Council of the Municipality of Murrysville

Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Council of the Municipality of Murrysville held a Regular Voting Meeting on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building. Present at the meeting were Council members Josh Lorenz, Tony Spadaro, Jamie Lee Korns, Joan Kearns, Loren Kase, and David Perry. Councilman Jeffery Kepler was not in attendance. Also present were Mayor Robert Brooks, Chief Administrator James Morrison, Solicitor George Kotjarapoglus, Finance Director Diane Heming, Public Works Director Bob Bell, Recreation Director Carly Greene and Municipal Planner Allen Cohen. MAYOR BROOKS WELCOMES AMERICAN LEGION POST NO. 711 Mayor Brooks welcomed Commander Frank Persia of American Legion Post No. 711 and commented on how the Legion and Boy Scouts work together on projects and events. Commander Persia thanked the Mayor and Council for the opportunity to tell residents about the Legion and some of its activities. He mentioned the Legion’s first golf outing to be held in September and said that all money raised from events stays in Murrysville to help local veterans, give scholarships to students and present awards. He also said that there is a veteran in Murrysville that has Parkinson’s and the money raised from the golf outing will be used to make his home handicapped accessible. He asked the Murrysville residents to support the outing to help with this project. The Legion will be working with Murrysville Alliance Church to conduct a Patriot’s Day event on September 11. The members are most proud of the ten days they put flags out along Route 22 for Flags Over Murrysville. Mayor Brooks presented Cmdr. Persia with a Certificate of Appreciation for the Legion’s contributions to the community. REGULAR VOTING MEETING AGENDA UNISTED AMENDMENTS: Under Council Action Items – Administration – Add Item No. 13E – Consider Approval of Ordinance No. 953-16, FTMSA Bond. Mr. Lorenz moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Perry seconded. All present voted aye. Motion approved. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: A. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE B. INVESTMENTS AND TRANSFERS Mrs. Lee Korns moved to approve the Consent Calendar items. Mr. Spadaro seconded. All present voted aye. Motion approved. COMMUNITY INPUT: Barbara Sims, 3837 Hills Church Road, commended all involved with Community Day on the event. She advised that the Murrysville Watch booth collected 54 petitions from residents stating: (1) they want a minimum setback distance between well pad & homes to be at least 2000 feet and (2) they object to permitting car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 unconventional gas development production, which is now in a designated rural-residential area. A copy of Mrs. Sims’ comments is on file at the Municipal office with the minutes. Cindy Gesuale, 3051 Hoy Farm Court, told Council she felt the vote to put the ordinance into pending status was rushed through and she believes this was decision that did not allow for adequate discussion. After commenting on the speakers at various sessions and the process to revise the ordinance, she encouraged Council to do away with this ordinance and start over again with an overall goal of allowing all residents to benefit from natural gas drilling in the community. A copy of Ms. Gesuale’s comments is on file at the Municipal office. Norman Franke, 4816 Sardis Road, believes the current pending ordinance is restrictive and can’t understand where such an outpouring of support is coming from. He mentioned the Marcellus drilling project around the Beaver Run Reservoir, as well as two other projects in Allegheny County, where the claims of drilling opponents were completely without merit. He asked Council to enact an ordinance that encourages drilling instead of stifling it. A copy of Mr. Franke’s comments is on file at the Municipal office. WORKSHOP ITEMS None. COUNCIL - ACTION ITEMS ADMINISTRATION: 13A. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT CONTRACT WITH KEYSTONE COLLECTIONS TO COLLECT REAL ESTATE AND LOCAL TAXES, EXCEPT EARNED INCOME TAXES, FOR BOTH THE MUNICIPALITY AND FRANKLIN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. Mr. Lorenz moved to approve a five-year extension of the current contract with Keystone Collections. Mrs. Lee Korns seconded. Finance Director Diane Heming explained that the main change in the contract is to remove the per-capita taxes from the real estate bills for those individuals that own houses in Murrysville. There have been problems over the past few years with incorrect assessments because both taxes are on the same bill. Ms. Heming said she believes separating the bills will increase the per-capita collections. Keystone was formerly paid 2% of the money collected from each bill. Under the new contract, Keystone will be paid $.40/bill from the Municipality and $.40/bill from the School District. Another change in the contract is that Keystone will now deduct its fee from the taxes rather than sending the Municipality a bill and having to issue several checks. Keystone will then send an itemized statement which Ms. Heming will use to reconcile the account. Mr. Kase asked about the 2% fee as compared to the $.40 per bill and how much the Municipality will be paying. Ms. Heming said that the Municipality usually receives about $60,000 in per-capita, so the bill was around $3,600 for the collections. With the proposed change, the Municipality will now be paying around $7,000, but she believes the additions to the tax rolls will make that difference much smaller. Mr. Perry asked how long it takes for the Municipality to receive its money after Keystone receives the payment. Ms. Heming said Keystone car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 processes the payment and then makes deposits directly into the Municipality’s designated account on a regular basis – sometimes daily, and sometimes 3-4 times per week. