The Carroll Valley Borough Council convened on February 12, 2024, to address a series of local issues, commencing with the approval of minutes and an invitation for public discourse.
A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the discussion between resident Kate Wymer and council members regarding a contentious chicken coop in Wymer’s front yard. Despite being previously granted an exception, Wymer faced a violation notice for accessory/building structures. Wymer presented a detailed handout arguing their compliance with local ordinances, sparking a heated debate with council member Richard Matthews about the council’s ordinance-making authority and the timing of their permit application. The matter was tabled for future resolution.
Further topics of discussion included the passing of short-term rental regulations, the handling of donated lots by Bruce Carr, and the complexities of deed versus borough restrictions on property use, as clarified by legal counsel Zachary Rice. The council also deliberated on potentially opening Carroll Valley to hunters, though it was agreed that this would require more in-depth discussion at a later date.
In other business, Chief Cliff Weikert reported the acceptance of a new police officer and the status of a police vehicle up for bidding. The meeting also touched on community events and initiatives, such as a successful Father Daughter Dance, an upcoming blood drive, and a glass recycling program. The Environmental Advisory, Parks and Recreation, and Public Safety Committees reported vacancies and ongoing projects, including a significant grant awarded for the development of a nature trail.
The 50th-anniversary celebration of Carroll Valley was discussed, with plans to form a committee to organize the event. Financial matters, including the approval of the Treasurer’s report and a surplus inventory sale, were also addressed.
The meeting concluded with public comments, notably from Lillian Goldmeister, who spoke in support of Wymer’s efforts concerning the chicken coop issue. Further discussions ensued regarding the proper classification of the coop as a building or accessory and the council’s authority to grant variances, highlighting ongoing confusion and the need for clear resolutions.