August 28, 2006, Work Session

Summary of Action Taken

Minutes

The Work Session of the Clarion Borough Council was held on August 28, 2006, at the Clarion Borough Offices.

President Wilshire called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

Councilmembers present included Mr. Zerfoss, Mr. Herman, Ms. Leonard, Ms. Vavrek, Ms. Moore, Mr. German, and President Wilshire.  Mayor Stroup, Ms. Freenock, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Ragon, and Solicitor French were also present.  Chief Hall was absent.

Citizen Comments:  Before Clarion Area Authority gives a presentation, President Wilshire asked if any citizens wish to address Council.

Mr. Ralph Leary, 129 South Eighth Avenue, wishes to discuss the issue that has come to be known as a group home issue and understands there are some tricky legal implications, particularly as it relates to a business or not.  While Council continues to sort out the business aspect, Mr. Leary urges Council to enforce the Zoning Ordinance in reference to the zoning issues.  The Learys’ property is adjacent to one of the group homes.  In March, 1 client moved into the house with 1 supervisor, which is in accordance with the district where 2 unrelated people are allowed in an R-1 District.  Memorial Day weekend, that client was removed with police assistance.  Shortly thereafter a single client moved in again with a supervisor, who left in July.  Up to that point, Mr. Leary didn’t see a violation as it related to the R-1 zoning.  However, after that, to Mr. Leary’s best knowledge 2 clients moved in with a supervisor, which violates the R-1 zoning.  Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the language for boarders, roomers, and lodgers.  Mr. Leary believes someone who spends the night is a lodger regardless of the fact it may not be the same person night after night.  A motel would be an establishment where a person may spend only 1 night but not in a residence in an R-1 neighborhood.  If 1 client and 1 supervisor or 2 clients without a supervisor reside in that house, Mr. Leary feels that’s within the Ordinance.  But 2 clients with a supervisor is not allowed.  The owner is now in violation, and Council must enforce the Ordinance.  Discrimination has been an issue mentioned in the press.  In order to avoid discrimination, Council needs to enforce the Ordinance.  Mr. Leary offered the following hypothetical example: a couple in an R-1 area who’s children are away at college have a vacant room, allow a couple people to live in that room from Sunday through Thursday only, at no charge in exchange for cooking, cleaning, shopping, or paying for half of the food while taking 5-6 college courses.  If Council allows that, the Zoning Ordinance is worthless.  It’s a waste of all the time, money and energy in creating it.  If it’s not allowed but the situation next to the Learys is, then Council is discriminating.  Mr. Leary just came up with that example off the top of his head.  However, people with far more imaginations can find a way around it.  The Zoning Ordinance provides places for 3 or more unrelated people to live.  The ordinance is designed to prevent discrimination.  Not following it is likely to lead to discrimination and ultimately litigation, which is a concern of Councilmembers.  Homeowners may feel his/her property values and value of his/her experiences in this town have decreased because the Borough isn’t enforcing the Ordinance.  That may be an individual or class action lawsuit that Council is opening him/herself up to.  The best way to avoid it is by enforcing the Ordinance and allowing no more than 2 unrelated people in an R-1 neighborhood.

Ms. Nancy Mills, 177 South Seventh Avenue, commented her husband and she looked for 6 years to buy a home in R-1.  The Mills have followed the rules, pay their taxes, and believe in every ordinance.  When Ms. Mills bought her house, Mr. Ragon informed the Mills if they cut their trees in the backyard they wouldn’t be able to plant trees again.  The Mills have followed every rule and guideline in the Borough and have never broken any of them.  This is what the Mills’ expect.  If the Mills were in violation, Ms. Mills would expect the Borough to knock on their door and tell them they were in violation of an ordinance.  The R-1 area should remain R-1.  Things can change, but as a resident Ms. Mills would be able to voice her opinion on the proposed change before it would occur.  Ms. Mills also asked the Borough to enforce the ordinances as written now.  The Zoning Ordinance states in R-1 no businesses are allowed unless you reside in the house.  Ms. Mills knows several homeowners that run a business in his/her home but strictly by themselves, as indicated in the ordinance.  Ms. Mills asked Council to please enforce the Ordinance or it will be a free for all.  What’s good for one should be good for another.  It should be fair.

