The proposed ordinance, presented by Chief John Kari and a representative from Burgess Associates, aims to regulate the parking and storage of various vehicles based on their dimensions rather than weight. The ordinance specifies that one RV or trailer may be parked per property, provided it is on a paved driveway and screened from view. Boat storage is limited to a maximum length of 18 feet and must also be screened, with exceptions for human-powered vessels like canoes and kayaks. The ordinance prohibits living in motor homes and seeks to define commercial vehicles according to New Jersey DMV classifications, with allowances for out-of-state vehicles.

During the discussions, some council members and residents questioned the rationale behind the 18-foot boat length limit and the requirement for paved surfaces. One resident argued that the ordinance appeared to penalize boat owners by allowing RVs more leniency. Concerns were also raised about the practicality of the ordinance, including the challenges of maneuvering boats and trailers with limited property access.

Further complicating the discussions was the distinction between commercial and personal vehicle registrations. A hypothetical situation was raised about common pickup trucks with commercial plates potentially being parked in front yards, leading to debates on regulating based on size and registration rather than appearance. The possibility of exploiting loopholes by having similarly sized vehicles with different registrations was a concern, prompting suggestions to broaden the commercial vehicle definition to prevent such issues.

The council also heard from residents during the public comment period. A resident expressed frustration over the impracticality of enforcing parking ordinances in a small town with limited police resources. He argued for prioritizing more issues, such as rundown homes, over parking violations and criticized ordinances targeting tradespeople like plumbers. Another resident raised safety concerns about proposed shrub height regulations, noting they could obstruct visibility for drivers.

The proposed ordinance’s potential financial impact on residents, particularly regarding landscaping requirements, was also discussed. The council considered gathering data on past complaints related to vehicle storage before proceeding with the ordinance, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that maintains community aesthetics without over-regulating.

In addition to the vehicle storage ordinance, the council meeting addressed several other issues. The need for a new Department of Public Works (DPW) building was highlighted, with the director stressing the adverse effects of lacking a dedicated structure for operations. The council deliberated on expediting the project, drawing comparisons to a recently completed six-bay DPW building that was constructed rapidly. Concerns about the current architectural contract and the necessity for a new emergency generator were also discussed.

The council tackled financial matters, including the tax reassessment process and the status of “zombie houses”—abandoned properties with unresolved tax payments. Efforts to address these properties, including a potential violations list, were mentioned, with a commitment to further discussions with the code enforcement officer.

Additionally, the council considered amendments to the tree removal ordinance, focusing on establishing a fee for tree replacement. A suggested fee of $400 per tree, reflecting current planting costs, was debated. The council sought to balance enforcement with economic considerations, ultimately leaning toward the higher fee to support community green spaces.

The meeting concluded with routine approvals and resolutions, such as Ordinance Number 25-1 for improvements to Coolidge Avenue and Resolution Number 25-48 for participation in the Sustainable Jersey municipal certification program. The council also discussed adjustments to the 2025 meeting schedule due to changes in the June primary date.