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Spadaro – yes, Mrs. Lee Korns – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FY 2017-2021. Mr. Spadaro moved to approve the 2017-2021 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Kase seconded. There were no questions from Council. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Spadaro – yes, Mrs. Lee Korns – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13C. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE ROUTE 22 PUBLIC SERVICES SIGN. Mr. Kase moved to authorize staff to proceed with the necessary work to construct a public services sign on Route 22 to the west of the entrance at Cleveland Brothers. Mr. Spadaro seconded. Chief Administrator Jim Morrison explained that this project was initiated because of all the problems with placing banners on the poles at the Tarr Hollow and Wilson Road intersections. Staff has been working with Sign-A-Rama and PennDOT to permit a sign along Route 22. He said that some of the time involved in putting the project together was finding a location along Route 22, since no type of sign is permitted within PennDOT’s right-of-way, and the right-of-way along the highway is rather extensive. Staff was able to secure the location because it’s part of the bikeway right-of-way and the County was gracious enough to allow the erection of the sign within the railroad right-of-way acquired by the County. Mr. Morrison explained the dimensions, design, construction, and estimated cost of the sign. Local service organizations have been approached to request financial contribution for the sign, and in return their logo would be placed on the sign. Brick for the sign will be obtained from a local company that went out of business, and Meritage has volunteered to lay the block & brick. He does not anticipate the cost to the Municipality to be more than $18,500 and the permit from PennDOT should be received soon. Some site work needs to be done to bring the area up to road level; electricity will be brought in from the Cleveland Bros. sign; the sign will be able to be remotely controlled from the Municipal building. The sign will also be tied into a national system which will automatically be activated in the event of an Amber alert or severe weather warnings. It is not anticipated that the sign will be used for commercial advertising and the local non-profit groups will continue to be charged $35 for advertising an event. Construction will begin as soon as the PennDOT permit arrives. Mr. Kase noted that the Planning Commission has been discussing LED signs for some time and if the sign is erected and the standards change, the Municipality will have the only LED sign not meeting the regulations. Mr. Morrison said the sign will only use amber as the color, it will have 3 lines of 12” letters, and there will be no movement or animation on the sign. He said it is solely a public service sign to support local non-profits and alert the public in of emergency situations. car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Mrs. Kearns asked if the Municipality would continue to post the banners at Tarr Hollow; Mr. Morrison said no. Mrs. Kearns said she believes that is doing a disservice to residents as there is a tremendous amount of traffic on Old William Penn that avoids Route 22. Mayor Brooks agreed that the banners provide a nice service and staff had not talked about the sign replacing the banners, but providing a service. Mrs. Kearns said a lot of people would be missing the information if the community activity signs were not posted at that corner. Mr. Perry asked about the potential electric cost for the sign and the remote access. Mr. Morrison said the cost would be minimal and the sign will be controlled using WiFi. Mr. Lorenz asked if the police will have access. Mr. Morrison said all information will originate from the administration office, so a Nixel could be sent. Mr. Perry noted that Mr. Morrison said “we don’t anticipate commercial use,” and asked if it could be specified that the sign will have NO commercial use. Mayor Brooks said to wait and see how it works out and future Councils could change the usage. There were no questions and no additional discussion. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Spadaro – yes, Mrs. Lee Korns – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13D. CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR A VACANCY ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. Mr. Perry moved to declare a vacancy on the Parks and Rec Commission and a motion to advertise the vacancy on the Parks and Rec Commission. Mr. Spadaro seconded. Mr. Morrison explained that Council directed him to send a letter to a participant who has been unable to attend the meetings. He has sent the letter and received no response from the individual. This item is before Council to move forward so the Parks and Recreation Commission can continue to meet with a full board. There was no discussion on this item. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Spadaro – yes, Mrs. Lee Korns – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 13E. