The primary focus of the meeting was the reexamination of the master plan, which is due in August 2026. Questions had arisen in previous meetings regarding the scope of the reexamination—whether it would involve amending certain elements or necessitate a full rewrite. The board decided to invite Mike Sullivan, the board planner, to provide professional insight and assistance in organizing the reexamination process. There was a consensus that professional guidance was required to develop a timeline and to ensure proper public outreach.

Sullivan noted that the last reexamination report conducted by his firm in 2016 was relatively basic and did not include robust policy recommendations. The distinction between a master plan and a reexamination report was emphasized; the latter serves as a planning tool rather than a comprehensive policy document. He highlighted the importance of reviewing how circumstances have changed since the last reexamination and making recommendations for any necessary amendments.

One significant aspect of the reexamination process involves housing, particularly given new state regulations regarding affordable housing. Sullivan pointed out that the state introduced new laws in March requiring towns to account for trust fund spending and affordable housing production. A strict timeline has been set for compliance, with a deadline of June 30, 2025, for the development of a new housing plan. The board needs to consider whether this reexamination will also address the housing element of the master plan.

The conversation shifted toward the specific obligations Fair Haven faces as a “vacant land town,” meaning it lacks sufficient available land for development. Sullivan explained that this status requires the town to reassess potential redevelopment areas more rigorously. The board discussed the need for coordination with their affordable housing planner, who has been involved in reviewing the requirements set forth by the state, and acknowledged that the planning board has a responsibility to create proposals for the housing plan element.

Debate arose regarding the timing and coordination of efforts between the planning board and the governing body. Concerns were expressed about the potential for disorganization or miscommunication if multiple parties worked independently on the housing plan. One member reiterated the urgency of establishing a timeline, emphasizing the need to avoid last-minute surprises as deadlines approach.

Sullivan confirmed that the housing plan element is closely linked to the overall reexamination, but clarified that they are separate processes. The planning board’s role is to draft proposals that must then be approved by the governing body.

The discussion then shifted to the practicalities of addressing the unmet housing needs and potential strategies for increasing housing units through methods like inclusionary zoning, overlays, and other mechanisms. It was highlighted that the board would need to recognize any existing unmet needs and determine if there was a realistic plan to address them. There was a reference to a previous development that was intended to meet some housing requirements but ultimately did not materialize.

The need for more overlays to facilitate housing development was also discussed. It was suggested that the board consider areas where overlays had already been established but had not led to development. The idea of incentivizing redevelopment in commercial districts was proposed as a means to spur growth. It was noted that if developers perceive a financial opportunity, they will likely engage in the necessary development. The board was encouraged to explore these opportunities and to seek ways to enhance existing overlays to encourage positive change.

In addition to the housing discussion, the board emphasized the importance of conducting a public survey to gather community input on housing and development needs. The process of creating the survey was outlined as requiring careful formulation of questions, robust communication strategies, and adequate time for public participation. The potential benefits of recycling questions from a past survey were discussed. There was a consensus that the survey should not only focus on housing but could include broader municipal-related topics to gain a comprehensive understanding of community needs.

The board grappled with the fundamental question of whether they should merely conduct a reexamination or take the opportunity to refresh the entire master plan to reflect current conditions and community aspirations. It was noted that while it is common for towns to conduct reexaminations, it is rare for them to update every element of the master plan comprehensively.

The conversation highlighted the misalignment between the current master plan and the recommendations from previous reexaminations, such as the 2016 report. This misalignment raised concerns about whether it was the planning board’s responsibility to rectify these inconsistencies or if it fell under the purview of a governing body that had not acted on those recommendations. The importance of reviewing past accomplishments and unfulfilled objectives from the governing body was emphasized as a necessary step towards understanding the gaps in the planning process.

Another topic was stormwater management, with the Planning Board working with Rutgers University to develop best management practices. It was noted that the borough was the first municipality to engage with this initiative. The conversation included mentioning the need for an up-to-date stormwater management master plan and the potential integration of utilities.

Public engagement was also a focus, with discussions about innovative methods for soliciting community input, such as using maps for public outreach and digital tools like QR codes for accessing surveys. The board expressed the importance of maintaining an up-to-date framework to guide future zoning decisions effectively.