The proposal involved the construction of two large buildings on a site that previously held a parking area with 7,800 spaces. Residents expressed concerns about the potential for up to 110 truck trips per day and the environmental impacts of removing 417 trees, emphasizing the expected loss of green space and increased vehicle emissions. They argued that the applicant’s plan to replace only 176 saplings, instead of the required 649 trees, was inadequate. According to opposition speakers, the applicant’s traffic studies were insufficient, focusing only on peak commuting times and relying on non-standard guidelines.

The discussion centered on the necessity of several D1 use variances, with particular attention given to the proposed use of Lot 2 for access to the manufacturing site on Lot 3. The board debated whether this use required a variance, considering the residential zoning of Lot 2. Concerns were raised about the potential transformation of residential areas into industrial zones, with increased tractor-trailer traffic through neighborhoods. The board eventually concluded that a D1 use variance was necessary for the driveway, as its proposed use would differ from its previous function.

The application also faced scrutiny for proposing two principal uses on Lot 2, which is typically restricted by zoning regulations. Despite the applicant’s argument that utility transmission lines and woodland management activities were not principal uses, the board determined a variance was required. The applicant had suggested ceasing woodland management to eliminate the need for the variance.

A significant portion of the meeting addressed the potential impact on traffic and infrastructure, with board members expressing skepticism about the applicant’s traffic study. The study’s methodology was questioned, particularly regarding its failure to accurately predict truck movements and account for the community’s existing traffic conditions. Concerns about compliance with the township’s floor area ratio limits were also discussed, with the proposed increase deemed likely to exacerbate traffic and infrastructure issues.

The opposition’s arguments were bolstered by the testimony of over 70 residents, who voiced resistance to the proposal. They emphasized the potential detrimental impacts on the community, arguing that the variances sought were unjustified and that the applicant had failed to meet the burden of proof required for approval. The board members acknowledged the importance of resident involvement, noting the extensive public engagement throughout the 18-month deliberation period.

In response to the opposition’s claims, the applicant attempted to clarify misconceptions, asserting that the facility’s proposed light manufacturing use fell within allowable limits and would not generate excessive truck traffic. They argued that the anticipated traffic figures presented by opponents were exaggerated and stressed that the proposed development was consistent with zoning ordinances.

Despite these assurances, the board ultimately voted unanimously to deny the application, citing concerns about the proposed floor area ratio, the adequacy of traffic studies, and the overall implications for local infrastructure and community character.