Mr. Lee Krull, 155 South Seventh Avenue, informed everyone R-1 is defined as a single-family residential zone.  Webster’s says a family is as follows:  1) parents and their children; 2) children of one person or of one couple collectively; 3) the spouse and children of one person; or, 4) all those persons considered descendents of a common progenitor, which means biologically related.  Everyone present bought and lives in an R-1 zone, because that’s the type of life he/she wanted to live.  Clarion Borough needs to enforce it correctly.  It’s time for all governments, including local government, to enforce the laws and wishes of the majority.  Mr. Krull doesn’t think the tail should be wagging the dog but the dog should be wagging the tail. 

Mr. Dennis Hetrick, speaking for Dennis and June Hetrick, 34 Campbell Avenue, agrees with Mr. Leary and Mr. Krull’s comments.  The Hetricks bought a home in an R-1 District, which is where they wanted to live.  Mr. Hetrick find himself in a line of fire between 2 group homes both in an R-1 area; one next to Mr. Leary and the other one on South Seventh Avenue and asked Council to enforce the current Ordinance.

Mr. Bill Mills, 177 South Seventh Avenue, questioned if the Borough is prepared to re-asses the tax values of the properties.  Without any problems, Mr. Mills can prove that the property value will decrease by having a residential group home within feet of his residence in an R-1, which he bought under the current law and expected to stay that way.  Mr. Mills would like to be one of the first properties re-assessed if the Borough decides not to enforce the Ordinance.

Ms. Elizabeth McDaniel, 6 East Eighth Avenue, asked that Council enforce the ordinances that exist and not let the Borough go down this slippery slope.

Mr. Eric Kiser, 202 South Seventh Avenue, questioned what will stop 1 house from turning into 5 and all of a sudden the area turns into commercial property down there.

Ms. Sue Traynor, 339 South Street, stated she’s a long time Borough resident.  When her husband and she were looking for a house, they purchased a Borough map to see where the R-1 District was and only looked at homes in that area with the idea it would remain that way.

Mr. Donald McCord mentioned he’s probably lived longer than most of the people present at the meeting on Marronee Street and echoed the sentiments of his neighbors who have requested the strict enforcement of the zoning laws.

Ms. Carla Magrini, 167 South Seventh Avenue, also echoed the ordinance should be enforced and added they bought their property because it was zoned R-1. 

Ms. Nancy DiStefano, 196 South Seventh Avenue, doesn’t think any of the residents are looking for any special privileges.  The residents want Council to enforce the rules, as written.  The zoning code needs enforced.

President Wilshire stated Council appointed a Special Committee at the last Council Meeting to meet with both the Solicitor and the attorney who provided a second opinion regarding this situation.  A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday.  The Zoning Officer has been reluctant to do anything, because of advice from the Solicitor.  While there are exact laws, President Wilshire feels there are ways to interpret them.  If there are holes in the Zoning Ordinance now, it should be corrected.  The residents have brought up good points, which Councilmembers need to consider.  At Tuesday’s Council Meeting, President Wilshire personally thinks Council should take a vote on what the right way to proceed is and to let the individual votes be registered at that time.  Council has danced around this for a number of months, and it’s time each individual Councilmember go on record.

Ms. Mills inquired if every time there’s a violation of an ordinance Clarion Borough has to seek extra counsel.

President Wilshire commented no, but there’s a question of what you can do in these cases.  For instance, one interpretation is if the extra person staying there would bump it up a number or are they considered a health professional.  If someone needs some kind of assisted care, they are exempt.  Now the question theoretically that President Wilshire has a problem with is these generally aren’t people that have been living there but are recruited.  That’s where the business comes in.  However, people shouldn’t have to come to Council to ask for it to be enforced.

Ms. Mills stressed the type doesn’t matter but the issue that it’s a business.  When a person goes on the website, it’s a for-profit type of organization.  The ordinance specifically states it’s only for family members, blood-working relations.  There is a job net posted for the houses on South Seventh Avenue for employees.

Ms. Vavrek thinks it’s time and asked Solicitor French to comment on an extra caregiver in a house.

Listening to the residents, Solicitor French stated he/she have already pre-labeled this a business.  Council hired alternate legal counsel to provide an additional opinion on this zoning matter.  Without getting into the specifics, Solicitor French and Attorney Smith both agreed on approximately 95% of the legalities in this neighborhood; one of which is there is no home-based business going on in these residences.  Borough Council cannot close down one of these houses based on that.  This situation is no different legally than if an elderly person lived there and needed overnight care.  Unless the facts Solicitor French were given are incorrect, caregivers do not reside there legally.  These caregivers are providing care to people residing in these homes.  If the caregivers were asked where he/she receive his/her mail or what address is on their driver’s license, Solicitor French suspects it would be discovered they’re not residents living there but caregivers that come in a shift and rotate throughout the day to provide care to these people.  The Borough would lose on the business aspect of this situation.  Solicitor French stated again this is both his opinion and Attorney Smith’s. 

