The primary focus of the meeting was an application from Federal Business Centers Inc. for preliminary and final site plan approval, along with several bulk variances, for a proposed warehouse. The chairman of the board expressed concerns about the warehouse’s compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood, emphasizing traffic issues and suggesting that warehouses should be located in areas with better road access rather than on residential streets.

Resident Sudhir Mamdapur highlighted five specific variances requested by the applicant. He pointed out the inadequate lot size and depth, questioning how a facility of 176,000 square feet could fit safely in an area that does not meet basic zoning requirements. Mamdapur also raised concerns about the lack of a berm, which would leave nearby homes exposed to noise and light pollution. He questioned the safety implications of the proposed parking plan, which included 93 fewer parking spaces than required, potentially leading to overflow into nearby residential streets and increased traffic hazards.

Dennis Liu, another resident, reiterated these concerns, emphasizing the community’s united opposition to the project. He stressed the adverse effects the warehouse would have on the neighborhood.

Traffic issues were a recurring theme throughout the public comments. Murali Nandigama likened the expected traffic congestion to “traffic as big as Taylor Swift’s concert,” questioning the accuracy of the traffic report prepared for the planning meeting. Residents argued that real-time observation of traffic conditions would provide a more accurate assessment. Concerns were also raised about the fairness of how variances are applied, with one speaker highlighting the financial burden on homeowners who are held to strict standards while commercial builders are granted numerous variances.

A ten-year-old resident voiced her worries about the proposed warehouse, stating that the size of the trucks would create dangerous conditions for children and increase the likelihood of traffic accidents. She suggested that the community would benefit more from a playground than a warehouse.

Environmental concerns were also prominent. Chirag B. Patel questioned if an environmental impact assessment had been conducted, especially given the potential for pollution and adverse effects on local wildlife. He criticized the plan for requiring the removal of trees along Butcher Road and questioned the compliance of the proposed driveway width with township regulations. Vata Mungara referenced the 2022 revision of the township’s master plan, which emphasizes the preservation of open space, and raised concerns about the shift towards a warehouse instead of recreational space.

John Connell described how increased truck traffic would exacerbate existing traffic issues, making it difficult for residents to navigate intersections and potentially creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians and young drivers. Vishnu Vadakane, a high school senior, emphasized the risks for children waiting for school buses along Butcher Road, which would be unsafe if large trucks were present.

The community’s desire for better infrastructure and safety measures before proceeding with new developments was a recurring theme. Residents expressed a unified concern over the potential negative impacts on their quality of life, traffic congestion, and safety in the neighborhood. They urged the planning board to reconsider the project in light of these concerns, advocating for alternative developments that would better serve the needs of residents, such as parks or recreational facilities.

Several residents also raised procedural concerns. Claudette Klimczak questioned whether an analysis had been conducted on the structural integrity of nearby bridges and the drainage impacts related to the warehouse. She also brought up potential conflicts of interest, referring to campaign donations made by the warehouse developer to elected officials.

The meeting concluded with the planning board chair announcing the suspension of the public portion of the meeting. The meeting then transitioned to other agenda items, including a discussion of an updated stormwater management ordinance necessitated by changes in state regulations. The board moved to approve the ordinance, with a member requesting clarification about when the updated regulations would take effect and whether they would apply retroactively to applications not yet fully approved.