The proposed development on Homestead Road was the focal point of the meeting, as board members and the public scrutinized various aspects of the application. A key issue was the anticipated increase in traffic, with projections estimating around 322 truck trips per day. This significant rise in vehicle movement prompted worries about the road infrastructure’s capacity to handle such volumes, especially in light of existing traffic patterns involving school-related travel and the narrowness of nearby bridges. These concerns were compounded by testimony questioning the accuracy of the applicant’s traffic studies, particularly their failure to account for potential congestion and stacking of trucks at the warehouse entrance.

Environmental implications were another major point of contention. Reports from the board’s professionals highlighted the inadequacies in the proposed stormwater management system, which failed to meet regulatory standards for minimizing runoff. The development was projected to increase runoff volume significantly, threatening the Roycebrook tributary, which already faces flooding issues. The proximity of the proposed underground infiltration system to retaining walls also raised concerns about structural integrity in cases of groundwater saturation.

The zone was designed to bridge industrial and residential areas, but the sheer scale and intensity of the project appeared to conflict with the zone’s objectives. Board members and attendees reflected on the historical purpose of the TEC zone, emphasizing that it was meant to support smaller, campus-like developments with ample green space, rather than large-scale warehouses.

Inadequate buffering measures were highlighted as a further issue, with the proposed landscaping deemed insufficient to mitigate the visual and auditory impact on neighboring residential areas. The elevation of the proposed buildings would overshadow nearby homes, diminishing the effectiveness of the buffer in providing noise and visual screening. Suggestions to lower the building’s height were made to address these concerns, but the application did not incorporate such changes.

The board also expressed skepticism regarding the applicant’s adherence to zoning requirements. Concerns were raised about the completeness of the application and whether it truly aligned with the community’s vision as outlined in the local master plan. The applicant’s descriptions of the building’s intended use were considered vague, lacking specific details about operations, employee numbers, and shift patterns, which are necessary for a comprehensive impact assessment.

One of the more notable moments of the meeting was the board’s decision to deny the application. A motion was made and seconded, citing unresolved issues related to traffic, buffers, and the overall suitability of the project within the community. The motion passed unanimously.

Beyond the warehouse application, the meeting also addressed affordable housing obligations. A public comment raised questions about the discrepancy between the township’s stated obligation of 223 affordable housing units and the state’s requirement of 565 units. The board clarified that the final number would depend on ongoing legal proceedings, with a court mandated to address objections by the year’s end.

The dialogue around affordable housing touched on broader concerns about urban sprawl and the township’s role in directing development towards established areas like the town center. However, the board noted that while they could express preferences, ultimate decision-making rested with the courts and property owners.