In reference to the supposed group home issue, the Borough’s Zoning Ordinance doesn’t define group home.  One of the laws that comes into play with regard to disabled people is the Fair Housing Act, which was amended in 1988 and commonly referred to as the 1988 Amendment.  The Act states the municipality has the ability to zone group homes.  If in fact Clarion Borough had that designation in the ordinance, the Borough could zone it into a district like R-3 or some other district.  Solicitor French commented the federal government has legislated a class of person that they deem protected either because of disability, race, age, or other factors.  When a protected person moves into an R-1 District for whatever reason and exceeds some aspect of the zoning law in the municipality, the individual can go to the Zoning Hearing Board for a variance.  If that variance is because the disabled or protected person needs a reasonable accommodation, Solicitor French stated federal law states the variance must be granted, which is the problem with the law.  If the Borough goes in and strictly enforces the Borough’s ordinance, as requested by several people tonight, the Borough has exposure to a federal lawsuit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.  It’s not a simple question that Clarion Borough Council is ignoring or taking lightly.  Solicitor French stated it’s a question that has to be fully researched and thought through.  If the Borough would take action as the residents are requesting, which Solicitor French is assuming when the residents say enforce the Ordinance he/she means to make these people leave these homes, and if the Borough is sued in federal court and are unsuccessful, meaning the Borough took action that the federal government deems inappropriate; the Borough will not only pay damages to the affected parties but also the other side’s attorney fees.  Solicitor French doesn’t have a lot of federal court experience but knows enough that those damages and fees would be tremendous.  That’s what the hold up is in this matter.

Mr. Leary inquired if any of the people in these homes have asked for a variance.

Solicitor French reported no, because there hasn’t been any enforcement action yet.  If Mr. Ragon would go out and enforce the Ordinance as perceived by Mr. Leary, which Solicitor French presumes Mr. Leary’s remedy would be to make them move.

Mr. Leary commented not unless there is more than 2 unrelated people in the residence.

Solicitor French pointed out he/she could appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board and ask for a variance.

Mr. Leary asked if anyone did that.

Solicitor French repeated no, because there wasn’t any enforcement action.

Mr. Leary inquired if the Zoning Hearing Board could address it if it were enforced and the people would go for a variance.

Solicitor French agreed that is correct.

Mr. Leary noted there would not necessarily be the need for a lawsuit.

Solicitor French informed Mr. Leary his legal advice has to be given from the perspective of what is right under the law and not how the Borough could get out of it in case the Borough’s wrong.  Solicitor French reads the Fair Housing Amendments Act as a very strict law that says essentially the disabled that are the residents of these homes are a protected class.  Solicitor French will not advise Council to take action that he thinks is going to put the Borough at risk for a lawsuit.  For information, there are other groups of people that can step into the owner’s place and sue on their behalf, namely the ACLU.

Mr. Leary clarified he wasn’t asking for these people to be removed.  For 1½ years, there was 1 client and 1 supervisor.  Mr. Leary didn’t approach Council before, because it was certainly legal within the R-1 zoning.  For a while the property next to the Learys was perfectly adequate, but now there has been a change.

Solicitor French doesn’t know if Mr. Leary’s term client and supervisor are correct terms, which is part of the issue.  The issue is who is a resident and who is a caregiver.  If the caregiver is not considered a resident, then there’s not a violation of the zoning law.  Solicitor French stressed this is the issue the Borough’s been struggling with.

Mr. Hetrick believes if there are 3 part-time people pulling an 8-hour shift, that is at the very least 1 person.  Those people cannot disappear, because he/she work part-time.

Mr. Tom DiStefano commented what is occurring is a business is renting a house to a disabled client and that business is providing services to the disabled client living in that residence.  Both of those businesses are owned by the same people and are in de facto the same business.  There is an evil loophole where the business in an R-1 District is without the owner living there.  Mr. DiStefano doesn’t know if the legalities are it’s two separate businesses and the two can’t be conjoined even though the same people own them.  If that’s the case, Mr. DiStefano is going to see if he can’t use that loophole himself.

