HB 1565

HB 1465 is on the Senate calendar for Tuesday. Leave a phone message for your Senator this weekend so he has your thoughts first thing this upcoming week.
 
HB 1565 passed the Senate tonight. It will go to the House tomorrow for final approval since it had an amendment from the Senate.
 
Passed by the Assembly, passed by the Senate, on Corbitt's desk for signature.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?sYear=2013&sInd=0&body=H&type=B&bn=1565

also: this is what green-washing looks like

http://www.cleanwater-pa.com/faq.html

http://www.cleanwater-pa.com/about.html
 
^ That's just funny right there.

their supporters include:

Norfolk Southern, Associated Builders and Contractors, PA Builders Association, etc.
 
A friend of mine got hit by the riparian-buffer truck a few years ago. She has 2 acres with a tiny crick through the middle and modest house and detached garage/workshop & pavilion on one side.

She just finished installing a new state-of-the art septic system when the regulation changed. It was now too close to the crick and she couldn’t use it. In addition, one corner of the garage was now 18” too close and they condemned the whole structure, workshop pavilion and all.

Since she no longer had a septic system, she had to pay to get hooked up to the city line. Couldn’t get a second mortgage on the property because it was now worth considerably less, so she ended up taking out a second one on her business to pay for everything. Goodbye retirement plans. The fact that her little run had a few sub-legal wild trout did not seem to cheer her up much.

Doubt the change will help her situation, most of her costs have already been flushed down the toilet. Might be able to save the garage at best.
 
I find it hard to believe that structures. Nd infrastructure approved by township ordinance would be repealed by a change in law. Sounds exagerated...what about grandfathering?
Or did she do it all without township approval?
 
Maurice wrote:
I find it hard to believe that structures. Nd infrastructure approved by township ordinance would be repealed by a change in law. Sounds exagerated...what about grandfathering?
Or did she do it all without township approval?
Click to expand...

Agreed. When the riparian law was passed, existing structures were grandfathered in. The law could not be used retroactively to require removal of structures legally constructed before the law was passed. The courts would never support that.

 
It’s unfortunately true and no exaggeration. The property was a township park before she bought it. The garage and pavilion were already there. She built the house on the old parking lot. The new septic system was required, approved and permitted by the twp. The existing system failed a leak test.

The garage & pavilion were grandfathered in, but she can no longer make repairs or improvements on them. And there are restrictions on what can be stored there. Eventually it will have to be removed.

The only bright side was she didn’t have to pay for the entire new city line, since it was split between her and a handful of neighbors.
 
Well then she can sue the township for selling her a lemon, (no full disclosure) approving a septic system that was consequently forbidden. (should get full restitution for that) and damages for limited use of other structures. Unless all was disclosed prior to sale?

Now my guess is this all has to do with this property being in the 100 yr FEMA floodplain moreso than the township restrictions. Still I'd sue the township or make them buy it back. (again full disclosure issue). But ultimately the buyer should have researched these issues first and had determinations made.

And 18"....I'd just knock that corner off the building.
 
Gone4Day wrote:

The garage & pavilion were grandfathered in, but she can no longer make repairs or improvements on them. And there are restrictions on what can be stored there. Eventually it will have to be removed.
Click to expand...

If these prohitions were not disclosed when the sale was made, then she has grounds to sue.

This was described as being a problem caused by the PA riparian law under discussion in the thread. But it doesn't sound like that is the case. If so, she would be dealing with the DEP.

She's dealing with the township so it sounds like it's an issue with the township floodplain zoning ordinance.

The requirement to hook up to the sewer line is a separate issue, and that is also a township thing. It is not related to the PA riparian law.

She very well may have got a raw deal from the township. But I think it's important to state accurately who and/or what was the cause. And not ascribe her difficulties to something else, i.e. the PA riparian law under discussion, when that is not actually the case.
 
She bought the property long before the 2010 change to the riparian law. It was the DEP that informed her the garage and new septic system were no longer in compliance. It is most definitely the riparian law that caused the problem, not the township. They were perfectly fine with it, they approved and issued the permit for the new septic system.

Since the cost of the new sewer line was split between her and 5 other similarly affected property owners, it was cheaper then digging up her new septic system and moving it a few feet.

You may not want to believe the riparian buffer law has had adverse, unintended consequences for some property owners, but it is a fact. The recent changes are an attempt to mitigate some of those adverse consequences.
 
Gone4 - There has to be more to that story. I've worked in real estate development and now work for a Municipality and have never heard of such a thing. There must have been restrictions or covenants in the sale.
 
Maurice wrote:
Well then she can sue the township for selling her a lemon, (no full disclosure) approving a septic system that was consequently forbidden. (should get full restitution for that) and damages for limited use of other structures. Unless all was disclosed prior to sale?

Now my guess is this all has to do with this property being in the 100 yr FEMA floodplain moreso than the township restrictions. Still I'd sue the township or make them buy it back. (again full disclosure issue). But ultimately the buyer should have researched these issues first and had determinations made.

And 18"....I'd just knock that corner off the building.
Click to expand...

Or get a backhoe in there move the crick while nobody is looking.;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top