Trending
MILL HALL -- Lamar Township supervisors spent much of their August meeting addressing concerns over zoning and building-code enforcement, while also moving forward with road maintenance, fuel and stone contracts, a major culvert replacement and the investment of $500,000 in township funds.
The board's discussion on zoning centered on what supervisors described as inconsistent interpretations of township ordinances and a lack of communication between the township's zoning officer and building-code inspection provider.
Supervisors ultimately voted to give the township's current code inspection service 30 days' notice that the township intends to hire Light-Heigel to handle zoning-related work.
The decision followed an extensive discussion about several properties where supervisors said permits, inspections or other requirements had not been properly completed.
Supervisors voice frustration over
zoning enforcement
The most contentious portion of the meeting came during new business, when supervisors discussed ongoing problems with zoning and code enforcement.
Supervisor Dan Chappell said the township has struggled with situations in which the zoning officer and building inspector appear to interpret the same ordinance differently.
"I don't understand how it's written in our ordinance and how two people can have a different interpretation of the same ordinance," he said.
Supervisors referenced several properties where they believe construction or other work has taken place without the appropriate permits or where existing violations have not been resolved.
One example involved a large barn that supervisors said was constructed without the permits they believed were required. Another involved a burned-out trailer on Long Run Road that supervisors said has remained despite repeated complaints.
"We had a big barn out here with no permit, no zoning, no nothing," one supervisor said. "Nobody's doing anything about it."
The board also discussed a retaining wall along a state highway that supervisors said appears to extend into the state's right-of-way. Supervisors said they had contacted the appropriate officials but were uncertain about what action would ultimately be taken.
Another property discussed involved a building permit that supervisors said did not appear to match what was actually being constructed.
The supervisors stressed that their concern was not necessarily with individual property owners but with ensuring that township rules are applied consistently.
"They're all our friends and neighbors," Chappell said. "But it's to the point that ... we don't seem to have any authority."
The board also discussed several properties that supervisors believe are being occupied despite unresolved building-code issues, including concerns about failed inspections.
One supervisor said the township could face liability if it knows of unsafe or illegal occupancies but does not act.
"I think they both should be from the same company," Chappell said, referring to zoning and building-code services. "I think that's what used to happen."
Supervisors discussed the possibility of hiring Light-Heigel to handle both zoning and code-related responsibilities, noting that other municipalities use systems in which zoning requirements are completed before building-code inspections begin.
The board ultimately approved giving its current code inspection provider 30 days' notice while moving toward hiring Light-Heigel for zoning services.
Supervisors said the goal is to establish clearer communication and more consistent enforcement rather than simply increase enforcement.
"We just want to try to keep everybody legal," one supervisor said.
Spruce Run project completed
Supervisors also received an update on the recently completed Spruce Run road project.
The township had an inspection from the Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies, which identified several issues and offered recommendations for improving safety and drainage.
One recommendation involved installing gates on Spruce Run Road during periods when conditions make the road particularly hazardous.
The inspector reportedly expressed concern about steep sections of the road and the potential for vehicles to slide or leave the roadway.
The board discussed whether the road should be closed seasonally, potentially from October through April, or whether a gate should be used only after the first significant winter storm.
Supervisors expressed concern that an October closure could be unnecessarily restrictive if there is no snow or ice.
The discussion also referenced several incidents involving vehicles becoming stuck or leaving the roadway, including delivery vehicles attempting to travel the road during poor conditions.
Rather than make an immediate decision, supervisors agreed to continue considering the recommendation and the possibility of using gates or signs to restrict access during dangerous conditions.
Fuel contracts discussed
Supervisors also reviewed bids for gasoline, diesel and propane.
The gasoline and diesel proposals included pricing based on the fluctuating rack price, plus a fixed margin per gallon. One proposal included a 21-cent-per-gallon margin for gasoline and on-road ultra-low sulfur diesel.
The board spent considerable time discussing how the competing fuel proposals handled taxes, delivery charges and fluctuating market prices.
Supervisors noted that one supplier's pricing could require the township to pay taxes and seek reimbursement rather than receiving the tax-exempt price directly.
Because of the uncertainty, the board approved a motion to contact the companies to clarify how taxes and delivery charges would affect the township's final cost before making a final decision.
Propane bids were clearer. Supervisors reviewed a proposal offering a fixed rate of $1.35 per gallon for the one-year contract.
The board voted to accept the $1.35-per-gallon propane bid from Superior Plus Propane.
The township also moved to put $500,000 from its general fund into a six-month investment earning 3.6% interest.
Supervisors agreed the township has sufficient funds available to make the investment while still covering anticipated road and other expenses.
One supervisor noted that the township expects some upcoming road project expenses to occur after the six-month investment matures.
"It's better than what you're getting sitting there doing nothing," Chappell said during the discussion.
The board approved investing $500,000 for six months at the 3.6% rate, earning $8,920.43 in interest.
The township received competing estimates for replacing culvert pipes, including labor, equipment and stone for Youngs Addition, Kryder Road and East End Mountain Road.
One proposal from Toner Trucking was approximately $7,260, while another from Charles Construction Company was $7,276. A separate proposal, from Benji Stoltzfus, came in at approximately $5,750 for the work, with the township supplying the culvert pipes.
Supervisors noted that the township can purchase the pipes itself at a lower cost because it can obtain them without paying sales tax.
However, the timing of the project became a concern. Supervisors said the paving season would be nearing the end and that paving the repaired area before winter could increase the overall cost.
The board ultimately decided to seek additional pricing and rebid the project for early spring rather than rush the work late in the season.
Supervisors said getting the work done properly and allowing the area to settle before paving would be preferable.