The central topic of the evening was the contentious overlay ordinance for a movie studio, introduced by the township committee. The board was tasked with determining whether the ordinance was consistent with the township’s master plan. Several members voiced the need for a concept plan to evaluate its impact, highlighting that previous overlays had included such plans. One member expressed, “I can’t possibly make an intelligent decision tonight” without clearer guidance, emphasizing the need for a review process. This sentiment was countered by others who believed adequate information had been provided, with one member stating, “The consequences of this board not doing its job tonight are severe and significant.”

The debate was further complicated by the ordinance’s time-sensitive nature. If the board did not make a decision that night, the ordinance would expire at the year’s end unless reintroduced. While some members argued for tabling the discussion to allow more time for review, others insisted that the board had sufficient data from the planner’s memo. The mayor, who was present, stressed the importance of completing the review to allow public input at a hearing scheduled for December 23.

Further examination of the planner’s memo revealed a divergence of views among board members. The planner’s absence at the meeting was noted, and one member expressed dissatisfaction with the memo’s clarity, describing it as “waffling.” Despite this, the board attorney provided a detailed explanation of the master plan consistency review process, emphasizing the board’s responsibility to make an independent determination. The memo outlined two potential pathways: finding the ordinance “not inconsistent” with the master plan or determining it was inconsistent based on the overlay zone’s appropriateness and intensity.

Discussion also focused on the zoning classification and housing objectives within the conservation residential districts, specifically CR1 and CR2. A recommendation within the master plan to change a site’s zoning from a three-acre zone to a seven-acre zone was highlighted, primarily based on the land’s ability to accommodate septic systems.

A motion to table the discussion was introduced, with members expressing the need for more information before making a determination. A member with experience in land development criticized the hurried review process. This viewpoint was met with opposition from those who argued for immediate action to support the township committee.

While some members advocated for taking the full 35 days allowed by statute to evaluate the ordinance properly, others emphasized the urgency of making a decision. The conversation highlighted the varying interpretations of the planner’s memo and the implications for future decision-making.