By SARIT LASCHINSKY

Special to The Press

At the beginning of their July 21 meeting, South Whitehall commissioners debated, and ultimately tabled, a proposed “Quality of Life Improvement Ordinance” which was approved for advertisement at their previous meeting.

The ordinance would have established a ticketing program to more quickly resolve certain property maintenance and violations - such as tall grass, unlicensed vehicles or unshoveled sidewalks - more expeditiously while also maintaining existing ordinances and laws.

Enforcement program Manager Tom Harper said this ordinance would address the most common nuisance complaints received from residents, and the ticketing program would be faster than issuing citations and following through with the court process.

He also noted violators would be allowed to appeal their ticket.

Harper attempted to clear up some questions raised by commissioners at the previous meeting.

Regarding placement and removal of political signs, Harper said several surrounding municipalities have set times in their respective ordinances governing the placement of such signage.

He addressed the “imprisonment clause,” by saying several South Whitehall ordinances contain such a clause, and this is in line for state statutes governing penalties for summary offenses.

Harper also said the issuance of citations constitutes a summary offense, and the language is in-line with the existing property maintenance code.

Furthermore, regarding the issuing of notice to first-time offenders, Harper said the township manager can set guidelines for enforcement procedures under the proposed ordinance, and that notice can be given by speaking to the responsible party, leaving a door hanger which lists the violation and appropriate correction time, or mailing a written warning.

Police Chief Glen Dorney said this ordinance is similar to one Harper wrote for Allentown.

“One of the issues we face is violations that we can’t typically enforce,” Dorney said. “Therefore, it gives us the ability to enforce some of those minor quality of life issues right then and there.”

Dorney also said the ordinance would be an “educational based program” similar to the township’s new noise ordinance, and would not just be an enforcement measure.

“It’s about making sure your neighbors are good neighbors; they’re following the rules and, if they don’t know the rules, then we educate them on the rules,” Dorney said.

Commissioner Mike Wolk raised some concerns about subjective language, noting while definitions of “lawful” or “unlawful” can be clearly defined, he questioned how someone would define terms such as “unreasonable” or “indecent.”

“My question is really, how would one objectively assess whether something was unreasonable or indecent?” he asked.

Harper said properties would have to be assessed against the general character of the neighborhood and take into account the specific circumstances of the property owner.

He said there would be a measure of discretion in the ordinance.

“It comes down to whether or not it is having an effect on the neighbors, how long is it going to be there, what steps is this person taking to try and correct this, or is there an outlying area where the person needs help as far as trying to get something addressed, and if there’s a way to point them in that direction,” Harper said.

Wolk also questioned the positions of “public officer” and “appeals officer” within the ordinance, and asked what their qualifications and oversight would be.

Township Manager Renee Bickel said these would not be additional staff positions, and would be instead filled by public officials or township staff authorized to enforce ordinances such as police officers, zoning officers and building code officials.

Dorney added his officers would not be going out of their way to do code enforcement, and would likely address violations during times when code enforcement is not available, or during off hours.

Commissioner Diane Kelly raised issues with subjective language.

“[This could] create a whole lot more problems than the ones we are trying to solve with this ordinance,” Kelly said, adding her opposition included the political sign provisions.

During the public comment period, resident Dean Browning said the proposal “doesn’t come close” to addressing identified needs but instead covers many “petty, small, undefined” issues which he said were not problems in South Whitehall.

He claimed the ordinance would “greatly increase the power of township bureaucrats” and result in “intrusive enforcement measures,” and called several of the sections “idiotic.”

Browning ran down a list of problems contained in the ordinance which could constitute violations or bring about fines, from the parking of uninspected vehicles to leaving dog poop in a yard, to the definition of safe pools or blowing snow into the street.”

He called the ordinance “massive overreach,” and said South Whitehall police should focus on combating crime instead of “issuing tickets for dog poop.”

Resident Brian Hite said he liked the ordinance as it would have helped address some issues he has faced in the recent past.

Sam Sacco noted the board had debated a similar ordinance several years ago and ultimately failed to pursue it.

He also called the proposal an “overreach” and said existing ordinances should be fine-tuned rather than pass a new one which gives “carte blanche” for enforcement.

Commissioner Joe Setton noted while some of the issues he had with the ordinance had been addressed, he believed the township should look into the types of violations it covers and make the language more relevant to South Whitehall.

Board President Christina “Tori” Morgan said the board has talked for several years about addressing such concerns, and she did not feel the proposal was an overreach.

“The new ordinance was based on several years worth of concerns from township residents, and while it might not satisfy every single person, the intention of this ordinance, my understanding, is to create an environment where we can ensure the quality of life for every resident in this township,” Morgan said. “The intention of this ordinance isn’t to go out and have someone go door-to-door and look at the poop in the backyard, or look at the license plate of their car.

“The intent of this ordinance is, if there is a concern or an issue, we have the ability to go in, look at it, assess it and then make a determination on what needs to be done to rectify it.”

Commissioner Ben Long said the ordinance was a good starting point which could be improved along the way.

“If you can agree on 95 percent of something, you’ve done pretty good,” Long said, before making a motion to approve it.

Wolk disagreed, stating while the intent was good, the ordinance did not fulfill its goals, based on his belief and the public comments.

He advocated for tabling the proposal and revising its language and scope.

Long’s motion to accept the ordinance failed 2-3 with Wolk, Kelly and Setton voting “no.” He and Morgan voted “yes.”

Wolk’s motion to table passed 4-1 with Long the sole dissenter.

As it was tabled, the ordinance may come back before the board in a revised format during a future meeting.