One of the primary topics of concern was the review of ordinance number 2025-27, which deals with front yard fences. The board’s focus was on ensuring that any requests for such fences would require a variance, aligning with the master plan’s goals of avoiding conflicts and promoting a visually appealing environment. The ordinance review is a part of the board’s broader effort to update local ordinances, eliminating unnecessary hurdles similar to past adjustments for swimming pools and decks. The board is working towards presenting their recommendations to the council in January, which would allow the council adequate time to act before the March deadline.

The meeting also highlighted the status of the borough’s fair share plan concerning affordable housing. The board has not received updates on this matter, as the borough is waiting for a concept meeting with the courts to address comments from Fair Share Housing Center. These comments, though partly standard, necessitate revisions to the borough’s plan. The board is aware of the potential delays due to the court’s scheduling and is determined to remain proactive.

Another issue discussed was the backlog of incomplete applications, which has become a concern for the board. Several applications have been deemed incomplete, with one applicant repeatedly resubmitting but still facing issues. The process has been lengthy, with applicants changing attorneys multiple times, adding to the delays. The board expressed concerns about the prolonged resolution process and the need for a mechanism to dismiss applications for lack of prosecution, which could allow for refunds of escrow funds and require applicants to start the process anew. This approach could help manage the backlog and ensure that the borough’s development processes remain efficient.

A specific instance was highlighted where an application for “flipping breaks, block 21, lot 12” was withdrawn due to a defective notice that failed to include significant required variances. This led to a hold on the application for further engineering and planning reviews. The applicant is working on revising their submission to comply with the ordinances. The board is ensuring that any new notices issued will be compliant, with the expectation that they will be filed at least ten days before the next meeting. The complexities of the review process were evident, with ongoing communication between the board and the applicant’s attorney.

Additionally, there was a discussion about the lack of applications from local restaurants for outdoor seating, which had previously been allowed under a governor’s exemption. The board members viewed the exemption as unfair, considering their home rule status. Questions were raised about the completeness review process and whether public notices were adequately checked before being sent out. While the board typically checks for notice appropriateness, this specific case had unusual circumstances requiring additional scrutiny.

Gratitude was expressed for the collective efforts in navigating these challenges.