Tenafly reviews expanded dust-control ordinance draft; council leans toward placing it under construction code

At the April 22 meeting, staff reported back on a council request to expand the borough's dust-control rules and presented a draft ordinance. Council members discussed whether the draft should be placed under the borough's litter and garbage code or under building and construction regulations and suggested edits and a period for written comment before any introduction.

The matter matters because the draft would broaden the circumstances under which the borough could require dust-control measures, potentially applying requirements to homeowners as well as contractors and agents.

A staff member explained the draft was intended to expand coverage beyond the narrow soil-movement permit rules used previously. "The council had asked me to look, at the last council meeting at a way to incorporate other materials in addition to the dust control that is incorporated in the existing or, home with, soil," the staff member said, noting the draft did not yet include a chapter number and that the council's feedback was requested.

Council discussion focused on the placement and scope of the language. Dan (speaker identifying himself as having sent a sample) said the prior example had been under the soil-movement ordinance and that the new language would be better placed within construction regulations rather than limited to soil-moving permits.

Council member Lauren said construction placement made "perfect sense" and recommended adding a cross-reference under the borough's litter and garbage section so that homeowners using the materials would clearly be subject to the same rules. The drafter confirmed the ordinance text defined "contractor" to include property owners and agents, noting the language specifically covered homeowners and contractors.

The draft also includes enforcement language; staff noted soil-containment enforcement provisions exist but were not discussed separately in detail during the meeting. The drafter said the item was an update and not yet ready for introduction.

Council members agreed that comments should be sent to David, who would compile them and forward them to the drafter. No formal vote or ordinance introduction occurred during the discussion.

The council asked staff to return with a revised draft after collecting written comments and suggested keeping the draft under review until enforcement and scope language were clarified.