The most notable and issue involved the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s application for a minor subdivision on Davidson Avenue and a separate use variance to retain current seminary and church facilities. The church’s attorney, Peter Lanford, addressed the board, explaining procedural details and confirming that Archbishop Anthony, initially slated to testify, was absent due to an incident of violence at a previous meeting. Lanford noted the Archbishop’s health concerns, emphasizing the decision to prioritize safety. As a substitute, attorney David Lansky presented the church’s historical context, detailing the property acquisitions and developments since 1951. This background was intended to frame the board’s assessment of the current applications.

Further complications arose when it was revealed that the church had sold land to finance the construction of a cultural center, later encountering significant building code issues that delayed its occupancy. The cultural center’s eventual sale was framed as a strategy to fund new museum and educational facilities, sparking concerns about preserving cultural heritage and transparency in financial dealings. Community members questioned the legitimacy of the church’s board of trustees and the transparency of their decisions, with some attendees expressing skepticism about the representation of parishioner interests.

The board’s legal counsel maintained that their role did not extend to verifying internal church governance, focusing instead on the legitimacy of the application itself. However, community members pressed for assurances that any decisions regarding property sales were supported by proper resolutions, with some challenging the narrative that asset sales were the only viable solution to financial difficulties.

The proposed warehouse development adjacent to the church property introduced additional layers of complexity. The application included plans for significant landscaping and parking enhancements, yet required variances for driveway width and loading area depth. The board scrutinized the environmental impact of the warehouse, particularly concerning wetland buffers and stormwater management. Despite securing a permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for work within these buffers, the proposal sparked debate over the adequacy of environmental protections.

Community concerns about transparency and governance persisted throughout the discussions, with public comments reflecting dissatisfaction over perceived opacity in church decision-making. Questions regarding funding sources and the church’s commitments to its community remained unresolved, contributing to ongoing tensions. The board sought to maintain focus on the zoning applications, frequently redirecting off-topic inquiries back to relevant land use considerations.