At the heart of the discussion was the alignment of the proposed development with the town’s master plan and zoning ordinances. Professional planner Paul Gleit provided a analysis, arguing that the development should not be approved as it failed to meet the use definition intended by the zoning ordinance and did not align with the existing pattern of small industrial facilities. Gleit’s report highlighted the changes in warehouse development over the years and contended that the proposed complex, due to its size and operations, was more akin to a truck terminal, a use prohibited in the zone.

The board dissected the application’s environmental impact, with particular focus on stormwater management. The applicant presented enhanced stormwater management measures, including the installation of mechanical treatment devices and the expansion of a detention basin, aimed at reducing peak flow for various storm events and facilitating on-site ground water recharge. However, the board and members of the public raised concerns over the potential downstream impacts, questioning whether the measures were sufficient to address the increased volume of runoff and prevent impacts on groundwater levels.

Legal issues featured prominently in the meeting, with the applicant’s attorney Jordan Ash raising jurisdictional concerns due to outstanding approvals, which were rebutted by Board Attorney Eric Bernstein, recommending that the application proceed. The board grappled with interpreting the recent ordinance prohibiting warehousing as a permitted use, debating the time of application rule’s relevance and whether the application should be referred to the zoning board for a use variance.

Public engagement was strong, with community members expressing worries about the negative impacts of the proposed development on public health and safety, including truck noise, traffic, and air pollution. The board member echoed these concerns, criticizing the limited traffic impact analysis and the speculative nature of the air quality impact analysis provided by the applicant.

The meeting concluded with plans to continue the hearing on April 4th, 2024, acknowledging that the discussion could not be completed in the current session. The decision on the application was extended to April 30th, 2024, with a follow-up meeting scheduled for April 8th, 2024.