One focus of the discussion was the integration of the fair share housing element into the 2016 housing element and fair share plan, which had been adopted in either 2019 or 2020. The debate centered on whether these documents should be treated as one cohesive piece and if the 2016 document could be considered a master plan, providing it followed the correct adoption procedures.

In the realm of sustainability, the board showed a strong interest in updating the city’s historic preservation ordinance, a move currently being worked on in collaboration with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), the Department of Community Services (DCS), and the city council. The potential adoption of a tree ordinance was also considered, with suggestions to consult a professional forester and to review neighboring municipalities’ ordinances for guidance.

Additionally, the Shade Tree Council provided an update on the updated tree protection ordinance, which now includes more requirements for cutting, disposal, permitting, oversight, and tree replacements. The board inquired about the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) approval of the ordinance, emphasizing that DEP approval was necessary due to stormwater regulations.

Addressing the aesthetic and functional aspects of city development, the board contemplated design standards for the downtown area, balancing preservation with economic development. The “complete streets” policy was another topic of interest.

The board discussed operational aspects such as parameters for allowable roof decks in downtown areas and guidelines to address them. The topic of accessory dwelling units was also on the agenda, focusing on their allowance in existing properties within certain residential zones. Age-restricted housing and the impact of new affordable housing regulations were deliberated.

The process of cross acceptance was a point of discussion, involving the alignment of local plans with county and state initiatives. This was part of a broader conversation on zoning ordinance changes, with input being sought from architects and the Environmental Commission. A crucial component of this discussion was the timing and extent of public input, as well as the submission of planning documents.

The board received an update from the Mount Laurel subcommittee, tasked with addressing affordable housing and preparing for upcoming rounds. The subcommittee’s efforts to provide a transparent and consistent process for developers were noted, along with the importance of educating stakeholders about the process. Looking forward, the board discussed the upcoming master plan due in 2026, stressing the need to start budgeting and planning for the process in 2025.

A noteworthy aspect of the meeting was the commendation of a subcommittee for their 10 goals and ideas, intended to guide the board’s future discussions. The distinction between recommended and required language in ordinances was also debated, with a focus on the need for specific language to enforce policy prerogatives. Furthermore, the board discussed establishing a timeline for delivering recommendations to the city council.

The meeting was also an occasion to bid farewell to a council member, who expressed gratitude for the opportunity to serve and praised the community’s spirit.