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 953-16, FTMSA BOND. Mr. Lorenz moved to approve Ordinance 953-16. Mr. Kase seconded. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Spadaro – yes, Mrs. Lee Korns – recused herself because her husband represents a client who is suing FTMSA, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 14A. CONSIDER TEMPORARILY WAIVING THE NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR BARRINGTON ESTATES. Mrs. Lee Korns moved to temporarily waive the requirement for an NPDES permit for Barrington Estates so the Municipal staff may be able to issue building permits for the construction of single-family homes in the development. Mr. Kase seconded. car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Mr. Morrison explained that Barrington Estates was approved in 2010 and Mr. Patalsky began building single- family homes in the subdivision approximately two years ago. At that time, Federal, State and local permits were in place as required by the subdivision approval. The Municipality is bound by the DEP and Conservation District to make sure all the permits are in place prior to issuance of building permits. In July of 2015, Mr. Patalsky received notice that his NPDES permit had expired. Mr. Patalsky believed that NPDES permits only dealt with erosion and sedimentation control, which is the “ES” part of NPDES, and proceeded with construction. The Municipality was recently notified by the Conservation District that the permit had expired. Mr. Patalsky has begun the NPDES process because he is under contract to build a home, but in order for the Municipality to issue a building permit, Council needs to consider waiving – temporarily for this particular contract only – the NPDES requirement as part of the subdivision approval so that he may proceed. Mr. Patalsky has supplied an agreement which will provide financial security if DEP decides to fine the Municipality for not having the NPDES permit in place prior to issuance of the permit. If Council chooses to waive the requirement, Mr. Morrison suggests making a condition of the approval that a security agreement be signed by the bank to ensure that funds are available if fines are levied. Charles Hergenroeder, attorney for Mr. Patalsky, said his client erroneously allowed the permit to expire and has started the renewal process. He explained that there is $312,000 available as unallocated sequestered funds, which would be used as security for any type of fines. The Conservation District sent an e-mail indicating his client has complied with everything – there are no claims, citations, or anything that would lead to any type of problem. Hopefully, by the time the NPDES permit is renewed, the Municipality can issue the next building permit with no problems. Mrs. Lee Korns asked if there was a guarantee that the permit will be renewed. Mr. Hergenroeder said there are never any guarantees, but there is no indication that it wouldn’t be renewed. She asked if there is a family waiting for the home and was told there is. Mr. Morrison explained the permit process to Council. Mr. Perry explained that to begin construction without having an approved NPDES permit is a violation of law and the per-day fines are $10,000 per day on citizen’s suits, plus $5,000 per day for every day that construction or activity on an un-permitted area continues. He also said this is precedent setting; Council would be saying that it’s okay to violate law. If another builder says he’s getting his permit in two weeks but the house needs started now, and asks Council to waive the permit, how can Council say no. Solicitor Kotjarapoglus asked if construction is not started now, will the contractor be able to start it this year and have it under roof and be able to work on it? Mr. Hergenroeder said it would probably have to be delayed and it depends on the weather. The Solicitor said the development plan has already been reviewed, there is nothing new in it, and it’s been a few weeks since the renewal has been filed. There is a small time window, but there is still a risk. If the contractor consents to the bond being provided, there should be some conditions: (1) the contractor continues to comply with the permit that is was effect but has now lapsed; (2) the permit be limited to Lot 12; (3) comply with all performance requirements in the permit that has been issued but lapsed; (4) comply with any additional conditions in the application; (5) comply with any requirements of the Municipality’s code enforcement officer and engineer for anything that takes place on the site, including car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 stopping construction if a problem is found. It is the Solicitor’s understanding that DEP or the Conservation District are not consenting, but are also not objecting to the Municipality issuing a permit. Mr. Hergenroeder said he received an e-mail which indicated that DEP/Conservation District could see no reason why a building permit should not be issued. Additionally, Solicitor Kotjarapoglus said if there are any fines imposed, the $312,000 being made available will have to be replenished so there is sufficient security for the remainder of the development. He continued by agreeing that this would be precedent-setting, and it’s not likely that anyone else will request a similar waiver, since this is the only one the Municipality has ever had. Mrs. Lee Korns said the e-mail was sent in November 2015 and wants to know what has happened between