Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over enforcement of new bamboo ordinance; council debates scope and remedies
Summary
Residents urged enforcement of Edison’s recently passed bamboo ordinance, citing property damage and spread; the township attorney explained grandfathering and enforcement options, and councilors debated civil‑litigation limits and whether to amend or delay action until further review.
Residents and councilors engaged in an extended exchange over enforcement of Edison’s bamboo ordinance at the June 22 work session, where speakers said the invasive plant has damaged yards, cut property values and spread onto abandoned lots.
Brenda Eagle, a resident who spoke during public comment, said she had documented that bamboo was not present when she moved in and that it has since spread from a neighbor’s yard, diminishing property value and causing repeated clean‑up costs. “It’s already spreading on mine. And it's diminishing my property value,” she said.
The township attorney explained that the ordinance contains a grandfather clause for properties with contained bamboo but that the grandfathering is voided when bamboo is allowed to spread onto neighboring properties or public land. The attorney described the enforcement process: field inspections by zoning or code officers, citations for violations, and municipal‑court review of enforcement evidence. He said removal is typically a civil matter between neighbors and advised that the township generally seeks compliance through notices and fines rather than undertaking wholesale property removal and placing liens.
Council members expressed divided views about enforcement scope. Some warned that deciding origin and responsibility can resemble civil litigation and suggested the town should not act as judge and jury; others urged fines and stronger enforcement where bamboo is spreading. Several councilors proposed pausing the matter until the next meeting to allow additional review and to consider whether the ordinance should be amended to require containment measures such as trenching or other defined actions.
The council did not repeal the ordinance during the session; members invited affected residents to provide evidence (photographs, addresses) and said staff would follow up. The council indicated it would continue the discussion at the next meeting and clarify enforcement practices.
