A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussions on the proposed noise ordinance, which generated considerable public interest and participation. Residents highlighted the ordinance’s current focus on noise restrictions after 10 p.m., arguing it inadequately addresses disturbances occurring in the afternoons and evenings. One resident shared that the ordinance stemmed from complaints by Strathmere residents about excessive noise in these timeframes. They urged the council to adopt a “plainly audible” standard at property lines, allowing for easier enforcement during these hours. This sentiment was echoed by another participant who acknowledged improvements in the proposed ordinance but critiqued its reliance on subjective discretion to determine “unreasonable” noise during the day.

Legal advisors at the meeting explained that the ordinance includes a subjective criterion for daytime noise complaints, while maintaining objective tests for restricted hours. Residents insisted on the need for a 24/7 objective standard to prevent inconsistent enforcement and ensure the quality of life for all residents. One participant recounted a personal experience where differing opinions on noise levels led state police to take no action.

The discussion also delved into enforcement challenges, especially during busy periods like summer weekends when noise complaints peak. A resident shared a personal anecdote about parking authority enforcement failures, illustrating broader issues in addressing complaints effectively. Concerns about specific establishments, such as the Doville, were prevalent, with residents urging the council to enforce existing noise level restrictions more strictly. Suggestions included leveraging prior planning board resolutions that might still impose enforceable limitations on music volume.

Residents raised concerns about noise from landscaping activities and questioned why different standards apply to music and leaf blowers. They called for an even-handed approach to noise regulation, proposing that the ordinance should address all types of noise disturbances uniformly to ensure fairness and clarity. The dialogue underscored significant divisions among participants regarding the ordinance’s effectiveness, the need for objective enforcement criteria, and the perceived inadequacies in addressing residents’ noise complaints more broadly.

In response to these concerns, the council deliberated on the ordinance’s adoption, with some members supporting its implementation while acknowledging its limitations. They proposed revisiting and amending the ordinance in the future if it proved ineffective. A motion to adopt the ordinance as it stood was ultimately approved, with council members agreeing that any substantial amendments would necessitate restarting the adoption process.

In addition to the noise ordinance discussion, the meeting addressed several other matters. A report from the administrator detailed the township’s approach to managing winter storm operations. Due to cost constraints, the township relies on rock salt and plowing techniques, with initial applications of salt and plowing costing upwards of $11,000, particularly on weekends. The administrator explained that decisions to mobilize public works teams consider both operational effectiveness and the financial burden on taxpayers.

The council also held a public hearing and adopted ordinance number 12 of 2025, amending the salary range ordinance for the coming year, and ordinance number 13 of 2025, establishing salary ranges for 2026. These ordinances were adopted without public input. In addition, the payment of bills was approved, and the council entered a closed session to discuss pending litigation, cybersecurity matters, and contract negotiations related to cannabis licensing.