The meeting’s primary topic was the 21-day review rule for application submissions, which has been a point of contention as the board faces a backlog and increasing pressure from applicants submitting materials late. One board member raised concerns about whether the board itself was contributing to these issues by allowing flexibility in the deadline. They noted that while professionals were doing their best, timely submission of necessary documentation was critical for effective reviews. Another member acknowledged the rule’s usefulness but pointed out that it did not prevent professionals from delaying their work until the last moment. This led to consensus that although flexibility might be necessary occasionally, the board must carefully consider when to waive this requirement.

The discussion also touched on perceptions of favoritism, with a member asserting that inconsistent treatment of applicants could lead to problems. They suggested enforcing the 21-day rule more strictly. This approach was supported by other members who noted past attempts to alleviate backlogs with flexibility, only to question whether this leniency had exacerbated issues.

Even when reviews were conducted promptly, some applicants chose not to proceed based on feedback received, contributing to delays. A member highlighted that overwhelmed professionals could inadequately support clients, causing applicants to hesitate in advancing their cases. This situation underscored the complex interplay of factors affecting the review process.

To address these challenges, the board considered maintaining the 21-day rule for first-time hearings while allowing flexibility for subsequent submissions. Effective communication with applicants about timelines was emphasized, as was the impact of holiday scheduling on submission deadlines. Clarifications were made regarding whether to count business or calendar days, with consensus leaning towards calendar days unless interrupted by a holiday.

Amidst these deliberations, applications were reviewed. Fieldstone at Flemington LLC’s request for a time extension for site plan signatures was unanimously approved, deemed a formality as all financial matters were resolved. Hun and Storage Inc. sought to reschedule their application pending redesign plans, with the board deciding no motion would be made until revised plans were submitted. Robert Reese’s request for a certificate of non-conforming use was continued to November 7, 2024, without further notice needed, as a new date was confirmed in a letter. Flemington Realty LLC’s proposal for a new car dealership site plan was adjourned to address professional feedback, with December 19 mentioned as a potential date.

The board concluded by agreeing to carry an application to December 19 without further advertisement, interpreting the applicant’s request as securing that date. Members expressed preference for this method over re-advertising, which was seen as cumbersome. The meeting wrapped up with a reminder of procedural rules, including state mandates for public notification, before a motion to adjourn was made.