then and now that the contractor is asking for approval. Ray Patalski said when he received the e-mail, it was his understanding it wasn’t an issue because everything had grown in at the development and they were fine with everything. He had no plans to do any work on the part that was untouched in the rear. It was his understanding that when the permit is renewed, the contractor has two years to do the work. Since no work was anticipated, he planned on waiting until close to the time the permit was to expire to renew it because he didn’t think there was any issue. Mr. Lorenz asked if there was any timetable as to when DEP would rule on the application. Mr. Patalsky said once the Conservation District gets the application and reviews it the application is submitted to DEP, which has 60 days for comments. It is then sent back to the Conservation District, which has another 60 days to act on it. The engineer expects that it will take 9 months to get it renewed. Mr. Patalsky said if a fine is issued, he would stop work so as not to incur more fines. Mr. Kase said he agrees that a decision would be precedent-setting and that building a $300,000 house while incurring a $300,000 fine would not be reasonable. He said Council isn’t eliminating the fine or the risk and he would like to see the family to be able to move in. Mr. Perry said there is still the possibility of a citizen’s suit. Mr. Lorenz said that, as much as Council would not want to hold up development and wants to assist someone who wants to build a home, what is being asked is for Council to break the law. Mrs. Kearns said she is inclined to hold off on a decision until the Solicitor can provide Council with a list of proposed conditions. The Solicitor said once the conditions have been enumerated, the issue is that they will not comply with the law. Based on the potential time frame, the Solicitor mentioned two additional items: if the fines are beginning to grow, the Municipality may want to stop construction and pull the permit if the contractor is still continuing to build and violate, which then questions whether the homeowner is prepared to have that happen so the homeowner doesn’t sue the Municipality. Mr. Spadaro asked what specific law is being broken. Mr. Lorenz said that it incumbent upon Council to insure that an NPDES permit is in place before a building permit is issued; there is a possibility that the Municipality can be fined. Additionally, any person who can claim he/she is being impacted because the discharge is in violation of the law can sue. Mayor Brooks made several comments and said he would like to see the Solicitor come up with a list that would make Council comfortable in order to get this done and not make the family possibly wait another year for their home. car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Mr. Lorenz asked if there was any way someone can contact DEP or get one of the legislators involved to help facilitate the process so this becomes a non-issue. Mr. Morrison said the Municipality’s relationship with the Conservation District is very good and that group is the reviewing body; it’s more of a rubber stamp at DEP. He would be willing to contact the responsible people at DEP to see what is involved. Mr. Morrison stated for the record that neither he nor his staff had any knowledge prior to the issuance of the permit that the NPDES had expired and that they were just notified of that. After additional discussion, Mr. Perry moved to table the prior motion related to waiver of NPDES permit for them to get their building permit and do it for a date certain and do it at the first Council meeting in September. Mr. Lorenz seconded. All present voted aye. Motion to table approved. ENGINEERING: None. PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS: 16A. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SURPLUS VEHICLE SALES. Mrs. Lee Korns moved to approve the sale of ten surplus vehicles. Mr. Spadaro seconded. Public Works and Parks Director Bob Bell explained that the sale was very successful on Municibid and items went to New Jersey, York, Lebanon, Jeannette, Bridgeville, and Norristown. The sale netted $110,994.00. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Spadaro – yes, Mrs. Lee Korns – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. 16B. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR MURRYSVILLE COMMUNITY PARK PHASE III. Mrs. Lee Korns moved to approve the Consultant Agreement with JT Sauer & Associates for the Murrysville Community Park Phase III study. Mr. Spadaro seconded. Recreation Director Carly Greene explained that 8 proposal packages were sent out in June and 5 were received. After staff review and discussion with the Parks and Recreation Commission, interviews were held and it was the consensus that JT Sauer & Associates brought a wealth of knowledge, history and experience in Southwest Pennsylvania and the local area, not only in development of the master plan, but in construction and full-phase development as well. There were no questions from Council. Upon a roll call vote: Mr. Lorenz – yes, Mr. Spadaro – yes, Mrs. Lee Korns – yes, Mrs. Kearns – yes, Mr. Kase – yes, Mr. Perry – yes. Motion approved. car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 OLD BUSINESS: 17A. