A large number of people came to the July 12 Planning and Zoning Board meeting because of their interest in the Board’s scheduled discussion to create an overlay zone in the B-1 district that would permit the construction of a boutique hotel.

Diverging from the published agenda, the Board’s attorney advised the Board that in his opinion it would be prudent for the Board to postpone a discussion of the boutique hotel until they reviewed the Borough’s Master Plan to determine whether any amendments to the Master Plan would be necessary should the Board elect to proceed with consideration to create an overlay zone in the B-1 district. The Board decided to have the Borough engineer conduct the proposed review. Consequently, the Board’s discussion of a proposed overlay zone was postponed. However, the Board committed to keep the boutique hotel on the August meeting agenda should the Borough engineer’s review be completed and available to the public before the scheduled August meeting. Otherwise, it would be taken up in September.

Although some people left at this point, latecomers took their places. Therefore, there were a large number of people remaining for the public comment section at the end of the meeting. About 18 people voiced comments during this portion of the meeting. Favorable comments outnumbered unfavorable by about 2 to 1. The themes of those in favor were: (i) t would be good for local business; (ii) it would incent restaurants to stay open longer; (iii) it would provide short-term rentals for weddings; (iv) and full-time residents would have a place to go in the winter. The themes of those against the hotel were: (i) there is no adequate parking now, which can only be made worse with a 60-room hotel; (ii) traffic congestion; (iii) noise; (iv) and that there has not been any data or evidence supporting the purported benefit of a hotel in the B-1 district.

One other topic was addressed during the meeting. Prior to the public comment section of the meeting at the end, the Board heard an application for a site plan approval. The property in question is in the High Dunes at 5609 Dune Drive. The Board had approved a site plan at its March meeting. The property was sold, and the new owner, the current applicant, sought to make minor changes to the plan. Although the proposed change did not create any need for variances, the Applicant’s and the Board’s attorneys thought it prudent to have the proposed changes reviewed by the Board. The Applicant sought to increase the size of an over-sized garage into a two-car garage. In return, the Applicant reduced the size of space elsewhere so there was no change in total square footage. Outside lighting also was to be reduced. The Board approved the revisions.