One of the primary concerns voiced by residents was the anticipated increase in tractor-trailer traffic associated with the proposed facility. Several speakers highlighted the potential safety risks of heavy trucks traversing community roads, particularly near schools and residential neighborhoods. The Board of Education had previously hired an attorney to assess the traffic implications, emphasizing the severity of the issue. A resident noted that the introduction of 18-wheelers could pose significant threats to school children, parents, and student drivers using Manery Road, a critical route for school transportation.

Concerns over the environmental ramifications of the proposed development were also prominent. Residents pointed out that the site is near New Jersey wetlands and would involve the removal of approximately 640 mature trees, with plans to replace them with only a fraction of saplings. They argued that this would exacerbate existing drainage issues, lead to soil erosion, and increase noise pollution from nearby Route 78. One resident suggested a live demonstration of a WB67 truck navigating Allen Road to assess the potential hazards accurately.

In addition to safety and environmental worries, apprehensions about the community’s character and quality of life were discussed. Residents argued that the proposed facility’s industrial nature is incompatible with the area’s family-oriented environment, which they believe is a significant draw for newcomers. The prospect of round-the-clock operations was particularly concerning, as it could introduce relentless noise and air pollution, affecting residents’ daily lives.

Traffic studies presented by the applicant were heavily scrutinized during the meeting. Residents questioned the methodology used, arguing that the statistical approach to estimating truck traffic was flawed. One speaker critiqued the use of averages from dissimilar data sets.

The meeting revealed a collective opposition among residents, with a recurring theme of prioritizing community safety, environmental health, and quality of life. Many called for the zoning board to deny the application, citing the lack of tangible benefits for the township and potential degradation of the area’s character. They emphasized the need for the board to weigh these concerns against the applicant’s proposals and justifications.