Other code revisions discussed

Sadsbury Township Supervisors officially adopted a storm water management act that has been in the works for quite some time.

The adoption of such came after months of negotiations, revisions and general upheaval with many area supervisors being against some of the provisions.

Supervisors Roy Whaley and Kevin VanHonk have both been outspoken in terms of the new rules having a negative effect on any new construction or household improvements in the township.

The whole process was set in rapid motion when the DEP, (Department of Environmental Protection), let it be known that they would be cracking down on the part of “Stormwater Management Act 167,” having to do with the residential aspect.

The Act has been in effect since 1978 but has mainly focused on commercial, rather than residential. That will no longer be a factor, as area municipalities have all had to develop storm water plans that go along with the regulations set forth many years ago.

Township engineers, and supervisors alike, have stepped up efforts to revise the ordinance, as much as possible.

Just for one example, during the March meeting, Supervisor Whaley had spoken up and stated that Erie County was able to exempt single family residential structures and, Sadsbury, in turn, should be able to do the same. (This would be for structures under 5,000 square feet.) He said that they should adopt the ordinance with that exemption firmly in place because once it's in, it is a whole other ballgame to get around it.

“We just go in and exempt it, right off the bat...but if we pass it now, once it's on the books, it's going to be triple hard to get it off the books. If you pass it with it not on the books now and DEP, (Department of Environmental Protection), doesn't like it, well, then they have to come back and talk to us,” Whaley stated in March.

The above-mentioned is just an example of some of the conversations and ideas that had been in play for many months.

Back to the April gathering, Zoning Officer Paul Roiz introduced one final revision to the board but, after much bantering back and forth, Solicitor R. Charles Thomas said that, in his legal opinion, they should not alter the ordinance any further, since it had already been advertised.

The suggested revision had to do with gravel driveways that had been used for long periods of time, resulting in the gravel being permanently packed. If a person owning a driveway of this nature wanted to upgrade to pavement, the advertised ordinance stated that he would need a storm water plan.

The ordinance was defining a packed, to the max, gravel driveway as pervious, rather than impervious, which Roiz thought wasn't necessarily so, hence the proposed revision.

Roiz said it wasn't fair and recommended adding new wording that would allow the engineer to make the determination.

For example, Vernon Township Engineer Ashley Porter had placed a short sentence to the effect of: “Unless otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the municipal engineer,” directly in front of the

- See Sadsbury page 5

Sadsbury - from page 1

sentence in the ordinance that reads: “the gravel in existing conditions should be considered pervious...”

Roiz indicated that this addition would allow the engineer to be involved in the final determination, rather than it being a one size fits all kind of deal.

“If you have a situation where a resident wants to pave their driveway and its been in existence for a long time, and that gravel's been driven on for years, they don't have to do a storm water plan. It's already [an] impervious surface and they're not changing it from a pervious to an impervious surface,” Roiz said. He continued by saying that introducing the above-mentioned sentence to the section of the ordinance in question, as Vernon had done, would really save township residents “a lot of unnecessary trouble.”

R. Charles said that the purpose of the legal advertising aspect of an ordinance is so that the public would know exactly what was included. He did say that he highly doubted that anyone looked through the ordinance but, nonetheless, it had been advertised.

VanHonk pointed out that the proposed revision would help the citizens but he indicated that he understood the reservations.

“We just don't think it's fair. If you had an old driveway that's been driven on that's gravel...it's impervious for all practical sense and purposes. There's no water going through that gravel anymore...,” Roiz said.

He went on to say that he didn't want to belabor the issue. He just said that a question had come to light about the driveways, he explored the options and came up with his proposed addition to the ordinance.

R. Charles made mention of amending it in the future and Whaley pointed out that there are quite a few - See A Few page 18

A Few- from page 5

steps involved with amending the ordinance.

Roiz said that he had been involved with redoing many ordinances, from those of the subdivision variety to zoning ordinances. He said, “We advertised them and there are times even when we get right up to the public hearing...that

*********************

we make changes based on what the public says...if it's a good suggestion, then it gets put in the ordinances...”

He went on to say that he thought that as long as the changes were minor, there should be no issue.

Whaley spoke up and said that they work for the public and DEP doesn't. He stated that those at DEP do not care about the municipalities and what they might want. “We were told that if we changed this ordinance, everything has to go to them for their review and approval. They don't care whether we're looking out for the public interest or not...,” he said.

He ended by saying that he thought it was a good idea and he'd like to do it but, they would not be able to do so without following the proper steps.

In the end, after much bantering back and forth, township officials expressed that they did not feel comfortable making any kind of additions, subtractions, and/or changes, of any kind, due to the fact that the ordinance had already been advertised.

Roiz said that his job description entails looking over the ordinance and making recommendations and he felt that he had followed through with his end of things.

CLABA signs were also a hot topic that fell under Roiz's report. One of the signs in question is located near the beer distributor, at the intersection of 18 and 322, and is the same style of sign that is utilized by Station 3.

