Elk Township planning board denies preliminary site plan for proposed Jai & Jas truck-stop facility

The Elk Township Combined Planning and Zoning Board voted 10-0 on July 16, 2025 to deny preliminary major site plan approval for Jai & Jas Real Estate, LLC’s Phase 1 proposal at 1092 Elk Road, concluding the submission did not meet local zoning and safety expectations.

The application generated sustained public opposition during a lengthy public-comment period in which neighbors raised groundwater contamination concerns tied to past landfill cleanups, questioned the traffic study’s timing and scope, and warned that large trucks and round‑the‑clock operations would worsen local safety and congestion. Bernadette Gearhart told the board she worried about “air pollution, traffic, increased motor vehicle accidents and the potential contamination of the underground well water systems.”

The applicant’s attorney, David DeClement, described the filing as a by‑right application and asked the board to consider the engineers’ summations. “The application requests no variances or waivers; it is a by right application,” DeClement said during the hearing. Board Solicitor Brandon DeJesus and Board Engineer Steve Bach cautioned that introducing new testimony during summations could require reopening public comment; the chair allowed summations only on the condition they not add new evidence.

Several public speakers and board members said the project’s parking counts and operational details indicate it would function as a truck stop or travel center rather than a conventional gas station. Citing state code, one resident said the applicant’s own materials repeatedly labeled the project a truck stop and that “anything above 20 spots is designated as a truck stop per NJ law.” Neighbors also noted prior chemical incidents at other New Jersey truck stops and urged greater safeguards for residents on well water.

When the board voted on preliminary approval, the roll call recorded zero votes in favor and ten against (0-10-0). Board members elaborated on their reasons after the vote. Board member Mrs. Nicholson said the traffic study “called the project a Truck Stop” and that the proposed number of dedicated truck parking spaces and the scope of the study failed to reassure her about traffic and public‑safety impacts. Chairman Matt Afflerbach said the applicant had not justified the need for 20 dedicated truck parking spaces and 24 automobile spaces where only 15 are required and questioned whether the traffic counts were representative of peak summer and school periods.

Other board members raised related concerns: enforcement of hour‑limited parking, potential hazardous‑material transport, sight‑line and intersection safety along Rt. 538 and local roads, and the general public‑safety burden on police and code enforcement. Several residents asked the board to require a performance bond if the application were to proceed; the board did not act to re-open testimony on conditions.

The board briefly re-opened a general public portion later in the meeting and then closed it without further action on the application. No subsequent approvals or continuations were recorded. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.