The most prominent topic was the environmental and community impact of the proposed school development. The project is situated on a 24.8-acre site, with only 25% deemed developable due to existing wetlands and riparian buffers. The school facility, approximately 50,300 square feet in size, is intended to house a high school and a post-secondary institution, with dormitory accommodations for 66 students. Concerns were raised about potential environmental disturbances, especially regarding runoff affecting local wells, wetlands, and waterways. The board emphasized the need for a Letter of Interpretation (LOI) from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to assess environmental impacts, though the applicant had not yet secured this approval. Residents and board members expressed apprehension about the project’s compliance with environmental standards and the adequacy of proposed stormwater management systems. There was a call for the applicant to secure a “letter of no concern” from the DEP to ensure environmental safety, though the applicant expressed unfamiliarity with this process.

Traffic implications also dominated the discussion, with community members voicing concerns about increased vehicular activity on Frank Applegate Road. The proposed development’s traffic study suggested minimal delays for vehicles entering or exiting the site, but residents contested these findings, citing ongoing traffic issues and recent accidents in the area. The board confirmed that traffic counts were conducted during peak hours, but residents remained skeptical about the study’s accuracy. There were calls for the area to be designated as a school zone to improve safety, though such decisions would fall under township jurisdiction rather than the applicant’s purview.

Public sentiment was critical, with residents questioning the appropriateness of the development’s location in a residential neighborhood rather than a commercial zone. Concerns were voiced about the project’s impact on the character of the community, with fears that the large-scale development would disrupt the existing residential atmosphere. An online petition opposing the project, signed by over a thousand people, highlighted widespread discontent, although it was dismissed from the official record as hearsay evidence.

The meeting further addressed operational aspects of the proposed school, including the living conditions for students and the facility’s security measures. Questions arose about the students’ social lives, given the lack of nearby amenities and restrictions on leaving campus. The discussion touched on the importance of security measures, with suggestions for fencing and gated access to ensure student safety. Concerns were also raised about the adequacy of supervision, with only two chaperones designated for 66 students.