The most engaging topic centered on the regulation of food trucks, which are presently not governed by a specific framework for operation on private properties. The board discussed the idea of establishing a zoning application process for food trucks, involving an annual registration fee. This proposal aims to provide a legal pathway for food trucks to operate while ensuring they do not remain on-site overnight, which would otherwise require different zoning considerations. The dialogue highlighted the current lack of regulations and the need for a structured process to manage food truck operations effectively.

A participant proposed a flat fee of $100 for food trucks operating at multiple commercial properties within a year, emphasizing the necessity of adequate parking arrangements. This sparked a broader conversation about the need for a prioritized list to address various issues related to food truck regulations. The discussion also touched on the presence of convenience stores and coffee trucks at construction sites.

Moreover, the board acknowledged that food trucks must adhere to health and fire department standards. It was noted that Don Huber, the fire official, inspects these food trucks each time they are on site to ensure compliance, raising the question of whether these requirements should be codified into an ordinance. This conversation illustrated the regulatory complexities involved in managing mobile food vendors and the need for consistent enforcement.

In addition to food truck regulations, there was a focus on reviewing and potentially increasing various fees, including those for concept reviews and bulk variances. The board discussed the reduction of the concept review fee from $325 to $200, debating whether this decrease was justified given the infrequency of such reviews. Some members argued for further reductions, while others noted the importance of maintaining an escrow deposit to cover professional review costs. The conversation also touched upon the necessity of raising fees for bulk variances, which have not been adjusted in over a decade.

The meeting also featured discussions on the usage of underutilized properties. A participant noted the absence of a primary use for a property, prompting a debate about the language used in documentation. It was agreed to remove the term “underutilized” and instead frame the proposal as a means to “revitalize two commercial properties.” This decision was part of a broader effort to ensure clarity and consistency in documentation, which also included discussions about the placement of a trash enclosure near Union Street.

Another topic was the upcoming ordinance review concerning houses of worship. The board recognized the opportunity for input before the next meeting and established a timeline for feedback. The discussion also touched on the lack of fee increases over the past decade, with a proposal introduced for a fee ordinance that will require the board’s vote before submission to the township committee.

Members expressed a desire for clarity in the wording to avoid any potential misunderstanding or misinterpretation in future developments.