The most substantial issue addressed was the timing of sewerage fee payments for the Foundry Urban Renewal project, a development located on James Street and Fairview Avenue. The applicant, represented by John Kaplan from Herald Law, requested to defer payment of sewerage authority fees until prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy, instead of before the issuance of building permits. This request sparked debate among board members due to existing borough ordinances that require these fees to be paid upfront before construction permits are issued.

Concerns were raised that delaying the fee payment could complicate the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) since the Uniform Construction Code mandates the issuance of a TCO regardless of unpaid fees. This created a potential conflict with current borough practices, which consistently adhere to upfront fee payments. Ryan Storms, presumably representing the applicant, was sworn in to clarify the Sewerage Authority’s requirements.

Further complicating the matter, a resolution from the sewer authority was referenced, stating that connection fees are due “at the time of connection.” This reinforced the borough’s stance on maintaining established procedures and avoiding precedents for exceptions. The building department confirmed that proof of payment must be shown before plumbing permits are issued, emphasizing the necessity of a receipt from the sewer authority.

In addition to sewerage fees, the board discussed lighting concerns at the Foundry Urban Renewal project. The applicant proposed a post-construction site meeting with a borough representative to adjust newly installed dimmable lights based on nighttime conditions. This aimed to minimize light intrusion on neighboring properties while ensuring adequate safety lighting for shift workers in the parking areas. The board appeared receptive to this proposal, acknowledging the flexibility of dimmable fixtures to accommodate necessary adjustments.

The meeting also briefly revisited the topic of variances related to flat roofs, which had been addressed previously, and clarified that only one hydrant was involved for the project, negating the need for a loop system. The fire official had reviewed and approved the arrangement.

Attention shifted to the ongoing ordinance concerning improvement coverage, which had been introduced but was now slated for further discussion before moving to a public hearing or adoption vote. A meeting involving the planning board, borough council, and environmental commission was being organized to facilitate a comprehensive dialogue and ensure all stakeholders had the opportunity to voice their opinions.

The board also revisited the topic of electric vehicle charging stations. Organizing further meetings on this matter proved challenging, but concerns were noted regarding best practices for placing EV chargers to mitigate fire hazards. There was consensus about not situating chargers inside structures due to safety risks, instead suggesting designated surface parking areas with appropriate fire ratings. Additionally, potential conflicts regarding the placement of charging stations and their impact on site plans were discussed, including the ambiguous term “reasonable distance” for off-site charging.

Adjacent municipalities’ experiences with LED signage on charging stations also informed the discussion, as these signs were causing disturbances at night and leading to local regulatory responses.