The board’s most pressing business centered on a review and revision of its bylaws. Members tackled various procedural clarifications and sought to streamline the language and functionality of the document. This process involved comparing the old bylaws from 2015 with a new template, as well as two proposed versions—one marked with changes and one clean. The attorney explained that the marked-up version highlighted alterations made to transition from the old bylaws to the new template, emphasizing that many changes were to ensure clarity and eliminate redundancy.

A notable point of discussion was the phrase on page 18 of the clean version, “no decision shall be based upon any facts not proved.” Mr. Flatley suggested replacing this with “any evidence not proved” to avoid redundancy and ensure that decisions are based solely on submitted evidence. This suggestion was accepted, and the attorney agreed to revise the language.

The conversation included a debate on the roles defined within the bylaws, particularly the chairperson and vice-chairman. The board discussed whether to specify “regular member” versus “alternate,” ultimately deciding to adjust this terminology for clarity. Additionally, the reference to Robert’s Rules of Order was proposed for removal, as the board does not adhere to those rules.

Titles within the bylaws also received scrutiny. The distinction between “coordinator” and “administrator” for the secretary’s title was debated. The board decided to standardize the term “coordinator” to ensure the bylaws remained relevant regardless of future staffing changes. This change was deemed necessary to maintain consistency and clarity.

In another discussion, the board addressed the procedures for removing members. It was outlined that board member removal is governed by specific state laws, and a member can only be removed after a public hearing if requested. The governing body must have “good cause,” typically defined as misfeasance or nonfeasance with a substantial negative impact on the public.

Automatic removal upon change of residency was another point covered, with rules stating that members automatically relinquish their office if it’s declared by a judge. Additionally, missing four consecutive meetings or eight weeks of meetings could lead to notifying the governing body about the member’s status, though the board itself does not have the power to remove members, only to recommend such action.

The board also delved into the employment of staff and the roles of professionals such as the attorney, planner, engineer, and secretary. It was clarified that the township pays these professionals from an escrow account funded by applicants, not directly from the board. This discussion included the necessity of having a stenographer at meetings, leading to a consensus to rely on electronic recordings to streamline processes and reduce costs.

Further, the board examined the necessity of maintaining transcripts of meetings. It was suggested to eliminate the need for transcripts, as minutes and recordings are available online, fulfilling public record requirements. The consensus was to provide duplicate recordings upon request while eliminating references to transcripts to avoid additional expenses.

The procedural aspects of hearings were another focal point. Members discussed the timing of amendments, proposing that requests should be made either prior to or during the hearing itself. This aimed to prevent last-minute changes that could complicate proceedings.

The board also reviewed the oath that applicants must take, agreeing to adjust the wording to include “applicant or applicant’s representative,” ensuring that attorneys representing applicants are covered.

Absences among board members were a significant topic, with discussions on excused versus unexcused absences. The board emphasized the need for clear definitions and consistent policies to guide the process. It was noted that long-term illnesses might qualify as legitimate absences, but the governing body views all absences uniformly. The potential for automatic removal after a certain number of unexcused absences was highlighted, differentiating between vacating a position and forfeiting it, often depending on whether a criminal act was committed.

Towards the end of the meeting, it was noted that there were two upcoming applications for consideration—one involving a new house and another concerning a senior suite. The board debated the sequence of reviewing these applications.