Lower Southampton zoning records are in such disarray that it could be expensive to perform a deeper dive into department operations than a recent, two-year review that found “irregularities,” according to a township supervisor.
The potential cost is expected to be a talking point when supervisors meet Wednesday to discuss whether they will authorize further reviews of previous zoning permits and subdivision and land development projects.
Supervisor Kim Koutsouradis said that Keystone Municipal Services President Richard O’Brien has told him years of poor record keeping would “greatly” impact the cost of a further review, though O’Brien didn’t put a dollar figure on the cost.
This news organization was unsuccessful in reaching O’Brien for comment.
The township paid Keystone $5,000 to review a sample of subdivision and land development plan files and zoning permits following the February retirement of zoning officer Carol Drioli, who headed the department for 16 years. The supervisors stated at the time Drioli’s retirement presented an opportunity to verify compliance with state building codes and identify where improvements could be made.
Keystone randomly chose seven subdivision and land development applications and 19 zoning and building permit applications between 2015 and last year, and found many contained sloppy record-keeping, including the failure to keep all building, zoning and land development records associated with a property together. The consultant also said there were misplaced or missing land development plans, missing inspector signatures, missing inspection reports, missing permit applications and “numerous” projects improperly issued permits without going through the land development approval process, which adds time and expense to a project.
Koutsouradis said he’s concerned about the cost of further analysis, but he also wants to know if the mistakes revealed in the Keystone report are anomalies or represent a pattern that should be looked at further, and if the township could face any liability.
“A big fear of mine is we may not ever know exactly what the damage was done to the township financially. But I do feel we just can’t sit on our hands and do absolutely nothing about it. We owe it to our residents to at least look into this further than what we already have,” he said.
Township Solicitor Francis Dillon declined to comment on if the township could be held legally liable for any deficiencies in the zoning department property files.
“I will not answer your questions. I answer to my client,” Dillon said.
Lower Southampton Supervisors Chairman Keith Westley also declined to answer questions, but he said a discussion is an agenda item for Wednesday’s supervisors meeting.
“I think most, if not all, of your questions will be answered at the meeting,” Westley added, in an email.
A half dozen residents last month called on the board to conduct a further review of previous zoning department records following a presentation on Keystone Municipal Services’ findings.
“Our fear is that while this exercise reviewed a sampling of applications there were many applications that were not reviewed that will contain similar irregularities,” Keystone Municipal President Richard O’Brien wrote in the report.
The township annually receives between 2,500 and 3,000 permit applications.
The state Municipal Planning Code, which guides local municipal subdivision and land development ordinances, requires townships to maintain records of all permits issued and land development plans.
Lower Southampton could find itself on the defense if it does not straighten out its property record files, according to Herman Slaybaugh, co-chairman of the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Education Institute and a former zoning officer and planner for State College.
Without complete and accurate records, the township could have difficulty defending itself if a lawsuit was brought contending that it didn’t comply with the Municipal Planning Code. It also could find itself unable to prove definitively if a zoning violation predates the enactment or changes involving local land development and zoning ordinances, which would make it a nonconforming use.
If a zoning permit is approved, the implication is that the township is confirming the work complies with state code requirements, Slaybaugh said. But without a record of needed inspections, there is no way to confirm that.
“Permits establish a record so a township knows what ... is going on,” Slaybaugh said. “If you can’t find out what you’ve done, that is pretty sloppy bookkeeping. The whole purpose of having permits is to verify a property was built in compliance. If you can’t index that and go back and find it, that was an exercise in futility.”
O’Brien told the board last month that the review didn’t find any “malfeasance.”
He described the mistakes found as common ones, though the volume of mistakes was “a little more than you want to see.”
Following the July board meeting, this news organization reviewed the permits and plans included in the Keystone report, as well as earlier projects that were not part of the report. The news organization also reviewed additional property files unrelated to the Keystone report.
The review found numerous instances of missing or incomplete documents involving permit applications, project statements and escrow documents, and as well as permit approvals with missing township or consultant signatures. Some files also contained documents associated with different projects.
Without a permit application, it cannot be accurately determined if permit fees were properly calculated since the size of a project, its estimated cost, and the amount of work proposed are used to calculate the fees owed the township, according to its fee schedule.
Also missing are physical copies of mechanical and plumbing permit inspections performed by the third-party firm the township contracts with for the plumbing, electric and mechanical work, said the township’s new zoning officer, William Oettinger.
Oettinger confirmed that the department only has physical copies of previous electric inspections, and those cards are stored in the building inspector’s office, not the property files. He added that his review of property files found “numerous” approved permits that were not properly signed.
The current state of the prior recordkeeping is “definitely” an impediment to conducting further reviews of past projects, Oettinger said. He added he does not have the staff available to correct years of property files. Currently, inactive and completed property, permit and plan files are stored together in one place and can be retrieved.
Oettinger added his office is now following the Keystone report recommendations regarding record keeping for new permit applicants, and that he handles the first review of all permit applications.
No comments:
Post a Comment