Ms. Mills voiced disappointment in the fact that if her husband and she were going to open a business in their house, they would’ve come to the Borough Office to see what was required.  There was 1 house doing this, and now there are 4 homes.  If a person goes on the owner’s website, it’s documented.  Ms. Mills contacted Mr. Ragon about cutting down a telephone pole before doing it to see if it was allowed.  Ms. Mills is not asking any of the residents to move out.  The business owner should have researched it.  Ms. Mills can’t believe a person can just come into the Borough and open a business without getting any kind of permit or documentation that that business can be in operation.  It has nothing to do with the client.  It is strictly a business.  Ms. Mills doesn’t care what kind of business is being operated in that house.  The ordinance clearly states it’s not a business unless the owner lives there; which cannot be done in 5 houses in the R-1 area.

Ms. Vavrek asked Ms. Mills to address what a landlord is who rents houses in the Borough but doesn’t live on the premises.

Ms. Mills doesn’t know.

Solicitor French stressed it’s clearly not a business.  Clarion Borough cannot do anything about it.  The residents may consider this a business but it’s not.  There’s not a corporate office located in that house, and they are not soliciting clients from that house.  It’s merely a situation where the house is being rented to a disabled person or persons.  At least that’s the way it was explained to Solicitor French.

President Wilshire stated the house isn’t being rented to the citizens but to the company.

Solicitor French informed everyone the fact of the matter is Attorney Smith and he agree that this is not a home-based business, and he cannot advise the Borough to shut this down based on a home-based business scenario.

Mr. Mills questioned even though the owners’ own website lists those addresses as his business and trains employees at the same locations.

Solicitor French doesn’t know what the owner is doing at these addresses.  As far as the Borough knows, the owner is placing disabled people there with caregivers.  Solicitor French is unaware of any training going on there.

Mr. DiStefano suggested the Borough needs to find out and mentioned the residents have been calling for an investigation, but the Borough hasn’t done one so far.

Solicitor French reported the Borough doesn’t have the right to barge through the doors of a private home.  The Borough has to be able to prove in a court of law actual facts.  Assumptions aren’t good enough.  Solicitor French hasn’t seen anything that indicates these are home-based businesses.

Mr. DiStefano stated there are ways to find these things out.  If these were home-based businesses, they’d be allowed.  The residents are contending they are businesses.

Solicitor French understands.  That theory is not going to get the problem resolved.

Mr. Mills stated Council is going to wait until one of these residents, who has already approached the Mills’ 6-year old daughter and approached another neighbor and asked ‘which bedroom is your daughter’s’, come into the Mills’ residence and does something to his daughter, Mr. Mills will then be suing Clarion Borough for failing to enforce the ordinance.

Solicitor French stated he’s not going to delay doing anything.  Mr. Mills can take out his frustration on Solicitor French but noted, as legal counsel, he has to look at the law.  If the residents and Borough Council collectively don’t want Solicitor French to do that that’s fine and full speed ahead.  Whatever the consequences are, they are.  As Borough Solicitor, Solicitor French’s job is to protect the Borough Council and the Borough in legal matters, which is what he’ll do.  If the residents experience problems in their neighborhood, Solicitor French advises them to contact the police that a criminal act is occurring.

Since it’s not legal for the Borough to just walk in and investigate something that the residents believe is illegal at this location, Mr. Anthony Stewart, 17 Greenville Avenue, thinks it would be best to obtain a warrant and proceed from there.

Solicitor French informed Mr. Stewart this is not a criminal matter and you can’t get warrants for civil matters.

Mr. DiStefano thinks it is a criminal matter.

Solicitor French commented it’s a summary offense.  Council is trying to ascertain if there’s a violation that can be acted on.  The Borough cannot just go barging into people’s homes.  Solicitor French suspects the residents wouldn’t like Council to do that.

Mr. Mills doesn’t think anyone is suggesting Council barge into someone’s home and hopes no one is interpreting it that way.  The residents want the Borough to enforce an ordinance that he/she put in place.  If Solicitor French is saying this is an illegal ordinance based on his opinion, which there are a lot of different opinions.

Solicitor French interrupted Mr. Mills and clarified he did not say the ordinance is illegal.  There is a federal housing act that must be considered in addition to the ordinance.  The municipality is not allowed to throw caution to the wind with regard to federal law.  As legal counsel, Solicitor French has to look at other laws, besides just the ordinance Clarion Borough has on the books, to see if there is a protected class of persons that must be treated different.  In this case, there is.  Deference to that law must be given.

Ms. June Hetrick asked what’s to stop somebody else from buying a home on their street and all of a sudden there’s group homes there without anyone coming to the Borough for permission.

