Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Roxbury Zoning Board denies SK&KP's Route 46 service-station expansion, 4-2
Summary
The Roxbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustment denied SK&KP Enterprises’ request for a D2 use variance and related site plan relief for 1101 Route 46 after debate over signage, circulation and notice; the board voted 4-2 on March 9, 2026.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Roxbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 9 denied SK&KP Enterprises LLC’s application for a D2 use variance and related site-plan relief for property at 1101 Route 46. The board vote was 4-2.
Applicant representatives described a revised sign exhibit and agreed to multiple circulation and sign conditions, including raising a Route 46 freestanding sign to 14 feet, setting freestanding signs at least 15 feet back from front property lines on both Route 46 and Howard Boulevard, relocating handicap parking, adding striping near pumps, and implementing a right-in/right-out configuration on Howard Boulevard. Engineer Joseph Vince, PE, explained site constraints and proposed sign locations; a traffic analysis was presented by traffic engineer Connor Hughes.
Board members pressed the applicant about notice and traffic safety. Member John Summers raised a concern about a notice issue that had required re-noticing for an earlier meeting; that procedural concern figured in the discussion. The applicant told the board it would monitor accident reports at the Route 46 intersection for at least one year after the project opens to assess whether the new circulation configuration is operating safely. The board also received no public comments on the sign exhibits during the hearing.
David Klein made a motion to grant the D2 variance, citing proposed improvements to signage and circulation, but the board ultimately voted to deny the application 4-2. The minutes record the denial and the vote tally; the transcript does not provide a full roll-call mapping for each yes/no vote beyond the final 4-2 result.
The denial leaves the applicant’s proposed expansion and signage changes unapproved; the transcript records that the applicant had re-noticed the sign variances during the hearing but does not specify whether or how the applicant intends to revise and refile beyond that re-noticing.
