One notable issue addressed was the introduction and approval of a new temporary sign ordinance aimed at alleviating the financial burden on nonprofit organizations. This ordinance emerged after a nonprofit faced a substantial fee for temporary signage, highlighting the need for more accommodating regulations. The new ordinance has provisions for nonprofits to receive a certain number of free signs if they are already paying for permits, while a $50 fee will apply to other signs. Additionally, signs can be displayed two weeks before an event and must be removed within three days afterward, with a $10 per sign per day fine for violations.

The Planning Board’s discussion emphasized clarity in enforcing these rules, distinguishing between signs for private events and business promotions. Concerns were also raised about whether the Flemington Community Partnership (FCP) should adhere to the same regulations, given their public status. The ordinance does not cover existing banners on FCP properties, as these are part of governmental operations. Political and campaign-related signage are excluded from the new regulations, focusing instead on private property signs.

The conversation underscored the need to streamline the process, particularly for zoning and property maintenance officers who had been managing the enforcement of the previous, often ambiguous, sign regulations. Larger real estate signs, previously under scrutiny, were acknowledged as likely falling outside the temporary signage category due to their permanence and size. The board’s primary goal was to create a user-friendly and enforceable set of rules, balancing community engagement through signage with maintaining the town’s aesthetic.

Another major topic was the zoning map update based on the master plan’s recommendations. The focus was on the northern portion of the B zone, where parcels were rezoned from the PO District to TC, and one parcel to the PSP designation. The ordinance also removed the PO district and its overlay, addressing a misunderstanding from a previous approval that was never finalized. In a consistency review, the board unanimously supported that ordinance 20249 is not substantially inconsistent with the master plan.

Additionally, the board conducted a consistency review of ordinance 2024 s22, which aimed to amend Chapter 26 on temporary signage regulations. This was prompted by issues faced by a nonprofit over substantial fees for temporary signs, resulting in a structured ordinance to balance fees for both nonprofits and for-profits. The updated regulations allow for signs to be displayed two weeks before an event and mandate their removal within three days after. The board’s discussion highlighted enforcement clarity, distinguishing private event signs from business promotions, and excluded political campaign signs from the new rules.

The Planning Board also addressed the need for revising planning application forms related to sewer and water requests. A proposal was made to separate the combined form into two distinct forms. Concerns were raised about potential redundancy and increased applicant burden. The current combined form was developed by the water and sewer department, and separating it might complicate reviews. The discussion pointed out that double fees might apply, doubling costs for applicants. Further clarification from the water and sewer departments was suggested before making a final decision.

The issue of escrow accounts in planning applications was another significant topic. The board discussed implementing more regulations to ensure applicants maintain sufficient escrow levels before returning to the board. It was suggested that escrow amounts should be automatically replenished once they dip below a certain threshold. The conversation acknowledged that some towns enforce strict policies, preventing applicants from reappearing before the board until their escrow is fully funded. The board agreed that stricter policies would encourage responsible financial management by applicants.

Board members also discussed upcoming meetings, particularly the completeness review for Liberty Village scheduled for October 8. Members were reminded to familiarize themselves with the substantial documentation associated with this application. There was also mention of a potential gap in meeting schedules due to holidays, and members were encouraged to inform the administration of their availability to ensure a quorum during the busy November schedule.