The most notable issue revolved around the appropriateness of the warehouse’s scale and its alignment with the intended purpose of the TECD zone. A planner argued that the proposed buildings, with a footprint of 370,000 square feet, represented an “abrupt transition” from the surrounding single-family homes, which typically have much smaller footprints. The planner emphasized that the warehouse’s size violated the district’s design standards, which aim for a “designing with nature” approach to minimize environmental disruption. This approach calls for preserving the site’s natural topography and features, a standard the planner claimed the project would breach due to its extensive construction requirements.

The planner also raised concerns about the infrastructure’s ability to support such a high-intensity industrial use. The existing roadways, designed for agricultural vehicles and low-density residential traffic, were deemed inadequate for the proposed development’s demands. The absence of a previously planned connector road was noted as a significant oversight, as the current infrastructure could not handle the increase in truck traffic and associated noise pollution. The planner stressed that without this connector road, the development would strain the town’s existing infrastructure, potentially leading to safety issues and increased noise for nearby residents.

Public comments echoed these concerns, with residents expressing worries about the safety implications of increased truck traffic on Homestead Road, particularly at a steep railroad overpass. The lack of a noise hazard study was also criticized, as residents feared the noise from loading docks and truck activity could disturb the peace of surrounding neighborhoods. The planner underscored that most warehouse applications typically include noise experts to address such issues, yet this application did not.

A significant part of the debate focused on the project’s compliance with zoning regulations and the interpretation of the TECD zone’s standards. The planner highlighted the ordinance’s requirement to avoid crossing underground pipelines unless necessary. Additionally, the planner criticized the proposal’s classification as a truck terminal, citing the extensive truck parking spaces in the plans as evidence of non-compliance with the zoning intent. The proposal’s intensity, with 75 parking spaces for one building, was described as exceeding what the ordinance allows for the TECD zone, which is intended for less intense uses than light industrial zones.

The board also faced procedural issues concerning the introduction of evidence and witnesses. The qualifications of witnesses were debated, particularly regarding their ability to provide expert testimony on zoning compliance and environmental impact. A suggestion was made to address these qualifications at a future meeting, emphasizing the need for thorough preparation and documentation to avoid further disputes.

The planner argued that the proposed development did not align with the TECD zone’s intent, which aims for small-scale, pedestrian-friendly developments.