A central point of debate was the potential impact of the proposed warehouse on truck traffic and local road congestion, particularly on Butcher Road and Route 33. Board members exchanged views on the necessity of road improvements, including the installation of left turn lanes to manage traffic flow without affecting the surrounding area. Traffic studies presented anticipated a total of 48 vehicles entering and exiting the site during peak hours, with a specific focus on the capacity of left turn lanes to handle the volume of tractor trailers.

The development team assured the board of their compliance with anti-idling laws and a commitment to environmental sustainability, including the willingness to expand electric vehicle charging stations if needed. However, concerns were raised about the cumulative effect of multiple developments on traffic congestion. Discussions also addressed the need for further engagement with county and state authorities to address the traffic concerns raised.

Regarding the architectural aspects of the project, the board sought clarification on the visibility of the building from the road, the location of HVAC equipment, and the incorporation of solar panels. The building’s design was presented with the intention of blending into the surroundings and adhering to safety and accessibility standards.

The applicant’s representatives provided justifications for the requested variances for lot depth, buffer area, signage, parking spaces, and other aspects of site design. They argued that the benefits of the proposed variances would outweigh any detriments and would not substantially impact the zone plan or community planning. This discussion highlighted the statutory criteria and practical considerations behind the variance requests.

The application’s alignment with the warehouse sighting guidelines and the master plan, which recognizes the need for warehousing developments, was also emphasized. The board and developers appeared to be in general agreement on most points, with the developers expressing their willingness to comply with the township’s regulations and standards.

Public comments included opposition from a resident concerning the proposal’s safety, traffic, pollution, noise, and impact on property values and the community’s quality of life. The resident also mentioned organizing a petition against the proposal.