Two Sides to Every Story

The following is quoted from Council Presidents e-News 17 December 2010:
"New Litigation
Sadly, Council has not been able to find a way to avoid 2 new landowner appeals, so the net in the past month or so is plus one... One of these new issues involves the appeal of a Zoning Officer determination/citation that plumbing fixtures added in a garage makes the garage, in fact, a second residence/dwelling on the property. Council also rejected an out-of-court 'no fault' cash settlement, sending this one to the ZHB, then to court. The second new appeal is against the permitting of a third 4-unit luxury townhome adjacent to the Lakewood Sewage Treatment Plant on Kickapoo Court (Lodge property). This appeal charges that the Borough did not follow its own Zoning Ordinance by allowing the Zoning Officer to issue the permit rather than having Council approve the overall plan, after public hearings, as required (according to the appeal) by the Planned Residential Development requirements (Section 307 and Section 1200) of Ordinance 144. Following vigorous debate, Council ultimately voted to send this to the courts for adjudication also. Ironically, only the lawyers/courts are able to judge the interpretation of the language we ourselves put in our ordinances. I so wish for the day when we are over these battles and can get on enjoying our beautiful Lake together."

As a Member of Council, I found the above to be very misleading and one sided.

Mayor Mike Miscoe summed up my feelings very well in the Mayor's December 2010 Newsletter:
"Litigation:
As you may have heard from the Borough Council President, the Borough was successful in its defense of the validity of Ordinance 144. The Commonwealth Court rejected each argument raised by the Appellants. We anticipate favorable rulings soon on the remaining pieces of litigation appealed to the Commonwealth Court.

It is true that two additional pieces of litigation have been filed recently although the suggestion that the Borough could have avoided this litigation is misleading. The only way to have avoided litigation in one case was to refuse to enforce our Zoning Ordinance. In the second, Council would have been required to violate its own Ordinance and impose a planning provision that does not apply - thus creating the potential for additional litigation, litigation the Borough would have likely lost.
In the first case, Mr. Rohrich violated an express provision on a permit application in constructing living space and installing plumbing in a detached garage. The suggestion that the Borough should close its eyes and ignore such a willful violation of the Zoning Ordinance in order to avoid litigation is not only ridiculous, but contrary to the duty imposed on the Borough and its elected members of Council under the Borough Code.
In the second case, Mr. Lyons through Mrs. Takacs is once again challenging the issuance of a permit requested by St. Clair Development to construct the next Townhome building. It was suggested that if Council forced Mr. St. Clair through the Planned Residential Development provision of the Zoning Ordinance that the appeal might go away. Unfortunately, the PRD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are not applicable in this case and Council received a well detailed opinion from its solicitor supporting this conclusion.

While unfortunate that the residents of the Borough have to bear the cost of this incessant and fruitless litigation, the Borough must follow and enforce its Ordinances. If doing so results in litigation, then litigation is unavoidable. Rather than cast blame at the Council for doing what it was obligated to do, blame should be leveled at those who continue to file these actions. I am confident that the Borough’s position will be upheld in the Courts. Maybe someday, these individuals will recognize the harm they are doing to all of the residents and cease such activity. It is the Christmas season and therefore the time to believe in miracles."

What is really sad is that this debate is brought forth in a Council Presidents e-News. The Council President is one member of a seven person Council. This Council voted to proceed as it did in the best interest of our community, and upon the advise of the legal council. Rather than accepting the decision of the majority, one member has chosen to cry in public and state just half of the facts. I certainly am not in agreement with every decision made by Council, but I accept these decisions because that is just how a Democracy works.

Newspaper Article on Our Dam

I have been remiss lately in keeping you updated on Dam happenings. On December 16th the Somerset Daily American published an article which you may find of interest. The entire article can be read at: http://www.dailyamerican.com/articles/2010/12/16/news/local/news062.txt
Bruce Siwy, of the Daily American, does a great job with few facts and usually little time. On his third phone call to me he caught me as I was going out the door. So let me elaborate a bit on his article.
The Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Dam Safety, is very much aware of the Borough's financial constraints and are most willing to work with us to lower the cost. However, there are somethings that they will insist upon. Using a concrete lined channel over fill area is one of them. They offered suggestions of their own on how to reduce the cost. They did not dismiss us, but are more than willing to work with us.
There were two other issues on the table during this meeting. One was the need to produce a Dam Operation and Maintenance Manual, they supplied us with a sample that we could follow. Additionally we went over what items need to be inspected in our annual dam inspection. Once again they were very helpful in asking for less as time goes on.
In summary, it was a good meeting, we have more work to do, but we also have a good working relationship.

A Good News Flash

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in a ruling today affirmed Zoning Ordinance 144.
This prompt decision thoroughly reviews the challenges to Ordinance 144 and dismisses each one and affirms the Borough's position.
This is the same panel of judges that heard the other appeals. Their decision has come down much sooner than expected.
This is a great Holiday Present for the Borough, hopefully the beginning of the end of these lawsuits.