One aspect of the meeting was the testimony of Dr. Emerson, a licensed professional engineer with expertise in civil and environmental engineering. Dr. Emerson raised concerns regarding the stormwater management plans for the warehouse project. He contended that the designs did not meet current stormwater regulations, particularly in terms of water quality, groundwater recharge, and peak flow control. Central to his testimony was the issue with the subsurface infiltration basins, which he stated did not comply with the requirement limiting the drainage area to 2.5 acres. Furthermore, he highlighted deficiencies in the design of the basins, the lack of retention wall design, and the absence of infiltration testing within the footprint of the proposed systems.

Dr. Emerson’s concerns were not limited to the basins. He discussed the potential impact of the project on downstream flooding, emphasizing the need for compliance with regulations aimed at reducing water discharge rates to mitigate flood risks. The discussion also addressed the presence of a 15-foot high retaining wall adjacent to Conrail tracks, questioning whether Conrail had been alerted to this potential issue.

The meeting also delved into the potential impact of the proposed use of the site on the Transitional Economic Development district (TECD). A planner explained that while the TECD zone does not specify floor area ratio standards, the intensity of a zoning district is evaluated based on bulk criteria such as setbacks and building coverage. Public comments included concerns about the truck traffic in the adjacent light industrial area and its potential effect on the transitional nature of the TECD zone. Questions from the public and board members examined the compliance of the site plan with pedestrian and bicycle circulation ordinances, including pathway networks and bicycle storage facilities.

Another contested issue was the off-street parking and loading provisions. Board discussions touched on the compliance of stacked parking for trailers with local ordinances, which prohibit the moving of vehicles to access spaces. Further debate ensued over whether the ordinance explicitly allowed for trailer parking and the interpretation of the ordinance’s language.

The public also inquired about the property’s assessment value and the potential surplus tax revenue for the township and schools. Additionally, the presence of sidewalks on the property and the potential for future changes to the building, including the addition of comfort facilities, were questioned.

The board scrutinized the construction of a retaining wall, with discussions on the methods needed for excavation and water pressure relief. Skepticism was voiced about the effectiveness of impermeable barriers and their impact on groundwater flow. Concerns were raised about the porous pavement systems proposed and whether they met the definition of green infrastructure as outlined in the regulations.

The meeting further explored the potential conflict between subsurface infiltration systems and retaining walls, with discussions on soil compaction, the need for proper drainage layers, and the impact of these design elements on the integrity of retaining walls. The classification of a stream on the property was also analyzed, with Dr. Emerson using topographic data and historical aerial photos to support his classification according to the township ordinance.

A contentious point in the meeting was the sequence of questioning and cross-examination regarding the stream’s classification. Objectors and board members engaged in a dispute over the order of questioning before public comments, reflecting procedural complexities in addressing the environmental concerns raised.