The meeting delved into the complexities of EV charging station regulations, primarily concerning the potential for advertising on these stations. A member pointed out that while state mandates dictate certain installation requirements, local ordinances could potentially allow for advertisements. This sparked a discussion about the financial implications, suggesting that advertising could fund additional charging infrastructure, especially in local schools where EV stations are still lacking. The conversation highlighted the need to reassess existing EV ordinances to align more closely with state regulations, possibly through a ordinance change rather than individual adjustments.

Attention then turned to the housing element and fair share plan. This plan is critical in meeting the city’s affordable housing obligations and avoiding exclusionary zoning litigation. The board discussed a resolution filed with the state’s affordable housing dispute resolution program, a necessary step to maintain immunity from legal challenges. It was emphasized that while municipalities have some flexibility, they must adhere to the Department of Community Affairs’ prescribed methodology. The board noted that previous adjustments to housing assessment numbers could occur again, with resolutions expected by March. They also outlined a timeline for completing and adopting a housing plan by June, with draft proposals anticipated by April or May.

The necessity of a master plan reexamination was also a significant topic of discussion. The board acknowledged that the last reexamination was completed in 2016, and a new one is due by early 2026. Members agreed to pursue a modest reexamination, reducing the document’s length from the previous 80 pages to approximately 20. This approach aims to conserve resources for an eventual comprehensive master plan. However, there was consensus on the importance of including public engagement. Some members suggested postponing the reexamination until after the housing plan, recognizing the extensive time required for a new master plan.

The role of the planning board in reviewing capital projects emerged as an area of potential growth. Members discussed the board’s expertise in identifying the city’s capital needs and proposed formalizing a process where the governing body refers projects to the board for review. This would allow the board to provide early input and recommendations, potentially influencing financial considerations without directly managing budgets.

The meeting also touched on the state plan, with Union County leading the process. Municipalities were encouraged to identify three prioritized goals for future discussions, aligning them with the overarching master plan. Members were reminded of the availability of the city’s master plan online, providing context for these discussions. The board was urged to finalize priorities promptly, given the extended timeline since the last state plan’s issuance, and to prepare formal documentation of their consensus.