Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident criticizes sidewalk snow‑removal ordinance as unfair; council notes liability and offers hardship assistance
Summary
A long public comment from a lifelong resident argued a recent ordinance requiring homeowners to clear sidewalks places an unfair burden on those who happened to have sidewalks; council acknowledged past policy choices, cited liability concerns that led to enforcement, and offered to review hardship cases offline.
Paul Metasil, a lifelong resident at 9 Lachman Court, spent an extended public-comment period pressing council on a recently enacted sidewalk snow‑removal ordinance. Metasil said the town historically did not require sidewalks in many neighborhoods and that shifting enforcement now burdens homeowners who "just happen to have sidewalks," creating uneven cost and labor expectations. He framed the issue as fairness to long‑time residents and cited the town's earlier decisions to preserve a rural atmosphere.
Council members responded that prior policy was more limited (focused around schools), that conditions have changed (more pedestrians, distracted drivers), and that liability concerns motivated enforcement. The municipal attorney noted the borough may be named in lawsuits when injuries happen on uncleared sidewalks, which influenced council decisions. The mayor asked residents facing hardship to contact social services and volunteer groups so the borough can try to provide assistance rather than immediate enforcement. "If it truly creates a hardship, I'd like to take this offline, and let's address that with... social services or seniors..." the mayor said.
