The primary focus of the meeting was application 7-2025S for the Scoop of Joe ice cream shop, which sought to add indoor seating. Since its opening on July 4, 2025, the shop had operated without seating, a requirement for formal Planning Board approval. Parking emerged as a key factor in the board’s deliberations, with historical data and recent observations supporting the shop’s capacity to accommodate additional seating without exacerbating parking issues. The board noted the ice cream shop’s operational hours complemented those of surrounding businesses, reducing the potential for congestion.

During the application review, Johanni Gene Louise, the shop’s representative, provided testimony about business operations. She confirmed that deliveries originated from another location, negating the need for a loading zone, and that no cooking occurred on-site, which eliminated the need for an exhaust system. Additionally, Louise assured the board that no liquor sales or live entertainment were planned. After addressing concerns about garbage beside the building, the board unanimously approved the variance, allowing the shop to proceed with its seating plans.

Adjacent to the seating discussion, the board examined parking variance issues related to a multi-tenant building that included a retail space intending to serve ice cream with eight indoor seats. The application calculated a need for 3.2 to 5.3 parking spaces, contingent on retail or restaurant standards. The board clarified that any operational changes would necessitate a new application.

Public commentary was invited, leading to local resident Alexa Martinez voicing concerns about parking overflow impacting residential areas. She reported vehicles obstructing her driveway and questioned the thoroughness of the parking analysis. Martinez inquired about potential rezoning of street parking regulations and past parking variances granted to local businesses. A board member clarified no previous variances had been issued in the area and emphasized that residential parking regulations were under the township committee’s purview, not the planning board’s.

Safety concerns were further highlighted by another resident who requested town subsidies for concrete barricades to prevent vehicles from damaging their property. The board’s engineer countered the claim of prolonged vehicle parking. The historical parking data, though extensive, was acknowledged as potentially outdated given current commercial activity levels. The board advised residents to address these broader safety concerns with the township committee.