The primary focus of the meeting was the amendment to Chapter 30 of the land development regulations, introduced by Michelle Alonso, director of plan redevelopment. This amendment was driven by a mandate from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requiring municipalities to revise their stormwater regulations. The proposed changes involved removing certain language from the municipal ordinance and referencing the state statute, NJAC 78-1, directly. This approach was designed to streamline the process, ensuring automatic updates in line with state changes, thus avoiding repetitive amendments by the city. The board discussed the implications of these adjustments, confirming that while most changes involved deletions, minor additions were made for consistency with the DEP’s model ordinance. Members acknowledged the necessity of adopting the changes, with no significant opposition noted.

In a related discussion, the board delved into the specifics of stormwater management requirements for minor developments, particularly scrutinizing section 30-58. A board member raised questions regarding the language used, specifically the terms “inability” and “impracticality” in variance applications. This sparked a conversation about whether such terms could be misinterpreted, potentially allowing applicants undue flexibility in bypassing strict compliance due to site challenges. It was pointed out that this language was carried over from the last update in 2021, which was thoroughly vetted at the time. Although the term “impracticality” was not part of the state’s model ordinance, members expressed valid concerns about its potential for broad interpretation.

Despite these concerns, it was noted that since the 2021 update, there had only been one request for a variance, which was related to physical challenges with a single-family home. Due to timing constraints, with a second reading scheduled for the following Wednesday, the board decided to incorporate their concerns about the variance language into future zoning amendments, rather than risk delaying the current ordinance’s adoption.

The meeting also covered the approval of resolutions for specific properties. One such resolution was for a property on First Avenue, involving a revision in parking arrangements. The new language ensured that parking would be included in the monthly rent, with tenants accessing unassigned spaces using a fob for the parking garage. The amendment was accepted without objection, reflecting previous discussions. Additionally, members addressed the absence of a specific street address for the property, opting to reference block numbers and lots instead. There was also an agreement on the necessity for the applicant to consult adjacent property owners regarding fence placement to ensure compliance with zoning regulations.

Another topic was the suggestion to improve the language in item 11 of the resolution, which required the submission of a drainage maintenance manual. A member proposed adopting more precise language for future resolutions, aligning with the Department of Environmental Protection’s stormwater Best Management Practices manual. While this suggestion was noted for future consideration, the current resolution remained unchanged.