The most contentious subject was the proposed amendment to ordinance 57-25, which sought to replace references to the historic preservation commission with those to the historic preservation advisory committee. The debate centered around whether the ordinance inadvertently restricted HPAC members from serving on the Planning Board. Members expressed concern that the terminology change from “commission” to “committee” might impose unnecessary limitations, given that advisory committees do not carry the statutory powers of commissions. This led to discussions about the implications of the language used in the ordinance.

A participant highlighted that the current legal language, which stems from state statutes, was intended to maintain flexibility for HPAC members. Some members advocated for removing references to the HPAC entirely to prevent future misunderstandings, given that the township does not currently have a Historic Preservation Commission.

The issue was further complicated by the absence of a formal ordinance establishing the HPAC, leading to questions about its integration into the broader framework of township governance. Various members proposed that the ordinance should either remain unchanged or be revised to eliminate any mention of the HPAC, allowing for greater clarity and avoiding potential constraints on board members. This debate underscored a shared commitment to ensuring that the planning framework remained flexible and adaptive to future needs.

The use of digital tools to enhance collaboration within the Planning Board was another significant topic. The discussion included suggestions for adopting shared document platforms like Google Sheets or Docs to facilitate ordinance drafting and review. These tools would enable board members to contribute without forming a quorum, allowing for more efficient coordination. The dialogue acknowledged the importance of transparency, emphasizing that shared documents would not constitute a public meeting under current regulations.

Further collaboration was encouraged between the Planning Board and other township entities, with members proposing outreach to groups like the Shade Tree and Environmental Commissions. Engaging with these groups was seen as a way to align community goals and ensure cohesive governance. The board also discussed the importance of attending Board of Education meetings, noting a recent absence of Planning Board representation.

The meeting also addressed ongoing issues such as the Ordinance Review Committee’s (ORC) stalled initiatives due to scheduling conflicts. This prompted calls for members to take ownership of specific topics, like houses of worship and maximum setbacks in the BD zone along Valley Road, to prevent further delays. The ORC’s role was emphasized as a priority for the board, with discussions on how to improve efficiency in the ordinance review process through better communication and planning.