Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects resolution limiting open-space discussion after heated public debate
Summary
Supervisors voted 3–2 against adopting Resolution 2026-9, which would have limited repeated open-space preservation comments; the proposal drew legal clarification that a resolution could be reversed and extensive public criticism that the Board had denied voters a ballot option.
The Lehigh Township Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 24 not to adopt Resolution 2026-9, a measure that would have curtailed repeated discussions of open-space preservation at public meetings.
Supervisor Cindy Miller introduced the resolution saying it was written after repeated public commentary on the subject; Attorney Backenstoe advised that while the Board may pass a resolution to state its preference, such a resolution is not an enforceable prohibition and can be repealed by a future board.
During debate supervisors split: Miller and David Hess voted to adopt; Janet Sheats, Jerry Pritchard and Chairman Mike Jones voted against adoption. The motion failed.
Members of the public criticized the decision and the Board's handling of the matter. "The public's voice was taken away," said resident Michele Dotta in public comment, urging that citizens be allowed to vote on preservation. Another resident, Katherine Mack, told the Board she was disappointed the Board did not put a preservation referendum to the ballot.
Cindy Miller countered by citing the enabling statute (an amendment to the Act of Jan. 19, 1968) and saying the Board has discretion to decide whether to move a program forward to an ordinance and ballot question. Attorney Backenstoe said the Board could adopt and later rescind the resolution and reiterated that passing the resolution would not legally bar public comment.
The Board did not schedule further action on Resolution 2026-9 at the meeting. Several residents asked for clearer information before any ballot action and for better minutes to reflect public comments and tone.
What happens next: the minutes show continuing public interest and a list of parcels supplied to the Board by one resident (Zach Szoke) that he says could qualify for local preservation; any future ordinance or ballot measure would require separate Board action and statutory compliance.
