The proposed ordinance concerning tree removal and replacement was introduced. It seeks to require residents to obtain permits for the removal of trees on residential properties, aligning with the Department of Environmental Protection’s recommendations. The ordinance’s intent is to enhance flood control and manage stormwater runoff by preserving tree cover, but it extends beyond existing regulations that apply primarily to developers. A notable provision would mandate permits for the removal of four or more trees per acre, with certain exceptions for hazardous, dead, or diseased trees.

Council members and residents discussed the implications of the ordinance, particularly the practicality of tracking tree removals over time and the financial burden it might impose on homeowners. With a fee of $400 for removing a tree with a diameter between four and ten inches, concerns were raised about the ordinance’s impact on homeowners dealing with trees that could damage infrastructure, like sidewalks. The council acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the intention to balance environmental responsibilities with homeowners’ rights. Public comments further highlighted the need for clear language in the ordinance, particularly regarding the appeal process for permit denials.

Simultaneously, the meeting addressed community safety concerns related to group homes in Hamilton, especially those housing individuals with felony backgrounds. Residents expressed fears for the safety of children, describing scenarios where young people face harassment from individuals residing in these homes. The limitations imposed by state regulations on local governance were a focal point, with council members acknowledging these constraints. They encouraged residents to report specific addresses causing problems to facilitate appropriate action and emphasized the importance of collaboration with state representatives to address these safety concerns.

Council members also discussed the enforcement of laws concerning group homes, noting that the township’s code enforcement and housing staff respond to complaints. Despite this, residents stressed that police presence during peak times might not suffice to mitigate risks, suggesting that legislative changes, particularly regarding bail reforms, could improve safety conditions. The council recognized the need for improved regulation and accountability at the state level, advocating for systemic changes to ensure community safety.

The meeting also provided a platform for public comments on various other issues, including the accessibility of township services. Residents proposed extending service hours or enabling online applications for permits to better support those with conflicting work schedules. The council expressed interest in exploring these suggestions, emphasizing a commitment to improving resident access to township services.

In addition, concerns were raised about a local brewery’s notification practices and the impact of its events on the community. Residents questioned whether neighbors had been adequately informed about the brewery’s activities. The council clarified that the brewery’s operations had been reviewed by multiple governing bodies, with the intent of preserving farmland by supporting alternative revenue streams. The brewery owners had acknowledged noise complaints from previous events and committed to improving communication with the community.