Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press supervisors to restore land‑preservation measure to ballot as board debates criteria
Summary
Residents and organizers urged the Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors to put a land‑preservation ordinance back on the ballot and asked for lists of qualifying properties; supervisors disagreed over acreage thresholds, outreach and whether to proceed, with one member saying the matter is "dead."
Zach Szoke, a resident, asked the Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors on Jan. 27 when authorization to advertise a land‑preservation ordinance would return to the agenda and requested a list of properties that might qualify for the program.
The question reopened a months‑long dispute over whether the township should seek voter approval of a program to purchase development rights. Supporters said a ballot measure would let residents decide; opponents said it would impose an unwanted tax and that the county could manage preservation instead.
"If you are not giving the residents an opportunity to vote on it, shame on you," said Tom Szoke, a resident, during the public‑comment period. Organizers, including Zach Szoke, said they can provide parcels that meet common municipal thresholds and urged further meetings to inform voters.
Supervisor Cindy Miller said she has not seen a list of candidate properties and questioned paying for land that already contains features (steep slopes, wetlands) that zoning already restricts. "This matter is dead," Miller said, signaling she did not intend to place the item back on the agenda. Supervisor David Hess said he opposed creating an additional tax and preferred the county manage preservation. "This is another tax on the residents," Hess said.
Other supervisors described procedural gaps. Mike Jones, the board chair, emphasized the program is voluntary and said owners would not lose development rights if they choose not to sell them. Janet Sheats said she supports letting voters decide and noted that a ballot defeat would settle the issue for five years.
Board members and members of the public disputed how many informational meetings had occurred and whether the board had previously authorized advertising the ordinance. Organizers asked for clear criteria (acreage thresholds, tax‑parcel lists and a schedule) so they could provide properties that meet typical municipal standards.
No motion to relist the ordinance was adopted at the meeting. The board did not set a new date to consider placing the land‑preservation ordinance on the ballot.
The board adjourned at the end of the meeting; residents said they would continue outreach and return to request a formal vote.
