Pennsbury residents challenged the need for a use and
occupancy ordinance under consideration and caused supervisors to table the
measure for further review.

The proposed ordinance came up for discussion and possible
vote during the June 16 Board of Supervisors’ meeting. It called for homeowners
to pay a $200 fee to the township to have their properties inspected for 16
points that Supervisors’ Chairman Wendell Fenton said were safety issues.

“It’s a matter of health and safety for new residents,” he
said. “It’s an opportunity [for the township] to make sure houses are safe."

Among the inspection items, as read by township solicitor
Tom Oeste, were the need for railings for decks, a working garbage disposal if
one is installed, otherwise it needs to be disconnected. There must be a smoke
detector for each floor plus one per bedroom, exhaust fans in bathrooms and
ground fault interrupters.

The ordinance would only apply when a house was put up for
sale.

There was a motion for a vote and a second, but public
discussion was strongly against the measure.

Resident Bob Orenshaw asked why the ordinance was needed,
saying he saw no problem with houses now.

Oeste said there was at least one occasion in the past when
a waterwell was deemed dangerous.

Another resident asked why a township inspection would be
needed if a buyer had a house inspected and the house passed.

A third resident then challenged the need saying it was
being considered solely to generate revenue for the township, that there was no
real need.

A fourth resident said the ordinance would be a financial
burden. Not only would a resident have to pay $200 to the township for the
inspection, he said, but some of the houses are very old, built before such
things as the ground fault interrupters.

Ward Kissel asked again why the ordinance was needed and
Fenton, again, said it was for safety reasons.

“Can you say that with a straight face,” came a retort from
another resident.

Bob Mantell, a former township supervisor called the
ordinance “ill advised.”

“There are no problems here in the township,” Mantell said.
“[The ordinance] is totally unnecessary… You’re doing this to raise money…
Table this and give it more consideration.”

Fenton said the discussion was valuable, then amended the
motion to table further discussion until another meeting. The amended motion
passed 3-0.