Permits Problem
Building and privy permits were the focus of a three-hour evidentiary hearing last Thursday regarding the residence of an Amish family in Sugar Grove Township.
While no final ruling in the case was offered as the proceeding was continued by defense before cross-examination of the plaintiff’s final witness, the testimony received paints an interesting argument regarding the relationship between the Amish, local government and, in this case, state law.
The parties in the case are Sugar Grove Township against Iva H. Byler, a trustee of the Little Ash Trust, and pertain to structures at 1050 Wilson Road.
Kathie Liffner, treasurer for Sugar Grove Township, was the first witness to take the stand and testified that there are three residences currently on the property and that the newest one was built last year.
Liffner said that no privy permits have been issued for the property and also testified that no building permits were issued for two of the three structures.
She added that the township has incurred costs in pursuing this matter $7,791.98 as well as $250 from the sewage enforcement officer, Todd Fantaskey, and $58.12 in constable fees.
Citing six violations of the Sewage Facilities Act that were upheld at a hearing in September 2015, weekly fines have been issued against the property owner totaling $160,000.
Liffner testified that the $2,500 weekly penalty came from the township solicitor, Andrea Stapleford. “That is what my supervisors agreed to,” she added.
Byler’s attorney, Bernard Hessley, then challenged whether two of the residences are actually residences and are, rather, sheds.
“All I know is they are residences,” Liffner said.
Ed Cardy, vice president with Building Inspection Underwriters, the building code officials for Sugar Grove Township, testified that an order to show cause on the property was filed to which Byler did not respond.
“The building does not have a legal right of occupancy and the structure should be vacated,” he testified, reiterating that no certificate of occupancy was ever issued for the two residences/sheds most recently built.
He testified that there are religious exemptions in the building code specific to plumbing, electrical and the ability to use untreated wood but added that those exemptions can’t be applied for as no building permit application has been submitted.
“They must procure a building permit so we can follow through with the appropriate inspections,” he said.
John Burnell, a building inspector with BIU, said that he was at the property in November 2012 and February 2015.
In 2012, he was contacted by the township to investigate construction at the property and there “appeared to be a new addition” on the back of the farmhouse. Burnell testified that he spoke with Byler’s son who told him that he was going to live in a newly-constructed shed. Burnell explained that would make the shed a single-family dwelling, which would require a host of things, including a building permit and inspections.
Burnell testified that in 2015 he went with Fantaskey and observed “more work that was not permitted at that time,” including a second shed that the family expressed an intent to live in.
He said that there “should have been three applications” for building permits but noted, “I haven’t seen any paperwork on that.”
Fantaskey said that in February 2015 he went to the property and was told by Byler that she had piped water into the house and that the water from the kitchen was being discharged into the ground from a pipe behind the house.
He testified that he issued a notice of violation then and returned to the property on Tuesday to see if the residences were still being utilized.
“(It) doesn’t appear there is a tank under the privy,” Fantaskey added, indicating that it is 10 to 12 feet from the house when the ordinance requires that it be 50 feet from the house. He also said that a privy can’t be shared between three residences.
He testified that one of the residences, or shed, does not appear to be occupied and that it is his opinion that wastewater is being discharged on the ground.
“Sugar Grove Township has a public sewer line that goes right in front of the house,” Fantaskey said. That poses a challenge because, he explained, he can’t issue a permit for a private sewer system if the house is within 150 feet of a municipal sewer line.
He said that he has been involved in situations where people were removed from their home over sewage violations.
Stapleford said that the township’s complaint asks that the residents be removed.
She asked Fantaskey if the violations from February 2015 still exist.
“Yes they do,” Fantaskey responded.
Hessley then asked for an adjournment before cross-examining Fantaskey because new photos of the residence “are showing things I was unaware of.”
Skerda granted that continuance and said that the hearing would be continued until “a later date and time.”
There was no indication that the hearing had been rescheduled as of Friday afternoon.