A major point of contention centered around the anticipated increase in truck traffic, with calculations suggesting that the proposed development could introduce an additional 84 trucks daily, amounting to 3,666 trucks annually. Residents expressed fears that such an influx would lead to congestion on local roads, compromising both safety and infrastructure. A resident highlighted the potential for long delays, noting that a trip that currently takes five to seven minutes could extend to 20 minutes due to backed-up trucks. Others echoed these concerns, emphasizing the risks posed by heavy vehicles, especially in adverse weather conditions.

The environmental ramifications of the proposed development were also a critical concern. The removal of approximately 600 trees was cited as a potential catalyst for soil erosion, increased flooding, and elevated noise, air, and water pollution levels. One resident with a background in environmental matters questioned the necessity of a tree bank, arguing that financial compensation could not adequately address the ecological damage. The community’s historical commitment to preserving natural areas was invoked, with references to past efforts to protect farmland and forested areas from development.

Public safety was another dominant theme throughout the meeting. The proposed increase in truck traffic was linked to potential hazards for pedestrians, particularly children and seniors. Concerns were raised about the impact on school bus schedules and the safety of students navigating local roads. A younger member of the community, a high school sophomore, articulated worries about the safety threat posed by large trucks to new drivers and pedestrians.

The zoning board’s role in safeguarding the community’s character was underscored by several residents who implored the board to reject the application. One speaker argued that the development would not align with the goals outlined in Bernards Township’s master plan, which prioritizes maintaining community character and protecting neighborhoods from incompatible development. The proposed industrial zoning was seen as a threat to the predominantly residential nature of the township, with potential repercussions for property values and the overall integrity of the community.

Residents repeatedly questioned the applicant’s motivations, with some suggesting that the claimed hardships were self-imposed. There was a strong call for transparency, with concerns about the lack of clarity regarding the project’s long-term intentions and potential tenants. The board was urged to consider alternative uses for the property that would better align with community needs and values, such as a medical center or daycare facility.

As the meeting drew to a close, the board decided to extend discussions to a future meeting. The next scheduled meeting on November 14 will see lawyers representing objectors present their arguments, followed by the applicant’s counsel. The board will then deliberate on whether the applicant has met the burden of proof required for the variances sought. The chair confirmed that no further public notice would be necessary, as the matter is officially being carried over.