The debate over the proposed amendment to the borough’s zoning ordinance to allow tattoo parlors highlighted a shift in attitudes towards tattoo artistry. Council members discussed the potential cultural and economic contributions of the Prear family’s proposed tattoo shop, emphasizing the diminishing stigma associated with tattoos. The proposal included a suggestion to restrict tattoo businesses to the second floors of commercial properties, which was presented as a positive initiative by the council president. However, some members expressed concerns about the broad scope of business districts where tattoo parlors could be permitted, given the proximity to schools and daycare centers.

Discussions included the possibility of imposing a distance requirement between tattoo establishments, but this idea was met with mixed reactions regarding enforceability. The borough attorney noted that while some limitations could be implemented, they might face legal challenges. The council was urged to ensure transparency and public discourse before finalizing the ordinance, with some members advocating for postponing the decision to allow for community feedback.

Despite these concerns, the council proceeded with the vote, with a member pointing out that the changes had been pending for three years and the primary difference was the classification of tattoo art. The motion to proceed with the ordinance was passed.

Affordable housing mandates remained a focal point, with residents Denise Bini and Katherine Marshall from Preserve Rutherford voicing concerns over the borough’s ability to comply with state requirements. They highlighted challenges related to the proposed numbers for affordable housing units under the fourth round of state mandates and urged the borough to consider joining a lawsuit involving other municipalities. The council acknowledged the complexities of implementing such developments given Rutherford’s limited open land and existing infrastructure.

The borough has engaged Neglia Engineering to assist in addressing affordable housing issues, with the state identifying a need for 223 units, which would necessitate building 1,488 units to meet a 15% set-aside requirement. Discussions included the risks of ignoring state requirements, which could lead to unrestricted development through a “builder’s remedy.” The council expressed determination to remain engaged in discussions with state officials, emphasizing the need for a fair approach that considers Rutherford’s unique situation.

In addition to these major topics, the council considered amendments to the borough’s stormwater ordinance. A resident, Brian Hansen Harding, highlighted concerns that the current ordinance does not adequately address Rutherford’s dense development and limited open space. The council acknowledged the need for stricter standards and discussed the possibility of adopting a model from Elizabeth, where more rigorous regulations are in place.

Another discussion revolved around park display policies, particularly the increasing number of requests from residents and community groups for displays within borough parks. The mayor expressed concerns about inclusivity and potential disputes arising from allowing a wide range of displays. The borough attorney noted the legal implications of opening public property for displays, which requires allowing all groups to participate once opened to one. The council agreed to further deliberate and prepare guidelines for future requests, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to managing public spaces.

The council also discussed the Board of Health’s decision to seek independent legal counsel due to potential conflicts of interest with the borough attorney.

The meeting concluded with discussions on scheduling and approval of public event requests, particularly for the holiday season and a request for February 2025. The council emphasized the importance of timely notification for organizations and considered addressing pending requests at the upcoming January meeting.