The meeting opened with a unanimous decision to extend the application from 1170 Millstone LLC until December 31, 2024, but the primary focus quickly shifted to the application from Homestead 279 LLC. This application sought preliminary and final site plan approval for a new warehouse building. The chairman recused himself, and an acting chair was designated. The applicant’s attorney, John DeLuca, requested an adjournment, aiming to push the hearing to April 3, 2024, while exploring alternative uses for the site, including townhouses instead of warehouses.

An objector, Sandro Ionella, expressed frustration over these delays, arguing that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to satisfy standing requirements. He criticized the applicant for failing to conduct necessary soil testing and not complying with township ordinances. Ionella requested that the board make a decision based on the current information rather than granting another adjournment, emphasizing the negative impacts the proposed warehouse could have on surrounding residential properties and the community overall.

DeLuca reiterated the request for an adjournment, citing legitimate reasons for needing additional time to revise their plans and address comments from the board’s professionals. He asserted that the applicant held an enforceable proprietary interest in the land and had received consent from the owner for the adjournment. The board noted the necessity of re-noticing for the adjourned application and acknowledged the concerns raised by the objector while maintaining procedural integrity.

The board then addressed another application from Homestead 279 LLC, linked to block 200.2 Lot 12. Brian McN, the sole managing member, expressed consent to delay the current warehouse application while considering alternative land uses. Concerns were raised about potential residential zoning, given that residential use is not permitted in the Light Industrial (LI) Zone. Planning Director David Kois noted that any amendments to incorporate townhouses or residential structures would necessitate a review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment unless there was a change in zoning.

Public comments were opened, with several residents expressing frustration. David Brooks from Winding Way criticized the convoluted nature of the application, urging the board to reject it decisively. Joe O’Connell from White Meow Road echoed Brooks’ sentiments, stating that if the application did not fit zoning requirements, it should be terminated to avoid wasting time. Susan Gord from Club Road questioned when changes to the application necessitate starting from scratch. Maria Jan from Manville insisted that the application should not be allowed to linger given its original intent for a warehouse.

Brian Tarantino, who claimed to have attended all relevant meetings, pointed out a lack of clarity regarding the future of the application and suggested denying it due to the applicant’s failure to produce a satisfactory proposal. Following public comments, a motion was made to close the public discussion. Before deliberating, it was clarified that no other applications were pending before the board.

The board members exchanged views on the implications of granting an extension, with one member expressing concern that allowing further delays would be disingenuous and unfair to the public and objectors who had invested time in the discussions. The consensus was that the applicant had not presented a viable plan despite being given ample time. Voting on the request for an extension resulted in unanimous denial. This outcome effectively concluded the consideration of the current application. There was no motion to approve the application, leading to a motion to deny it based on the discussions. This motion also received unanimous support, solidifying the denial of the application.

In other discussions, Dr. Emerson’s testimony highlighted issues regarding drainage reports and regulatory compliance. An updated drainage report, part of the NJDE flood hazard review process, addressed several concerns but was criticized for its late submission, making thorough evaluation challenging. The debate underscored differing perspectives on regulatory authority and the obligations of the applicant to provide timely documentation.

The meeting also involved a contentious traffic impact analysis presented by Ken Housman, a traffic analysis expert. Housman critiqued the applicant’s traffic study, highlighting discrepancies in trip generation estimates and emphasizing the need for accurate data. He noted that the proposed site had a higher ratio of loading docks to square footage than standard warehouses.