Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ordinances Trees Bamboo topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pompton Lakes explores ban on running bamboo, eases tree‑ordinance costs in workshop

Pompton Lakes Borough Council · May 29, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a workshop session council reviewed a draft ordinance to ban running bamboo (with grandfathering but abatement for encroachment) and saw redline edits to the tree ordinance that lower permit fees and simplify application requirements; council asked staff to circulate revised text to stakeholders.

Borough staff brought two workshop items to the May meeting: a draft ordinance to prohibit planting running bamboo and a redlined revision of the recently proposed tree ordinance intended to reduce burdens on residents.

Administrator and borough attorney described the bamboo proposal as a response to repeated complaints about invasive running bamboo spreading from state-owned vacant lots into neighboring properties. The draft would prohibit new planting of running bamboo, grandfather existing plantings so long as they do not encroach on adjacent properties, require a 10‑day notice to abate encroaching bamboo, and impose a continuing violation fee of $100 per day if unaddressed. Councilmembers asked how the borough would treat bamboo on state-owned parcels and whether the borough could remove state-owned bamboo unilaterally; staff said they will evaluate options with the construction official and state contacts.

On the tree ordinance, the borough attorney presented redline edits that: (1) change the hazard definition to include threats to structures rather than waiting for obvious damage, (2) correct a permit threshold from '6 inches' to 6 feet, (3) remove a requirement to calculate tree drip lines on applications, and (4) lower some fees (processing fee from $50 to $35; per-tree adjustment for larger removals). The council generally found the changes reasonable and asked staff to distribute the redline to the Shade Tree Commission and return the revised ordinance for reading.

During workshop public comment, resident Brandy Hinton asked whether the revisions include fines for contractors; council agreed to consider adding contractor fines. Staff said they will provide the redline and related materials to the commission and circulate updated drafts prior to the next reading.