Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lehigh Township debates adopting Property Maintenance Code; board weighs outreach versus enforcement
Summary
Supervisors and residents disagreed over whether to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code after a recent EMS call revealed dangerously dilapidated housing; some urged a formal code and enforcement, others warned the measure could be weaponized and recommended an outreach program and targeted emergency rules instead.
The Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors spent the bulk of its Feb. 10 meeting debating whether to adopt the International Property Maintenance Code after an EMS call to a severely deteriorated home prompted calls for stronger life‑safety authority.
Supervisor Janet Sheats described the condition of the dwelling that prompted the discussion, saying responders had to lay plywood inside to reach a patient and that the home lacked heat and had snow inside because of holes in the roof. She said those conditions are a life‑safety issue for residents and first responders and urged the board to consider a Property Maintenance Code.
Zoning Officer Roxann Colfer outlined what a Property Maintenance Code covers — heating, ventilation, means of egress, smoke alarms, inspection and appeal processes — and said adoption provides mechanisms to declare a home uninhabitable and to require corrective actions. Colfer noted several properties are already under concern and that county resources for rehousing or rehab are limited.
Several supervisors and residents cautioned that a broad code could be used as a tool in neighbor disputes or to penalize low‑income homeowners who cannot afford repairs. Supervisor David Hess and others worried the code could become a weaponized enforcement mechanism; residents and board members suggested alternatives including an outreach or volunteer assistance program, targeted emergency provisions to handle life‑safety situations, and a more limited nuisance ordinance provision focused on dilapidated structures.
Solicitor Attorney Backenstoe said many Pennsylvania townships use a property maintenance code but stressed that, if adopted, it must be enforced uniformly and that implementation could trigger downstream legal and budgetary obligations (for example, acquiring, rehabilitating, or demolishing blighted properties if enforcement actions are taken). Several residents and volunteers proposed forming an outreach board or coalition of contractors and nonprofits to help address individual cases before formal enforcement.
No formal decision was made; supervisors asked staff and the solicitor to research available county and state resources, the legal implications of adoption, and possible targeted language that would prioritize emergency life‑safety interventions while limiting overbroad enforcement.
The board’s next steps include directing the solicitor and zoning officer to prepare options for a future agenda item, including (1) sample targeted ordinance language focused on emergency life‑safety provisions, (2) information about county and state assistance programs, and (3) an estimate of the fiscal impacts and potential liabilities of adopting the full code.
