The meeting’s focal point was the proposal’s impact on local traffic, particularly managing the movement of large trucks within the site. Discussions highlighted the challenges posed by WB 67 trucks, which could struggle with maneuverability, potentially encroaching into opposite lanes. Although the site was primarily designed to accommodate WB 55 trucks, the applicant assured the board that WB 67 trucks could navigate the site without severe complications. Board members remained skeptical about enforcing truck size restrictions, emphasizing the need for clear signage and lease agreements to prevent larger trucks from accessing the site.

Traffic engineer Doug Pena provided a comprehensive analysis, noting that the site’s anticipated traffic contribution would be minimal, adding only about one and a half percent to the total volumes at critical intersections. He emphasized that the development’s traffic impact would not degrade the existing level of service, with the site generating an estimated one vehicle every two minutes during peak hours. The board scrutinized these findings, particularly concerning the intersection of Minia Coning and Flemington Junction, where improvements had enhanced sight lines but not alleviated congestion on Route 31 South.

Environmental considerations also formed a part of the discussion. Site engineer Mike Ford presented the development plan, addressing environmental concerns such as the proximity to Mincon Creek and the need for updated studies due to changes in state standards. He confirmed that a flood hazard area permit had been filed and that the project would include an underground stormwater management basin primarily for water quality purposes. The board examined the proposal’s compliance with township codes, specifically regarding a small intrusion into a freshwater wetland, which Ford stated was necessary for the site’s detention basin discharge.

Tree preservation was another topic of debate, focusing on a 24-inch caliper tree in the township’s stream corridor. While the ordinance permits its removal, the board considered a proposal to construct a retaining wall around the tree’s drip line, allowing for its preservation. This plan would require a waiver due to the structure’s location within the 75 to 100-foot stream corridor buffer area, but the applicant was willing to cover the additional costs if preservation was favored by the board.

Architectural aspects of the development were presented, with a focus on the design of the two warehouse buildings. The proposed structures would be nearly mirror images, featuring storefront entrances and overhead doors for truck access. The design aimed to blend with existing buildings, using a light gray color scheme with dark gray accents and blue signage. The board discussed the building’s height, confirmed at 37 feet 6 inches, and noted that HVAC units would be concealed from view, maintaining a streamlined aesthetic without canopies.

The board also evaluated the project’s adherence to local zoning requirements, with planner John Leo Cavalo detailing the three variances sought for encroachments into buffer preservation areas and one for grade disturbance. Cavalo argued that the project aligned with zoning ordinances and promoted a mix of land uses compatible with the surrounding area. He presented drone images to illustrate the site layout and emphasized the project’s benefits, stating that the advantages outweighed any potential detriments.