3:05:29The primary focus of the meeting was the traffic analysis associated with the proposed warehouse. Community members raised concerns that the traffic estimates might not accurately reflect the real-world impact, particularly given the configuration of the roads surrounding the development site. One participant highlighted that the entrance and exit of the warehouse feed into a single-lane road, which could exacerbate congestion. The representative confirmed that the road is two-lane with one lane in each direction, but acknowledged that frontage improvements are planned to widen the section of Homestead Road directly in front of the property. However, concerns were expressed about the lack of left and right turn relief for trucks exiting the warehouse, which could further affect congestion.

2:28:34The traffic engineer presented an analysis focusing on peak traffic hours, explaining that this approach helps assess the capacity constraints of the existing infrastructure. However, community members questioned why the analysis did not consider potential scenarios involving fulfillment centers or parcel hubs, which typically generate higher traffic volumes. The engineer explained that these types of tenants were voluntarily excluded to address community concerns, emphasizing that the analysis was based on conservative estimates. Despite this, participants remained skeptical, questioning the selection criteria for warehouses used in the data analysis and suggesting potential bias in the findings.

1:03:35Throughout the session, the board grappled with the adequacy of the data presented, as well as the methodology used to project traffic patterns. Despite presenting data from various warehouse sites, the community’s concerns persisted, driven by the perceived disconnect between the reported projections and the anticipated impact on local infrastructure.

24:06The meeting also featured debates about stormwater management and drainage concerns, especially regarding the retention basins on the proposed site. The applicant explained the addition of a fourth retention basin following a review by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to comply with flood hazard area permits. Questions arose about the potential for water to discharge into nearby streams, with concerns about elevation differences and hydraulic pressure. The applicant assured that the retention basins were designed to prevent contamination, although some community members questioned the reliability of these assurances given the changes in NJDEP regulations and testing methods.

42:53A critical aspect of the discussion was the handling of easements and retaining walls associated with the development. The applicant clarified that several easements had been identified, but the conservation easement required by local authorities had not yet been finalized. The conversation also touched upon the construction requirements for retaining walls, noting that any wall exceeding four feet in height requires a building permit with structural calculations.

24:06Further scrutiny was directed at the subdivision of the property and its implications for stormwater drainage. Participants questioned the advisability of one property owner draining onto another’s property and the potential need for drainage easements. The applicant acknowledged these concerns.

3:05:29The board also addressed procedural matters, emphasizing the importance of timely submission of rebuttal testimony and reports from the board planner and engineer before the next meeting. This procedural clarity aimed to facilitate ongoing public engagement and scrutiny of the proposed development. A motion was made to schedule additional hearings in May regarding a previous resolution’s remand.