Solicitor French doesn’t know what Ms. Hetrick means by group home, because the Borough doesn’t have that definition.  Solicitor French stated he doesn’t know this man and is not his apologist, but is a lawyer trying to give the Borough Council some sound legal advice.  Obviously, this individual is not doing something popular.  Solicitor French is not ready to inform Council that he/she can go in there and either close it down or kick him out.  This group hasn’t expressed what option they want other than to say enforce the ordinance.  The residents are unhappy and want something done, which has to involve the people in those homes.

Mr. Hetrick thinks the residents are asking the Borough to enforce the intent of an R-1 area.  If the ordinance is written poorly, then it should be changed.

Solicitor French commented it’s not necessarily written poorly.  A federal law comes into play.

Mr. Hetrick asked if the Borough can regulate the placement of group homes.

Solicitor French stated the Borough can but federal law states the people could get a waiver.

Mr. DiStefano reported then Council should have them get the variance.  If there is an ordinance, Council can enforce it or not.  If Council isn’t going to protect the neighborhoods and allows loopholes, then the fairest thing to do for all the citizens of Clarion Borough is to repeal the entire Zoning Ordinance so everyone’s on a level playing field.  The way it is now is anyone who wants to hire lawyers and look up legal loopholes to get around the intent of the Ordinance do.

Solicitor French doesn’t believe the people on the other side have hired a lawyer.  There is no litigation.

If the owner hasn’t started litigation yet, Mr. Mills asked if the Borough has even attempted to send the individual a letter stating he may be in violation of this Ordinance.

Solicitor French repeated no.  At this point, the Borough doesn’t think the owner’s in violation.

President Wilshire stated some don’t think so.

Mr. Mills doesn’t think Council has voted on that to the best of his knowledge.

Mr. Leary doesn’t believe Council should imagine that the residents are necessarily united about this topic.  The residents have a bunch of different opinions, viewpoints, and questions that he/she may not all agree on.  Mr. Leary wanted that point made clear.    The comment was made a caretaker may be necessary for medical reasons.  Mr. Leary questioned if it is appropriate for there to be 3 caretakers at one of these places during the day.

Solicitor French doesn’t know and is not in the medical field.

Mr. Leary inquired how you find out whether it is.

Solicitor French suggested Mr. Leary doesn’t because the HIPPA law protects everyone’s medical records.  That’s not even an area that Solicitor French would advise any of the residents to look into.

Mr. Leary believes training is being conducted at these residences and still wonders if it’s medically appropriate for there to be 3 or more caretakers at one of these places during the day when there isn’t a need for that many in the evening.

Solicitor French used the analogy of an elderly person who lives in his/her home and needs care.

Mr. Bill Miller announced he was not present with this group but was attending on behalf of the sewer authority.  Mr. Miller’s approach is a little bit different than most of the people here because he has a mentally handicapped child.  Mr. Miller is also the president of Choice Enterprises, who brings people out of institutions and finds him/her a place to live.  Choice Enterprises holds a hearing before moving the individuals in to see whether the neighbors want the individuals there.  The owner of his house probably should have done the same.  Mr. Miller voiced disappointment with his friends, which many present are, and understands his/her R-1 feelings.  The residents have every right to defending what he/she feel.  Mr. Miller fears his taxes are going to increase when the Borough has to pay a fine of $500,000.  Mr. Miller added most groups will not come to Clarion now and be part of this wonderful community.  They will go to the outlying areas.  Mr. Miller commented his son lives in Clarion Township.  These people will not feel welcome here. 

Solicitor French noted Mr. Miller hit a point that he didn’t say quite so eloquently and that is the owner of this house needs to learn how to win friends, influence people, and could’ve gone about this in an entirely different way.  But the fact of the matter is that this is a protected class of persons, and the Borough cannot just go in and enforce the zoning rule.

Ms. DiStefano considers this a business.  Anywhere up to 4 cars are parked at this house; sometimes in the yard or cross-parked.  Anyone else would have received a ticket.  Even when the police drive by that area when that’s happening, they don’t issue tickets. It’s like they have a different set of rules.  The residents just want the same rules enforced for everybody.

Mr. Mills voiced sympathy to Mr. Miller but stated it would be no different if there was someone else in these dwellings putting his children at risk.  Mr. Mills is a father and his two children are everything.  When it comes to protecting them, Mr. Mills will be as aggressive as Mr. Miller was about his child.  It’s not a matter of discrimination; it’s a matter of wanting protect his children and where he lives.  Mr. Mills prays nothing happens.  Mr. Mills treats these residents the same as any other neighbor.  If it’s discrimination, it’s because he’s a parent.  Mr. Mills is a parent first.

