The board granted an extension for an existing approval delayed by the county, highlighting the often complex interplay between local and county-level bureaucracy. During the meeting, there was a strong focus on clarifying and revising the zoning code. points of contention included the definitions of major and minor development, as the board sought to establish consistency across various sections of the code. One of the proposed changes suggested that minor developments could be exempt from submitting grading plans for construction permits under certain conditions, potentially streamlining the process for smaller projects.

The discussion on zoning code updates extended to the topic of fences, with a proposal to allow 6-foot high fences in side yards. Furthermore, the board considered imposing a moratorium on road openings within 5 years of a road being paved, save for emergency situations or other unavoidable circumstances. This would preserve the integrity of newly paved roads and minimize disruptions to residents.

In an effort to enhance the township’s aesthetic and environmental standards, the meeting also touched on landscaping requirements for new subdivisions and site plans. The board recommended the development of architectural design standards for larger or non-residential structures. Additionally, the members expressed a desire to exceed state requirements for stormwater management by exploring alternative methods.

The subcommittee’s draft report on master plan reexamination was a central topic, which included the assessment of previous master plans, demographic changes, and recommendations for ordinance changes that accommodate emerging industries and technologies such as cannabis businesses and battery energy storage systems. The report also recommended permitting storage as an accessory use in the business district and addressing gaps and inconsistencies in different sections of the zoning code.

Further recommendations from the draft report included a focus on areas with development potential for future redevelopment and the assessment of electric vehicle infrastructure, particularly along highways and on public properties. Amidst these discussions, there was a clear consensus on the need for the entire board to review the draft report before engaging in further deliberations.

One of the more issues was the distinction between major and minor subdivisions, spurring debate among members. The board acknowledged the importance of review and discussion, considering additional meetings to address specific concerns such as the floating zone issue. The subcommittee agreed to amend the report concerning item number nine, presenting the rest of the plan as complete to the planning board.

The meeting also broached the subject of zoning for residential properties within the highway commercial district, with an understanding that existing residences would be allowed to remain. Additionally, there was a brief mention of a Dollar General application being deferred to the July meeting, emphasizing the need for proper legal notification.

As the meeting drew to a close, there was a debate over the public’s ability to comment on the master plan without proper advertisement, ultimately leading to the decision to adjourn despite objections from a member of the public.