Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor defends resident targeted by township enforcement over pond; supervisors say DEP involvement required
Summary
At the March 3 Leacock Township meeting a neighbor of resident Jesse Esh urged the board to reconsider enforcement over a privately built pond, saying it posed no public safety threat; the township manager and supervisor said the engineer had met with Esh, that Esh declined follow-up, and DEP review applies when any portion of the floodplain is disturbed.
A neighbor and friend of resident Jesse Esh told the Leacock Township Board of Supervisors on March 3 that he opposed township enforcement action related to a recently built pond, saying, "this pond is not a threat to anyone or public safety." The comment came during the public-comment portion of the regular board meeting.
Chris Slaymaker, township manager, said the Township Engineer met with Esh before the township took further steps, explained what was required to comply, and offered additional meetings that Mr. Esh declined. Slaymaker added that Esh posted "do not trespass" signs on the property. "DEP is involved when any percentage of the floodplain is disturbed," Slaymaker told the board.
Supervisor Donald Gentzler criticized the resident's conduct, saying Mr. Esh "should be ashamed of his actions" and that noncompliance was causing taxpayer resources to be spent to resolve the matter. The neighbor asked why none of the supervisors personally went to speak with Esh; board members responded that it was the engineer and Manager Slaymaker who met with him and that it was not the supervisors' role to handle that outreach personally.
The board did not record a formal motion or vote on enforcement during the meeting. The manager's account that the engineer and staff met with the property owner and the statement that the Department of Environmental Protection becomes involved when floodplain disturbance occurs were the factual bases reported to the board at the time. The matter remained an administrative enforcement issue following the meeting.
