A focal point of the meeting was the strong opposition from residents who voiced their concerns during the public comment period. Gail Martin, a resident, presented a petition against the warehouse application, which amassed 666 signatures from local neighborhoods. Martin detailed worries over increased noise, light pollution, traffic, and diminished property values. She highlighted the potential for increased truck traffic and argued that the development would be inconsistent with the preservation of residential neighborhoods, a goal previously emphasized by local officials. Martin criticized the absence of a noise report and questioned the compatibility of the warehouse with the residential area, urging the board to deny the application.

Another resident, Joe O’Connell, echoed these sentiments, describing the proposal as excessively industrial for the Transitional Economic Development zone. O’Connell raised environmental concerns, particularly regarding noise, odors, and diesel emissions, which he feared would permeate the area due to the site’s topography. He cited the narrowness of Homestead Road as a safety hazard with the anticipated influx of truck traffic.

The meeting further underscored procedural tensions as objectors and the applicant’s representatives debated the inclusion of engineering response letters in the record. These letters, submitted by Homestead Road LLC, were meant to clarify points from previous testimonies. However, objectors, represented by Brian Tarantino, argued that the letters contained new data, thus violating procedural rules on evidence presentation. The applicant’s representative countered that the letters were necessary for the board’s understanding, claiming they addressed specific comments from the board’s engineer.

Health concerns were also a key topic, as residents cited studies linking emissions from tractor trailers to increased risks of childhood asthma, low birth weight, and heart disease. Sunni Bolar, whose property is adjacent to the proposed site, shared personal experiences of flooding exacerbated by heavy rains, raising alarms about the warehouse’s impact on local water flow and potential noise pollution. Bolar described the anticipated light pollution from the warehouse, likening her backyard to a “lit football field,” and stressed the ongoing challenges posed by truck activity.

The proposed development’s impact on local infrastructure and safety was a recurring theme. Residents questioned the compatibility of the warehouse with the TEC zoning requirements and criticized the traffic study for inadequately addressing the potential impact on Route 206. Bob Hollings, a resident, raised concerns about the risk of contamination from an old landfill on the property, emphasizing the development’s scale and its incongruity with the surrounding residential landscape.

The board discussed the procedural aspects of the hearing, deliberating on whether to continue public comments at the current meeting or defer them to a scheduled June 5 session. Ultimately, the board allowed public comments that night, stipulating that individuals who spoke would not have another opportunity to comment on the application in the future. This decision was made to manage the hearing’s timeline efficiently, acknowledging the board’s deliberation deadline of July 31.