Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Open-space referendum effort stalls after no second on advertisement
Summary
A motion to authorize advertisement of Ordinance 2026-1 to put an open-space preservation referendum before voters failed for lack of a second; residents and supervisors debated tax impacts, acreage figures and whether voters should decide the issue.
A motion to authorize advertisement of an ordinance to place an open-space preservation referendum on the ballot failed at the Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors meeting on Dec. 9, 2025, when the motion received no second.
The effort, introduced earlier by the board, would have launched Ordinance 2026-1 toward ballot placement. Attorney David Backenstoe told the board this was the next step in the timeline for putting a referendum before voters; Janet Sheats moved to authorize advertisement but the motion died for lack of a second.
Cindy Miller, supervisor, said she opposed moving forward because of tax implications and told the board she "really take[s] tax increases seriously" and reviews constituent feedback before supporting tax measures. Supervisor David Hess also said he did not support the referendum. Several residents pushed the board to allow a public vote. "Let the people vote," resident Dave Turner said during the discussion.
Public comments focused on tax burden, fairness and factual details about preserved acreage. Resident Zach Szoke disputed a figure offered during the meeting, saying the correct number of preserved acres is "3,149," and asked that the board rely on data from land-preservation professionals rather than informal claims. Other speakers raised practical questions about county-level vs. township-level preservation programs and the minimum acreage needed to qualify for county programs.
Attorney Backenstoe noted timeline constraints if the board wants the referendum on a November ballot: an ordinance would need to be adopted earlier in the year and advertised to meet election deadlines. Board members and residents discussed options to reintroduce the matter at a later meeting; the motion to authorize advertisement on Dec. 9 did not advance.
The board took no formal action to adopt an ordinance at the Dec. 9 meeting. If the matter returns to a future agenda, the solicitor said the board must follow the statutory and election-administration timelines described at the meeting.
