The Lacrosse wall project was presented as a skill development facility, primarily for throwing and catching practice. The wall, designed with cinder blocks and asphalt, would feature a dual-purpose structure with a gazebo for shelter on one side. Questions arose about usage regulations, especially concerning safety for younger players. There were discussions about managing usage times to prevent injuries, with assurances that the Lacrosse Club would oversee maintenance. Concerns about noise during evening hours prompted suggestions for time restrictions, given that the wall would mainly be used during daylight.

The construction timeline was discussed, with a target completion by spring to align with the Lacrosse season. Members raised concerns about stormwater management, which had only recently been communicated to the project team. The representatives expressed confidence in meeting these requirements, with plans to incorporate stormwater solutions during construction. The board emphasized the importance of the design blending well with local guidelines to maintain neighborhood aesthetics.

The board also addressed signage, particularly concerning usage limitations to prevent disturbances to nearby residents. Height and lighting plans were discussed, with members emphasizing the need for a sign indicating no use after dark. The representatives assured collaboration with city engineers to meet technical requirements and comply with building codes.

In addition to the Lacrosse wall, the board delved into the complexities of the city’s housing plan and master plan reexamination. A memo outlined challenges in reviewing the master plan, with the board considering options for updating the reexamination report. The urgency of deciding on the housing need number published by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) was stressed, with a deadline for determination by January’s end. The board must decide whether to accept or challenge the DCA’s housing numbers, which include a rehabilitation obligation of 59 units and a prospective obligation of 345 units.

There was discussion about the methodology for determining these numbers and the implications of double-counting vacant sites. The board considered prior calculations suggesting a realistic development potential of only 36 units, which could impact the new numbers. The potential financial implications of engaging external consultants for the master plan reexamination were also discussed, with some advocating for a request for proposals to ensure budgetary prudence.

The need for updated mapping of inclusionary development units was emphasized, with concerns about tight timelines leading up to the January deadline. The board was tasked with producing analyses required for the governing body to adopt a resolution. The significance of public input in the planning process was acknowledged, with concerns about limited engagement opportunities due to compressed timelines.

The meeting also covered amendments to parking regulations, particularly for daycare facilities, with suggestions to adjust parking requirements based on staff and traffic needs. Discussions included amendments to electric vehicle charging standards to align with state regulations and considerations for accessory dwelling units.

The board explored architectural concerns regarding carports versus porte-cocheres and debated definitions of building coverage for canopy roofs and pergolas. The meeting concluded with a review of minutes from the previous session and the acknowledgment of progress made during the discussions.