The most debated topic of the meeting was the proposed convenience center and fueling station by Julie Rich LLC on Route 9. The project had been subject to previous hearings and drew attention due to its potential traffic implications. The board scrutinized several features of the proposal, including state-of-the-art traffic management technology. A “jersey extension” system, utilizing 360-degree scanning, was proposed to enhance traffic signal efficiency and improve pedestrian safety at the intersection of Route 9 and Strickland Road. The development plan also included implementing a pedestrian button, high-quality crosswalks, and a lead pedestrian interval for safer road crossings.

The board was informed that the New Jersey Department of Transportation had approved the design, and the applicant committed to installing the new traffic technology at their own expense. This commitment was a condition of approval and aimed to address safety concerns at a frequently criticized intersection. Additionally, the plan included upgrades to intersection lighting, modifications to traffic flow, and the extension of the left turn lane on Strickland Road from 100 feet to 360 feet to mitigate congestion.

Board members deliberated on delivery operations for the convenience center. Off-hour deliveries were anticipated, with items like bread arriving around 3:00 a.m., potentially fluctuating to earlier or later times. Concerns were raised about the ambiguity of “on occasion” deliveries for fuel trucks, which could occur during off-hours. The applicant clarified that fueling operations would be conducted at the front of the property, away from residential areas, and would not involve idling due to the technology used.

The conversation shifted to potential alternatives for the site. Members acknowledged that intersections are vital for gas station locations and emphasized the scarcity of suitable alternatives on Route 9. The applicant argued that the proposed development, with its traffic management features, would have a similar impact to other permitted uses, like fast-food establishments, and insisted that their proposal was optimal for the intersection.

The board also debated the ramifications of denying the application, which could lead to less favorable developments that wouldn’t require the same level of off-site improvements. A board member highlighted that the site, being a prime location on a state highway in Monmouth County, would inevitably be developed. The proposal’s off-site traffic improvements, which wouldn’t be required if sent to the planning board as a permitted use, were seen as significant advantages.

A resident requested an 8-foot high fence at the property line, which the applicant agreed to install, provided it didn’t encroach on the front yard setback. The board briefly revisited traffic study data showing estimates of daily trips to the proposed Quick Check, further fueling the debate on traffic impact.

After extensive discussion, a motion was made to approve the application, citing the traffic improvements and the benefit of removing an abandoned property from Route 9. The motion was seconded, and the board conducted a roll call vote. While some members expressed concerns about the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, with two members voting against the application due to potential negative effects and traffic issues, others emphasized the necessity of the improvements and the benefits of a controlled development.

The chair acknowledged the challenging nature of the decision, balancing community needs with development pressures. Ultimately, the application was approved, with applause from the audience, despite dissenting voices expressing concerns about the decision’s potential ramifications. Following the vote, the board discussed future meetings and educational classes but opted to postpone further discussions to reflect on the contentious decision.

In addition to the Route 9 development, the board considered a one-year extension request from Freehold Welding for a previously approved certificate of nonconformity, which was unanimously approved. The meeting also briefly touched on case number BA25-05, involving applicants Jacob and Shira Eli, which was postponed until December.