Upper Gwynedd OKs ‘curative amendment’ motion in special meeting

A rare morning meeting has prompted a code review by Upper Gwynedd’s staff, and plenty of questions from residents near two properties it could affect.

The township’s commissioners voted unanimously on Thursday morning to initiate a review of part of the township’s zoning ordinance that residents say could impact two possible boarding houses near their neighborhoods.

“The board of commissioners has become aware that portions of the zoning ordinance may be considered substantively invalid, namely, the provisions that define certain uses, and which regulate their permissibility in certain zoning districts within the township,” said commissioners President Katherine Carter.

In a special meeting held Thursday morning, Solicitor Lauren Gallagher explained that the township has recently been notified that “there may be some concerns with portions of the zoning code,” and the township is using the ordinance to “proceed through the municipal curative amendment process, if in fact there is a substantive invalidity.”

“This is not legislation in the township. This is a resolution directing that such legislation be prepared for future consideration by this board,” Gallagher said.

Any such ordinance would then be vetted by the township and county planning commissions like any other zoning change, the attorney added, and then to the commissioners again, and would have to be done within 180 days from the adoption of the resolution.

“We will likely have another resolution, after (Zoning officer David Conroy) and I are able to do a little more of a deep dive into this, in the coming weeks that will address the specific provisions we’re taking a look at,” Gallagher said.

Board ask for specifics

Carter then made a motion to adopt the resolution, commissioner Denise Hull seconded, and commissioner Rebecca Moodie asked if any vote to adopt the resolution would not necessarily mean any part of the code is incorrect. Gallagher said that’s part of the process.               

“We are declaring that there is an invalidity, but the code and the relevant case law, does allow us to evaluate it. And then ultimately, if we determine there is no invalidity, we can pass a resolution accordingly. But this is a pause button, that allows the township to investigate this,” Gallagher said.

Commissioner Liz McNaney asked if the review would also look for codes that were “outdated or unclear,” and Gallagher said it would, and prevents anyone from filing a new invalidity challenge or variance request while that process was underway.

“It’s just for us to help make sure that rules are fair, rules follow state law, and people know what is allowed to be built where. Is that the three main things, to put it into non-legal terms?” McNaney said, and Gallagher answered that was accurate.

“This does not change any legislation in the township. It essentially directs Mr. Conroy and myself to look at the zoning code, to determine whether there is a substantive invalidity in the code,” Gallagher said. “This just starts that process, and allows the township to thoughtfully engage in that process.”      

Neighbors sound off

Resident Carl Smith asked if the amendment was meant to “disallow a boarding house use” in the R-2 residential zoning, and asked how the board would enforce such a ban, noting recent incidents with such a use at a possible boarding house on the 1800 block of Broad Street that he says he and other residents have reported to staff.

“The issue would be, how are we going to deal with managing that problem anywhere, if you can’t manage it there?” he said.

One resident said she had called the zoning officer to report the same issue with the same house, eight to ten cars parked there and men walking in and out, and asked how the township handled such reports.

Assistant Manager Megan Hurst answered those questions by saying township staff had done “a number of enforcement measures” for the site in question, including letters to the site in question, then citations, then taking the case to district court, and in that case the property was cleaned in response to those requests. In that site, township code staff did inspect the site after securing an administrative search warrant, and identified “a number of items they needed to do to bring that site up to compliance,” Hurst said, all of which have since been done.

“Code-enforcement wise, they are currently compliant, with the code, as relates to property maintenance, and operating as a family unit,” she said, and solicitor Lauren Gallagher added “The township has done everything it can on that property…the township has investigated this, that property is being operated as a family unit.”

Peter Simonovich asked about several cars he’s seen parked on a different possible boarding home on Gwynedd Avenue’s property line, and about bright lights from the house that shine toward neighbors nearby; Zadell said residents should report any urgent safety concerns to police immediately. Todd Pelkey echoed those concerns, of bright lights and frequent visits there by many drivers, and said he was worried about the conditions inside, and safety of kids who play in yards nearby.

“They’re in and out of there at almost all hours, but the bulk of it is during the day, when kids are playing,” he said, adding that it’s “constant traffic coming in and out of there.”

Moll said part of the intent of the possible code change was to make sure staff can address those worries.

“The intent, at least as far as I see it, is possibly to address some of those concerns. To make sure folks are operating in areas they should be operating in. There could be a number of these operating, and we don’t know until a situation arises. And if there’s no issue that bubbles up, maybe they’re good neighbors,” Moll said.

“There’s a compassionate element to it as well: that integration into the community is absolutely pivotal, to include them into society and help them in their recovery. Making sure people are operating legally, and the right facilities are operating, I think is very important,” he said. “There’s a lot to consider here.”

Resident Kimberly Glass said she also lives near one of the sites in question, and asked if the resolution meant the code was invalid, and Gallagher said the resolution declared the board “would like an opportunity to review it and correct it,” but “the code is still enforceable. What this does is forecloses any challenges to the provisions we’re citing in this resolution.”

Glass added that she’s seen tenants in one of the two suspected boarding houses drive on lawns, use her private driveway for turns, put trash cans and mailboxes on property that isn’t theirs, and pass by too close for comfort while she’s driving to her own property.

“Whatever considerations you are using to consider whether it’s appropriate to put a business in a residential community, consider access. I was born in that house, spent my first 18 years there, and my last 16 years there. Never has there been an issue with cars needing to pass one another on other people’s grass,” until the new user arrived, she said.

Robert Harcarik said he’s seen outside lights turned off at one of the house sin recent days, but light pollution before, and said he filed a right-to-know request that yielded 11 police calls, two fire, and five medical dispatches or responses over a two-month period.

“All of these people, they’re attached to mental and alcohol and substances abuse issues, and the treatment thereof,” he said. “Can I start a boarding house? Or a brothel? Or whatever else, can I do that in my neighborhood and get away with it for six months, before something gets done?”

Moll answered that those specific concerns and worries by residents could be addressed in the code update, if one is deemed necessary after further review.

“We hear your concerns, but possibly consider that this resolution is an attempt to possibly address some of those concerns you folks are raising,” he said.

Hannah Haulcy said she works from home near the second site and has seen tenants walk on other properties barefoot, place a mailbox on an adjacent property, and a fire call recently, all of which were concerns: “There’s just boundaries that are being crossed,”  she said.

Smith then asked if the immigration status of those living in the homes was also at issue: “I’m asking you if you’ve checked into whether or not they’re legal residents, if that’s part of the process,” and Gallagher answered: “The township code enforcement has no jurisdiction over that. That is not something township code enforcement would look into.”

And Lance Wexler asked if sprinkler systems or other safety features would be needed, and if the township could investigate the sites for such; Gallagher answered that those requirements would depend on whether a site or use is found to be residential or business, and the code review was meant to look at overall codes and not to address any specific site.

“The township is involved in enforcement proceedings, and the liability would be with the property owner, hypothetically speaking,” she said.

Zadell then offered to keep the residents who commented notified about any formal enforcement actions regarding either of the sites in questions, and said she already had contact info for many.

“What I can say is that I’m happy to keep you guys updated,” she said.

After the comments closed, the commissioners voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Upper Gwynedd’s commissioners next meet at 7 p.m. on Dec. 8 at the township administration building, 1 Parkside Place. For more information visit www.UpperGwynedd.org

This article appears courtesy of a content share agreement between North Penn Now and The Reporter. To read more stories like this, visit https://www.thereporteronline.com