The issue arose when the representative for Flemington Junction Associates, Roman numeral III, addressed the board, explaining that a court stenographer was not sent to the hearing room as mandated. Instead, a gentleman prepared to make an audio recording was present. The board, emphasizing consistency and adherence to its ordinance, declined to proceed with audio recording alone, despite the applicant’s request to continue with an audio-visual option as an alternative. The representative expressed readiness to move forward, highlighting the effort and expense already involved in preparing for the hearing, but respected the board’s decision to defer the hearing.

The board discussed possible rescheduling options, considering the approaching holidays and the board’s existing commitments. Ultimately, they tentatively agreed to reconvene for the hearing on December 18, provided the applicant submits revised plans by December 6. The board assured that no further public notice would be necessary, as the change in schedule was announced during the meeting.

In addition to the Flemington Junction matter, the board briefly touched on logistical concerns surrounding the scheduling of special meetings, noting the financial and procedural requirements involved.