SANATOGA PA – Lower Pottsgrove commissioners faced an accuser last week, but declined to say much in public about a storm water problem he complained still isn’t fixed and over which he filed a 2009 lawsuit that is still pending.
Lower Pottsgrove commissioners and township officials during their meeting last Monday
Charles Rife, 99 First Ave., Sanatoga PA , appeared before board members during their meeting last Monday (Oct. 24, 2011) to “challenge any of you to come and see the damage done to my property,” he said. He alleges the township is responsible for solving flooding issues around his residence; the township contends a pipe said to be causing the problem is privately, not publicly, owned and not its responsibility.
Attorneys representing both sides have gone back and forth over the matter in Montgomery County Civil Court for more than two years. Lower Pottsgrove lost, but appealed, arbitration in the case, which since August (2011) has been scheduled for trial on a stand-by basis. Rife made it clear he was tired of waiting.
- County civil cases on file with the Prothonotary can be searched by case number, here. Rife vs. Lower Pottsgrove Township is case No. 200925765.
“If you had the nerve to come to my property and see what was happening there, maybe I’d see something get done,” he told commissioners. “It’s a private pipe,” Manager Rodney Hawthorne responded. “It’s your problem to fix.”
Board President Jonathan Spadt tried a diplomatic approach. “This is where it gets tricky,” he said. Although Spadt indicated he was comfortable having Rife air his grievance, the board would not reply because of the litigation, he noted. “We just can’t talk about the overall situation,” Spadt said.
“The board cannot engage in conversation about this with you,” Solicitor R. Kurtz Holloway added.
Rife pressed on. “The township’s causing the problem,” he said, his voice rising. “I’ve been fighting over this for six years, and my property is being ruined more and more each year.
Spadt cut him off. “We’ve told you we’re not going to talk with you about this here. It’s a matter of litigation. Now we’ll move on.” Rife said nothing more, but stayed to the end of the meeting. He was accompanied by neighbor Larry Nash, who said his property also was affected by the pipe.
Related:
- Commissioners Challenged By Sanatoga Pipe Plaintiff
- Civil Lawsuit Against Township Drags On, 2 Years Later
Related (to the Lower Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners’ meeting of Oct. 24):
- Commissioners Challenged By Sanatoga Pipe Plaintiff
- Water An Issue In Sanatoga Beauty Salon Approval
- Pruss Hill Bridge To Reopen, But As One-Lane Only
Perhaps this might be resolved and the matter elucidated by someone videoing and photographing the situation? The contention that the pipe is private implies that it was installed privately and runs throughout its length as a private pipe.
So find the origin point of the pipe, find the termination point, determine whose properties it transits. Try and determine its installation date and by whom, then one would have concrete information to make a claim on. This concept that the township is absolved from issues and communicating with a member of the public who has a complaint is doing no one any good. If this damage is really a township matter then the longer it festers the worse it will get.
Good faith, willingness to serve and fix problems is what we need in commissioners. When they have done all that they can “let loose the dogs of law…”
I’ve taken a look at this property from overhead in Bing Maps. The only thing I see as an issue is the drainage that runs at the rear of the property and the erosion presented. Looking at http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&cp=44.023938~-99.71&style=h&lvl=4&tilt=-89.875918865193&dir=0&alt=7689462.6842358#JnE9Ljk5JTJiRmlyc3QlMmJBdmUlMjU0MDIlMjUyYyUyYlBvdHRzdG93biUyNTJjUEElMmIxOTQ2NCU3ZXNzdC4wJTdlcGcuMSZiYj00MC4zNTc4NzU0MjY3OTgyJTdlLTc1LjAzNjQ0NzA4NTQ0MDElN2UzOS43OTI1Mjc3MzI3OTU5JTdlLTc2LjMxMjIzNDQzODk1NTg=
one can see that the run at the rear originates from the Northeast and the Large rectangular structure and it’s parking lot. I believe it’s a day care activity or private school. The parking lot for this facility encmpasses a large paved surface area and it drains to the Southwest towards the plaintiff’s property. In times of inclement weather when large amounts of rain falls this lot would gather considerable runnoff and all of that would drain to the southwest past the rear of the property. Viewing this entire drainage area along its path all the way to the sunnybrook creek alongside Porter road and the tree’s and schrubbery present indicates a drainange pattern of considerable age and extent. The construction of the parking lot and no efforts to channel and contain the ouflfow exacerbates the drainage runnoff and speed. If anyone is at fault it is the builders of this parking lot and the lack of foresight regarding the ensuing run-off and gathering of surface waters during bad rains. Those that inspected the plans and approved them as well as those who constructed the building and parking lot contributed to the increase in surface water outflow and the downhill and downstream consequences.
For what it’s worth, that’s my opinion.