Roiz explained that the CLABA would like to make the signs available for rent and charge $5 per side. Since they have three signs, with two sides each, there are six sign sides available for advertising.

He said that they provided him with a list, in order of priority, in terms of possible sign usage. The only one that raised some concerns, which will be outlined below, is the third one on this list: CLABA events; non profit and community events; specific business events and season greetings.

Roiz said that upon first glance, he didn't have a problem with it but, he stated that supervisors might want to discuss it due to the fact that CLABA is charging “rent” on the signs. “Our ordinance has an exemption for public service type signs and that, typically, that's how these have operated in the past,” he expounded.

He wanted to get the information out to the board in order for them to offer feedback that he could take back to CLABA officials.

VanHonk was the first to speak up about the situation and said that because they are charging a minimal amount, he still thought it was more of a community service type-of-situation. “It's not like they have fifty of them...What I'm getting at is that I don't think they're in it to make any money...”

VanHonk stated that, in reference to the rent they charge, they are probably spending more than that on letters that blow away and/or the lighting elements.

Supervisor Whaley did not agree with VanHonk and said that, as a business owner, he has to “jump through hoops to get advertising out there, I just totally disagree with that.”

Whaley went on to say that there is an exemption in the sign ordinance that allows CLABA, and other non profits, to promote community events.

He clarified his point, “[B]ecause after they find out that every business owner, around Conneaut Lake, is interested in putting advertising on their sign, all the sudden the price is gonna go up. We're gonna create a nightmare that's gonna go out of control...”

He continued to state that CLABA could stick to the current course but, if they start charging any amount of money to rent out the signs, then they have to comply with the “same sign regulations that the rest of us do...”

Whaley indicated that the reason for his apprehension was if they allowed the $5 a side scenario, it might escalate to higher rental prices and could, eventually, lead to a commercial advertised sign, which would be in violation of the sign ordinance.

He said they needed to put a stop to any plans, on the part of CLABA, or anyone else in the same situation, that would go against the rules. “We've got to treat everybody the same way and everybody fairly...”

To clarify his position further, he then gave the example of the township erecting a sign, outside of the building, in order to sell advertising spots to area businesses.

A resident in attendance, Wanda Ramaley, defended CLABA by saying that they had had a lot of board member changes, as of late, and might not be up to speed in terms of the sign laws.

Whaley said that if they need to ascertain what they can, or cannot, do, they need to approach the board to gather information.

VanHonk said that after listening to Whaley, he tended to agree that they should only be allowed to continue on the current path by sticking to community event promotion.

Whaley concluded that portion of the discussion by saying that if CLABA so desired, they could certainly move a sign to an area in which different kinds of advertising, (other than community event promotion), is allowed. He reminded everyone that they would still have to obtain a sign permit in order to do so.

Ramaley asked if CLABA officials knew about that and Whaley said that if they didn't, they would soon because Roiz would fill them in on the particulars.

Roiz said that when he contacts them, he is going to ask if they are going to erect more signs. He is also going to tell them that if they are going to advertise for individual businesses, they would need to take a new course of action.

Roiz finished by saying that they are all big fans of the Business Association and appreciate their efforts in general. He indicated that he wants to do everything he can to make sure that CLABA could still use the signs, as long as they followed the rules.

Moving along to other Roiz subjects, the topic of making revisions to the - See Code page 20

Code - from page 19

Uniform Construction Code was next on the docket.

He imparted some recommendations to the board concerning the code, beginning with two story accessory use buildings.

Roiz said that currently, this type of structure is exempt from the code, as long as the footprint is less than 1,000 square feet, and they would like to see that changed. In other words, the township wishes to require permits and inspections when it comes to the above-mentioned structures.

Another recommendation, in terms of the Uniform Construction Code revisions, pertained electrical permits. Roiz stated that the township had asked him to compose appropriate language concerning electrical permitting.

He continued to explain that at first, he toyed with the idea of requiring permits and inspections for all types of electrical work. However, after some consideration and, even with exemptions, he indicated that it was “a bit too nebulous.”

Jake Doub, from MDIA, (Middle Department Inspection Agency), helped Roiz devise some language pertaining to the electrical part of the code.

Roiz said that what it comes down to basically is any building that is considered to be exempt currently, such as freestanding buildings, accessory use structures—like garages, storage buildings and anything under a thousand square feet, doesn't require an inspection for the electrical work. It stands to reason that if the structure wasn't inspected, then neither was the electrical situation. That is how it stands right now.

However, Roiz would like that to change. His recommendation, for the board to consider, was that electrical inspections should now be required for accessory structures under a thousand square feet.

He said there have been problems with the current rules because some of the electrical work being carried out in the above-mentioned structures, isn't always up to code. He further stated that they had suffered “the consequences” because they had not been able to inspect the electrical work.

Roiz stated that the recommendations put forth were certainly not written in stone and were guidelines for supervisors to consider.

Because making changes to any kind of ordinance, code, act, etc., entails several more steps, the board was not able to take any official action during the April meeting.