The board’s decision to accept the 80-unit designation for affordable housing was a central topic of the meeting. This discussion was marked by a substantial debate on the legal and financial implications of moving forward with the additional unit. It was noted that consultations with legal experts suggested that opposing the increase would likely lead to high costs without meaningful benefits for Garwood. Consequently, the board chose to proceed with the 80-unit plan, moving past earlier objections related to open space concerns.

The debate on affordable housing also touched on potential locations for new units, specifically considering the upper floors of commercial buildings along North Avenue. The board weighed the challenges of parking availability, with some members advocating for the exemption of affordable units from regular parking requirements. However, this raised concerns about the broader impact on parking in the town.

In parallel, the board engaged in a lengthy discussion on the procedures related to planning, permits, and the issuance of CFOs. A key issue was the requirement for applicants to submit plans that meet consultant criteria before proceeding to the permit stage. This process involves multiple steps, including feedback from consultants and eventual board resolutions, with no plans advancing to the building department without necessary approvals.

A particular concern was raised about the board’s inability to delay the issuance of CFOs, except in cases involving life and safety issues. This prompted a consensus to draft a letter to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), seeking clarity on the responsibilities related to building permits and CFOs. The board emphasized the importance of applicants understanding the need for sign-offs from the zoning officer as part of the permit process.

The meeting also covered the reorganization of the board for the upcoming year, with Steve Greet elected as chair and Kathy Vagio as vice-chair. The board also confirmed appointments for positions such as board attorney and consulting engineer, all receiving unanimous support. Additionally, meeting dates for 2025 were established, with sessions to be held at Barl Hall and accessible via Zoom.

In new business, the board reviewed the 2024 zoning annual year-end report. A suggestion emerged to enhance the report by tracking zoning change recommendations, though a point of contention arose over language implying the governing body should receive these recommendations. The board considered revising this phrasing to avoid potential confusion.

Further discussions included a proposal to draft an ordinance clarifying the code regarding businesses like body piercing and tattooing establishments. This initiative aims to streamline regulations and encourage business opportunities. The board agreed on the importance of coordinating these potential changes with ongoing reviews by the Community Development department.

The meeting concluded with a review of the developers’ assistant package, designed to help applicants navigate the application process. Concerns were noted about the package’s comprehensiveness, especially towards the end stages.