A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the topic of public participation via Zoom, which has been a point of interest for community members seeking broader accessibility to board proceedings. Board members voiced their commitment to encouraging public involvement, acknowledging the demand for remote participation. However, they also highlighted challenges related to maintaining applicants’ legal rights during public hearings. Specifically, the board emphasized that while open public comments and discussions on matters referred by the Town Council could accommodate remote participation, hearings that involve evidence and testimony from applicants require in-person attendance. This is necessary to uphold applicants’ rights to cross-examine opposing testimonies.

Questions arose concerning the logistics of public participation, particularly during non-testimony sessions. It was confirmed that participants must state their addresses when making public comments, as this information helps determine whether the speaker is a resident or non-resident, potentially influencing the board’s consideration of their comments. There was clarification that ownership of property at the stated address is not required; the address serves as the primary identifier. The board also clarified that non-residents could generally participate in public comments, provided the discussion does not involve testimony-requiring matters.

In parallel, the board engaged in a discourse about adapting public comment procedures in line with changes at the council level. The council had recently adopted a format where public comments are collected, followed by a closure of the comment period, allowing the board and mayor to deliberate on responses collectively. This structured approach was supported by a board member, who argued that it streamlines discussions and minimizes the risk of debates escalating into arguments. Consensus was reached on adopting a similar procedure, with the board agreeing that this method provides clarity, consistency, and efficiency for public engagement. It was noted that the board rarely encounters a high volume of comments, but the structured approach proved effective during controversial ordinance discussions.

The board then addressed the scheduling of 2025 meeting dates and the associated notice provisions. The discussion included the obsolescence of certain newspapers, particularly the Star Ledger, which will cease physical publication in February. This raised questions about whether to continue designating it as the official newspaper for notices, given its shift to digital-only formats. While acknowledging legislative changes in newspaper publication, the board decided to maintain the Star Ledger as the official newspaper for the time being, with the option to reevaluate in March based on legislative developments. The motion to approve the 2025 meeting dates and retain the Star Ledger was passed unanimously through a voice vote.

On procedural matters, the board deferred the adoption of the Rules of Order until the February meeting, allowing time to review and adjust the rules in light of the new public inclusivity policies discussed.

The board also reviewed the minutes from the October 10, 2024, meeting, with a member suggesting specific corrections such as changing “previous use condition” to “pre-existing non-conforming use condition” and clarifying references to a “theoretical hypothetical map” from 2028. These corrections were discussed and agreed upon, leading to the approval of the amended minutes.

Despite the meeting’s focus on public participation and procedural changes, the board noted that public access via Zoom had not been properly advertised for this session, resulting in the decision to refrain from opening the floor for public comments. However, the chair invited comments on non-agenda items, though no public members were present to contribute.

Before adjourning, a board member inquired about potential property acquisitions near the municipal parking lot, but it was clarified that no discussions or plans were currently underway. Another member commented on curb markings, speculating whether they were related to a street fair or future parking meter locations, with confirmation that they were remnants from a street fair.