A considerable portion of the meeting was devoted to discussing the proposed establishment known as “Snapshack.” This project involves a simple restaurant concept featuring a covered open-air canopy. However, ambiguities regarding the design persisted, particularly whether the covered area would be completely open or include walls, prompting a suggestion for further clarification to be sought. The kitchen setup for “Snapshack” was also highlighted, noting the decision to avoid costly industrial-grade appliances. Suggestions were made to expedite the project’s progress by utilizing food trailers as a temporary solution, with board members encouraging ongoing discussions in future meetings to address these uncertainties.

Attention then turned to the recreation open space master plan. The board reviewed comments from the recreation committee, which led to several recommendations for capital projects. Although some projects faced delays, adjustments were made, such as the proposal to redesign a building at Claremont Field Ker Park for restroom purposes instead of removing it. The importance of evaluating maintenance responsibilities for restroom facilities, whether temporary or permanent, was emphasized. The Somerset Hills Ball Club’s involvement in facility enhancements was acknowledged, and the recommendation for interim restroom solutions, like port-a-potties at the Rose Bowl loop trail, was discussed while expressing a preference for more permanent structures in the future.

The board also addressed concerns regarding NJ Transit relics, with suggestions to expedite their removal. Although uncertainties lingered about the relationship between cleanup efforts and ongoing infrastructure issues concerning the dam, it was recognized that removing a trailer in the water could improve the area’s aesthetics.

Another topic was the procedural and technical hurdles related to updating the park and recreation master plan. Board members received an email containing an updated PDF, which was not fully accessible to all involved, highlighting the need for a more streamlined document review process. The focus was on adopting and extending priorities outlined in previous documents, particularly in section 8, which contains individual park recommendations. A table, referred to as table 8.1, had been extracted and revised, with members expressing dissatisfaction with its current form and intent to supersede it.

The board debated options for updating section 8, considering manual scanning versus advanced OCR technology to convert the document into an editable format. The section was described as manageable in length, consisting of about ten pages. The importance of ensuring consistency between revisions in the table and the text was stressed to avoid discrepancies. Challenges in accessing and editing the document were acknowledged, with suggestions to reach out to individuals involved in previous updates.

The board also discussed a pending application involving a business seeking to use an adjacent building for additional space, specifically an “atrium room.” Concerns were raised about occupancy limits and whether seating capacity would increase. Clarification was provided by the owner, who assured that seating capacity would remain unchanged. The application suggested a shift towards reception-style events, raising questions about compliance with existing conditions related to fire occupancy and parking. The board recognized the necessity of monitoring and enforcing these conditions, with particular attention to parking and the number of tables used.