Mr. Stewart realizes everyone seems to have strong sentiments on what’s going on but no one seems to know the actual facts and inquired if anyone has contacted the owner.

Mr. Mills attempted but the owner refused to take or return his call.

Ms. Vavrek went to see the owner a few months ago to inquire what was happening or what he intended to do.  Ms. Vavrek felt strongly Council was hearing one side of the issue.  It might be a good idea for the owner to be asked to meet with Council to answer some questions.  The owner did not indicate at the time that any other businesses would be moving in and individuals causing some problems at the current location were relocated.  Ms. Vavrek made it clear to the owner she was not speaking for Council but as a resident of Seventh Avenue.  The owner seemed very fair and explained the process of renting to his clients. 

Ms. McDaniel voiced anger mostly with the fact of someone not following the rules and then everyone else has to deal with the consequences.  Since the owner hasn’t been asked to abide by the ordinance, he hasn’t come forward to ask for a waiver or variance.

Ms. Vavrek stressed this hasn’t been necessary, because there are only 2 unrelated people in the dwelling.

Ms. McDaniel questioned if Borough Council knows that there are no more than 2 unrelated clients living in each of these houses.

Mr. Ragon investigates the occupancy.  At 201 South Seventh Avenue, there is only 1 person; and at East Marronee Street, there are 2 people.  Mr. Ragon spends a lot of time investigating occupancy in student housing as well.

Ms. Mills feels like she should apologize but yet not, because the type of business should never have come into play.  The Mills contacted the Borough from day one regarding a business.  It had nothing to do with the residents.  There were two actual incidents on the business not the resident.  If the Mills were going to start a business, they would have contacted the Borough to see what was necessary.  Ms. Mills has worked with physically and mentally challenged children and feels like she said something wrong but has not.  Ms. Mills lives in an R-1 area and doesn’t want any business in the R-1 zone.    Ms. Mills feels ashamed it has gotten to this point and stressed it has nothing to do with any of her neighbors.  The Mills love and care for each other and visit each other.   Because it has dragged on for so long, the Mills look like the culprits.  If variances or anything is necessary, that needs obtained.  Ms. Mills is sorry the people in the room feel it’s because of what the residents are.  The old hospital is in the area and 10-20 clients come by their residences.  Ms. Mills commented both she and her husband are in that field and have serviced half of those clients and again apologized for offending anyone.

Mr. Mills agreed it wasn’t their intention to offend anyone but doesn’t want any business in their neighborhood.

Mr. German asked if the Mills tried contacting the owner.

Mr. Mills commented they were friends and used to fish together.  There have been attempts but were unsuccessful.

Ms. Mills commented she was an employee of his and is an advocate for rights.  It’s black and white that it’s a business.  It doesn’t matter if it was dog grooming.

According to the Solicitor, Mr. German understands it’s not.  The residents may not want to hear that, but the Borough received two legal opinions to that affect.

Mr. Mills asked if the legal opinion is that the Borough cannot stop any business of this nature from going into the R-1 area.

President Wilshire informed everyone the other attorney has some feelings there may be a way to fall within the law in terms of structuring the ordinance that identifies group home.  The Borough’s Ordinance is weak and doesn’t define them.  Some communities do have qualifications on certain types of housing.

Mr. German asked Ms. Vavrek if she feels the ordinance is weak.

Ms. Vavrek stated no.  As mentioned at the last Council Meeting, the issue of group home was discussed when the Borough was amending the ordinance years ago.  The consultant’s response was the Borough could control the zoning districts by the occupancy numbers, which is the number of people allowed in each zone.  The consultant felt that was sufficient, and the Borough could enforce it that way.

President Wilshire reported it comes down to Council taking advice of the Solicitor or anybody else and then making a decision based on how the individual Councilmembers believe.

If a resident perceives a violation is occurring, Solicitor French encouraged him/her to contact the police.  That’s an extremely important point.  Because one thing the federal courts are going to demand that the Council look at regardless of what he/she interprets the law or what he/she thinks, whether it’s a business or not, doesn’t matter.  All that ultimately matters is what the courts will interpret it to be.  Solicitor French’s job is to give Council advice based upon that, which is done by reading old case law on similar issues.  One of the things the courts will require is if you have a problem and you want to remedy it you have to use the least restrictive means to remedy the problem with a protected class of persons.  The easiest thing to do in terms of problems with parking or reckless driving is notify the police and remedy it that way.  After those remedies fail, Council moves up to the next burdensome level of remedy.  If there is a problem with speeding, improper parking, inappropriate comments or other activity with children, or loud noises, Solicitor French stressed he/she contact the police every time and use that system to regulate this enterprise as best as possible pending whatever action Council can take.  If these residents in the house are being burdensome, the property owners can turn it back around on them. 

