plan. The applicant and the board agreed to carry the matter to the next available meeting to allow those materials to be prepared.

No vote on the site plan was taken; the board adjourned after scheduling the continuation. The application remains under review and the board retained the option to require additional mitigations or operational restrictions depending on the forthcoming technical submissions.