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 930-15, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATING OIL AND GAS DRILLING. Municipal Planner Allen Cohen said it has been over two years since the revisions began and, although there is no rush, there is obviously a yearning to get it right. In those two years, ideas have been discussed through the task force, Planning Commission, Council, public education sessions and public input. Tonight’s discussion will include a review of some of the revisions needed to the ordinance based upon legal review and staff review of the ordinance, as well as Council’s input. Comments included: make sure the ordinance is clear and concise; purge the ordinance from anything in conflict with the operational aspects of drilling, which are under the purview of DEP, or those for which DEP has a similar procedure; the oil and gas industry should not be treated any differently than any other land development when discussing the application of procedures or requirements. Some items in the proposed ordinance are already in or are being moved to the subdivision and land use ordinance. Another item for discussion is the separation distance, buffer yards and setbacks. Mr. Cohen said that any regulation dealing with buffer yards and setbacks that excludes the use totally from the community will render the ordinance to be challengeable or invalid by having been exclusive or not allowing the use. Mr. Morrison explained that, since the oil and gas drilling process has been defined as a land development use, the subdivision and land development ordinance comes into play. He said it makes it easier, from an administrative and regulatory point of view, to split out the land development and regulatory issues in the zoning ordinance being proposed. The Municipality already has a very strong subdivision and land development ordinance in place, and many of the things that are being suggested to be moved out of the oil and gas ordinance already existed in the land development ordinance. Going forward, Council will have flexibility in a subdivision ordinance because it has the right to waive recommendations from staff, while a zoning ordinance is controlled by the Zoning Hearing Board or an amendment to the ordinance. Therefore, it makes sense that these items be moved out. Mr. Morrison continued by stating that the pending ordinance as presented to Council for review is an accumulation of comments from Council members, legal counsel and staff. He said it is now Council’s responsibility to direct staff to say “yea” or “nay” or modify and come back with an ordinance so Council can proceed with review by the county, Planning Commission review, and public hearing process. Council then reviewed all 32 pages of the document, noting changes, additions and deletions to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Morrison explained the changes and drew particular attention to the revision of the definition of Protected Structure, since that deals with the buffer area. There was discussion on the Recreation Area and Application Requirements definitions. Regarding the section on Setback Requirements, the proposed ordinance requires a 250 foot buffer zone from the outer boundary of the permanent facility area; only an access road can be located in that space. An additional 550 foot setback between the edge of the well pad buffer and the nearest protected structure is also car 8/19/2016 Regular Voting Meeting – Wednesday, August 17, 2016 required. Those provisions provide for a total 800 foot buffer between the well pad and the nearest protected structure. After questions from Council, Mr. Morrison drew a diagram to better explain the buffer requirement. A property owner can request a waiver of that requirement as long as it doesn’t affect other owners in the area. Mr. Cohen further explained that DEP cannot issue a permit if it’s closer than 500 feet to the bore hole, unless it’s waived. Discussion was held regarding the wording needed to protect specialized structures, i.e., private school and adjacent recreation space. It was the general consensus of Council that there is no need for different setbacks for different kinds of structures. Mr. Morrison recapped the process and advised that (1) provisions currently regulated by DEP or other federal or state agencies were stricken from the pending ordinance; (2) this use will not be treated any differently than any other use that would come before Council or the Planning Commission, with the caveat that the Municipality has the ability to waive provisions within the SALDO but not the zoning ordinance; and (3) the setback is a political decision, with the idea being that the Municipality is governed by exclusivity and the requirement under the MPC to provide for uses within the community. He believes the recommendations made are valid and it is now within Council’s authority to make the changes or recommend other alternatives. Mr. Morrison suggested providing Council with a clean copy (with all comments removed) noting points still open for discussion in the pending copy. This item will be on the agenda for the September 21 meeting. NEW BUSINESS: None. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to an Executive Session at 9:45 p.m. to discuss a Legal Issue and reconvened at 10:06 p.m. There was no action coming out of the Session. ACTION ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Lorenz moved to adjourn. Mrs. Lee Korns seconded. All present voted aye. Motion approved. The Council Meeting concluded at 10:07 p.m. The Regular Voting Meeting was broadcast on local government Channel 19. A true copy of the Council meeting DVD is available for the public to purchase from the Municipality of Murrysville and is in the Murrysville Public Library for review. car 8/19/2016