Whitehall outdoor burning ordinance meets growing problem
Thick smoke billows out of a backyard fire pit, filling the air and neighborhood homes with a burning stench.
The cover of a nearby hot tub shows marks from where the embers have landed.
Yet, when police arrive to complaints from residents in Whitehall who are frustrated by the smell of a neighbor's outdoor fire — causing them to close their windows and stay indoors — they now have no recourse.
“If you don't have an ordinance, you don't have enforcement — it's that simple,” Councilman Harold Berkoben said.
A proposed ordinance that would place restrictions on open burning and fire pits in the borough would give police, fire and code enforcement officers the tools needed to keep outdoor burning from causing a disturbance in the mostly residential town, council President Glenn Nagy said.
“What we tried to do is under no circumstances, if the officer is standing there seeing embers coming up in the air – or melodious odors, offensive odors or a smoky odor – under those circumstances they would have the authority to go over and have the other person extinguish the fire,” police Chief Donald Dolfi said. “I don't know another way around it.”
Whitehall Council last week agreed to put on display for public inspection the latest version of an ordinance that would restrict outdoor burning in the municipality. Council members also agreed to put an ordinance on display that would adopt the 2009 International Fire Code in the borough.
Council could vote on a final draft of both ordinances on April 3.
Changes to the open burning ordinance include the depth of a fire pit allowed in the borough — now limited to 12 inches.
An increasing number of calls from residents complaining about smoke from their neighbor's fire pits led officials to draft the burning regulations, council members said.
The ordinance puts restrictions on what types of materials people can use in their fire pits and how close they can be placed to structures. The wrong material, like wet paper or freshly cut wood, often are what causes excess smoke, Nagy said.
“These things don't need to be bonfires. That's what I'm totally against – having these blazing fires in these backyards,” Whitehall Fire Company Chief Lee Price said. “Sometimes people don't understand they're close enough to a structure that you get radiating heat and you start melting siding off of your sheds, off your house. People don't need to load these things up. OK, if you want to grill some hotdogs, go get some charcoal,” he said.
Councilwoman Kathy DePuy last week raised concerns about having public safety and code enforcement officials determining what “excess smoke” is, sometimes simply with their noses.
“I would not want to put any of our fireman, our policeman going up to a resident and saying, ‘You have excessive smoke.' ‘You don't,'” she said. “I don't know if Lee's nose is better than your nose. Who's going to judge. How do you define excessive?”
Councilman Phil Lahr, a longtime Whitehall fireman, said firefighters and police are the ideal candidates to judge excessive flames.
“From the police departments aspect, we can deal with it. We give people tickets all of the time and they don't agree with it. I have very few people coming up and say ‘ew, ew, ew thank you. I deserved that ticket,'” Dolfi said, noting his department strives for consistency when responding to calls.
“I think you have to understand that there is subjectivity in any call and police on a daily basis have to interpret what they observe and make decisions at that time,” Nagy said.
The purpose of the ordinance is not to overregulate burning in the borough, Nagy said. It simply is to give officials a tool to address a problem.
“We're not going to have crews of search teams going around the borough every night,” Nagy said.
Stephanie Hacke is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-388-5818 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.