Ms. Magrini stressed it has nothing to do with the type of business.  The Magrinis, as well as many residents in that neighborhood, put a lot of money and value into their home over the last 7 years and don’t want to see the value decrease.

Mr. McCord asked how long before the owner opened his business did he contact the Borough to see what the rules and regulations would be.

Mr. Ragon doesn’t understand the question.

Mr. Herman thinks Mr. McCord’s question is did the owners come see Mr. Ragon to seek advice when he bought the houses.

Mr. Ragon stated no.

Mr. Herman commented the individual just opened them.

Mr. Ragon agreed.

Ms. Leonard asked if the owner had to get a rental permit.

Mr. Ragon stated yes.

President Wilshire repeated the Committee is meeting with the 2 attorneys on Wednesday.  Next Tuesday, it will be up to Council to actually take a vote if he/she wants to pursue enforcement or which path to take.  It will be up to Council to vote on that based on the information he/she has. 

President Wilshire asked Attorney Keith Pemrick to speak on behalf of Clarion Area Authority.

Attorney Keith Pemrick, working with Clarion Area Authority (CAA) on the potential sale of this sewage system to the PAWC, commented CAA is here tonight to present some information to Council on a loan, which CAA would like to take with First United National Bank.  Tentatively, the amount of the loan is $900,000 and would be for a 1-year term.  By way of background, Attorney Pemrick commented the Authority has a working capital loan currently with National City Bank, which has a payoff of $580,000 and would be the first draw of this loan.  CAA is on an extension with National City Bank until this other financing is in place.  The Bank is requiring the Borough to guarantee this loan. 

In March, the Authority executed a new Consent Order and Agreement.  As a result of that, CAA has been planning and engaging in significant activity, required by DEP.  The Authority hired Gannett Fleming Engineers to complete a pretty comprehensive flow monitoring study to determine where the storm water was infiltrating into the sanitary sewer system, which results in overtaxing the capacity at the plant.  A draft report has been prepared and will be presented at CAA’s Board Meeting later tonight.  Attorney Pemrick announced the Authority is going to consider bids for the Trout Run outfall reconstruction project, which is mandated by the Consent Order.  Improvements at the pump station have been done over the last couple months.  A condition of the sale is to obtain rights-of-way for some of the lines in the system that the Authority didn’t have.  Attorney Pemrick reported there are still some properties outstanding but it has been narrowed down substantially. 

The Authority had some debt in the nature of a Penn Vest loan.  CAA was anticipating the closing of the sale by the end of 2005 and used sewer revenue bonds to pay that off.  Since the sale didn’t occur, that created a bit of a cash flow problem for the Authority.  This is the reason CAA borrowed the money from National City Bank in December. 

Attorney Pemrick reported the bid opening for the outfall project were opened last week and the low bid was $147,500, less than the engineer’s estimate of $175,000.  The Board will probably award the bid for that project.  Funds are necessary to complete this project, which is expected to get underway quickly.  Attorney Pemrick stated the Public Utilities Commission has to approve the sale of the system and understands that hasn’t occurred pending completion of some of these projects required by the Consent Order.  PAWC plans to attend the PUC Meeting on September 18, 2006, to ask for conditional approval of the sale pending completion of the outfall project.  There is a 30-day comment/objection period.  The Authority is still working on rights-of-way issues, which will probably not be completed by the closing of this transaction.

Mr. Zerfoss inquired why the people will not sign the rights-of-way agreements and wondered if he/she wants more than a dollar.

Attorney Pemrick reported a lot of people voluntarily signed the agreement and returned them to CAA.  But some want more than the dollar.  A total of 44 property condemnations were filed of which 19 are resolved, leaving 25.  There are only 3 properties that filed objection to the condemnations, are a hearing is scheduled for Friday.  Some of those may be resolved.  The question is are the property owners entitled to any compensation.  The Authority’s position is having a sewer line there benefits the property value.  If everything goes as planned, Attorney Pemrick stated the potential closing date would be November 6th.  First United National Bank has committed to loan the $900,000 to the Authority at an attractive interest rate on the condition that the Borough guarantee the loan.  Attorney Pemrick commented the Bank is not asking the Borough to co-sign the loan.  It’s a policy that First United National Bank cannot loan funds to an authority without the creating municipality agreeing that it’s a general obligation of the municipality.  In discussion with Ms. Freenock and Solicitor French prior to this meeting, it appears timeframes have to be met and there’s a way to do it through the Local Government Unit Debt Act.  Attorney Pemrick informed Council the Authority is asking Council to take the necessary steps to make this happen so CAA can borrow the money from First United National Bank in order to pay off the National City Bank loan and get the projects done so the deal can close.

