The board engaged in a discussion regarding how basements should be classified in relation to the Floor Area Ratio (F) and whether finished basements with kitchens and bathrooms should necessitate a zoning variance. The issue stemmed from previous cases where basement designs had significant impacts on neighborhood aesthetics, particularly when they included bedrooms and bathrooms but lacked an exterior entrance. The board debated whether such features should count toward the floor area if they did not modify the building’s exterior. Ultimately, they reached a consensus to simplify the ordinance language, allowing basements to be finished without necessitating an F variance, provided there is no external entrance. The board highlighted that these finished spaces would still be subject to tax assessments.

Furthermore, the board deliberated on the implications of building permits and zoning approvals. A particular case involved a project that stalled due to the expiration of its zoning approval when a building permit was not obtained in time, necessitating a full reapplication process. This led to a broader conversation about the challenges faced by applicants in navigating permit renewals and the potential confusion stemming from zoning approval expirations.

The board also unanimously re-elected Susan Abbey as the chairperson and Curtis Hoberman as the vice chair for 2025. The session included the appointment of an administrative secretary and designations to the site inspection review committee.

The meeting also covered resolutions for scheduling regular meetings and addressing changes in local newspaper publication statuses. With the Trenton Times ceasing print editions, the board noted the governor’s temporary allowance for online publications to continue. This spurred a motion to approve the meeting schedule and newspaper notifications, which was carried without opposition.

Additionally, the board discussed the appointment of professional staff, including a proposal to increase the hourly rates for various engineers, while clarifying that these fees are charged to development applications rather than taxpayer dollars. A new traffic safety officer was also appointed to participate in relevant traffic review committee meetings.

The board then turned to the matter of pending applications, noting that nine new applications had been received, with five being heard and others carried over from previous years.

A recurring theme throughout the meeting was the challenge of articulating recommendations clearly, with members expressing frustration over past experiences where their suggestions were not accepted by the town council. This was particularly evident in debates about whether finishing an attic should be excluded from variance calculations and how to define accessory structures like sheds, which the council has been reluctant to address.