BEACH LAKE, PA — A large January 20 public hearing turnout put the Berlin Township Board of Supervisors—Paul Henry, Cathy Hunt and Charlie Gries—on the hot seat, along with township solicitor Jeff Treat. The purpose of the hearing was to invite public questions about a proposed township nuisance abatement ordinance, designed to provide legal redress of blighted and unsafe properties as well as noise complaints.

And question it the public did, asking specifically about the ordinance’s necessity, intent, timeliness, clarity of language, and also the means, methods and identities of both complainants and enforcement agents. It soon became clear that many lifelong residents harbor misgivings about the proposed ordinance.

The first speaker said that he thought the ordinance could be a problem for supervisors who succeed the present board, a statement repeated by subsequent speakers, especially those identifying themselves as lifelong township residents. While expressing full confidence in the sensitivity and judgment of current board members, he and other speakers noted the potential for abuse of this ordinance, saying that in less scrupulous hands it could be used to “pit neighbor against neighbor” or to conduct “witch hunts.”

That comment led to questions about complaint procedures. Are complainants required by the ordinance to divulge their identity, or can they register anonymous complaints? Does the accused have the right to know the identity of the accuser(s)? Who will enforce the ordinance—the supervisors themselves, agents designated by them, or law enforcement agencies?

One speaker said that a similar ordinance was proposed 12 years ago, but that it had ultimately been scrapped, due to fears of arbitrary and selective enforcement. He asked, “Will this ordinance be used to bully the less fortunate—the elderly, the chronically ill, the disabled?”

Another concern heard from several business owners was that the proposed ordinance recognizes no distinction between residential and business requirements, worrying a longtime quarry owner who feared his business could be targeted for noise and dust violations, although both are unavoidable byproducts of quarrying.

A speaker asked what criteria are used in designating nuisance properties. “Is a single complaint, legitimate or otherwise, sufficient to warrant an investigation by enforcement agents?” Henry fielded that one. “If we, and by ‘we’ I mean Cathy Hunt and myself, receive a complaint, we take a ride out to look at the property from the road. We can’t enter private property without judicial authority to do so.”

When Henry turned the floor over to Treat, asking that he address questions about ordinance language and points of law, Treat said that the proposed ordinance is currently in force in Clinton Township, quickly adding that no one ordinance fits all townships equally well. He went on to say that he recommended that the supervisors postpone a vote on adoption of the proposed ordinance until he could address many of the questions raised by the public, those regarding “vague and overbroad language” in particular. Conceding that “excessive noise” is difficult to define by law, Treat said that it is usually determined by the context in which it occurs, taking into consideration time, setting and situation. His example: “If someone yells ‘fire’ in the middle of the night because his house is on fire, chances are good that he will not be cited for noise violation.”

The 30-minute hearing ended, but the public stayed put to attend the regular supervisors monthly meeting that followed. When the nuisance abatement ordinance came up for vote, Hunt and Gries heeded Treat’s recommendation, voting for postponement. Henry voted against postponement.