BEACH LAKE, PA — Almost 200 Berlin Township residents crowded into the basement great room of the Beach Lake Community Center to attend a March 17 public hearing on three proposed ordinance changes.

The first proposed change was to adopt language revision to the township’s existing Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO), as suggested by the Wayne County Planning Commission. When board of supervisors chair Paul Henry asked for public comment on that change as advertised, he received no response. That change was later passed in the board meeting that followed the hearing.

The second proposed change was adoption of a signage ordinance, the first of its kind in the township. Again Henry called for public comment. The only response was one request that it be read aloud. When Henry told the crowd that it was 18 pages long, it was waved off as insignificant and adopted later that night at the board meeting.

The third proposed change was adoption of a nuisance abatement ordinance (NAO) that would also be the first of its kind in the township, although a similar ordinance had been floated 12 years earlier and was eventually scrapped in the face of strong public opposition. If the language of the second NAO was not quite the same as that of the first, public response was the same, only this time more vehement.

When Henry called for public comment on the NAO, he and fellow supervisors Cathy Hunt and Charlie Gries heard themselves called everything from “the three stooges” to “communists” to “politicians on the take” and worse. One angry accusation that the ordinance was “un-American” escalated into a vitriolic profanity-laced diatribe that ended only when the speaker was escorted out of the room still shouting obscenities. That was not the only instance of profane commentary, causing Henry to say, “Watch your language. There are ladies here.”

Not all of the language was offensive, however, and not all of the speakers so angry. Identifying herself as an attorney and resident of Catholic Church Road, Aressa Campbell took legalistic exception to much of the ordinance’s vague wording as well as some of its terms, which she said were not standard legal practice. She cited the 10-day notice provision as being both insufficient and impractical and noted that the ordinance made no provision for formal appeal of a complaint. She also said that, by the criteria outlined in the ordinance, almost every home in Berlin Township could be considered a nuisance property in at least one regard. Henry thanked Campbell for her input, told her that she had given them more information in five minutes than the township solicitor had provided in two months, and invited her to share further legalistic review of the ordinance with the board.

If anyone at the hearing favored adoption of the ordinance with its current wording, they remained silent. Henry called a halt to the commentary after 40 minutes. Saying that it was obvious that a majority of township residents were opposed to the ordinance as it now stands, he tabled a vote on its adoption, pending legal address of concerns voiced.

After Henry’s announcement, Hunt and Gries made formal statements, each saying that they could not, in good conscience, vote to adopt the ordinance as written. In measured tones, Hunt also said that there is a valid need for an ordinance that addresses public health issues, such as vermin infestation, pools of stagnant water, and obvious fire hazards emanating from private property.

Two great ironies became apparent at the hearing: lifelong residents convinced that newcomers from the city would register complaints about their rustic-looking properties discovered that the newcomers came there expressly to escape that kind of scrutiny; and an ordinance that everyone feared would pit neighbor against neighbor did just the opposite, unifying a diverse community in its determination to block an unpopular law.