An objector’s representative, Mr. Tarantino, challenged its reliability, questioning the qualifications of the individual who created it and arguing that the model lacked necessary context such as land use and coverage ratios. He emphasized that simply showing the size of buildings without considering the broader development intensity could mislead stakeholders about the project’s impact.

Disagreements surfaced over whether the model, which was not to scale and lacked a flyover view that residents had requested two years prior, could accurately convey the proposed development’s implications. One board member suggested that the model still offered valuable insights into the buildings’ relative sizes, while another expressed skepticism, questioning its potential to provide meaningful information. This exchange underscored the methodological differences in assessing the project’s impact, with questions raised over the reliability of the height measurements provided, which were based on estimates rather than direct measurements.

The applicant’s representative defended the model’s use, arguing that a physical representation could enhance understanding beyond numerical data. This viewpoint was met with resistance, highlighting differing perspectives on the model’s significance and its role in evaluating the application. The debate reflected broader concerns within the community about the transparency and adequacy of evidence presented in zoning and planning decisions.

In addition to the model controversy, the meeting addressed stormwater management compliance for the proposed warehouses. Discussions centered on the design of infiltration basins and their adherence to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) standards. It was confirmed that for the two proposed warehouses, several basins had been designed, some of which were not credited for recharge. The design specifics of the basins were scrutinized, particularly concerning potential insulating barriers to prevent lateral water movement. Although no such barriers were included in the initial design, the possibility of implementing them in the future was acknowledged to enhance safety.

The board also examined the classification of a drainage ditch on the property, with debates about its categorization under local ordinances and its role in water quality. The responding engineer clarified that the ditch was classified as an ordinary resource value ditch without a wetland buffer, aligning with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) standards. Despite this classification, concerns persisted about its effectiveness in treating water quality, given its steep slope and the proposed development’s potential impact on local hydrology.

Clarifications were sought regarding the types of products to be stored in the proposed warehouses, which were defined as general warehouse use. Questions arose about operations within the facility, specifically differentiating it from more traffic-intensive centers like parcel delivery hubs.

The planning board’s discussions also touched on zoning and building codes, particularly how storage uses are classified under different regulatory frameworks. The complexities of inbound delivery, sorting, and potential robotic operations were noted, with implications for how the buildings are designed and regulated.