The most contentious topic was ordinance 2568, which proposes a film studio complex on a 22-acre lot adjacent to the Great Swamp. Residents like Tim Engling and Kristen Douglas raised alarms about potential ecological damage and the studio’s scale, which they argued is incompatible with the neighborhood’s residential nature. Engling highlighted the area’s importance as a habitat for endangered species and criticized the planned 65-foot height of the sound stages, which exceeds the current 35-foot zoning limit. Douglas likened the proposed studio’s size to a large commercial establishment, arguing it was unsuitable for their “charming” neighborhood.

Public sentiment was against the film studio, largely due to its location and the perceived rush to approve the project. Sue Trap, a resident of a historic home, voiced her concerns about potential damage from construction vibrations and criticized the lack of community engagement in the decision-making process. Other speakers shared similar frustrations, questioning the planning board’s transparency and the timing of project notifications.

Additionally, the proposal was linked to a 16-unit special needs housing facility, which garnered support but also sparked debate. Some residents, including Judy Whitaker and Suzanne Flanigan, emphasized the need for such housing and the benefits it would bring to individuals with disabilities. However, many argued that the housing should not be dependent on the film studio’s development. Flanigan described the housing project as more than just infrastructure, framing it as essential for dignity and independence for people with special needs.

Concerns about the project’s financial promises were prevalent. One resident dismissed the potential tax revenue from the film studio as minimal, questioning the economic justification for the development. Others proposed alternative locations for the studio or suggested that existing facilities be repurposed to meet the community’s needs without compromising the township’s historical and environmental values.

Several speakers called for more transparency and community dialogue on the proposal. The lack of detailed information and public hearings was a recurring complaint, with residents stressing the need for visual representations and comprehensive environmental assessments before any decisions are made.

The council also faced criticism for procedural issues, including a perceived lack of transparency in communications and the removal of a mayor’s newsletter that detailed the proposal. Some residents accused the council of failing to provide adequate information to the public, leading to misunderstandings and increased opposition to the project.

In contrast to the film studio debate, proposed amendments to zoning ordinance 2567, which would eliminate light manufacturing as a permitted use in certain office zones, received broad support. Many residents argued that light manufacturing was inconsistent with the township’s residential character and praised the council for aligning zoning laws with community interests. Bruce Schundler and Harvey Gard were among those advocating for the change, citing historical oversights and the potential for traffic and environmental impacts from manufacturing activities.

Despite the strong opposition to the film studio, the meeting’s discussions also highlighted a shared commitment to addressing the township’s affordable housing obligations and the needs of the special needs community. Some residents suggested collaborative efforts to find alternative solutions that would preserve the town’s character while meeting these goals.