Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Providence council tables proposed bamboo ordinance after residents question 30‑day cure
Summary
Residents told the council the ordinance’s 30‑day remediation deadline is unrealistic and punitive for longtime owners; the council voted to table the measure to revise timing, add good‑faith provisions and consider grandfathering and setbacks.
The New Providence Borough Council voted to table Ordinance 2025‑8 — a proposed amendment to the borough code addressing bamboo as an invasive species — after several residents and council members said the draft’s 30‑day cure requirement is impractical.
Resident Ned Sienko told the council he learned of the proposal only recently and urged a longer rollout, saying a 30‑day deadline could unfairly penalize homeowners who have had bamboo on their properties for decades. “You can't budget for it,” Sienko said, adding that getting contractors to respond and schedule remediation can take weeks. He recommended a grace period of 90 to 120 days during an initial rollout and the ability to request extensions if owners demonstrate good faith.
Another resident, David Blit, said his long hedge on South Street had functioned as a landscape screen for 25 years and asked the council to include grandfathering language that would allow existing plantings to remain so long as they do not encroach on neighbors or public rights of way.
Council discussion focused on the ordinance’s intent — whether to prevent new plantings or require removal of existing stands — and on enforceability. Several members said they supported keeping “teeth” to address neighbor complaints but agreed the 30‑day deadline was too aggressive. A council member suggested removing the explicit 30‑day line and relying on a property‑maintenance official’s discretion to set remedial timeframes tied to demonstrated progress.
Mayor Morgan asked staff to work with drafters (a committee member, Keith, and Paul were cited as contributors) to tighten language on setbacks and grandfathering and to introduce good‑faith recognition steps before fines. The council approved a motion to table the ordinance so revisions can be prepared and reintroduced.
What happens next: The ordinance will return after staff and council members incorporate edits, including clearer language on grandfathering, setbacks and a graduated remedy process. The council did not adopt enforcement provisions at this meeting.
