Lancaster Township supervisors this week found themselves between a proverbial rock and hard place, when residents inundated the board’s monthly meeting to express concern and disapproval over rumors that a so-called mini casino might move into the municipality.

To be clear, there’s no indication that such a facility is coming to the township. But it does remain a possibility — and for reasons that seem to be entirely preventable.

Township supervisors told residents this week that they effectively dropped the ball when it comes to preventing a casino from locating within the municipality.

When state officials developed regulations for so-called “mini-casinos” last year, they gave local governments until the end of 2017 to enact ordinances prohibiting the facilities from locating within their boarders.

Supervisors told concerned residents that they had failed to do so, because they didn’t realize they were within the 30-mile-wide zone that emanates from New Castle, where Mount Airy #1 LLC, which purchased a mini casino license in February and set the city as the middle of its prospective build area.

The failure of supervisors to exercise their right to opt-out of hosting a mini-casino — which can house 300 to 750 slot machines and, in some cases, up to 30 table games — is a serious oversight on the board’s part.

Even if supervisors were unclear about the prospects of a mini-casino, also known as a satellite casino, coming to the township, the board could have taken a better-safe-than-sorry approach and enacted an ordinance opting out of the program. The measure would not have caused any harm, even had it proven unnecessary.

Now, as township solicitor Philip Lope points out, supervisors must tread very carefully. The board could enact zoning changes that would effectively bar the company from building a mini casino within their boarders. But that action could open the township up to litigation, if Mount Airy chose to force the issue.

It’s clear from the results of this week’s meeting that residents do not want such a facility locating in the township, and we share their concerns.

We don’t believe the township is an appropriate home for a mini casino, and it’s clear that supervisors aren’t capable of undertaking the heavy amount of planning and oversight that welcoming such a facility into the township would require. The board’s failure to opt out of the program in the first place — a move that is far simpler than the alternative — demonstrates as much.

Going forward, the board owes it to residents to be as proactive as possible regarding this matter.

What will Mount Airy tell supervisors regarding their plans for the facility? Is the township on the company’s short list? It is off the list entirely? What are the township’s legal options, exactly? How can officials convince the company, if it is considering the township as a build site, to look elsewhere instead?

These questions will not be answered by sitting back, waiting for and then reacting to, an announcement from Mount Airy.

Supervisors have clearly heard the wishes of their constituents. It falls to them to show that they’ve learned from their mistake, and be proactive while there still might be time to make a positive impact.