President Wilshire inquired what this means for the bottom line with the debt with the Authority and the sale.

If everything occurs in terms of what the Authority needs to do, Attorney Pemrick reported the bottom line at this point is the Authority would receive about $3 million at close.  Once the debt is paid off, the Borough is no longer responsible.  Attorney Pemrick guesses a net amount of $2 million.

Ms. Freenock informed Council the Borough needs to publish its intent to adopt an ordinance to make the loan guarantee.  Once that’s published and adopted by Council, the Borough then files documents with the Department of Community and Economic Development where there is a 15-day appeal period.  Through discussions with DCED, Ms. Freenock stated it would be about 20 days to hear back from them.  The entire process will probably take until the end of September to complete provided Council holds a Special Council Meeting this week to start the process.  Council could adopt the ordinance at Tuesday’s Council Meeting.

Attorney Pemrick pointed out both banks will work with that schedule.

President Wilshire set a Special Council Meeting for September 1, 2006, at 1 p.m.

Mr. German inquired if National City Bank required this same guarantee from the Borough.

Attorney Pemrick stated no, but that’s a larger bank. 

Mr. German asked when the outflow project will be completed.

Mr. Lowell Snyder believes the date of completion is November 4, 2006.

Ms. Leonard asked the difference between co-signing and a guarantee.

If the Authority fails to pay the loan, Attorney Pemrick reported then the Borough’s guarantee would come into play.  It’s better not to co-sign on the loan.

President Wilshire commented Council will meet Friday and thanked all the Authority Boardmembers for all their work.

Administration:   President Wilshire stated the zoning was already discussed.

Downtown Committee:  Ms. Moore had nothing to report.

Public Works:  Mr. Zerfoss received a telephone call in reference to some missing street signs; two from Elss Street and one from Franklin Street.  This occurred within the last week.

Mr. Stutzman doesn’t know what to do.  It’s important the signs stay in place for emergency personnel.  It’s very expensive to keep replacing the signs.  The Department has tried raising the poles and using security bolts, but they still get stolen.  Stop signs are really dangerous and could result in an accident.

President Wilshire commented some cities have a camera to hinder this activity.  At one time, there were cameras in the cars.

Mr. Stutzman thinks the bike patrol may prove to be handy in this case.  People stealing the signs aren’t going to expect police on bicycles.

Solicitor French explained how Brookville handles this problem with cameras.  Audio can’t be used.

Mr. Herman doesn’t feel the Borough would place a camera in either location Mr. Zerfoss mentioned.

Mr. German inquired the cost of replacing a street sign.

Mr. Stutzman stated it varies on the amount of lettering, but a good rule of thumb is $150. 

Public Safety:  Mr. Herman had nothing to report.

Housing and Zoning:  Ms. Vavrek stated Councilmembers received a copy of a resolution in reference to setting up a procedure for lodging a complaint dealing with housing and zoning.  It doesn’t prevent Mr. Ragon from responding to violations that require immediate attention.  At an economic development meeting, Ms. Vavrek commented a representative from the Department of Labor and Industry reinforced this procedure by stating their department doesn’t take any complaints over the telephone.  It has to be an actual written letter.  This will be brought up for adoption at the Council Meeting.

Recreation:  As everyone is aware, Ms. Leonard commented Ms. Freenock and she have been attending several grant-writing workshops to get up to speed and to try to obtain alternate funding not only to maintain but also to improve the quality of life for the residents.  Ms. Leonard plans to ask for permission to advertise and apply for a DCNR grant, which is a grant for planning purposes, and will also ask that Council authorize President Wilshire to execute any necessary documents.

Mayor’s Report:  Mayor Stroup had nothing to report.

Manager’s Report:  Ms. Freenock had nothing to report.

Old Business:  There was none.

New Business:  There was none.

Correspondence:  There was none.

On a motion by Mr. Herman with a second by Ms. Leonard, the Work Session was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.

                     ______________________________

                     Nancy Freenock

                     Borough Secretary