Mayor Richard M. Andero of Manville was a prominent voice of opposition, representing himself and the borough council. He expressed concerns about the proposed 13,418 square foot warehouse’s effect on neighboring municipalities, especially Manville. The mayor cited potential increases in stormwater runoff and flooding risks due to the project’s proximity to Royce Brook, which drains into Manville. He also highlighted the anticipated rise in truck traffic, estimating as many as 420 truck trips per day, which would impact residential roads in Manville and pass near schools, raising serious safety concerns.

The public commentary was equally passionate. Residents of the Hearthstone community voiced apprehensions about the project’s impact on air and water quality, safety, and infrastructure. Richard Koozie, a Hearthstone resident, pointed out the environmental concerns associated with diesel-powered delivery vehicles, which could increase pollution and noise levels. He questioned the project’s business plan transparency, pointing out the fluctuations in proposed operational hours and the adequacy of parking spaces. Koozie also raised issues about stormwater management, alleging that the project would exacerbate flooding in the area, particularly in the Hearthstone community, which had already experienced significant flooding in the past.

The proposed development’s compatibility with local zoning was another point of contention. Residents questioned how the warehouse could be classified as light industrial, given its scale and potential operations. The Hearthstone Homeowners Association’s legal counsel argued that the application did not align with the characteristics of permitted uses in the I1 zone and that the stormwater management plan was inadequate, potentially redirecting runoff to flood adjacent properties.

Further complicating matters were legal concerns regarding easements that bisected the property, which some argued removed the board’s authority to approve the project. The board was urged to consider these jurisdictional issues, alongside the community’s quality of life and safety, before making a decision.

In response to these concerns, the applicant’s representative outlined efforts to address community issues, including reducing the building size, decreasing parking, and increasing setbacks. The representative asserted the legal right to build the project, claiming alignment with local zoning ordinances and state environmental guidelines, and emphasized the project’s potential economic benefits. However, these assurances did not quell the community’s concerns.

The board deliberated on the project’s potential impacts, considering both technical compliance and public sentiment. Concerns about the traffic study’s adequacy, particularly its failure to account for evolving road conditions, were highlighted. Board members also expressed skepticism about the applicant’s claim that the proposed building height variance would benefit the community, with no clear evidence presented to support this assertion.

Ultimately, the board moved to deny the application, citing unresolved issues related to easements, building size, and drainage, as well as the incompatibility with the township’s master plan. The motion was supported by the board’s acknowledgment of the public’s concerns and the technical deficiencies highlighted in the professionals’ reports.