Central to the board’s decision was the environmental impact of placing a cemetery near Marsh Bach Brook, a Category One waterway that requires a 300-foot buffer zone. This classification raised questions about adherence to environmental regulations and the potential for groundwater contamination from decomposing bodies. Discussions highlighted the risks of pharmaceuticals, organic compounds, and other contaminants, such as nitrates and sodium, seeping into the groundwater. A participant noted that substances in decomposing bodies could be classified as contaminants, particularly if they were not naturally occurring in the environment, further complicating the environmental risk profile.

The potential for chemicals from medications and other treatments in decomposing bodies to affect local water supplies was a recurring theme during the meeting. One concerned resident, speaking from personal experience as a breast cancer survivor, emphasized the dangers of such contamination, particularly in light of previous health scares related to drinking water pollutants. The board heard testimonies about the risk posed by antibiotic-resistant bacteria and other pathogens possibly entering the water system, affecting the large population relying on the Manasquan Reservoir.

Traffic concerns also played a role in the board’s deliberations. A traffic engineer presented an analysis, noting that a cemetery of the proposed size would generate minimal traffic compared to other land uses. However, public comments reflected skepticism about the study’s conclusions. Residents expressed fears about increased traffic at critical intersections, citing existing congestion issues and the potential for hazardous conditions during large funerals. A local rabbi provided context, estimating that funeral processions would involve minimal traffic, but contrasting public opinions questioned the accuracy of this estimate.

Legal arguments during the meeting focused on whether the proposed cemetery qualified as an “inherently beneficial use” under zoning laws. The applicant’s attorney argued that the cemetery served a religious purpose, drawing parallels with past cases involving houses of worship. However, the board was not convinced by the legal argument, noting the lack of direct case law classifying cemeteries as inherently beneficial.

Public comments further highlighted community concerns, with individuals questioning the integrity of the process and potential conflicts of interest within the governing body. A resident raised issues about the transparency of the resolution process, seeking clarification on what the township council knew when they allowed the application to advance. The debate underscored the importance of maintaining procedural integrity and ensuring that all parties involved were fully informed.

The meeting also touched on the social and cultural significance of the cemetery for the Jewish community in Howell. A rabbi explained the need for a Jewish cemetery in the area, emphasizing the religious customs and the lack of such a facility locally. He stated that the cemetery would not be a commercial enterprise but rather a charitable resource for the community. Despite this argument, the board’s decision reflected broader environmental and logistical concerns, weighing heavily against the proposed location.