Monroe Zoning Board Delays Vote on Applegarth Road Development Amid Traffic Concerns

The Monroe Zoning Board meeting was dominated by an extensive review of a development proposal on Applegarth Road, which included discussions on traffic impacts and the need for various zoning variances. The board decided to delay the vote on the proposal to the next meeting, allowing more time for members and the public to review the meeting transcript and address outstanding issues.

11:24At the heart of the discussion was the application for a use variance by 257 Applegard LLC, which sought to develop a retail building on a property bisected by a river, creating a unique zoning challenge. This situation required a D1 variance for using a portion of the land, technically in a residential zone, for commercial parking. The board examined modifications made since the last hearing, including an increase in buffer sizes and changes to the parking configuration to comply with ordinance requirements. The applicant’s representatives emphasized that the site improvements, which included eliminating an industrial building, improved overall safety and efficiency.

47:43Traffic analysis was a point of debate. A representative from Mcdana and Ray Associates presented a revised traffic report, indicating the intersection of Applegarth and Cranberry Station Road currently operates at a level of service C. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the traffic study, particularly regarding its timing during school hours. Board members expressed skepticism about claims that traffic during school hours was lower than peak times, as personal experiences suggested significant congestion due to school buses.

The potential implications of future developments, such as a school proposed across the street, were acknowledged, but the board agreed that only the current application details could be considered.

41:42Another focal point was the absence of a designated area for trucks to offload products for proposed merchandise stores, raising logistical concerns among board members. The applicant’s representative clarified that while the traffic analysis accounted for through traffic, it did not specifically address the activity of school buses at nearby school sites. This omission left some board members unsatisfied, leading to a request for a more comprehensive examination of traffic impacts.

The Monroe Zoning Board also addressed several technical variances and compliance with buffer requirements. The planner for the application identified two key use variances, including the need for a D1 variance for parking in the R30 zone and a D3 variance related to conditional use requirements for the neighborhood shopping center. The property exceeded the maximum lot size for a shopping center due to environmental constraints like wetlands and floodplain areas, effectively limiting the usable commercial land to about five acres.

30:27During the meeting, a board member recalled a memo from CME, dated June 11, 2025, which sought clarification on the variance related to the maximum lot area. The applicant agreed to deed restrict environmentally constrained portions of the property to establish a conservation easement, addressing environmental concerns and proposing a ground-mounted sign facing Applegarth Road instead of a freestanding sign, which is not permitted in the NC zone.

As the meeting progressed, discussions touched on numerous technical aspects, such as parking stall sizes and the proposed buffer widths. The board was informed that the buffer requirement was not a fixed 60 feet but instead depended on proximity to residential zones. With no residential zones to the west or south, the existing buffer was substantial, measuring hundreds of feet. However, questions about including Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the buffer were deferred to the site plan discussion phase.

07:18The Monroe Zoning Board also confirmed the appointment of Mr. Lou Masters as the new vice chairperson following a unanimous vote. In a light-hearted moment, the board noted that Mr. Masters’ salary would remain at zero.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

is discussed during:
in these locations: