HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-4371DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
No. 0 7• y 3 7 ~ Civil Term
Appellee
NOTICE OF APPEAL
David and Nancy Hoang appeal from a Decision of the Sewage Enforcement
Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and in
support thereof, states the following:
1. The Appellants are David and Nancy Hoang ("Hoangs") who intend to use
as their principal residence 3507 Simpson Ferry Road, Lower Allen Township,
Pennsylvania 17055.
2. The Appellee is the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals for Lower
Allen Township, Cumberland County.
3. The property which the subject of this appeal is 3507 Simpson Ferry
Road, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania 17055 ("Property") and is owned by Mary
Hoang of 1050 N. Taylor Street #101, Arlington, VA, who is the daughter of the Hoangs.
r i
4. Tenants who lived at the Property until January 2007 made complaints to
the Sewer Enforcement Officer ("SEO") for Lower Allen Township, John M. Eby,
regarding the Property in the summer of 2006.
5. A Notice of Violation No. 2006-24 was issued by the SEO as a result of
the complaints by the former tenants involving a backflow from the Property's cesspool
into the basement on August 25, 2006.
6. The Property has been unoccupied since January 1, 2007 when the
former tenants vacated.
7. By letter dated March 27, 2007, the Hoangs informed the SEO that they
intended to re-rent the Property and, later, they informed the SEO that they intended to
live at the Property as their primary residence.
8. The SEO sent a letter opining that the occupation of the Property would be
in violation of Chapter 175 of the Lower Allen Township Codified Ordinances, the
Sewage Facilities Act, and the Clean Streams Act of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
9. The Hoangs appealed the decision of the SEO to the Sewage
Enforcement Board of Appeals ("Board").
10. At the hearing on the appeal, Nancy Hoang testified that the sewage
system is operational and that they only had problems when the former tenants invited a
large group of people to the Property and were found to have put paper towels down the
pipes.
11. Mrs. Hoangs testimony regarding the large parties thrown by the former
tenants in the summer of 2006 was corroborated by the testimony of Kathy Minnich of
3505 Simpson Ferry Road.
f ,
12. The Hoangs also offered testimony of a former code enforcement officer
for Lower Allen Township, David Atland, who testified that the system had been pumped
and the laundry water had been rerouted in August 2006.
13. On June 25, 2007 the Board issued a decision, findings of fact, and
conclusions of law upholding the SEO's decision to prohibit occupation of the Property
until the Hoangs provide a sewage disposal system approved by the Commonwealth's
Department of Environment Resources and approved, permitted and inspected by
Lower Allen Township. A true and correct copy of the decision of the Board is attached
as Exhibit A.
Grounds for Appeal
14. The Hoangs now appeal the Board's decision to the Court of Common
Pleas pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §933 as an appeal from a determination of a
government agency pursuant to the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S.A. §701 et seq.
15. The Board committed an error of law, violated the constitutional due
process rights of the Appellants, and did not have substantial evidence to support its
determination that the sewage system is malfunctioning in light of the following:
a) The Hoangs disagree that the septic system is malfunctioning and
presented evidence at the hearing that it was the former tenant's
overuse of water, improper use of the system, and frequent gatherings
of 10 or more that caused the cesspool problems;
b) The SEO did not present any independent expert testimony and visited
the Property only once, which was during the time that the system at
the Property was being overused by the previous tenants;
c) The SEO would not permit the Hoangs to have an expert look at the
sewage system prior to the hearing, therefore, the Hoangs were
unable to obtain an expert opinion or present any expert testimony at
the hearing.
16. Furthermore, due to the fact that the Hoangs were prevented from
obtaining and presenting expert opinion testimony by the SEO, the record before the
Board is incomplete, the Hoangs were not presented with an opportunity to be heard,
and this matter should be determined de novo pursuant to 2 Pa.C.S.A. §754(b).
WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request that the Court reverse the
decision of the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART 8~ WEIDNER
By: `Y'P/~
Richar .Stewart
Attorne I.D. No. 18039
Elizabeth D. Snover
Attorney I.D. No. 200997
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Telephone: (717) 761-4540
Attorneys for Appellants
DATED: O 1 ' 02 ~~ ~7
304893
Ex~~~~7
A
BEFORE THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS
OF LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE DOCKET No. SEO 2007-O1
APPEAL OF DAVID AND
NANCY HOANG
ADJUDICATION
BY THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS: June 25, 2007
On or about April 19, 2007, David Hoang and Nancy Hoang, (herein "Appellant")
filed an appeal with the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals after receiving a letter from
John M. Eby, Sewage Enforcement Officer (herein "SEO") restraining their return to occupancy
of a residence located at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. The SEO for the Township alleged a malfunctioning cesspool at the
property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road, and after a number of exchanges of correspondence, the
Appellant appealed this ruling to this Board of Appeals and seeks to reoccupy the property.
A public hearing was held on May 14, 2007. By letter dated April 19, 2007, Applicant
waived the 10-day notice requirement for hearing, and accepted scheduling of the hearing on
May 14, 2007. The appellants also waived the requirement that a determination must be
rendered within seven days of the hearing by record agreement at the May 14, 2007 hearing.
Under Section 175 -19 of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, the
determinations of the SEO aze appealable before this Board. This is the subject of this appeal.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants are David and Nancy Hoang, 3507 Simpson Ferry Road, Lower Allen
Township, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055.
2. The legal owner of the property is Mary Hoang 1050 N. Taylor Street #101
Arlington, VA 22201.
3. The Sewage Enforcement Officer for Lower Allen Township is John M. Eby,
who is certified by the State Boazd for Certification of Sewage Enforcement Officers. His
certificate number is 01820, which is valid until June 30, 2008. (Township Exhibit 1).
4. Applicants propose to use the property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road as their
principal residence.
5. The SEO of Lower Allen Township Hearing ("Township") has advised the
Appellants that occupancy of the premises at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road would be a violation of
Chapter 175 of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, the Sewage Facilities Act
and the Clean Streams Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6. The SEO of Lower Allen Township became awaze of a possible sewage disposal
violation after being contacted by Herbin and Sonia Souchet, tenants of the Appellants in August
of 2006 (Township Exhibit 1 and N.T. 7).
7. A Notice of Violation No. 2006-24 was issued by the SEO on August 25, 2006
under Chapter 162, the Property Maintenance Code of Lower Allen Township, directed to the
Appellants for alleging violations of Section 162 and PM 302.1(P), 506.1 and 506.2 and the IRC
Plumbing Code (Township Exhibit 1). The violation involved a backflow from the property's
cesspool into the basement of the property and related violations.
8. Rather than repair the on-site sewage facility, the property owner, Mary Hoang
opted to have her tenants vacate the property by January 5, 2007. (Township Exhibit 1
and N.T. 7).
9. By letter of March 27, 2007, the Appellants informed the SEO by that they
intended to re-rent the property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road. This was followed by the March
28, 2007 letter of Sarah E. McCarroll, Esq. to the SEO informing him that the property would be
occupied "in the next month.) (Township Exhibit 1).
10. By letter of March 29, .2007, the SEO wrote to Ms McCarroll and advised that the
violation was not abated, because "[t]he cesspool has not been fixed, tested and determined to be
operational." (Township Exhibit 1.)
11. The malfunction cesspool has not been repaired and no approved sewage disposal
system has been installed at the subject property. The Township file contained receipts from line
cleaning and septic pumping companies. The file correspondence corroborates the SEO
testimony that the cesspool is not draining and will continue to back up in the Appellants'
property (Township Exhibit 1 and N.T. 16-25).
12. The Appellant, Nancy Hoang testified that the cesspool is functioning and
experienced backflow problems only when a large number of guests were in the premises when
the premises was occupied by the tenants, Herbin and Sonia Souchet. Mrs. Hoang's testimony
on the number of occupants in the dwelling during the summer of 2006 was corroborated by
Kathy Minnich of 3505 Simpson Ferry Road (N.T. 50 and 54).
13. The Appellants also offered the testimony of David Altland a former code
enforcement officer of Lower Allen Township. Mr. Altland observed the cesspool being
pumped on or about August 10, 2006. He also observed the rerouting of laundry water onto the
ground at the subject premises. (N.T. 56 and 62).
14. Appellants offered no expert testimony.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals is the local agency having
jurisdiction to hear appeals from actions of the Sewage Enforcement Officer of Lower Allen
Township.
2. The Sewage Enforcement Officer is the individual charged by the Board of
Commissioners of Lower Allen Township with administering the on-lot sewage disposal
regulations under the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537 of 1966 as amended).
3. The Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals has the power to sustain or overrule
the actions of the Sewage Enforcement Officer of Lower Allen Township.
4. Sustaining the enforcement action of the Sewage Enforcement Officer is
appropriate in this case, since the SEO has provided wmpetent testimony and related
documentary evidence to show that the cesspool at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road is malfunctioning.
5. Enforcing the Order of the Sewage Enforcement Officer will protect the public
health, safety and welfaze of the residents of Lower Allen Township and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
III. DECISION
By reason of the foregoing, the action of the Sewage Enforcement Officer is upheld and it
is further ordered:
1. The Appellants shall be required to provide a sewage disposal system
approved by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Environmental Resources.
Appellants shall not occupy the premises until the an approved sewage
disposal system is properly permitted, installed and inspected at the
premises at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road in Lower Allen Township.
SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS
LO R ALLEN TOWNSffiP
..~--
r ~
Pr ident
~ ~ ~
t~
-- J
-s~ ~~,
-~
~~
~ ~-
a
}}......,, ~^~w ~ R
{~
+.~
J
C
-:.
n
r-~ f 7
C.~
,- r--. 'fir -n
~_. ,~ i
~ ~.~
(',. i
~ `°
w C'a ~ `;
J - a:"
-d
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
David and Nancy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055
Vs. No. 07-4371 CIVIL TERM
Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals
Lower AllenTownship
1993 Hummel Avenue
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
SS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND)
TO: The Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals -Lower Allen Township
We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between David
and Noancy Hoang pending before you, do command you that the record of the action
aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges
of our court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within (20) days of the date hereof, together
with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to be done
according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth.
WITNESS, The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley our said Court, at Carlisle, PA., the 25th
day of July, 2007..
Curtis R. Long, Prot ono
~ . ~ t r
m .. •
0
m . .-
.r
^; Postage $
m
p
Certified Fee
~
~
p Retum Receipt Fee H re
(Endorsement Required)
d Restricted DelNery Fee
17' (Endorsement Required)
m
~ Total Postage & Fees
u'1
O o
O
b`freef, Apt /Vo.;
or PO Bar No.
City, State, ZlP4+1
^ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 ff Restrict~d,fleu~s,~e~„Si,~M ~,
^ Print your name~erld 91t'•tih~ rr3versd"''r'`~
so that we can return the cans to you.
^ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Artlcie Addressed to:
Sewage Enforcement Board of
Lower Allen Township
1993 Humriel Avenue
Caftp Hill, Pa. 17011
07-4371
2. Article Number
(IYansfer from service label)
A.
B. Rdceived by (Pa~eli Name) - ~ C.
D. Is delNery address different from item 1 ~' ~ Ye's /
If YES, enter delivery address below: ^ No
als
3. Service Type
$7 Certiflad Mail ^ Express Malt
^ Registered ^ Retum Receipt for Merchandise
^ Insured Maii ^ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
D Yes
t=c~ 381 ~ .February 2UQ~1 Domestic Retum Receipt to2598.02#-1540
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
LISPS
Permit No. G-10
• Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box •
Prothonotary Off ice
Cumberland County Co»thouse
1 Court House Square
Carlisle, Pa. 17013
~ ~ _~ ~a z~ ~n~ c~
~'r.~i iC~~v; ~.0' ~E-i1. ~
~~la ~~ 31f~
...
r'
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
THE SEWAGE ENFORCMENT No. 07-4371 Civil Term
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
ANSWER TO NOTICE OF APPEAL
AND NOW comes the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen
Township, Cumberland County, and answers the Notice of Appeal filed by Appellants David and
Nancy Hoang as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Denied. To the contrary, the subject property is located at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road.
Furthermore, there is an additional record owner as well, Joseph Hoang. All other
averments of paragraph 3 are admitted as pleaded.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Nancy Hoang did not testify to paper towel use by
tenants. Further, it is only admitted that this is the substance of Appellant's testimony.
All other averments of Paragraph 10 are denied.
11. Admitted only that this is the substance of the Appellants testimony. All other averments
of Paragraph 11 are denied.
12. Admitted.
13. Admitted.
14. Is a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. To the extent a response
to the pleading is required the averments of Paragraph 14 are denied.
15. Denied.
a) Admitted only that Paragraph 15(a) represents the position of the Hoangs. All
other averments to Paragraph 15(a) are denied.
b) Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the SEO did not present any
independent expert testimony. Admitted also that the SEO visited the property
only once. It is denied that the SEO is not an expert since he meets all state
qualifications. All other averments to Paragraph 15(b) are denied.
c) Denied. To the contrary, the SEO indicated that the Appellants may wish to wait
until after the hearing to have Dillsburg Septic Service service their cesspool. The
SEO did not hinder or in any way deny the Appellants the opportunity to engage
an expert. Moreover, the Appellants retained competent legal counsel in the form
of Richard W. Stewart, Esquire, who is representing the Appellants herein.
16. Denied. To the contrary, the Appellants were not prevented from presenting expert
testimony nor were they hindered from having any expert review their cesspool system.
The record should remain as stated and the de novo appeal should be denied.
WHEREFORE, the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township
respectfully requests this honorable Court to affirm its decision below.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: August 9, 2007
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, L LC
is Carey Zu ,
orney I.D. # 37 34
1035 Mumma Road, S
Wormleysburg, PA 1'
(717)724-9821
. -~
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
Certificate of Service
I, Patricia Cazey Zucker, Esquire, hereby certify that I have on this day served the
foregoing Answer to Notice of Appeal by First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esquire
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Dated 9th day of August, 2007
n -~.~
_r_ ~ b
'~^'
_ 4 '~ fT7~
~/ _~~ ~ ~
^
f'n _~`~ ~
~!
~
1 ', ~ r!
-,_ ~_ ~.
rise. .. ~r
_7
~)
~
~ ~
~
~
y
V ~
i
~,-ir.~o
LOK~EHALLEN TO~YNSH/P
. 7993 HUMMEL AVENUE • CAMP H/LL, PENNSYLUAN/A 17011
August 10, 2007
Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
RE: David & Nancy Hoang v. Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
Dear Mr. Long:
I hereby certify that the enclosed documents are copies of the official record in the above-referenced
matter. This case record includes the following:
1. Stenographic record of the public hearing conducted on May 14, 2007.
2. Township Exhibit # 1 (63 page packet).
3. Appellant Exhibit # 1 (single page).
4. Adjudication by the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township dated
June 25, 2007.
A copy of the Writ of Certiorari in this matter is also enclosed, per your instructions.
Sincerely,
Danna S. Lutes
Township Secretary
Enclosures: (5)
Phone: (717) 975-7575 Fax: (717) 737-4182 http://www.lower-allen.pa.us
C~
i,s ~ /
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
David and Nancy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055
Vs.
No. 07-4371 CNIL TERM
Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals
Lower AllenTownship
1993 Hummel Avenue
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
SS.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND)
TO: The Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals -Lower Allen Township
We, being willing for certain reasons, to have certified a certain action between David
and Noancy Hoang pending before you, do command you that the record of the action
aforesaid with all things concerning said action, shall be certified and sent to our judges
of our court of Common Pleas at Carlisle, within (20) days of the date hereof, together
with this writ; so that we may further cause to be done that which ought to be done
according to the laws and Constitution of this Commonwealth.
WITNESS, The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley our said Court, at Carlisle, PA., the 25th
day of 3uly, 2007..
C
rtis R. Long, Pro ono
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
IN RE: 1 Petition of David and Nancy
Hoang to appeal SEO's ruling.
Stenographic record of hearing
at the Lower Allen Township Municipal
Building, 1993 Hummel Avenue,
Gamp Hill, Pennsylvania.
Monday
May 14, 2007
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS:
John Titzel, President
Peddrick Young
Dan Christ
Lloyd Bucher
H. Edward Black
APPEARANCES:
STEVEN MINER, ESQ.
3211 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17011
JOHNSON & DUFFIE
301 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
BY: RICHARD W. STEWART, ESQ.
For the Board.
For the Applicant
LEARY REPORTING
112 West Main Street, Ste. 200
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055
(717) 233-2660 Fax (717) 691-7768
T
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
WITNESS
John Eby
I N D E X
EXAMINATION BY
Mr. Shatto
Mr. Stewart
Mr. Shatto
Mr. Stewart
PAGE
4
47
86
88
Kathy Minnick
David Altland
Nancy Hoang
EXHIBIT
Township 1
Applicant 1
Mr. Stewart
Mr. Shatto
Mr. Shatto
Mr. Shatto
Mr. Stewart
Mr. Shatto
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
EXHIBITS
50
53
55
59
64
66
DESCRIPTION PAGE
Eby packet 49
Dillsburg Septic receipt 69
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
PRESIDENT TITZEL: We will recess
the regular meeting and we will go into the
public hearing.
The public hearing will be called
to order.
MR. SHATTO: Folks, my name is
Dennis Shatto. I am an attorney with Cleckner &
Fearen in Harrisburg. I am acting tonight as
special counsel to assist the sewage enforcement
officer in defending the appeal that has been
filed by Mr. and Mrs. Hoang. I think that is how
it is pronounced.
MRS. HOANG: Right.
MR. SHATTO: We thought it might be
simplest if the Township proceeds initially to
explain where we are and how we got here and the
reasons Mr. Eby took the action he did. And then
we will turn it over to the Hoangs to assert the
basis for their appeal, if that is satisfactory.
I guess you may want to swear in Mr.
Eby to start with.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
JOHN EBY, having been duly sworn by
Gwen A. Leary, Notary Public, was examined and
testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Would you state your name?
A My name is John M. Eby, spelled
E-b-y. And I am the Sewage Enforcement Officer
appointed by the Board of Commissioners for Lower
Allen Township.
Q Mr. Eby, in that capacity as sewage
enforcement officer, and I believe we are often
going to be referring to that position as SEO; so
hopefully you can bear with us. And everyone
will understand when we say SEO, we mean Sewage
Enforcement Officer; and in particular, Mr. Eby.
How long have you held that
particular position with the Township?
A Approximately 20 years. I was
Assistant Sewage Enforcement Officer before that.
Q Are you familiar with the Hoangs and
their property?
A Yes. The. subject property is at
3503 Simpson Ferry Road. It is a Camp Hill
postal address. I am familiar with the property
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the conditions of the property.
Q Very quickly, before I ask you to
explain the complaint and the process to date,
,could you state what kinds of credentials you
have as SEO?
A In the packet I handed out, the
third page is a copy of my certificate from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, indicating that I
met the requirements to become a Sewage
Enforcement Officer in 1986.
And the following page is a copy of
my current certification card, which verifies my
certification number, 01820. That is valid until
the end of June 2008. There is a triennial
recertification period in which we have to
complete continuing education credits during that
three-year interval.
Q Have you done or met all of the
continuing education requirements during the time
period that you have been an SEO?
A Yes, I have been continually
recertified since 1986; and the training does
include courses in recognizing, diagnosing, and
correcting malfunctions.
MR. SHATTO: Let me suggest to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
Board or explain that I think Mr. Eby handed out
a packet of materials to everyone. We did that
because we thought putting together the
chronology of all of this might be helpful to
everybody.
Mr. Stewart certainly, as counsel
for the Hoangs, may have objections to some of
those documents at some point during the course
of the proceeding. We didn't, by handing them
out at this time, mean to attempt to forestall
any objections. These are though, and I believe
Mr. Eby can confirm, it is really what his file
contains on the matter. So we thought, rather
than trying to sort through it and pick and
choose, essentially the entire file was copied.
And if objections are made,
obviously Mr. Miner can assist you in resolving
those.
Did you also give Mr. Stewart a copy
of the materials?
A Yes, I did.
Q Will you just explain, John, what
has happened and why we are where we are?
A The short version, and I will go
into detail as I go through the exhibits.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
But .the short version is,
essentially, that sometime last August we
received complaints from the tenants of the
Hoangs at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road regarding a
recurring problem of the drain and the basement
backing up with sewage .from the on-lot sewage
disposal system.
So we initially did a complaint
investigation with in-house staff; building
inspectors and our complaint coordinator. And
when it became apparent that it was an on-lot
system malfunction, I became involved as the
Sewage Enforcement Officer.
There will be a series of
communications that I will discuss, where we
indicated that the malfunction of the cesspool
was at a point where they had to take some course
of action.
At that time- they opted to have the
premises vacated. The tenants left. So the
malfunction was in an abeyance until earlier this
year when we received requests from the Hoangs to
occupy the structure. At which time I reiterated
my obligations as the SEO to have the malfunction
corrected first.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
That was not a satisfactory answer.
So they filed letters indicating they intended to
occupy within approximately a month of those
letters. And that was back in March.
Q Of this year?
A Of this year. And I wrote them a
letter back indicating that was in error and they
were not to do that. That precipitated the
appeal.
I believe their letters were a
letter from David and Nancy Hoang on 3/27/07 and
a letter from an attorney representing them Sarah
McCarroll an 3/28/07. So I rebutted that on
3/29/07 with a certified letter to David and
Nancy Hoang, who manage the property through
Power of Attorney to their daughter, Mary, who we
had been dealing, who is one of the owners, along
with her brother, and to Attorney McCarroll.
So that is what precipitated the
appeal, their objection over my stance regarding
the malfunction.
Q What stance is it that you took,
just very briefly?
A That in the course of our duties as
Sewage Enforcement Officers, we are compelled to
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
find a cause of a problem and make sure the
problem is resolved.
We know the symptom, that there was
recurring malfunction by backup of sewage into
the basement; but we don't have a cause.
And quite frankly, a cesspool is a
system in Pennsylvania that has not been
permitted as a method of sewage disposal since at
the Sewage Facilities Act went into effect in
1966.
So there is no technical guidance in
the SEO training manual, in the SEO field manual,
in the regulations or the statutes governing our
work to give us any guidance on repair of a
cesspool.
Q What did you order or direct or
determine with respect to the use of the
property?
A That the Hoangs could follow several
courses of action. They could attempt to have a
holding tank constructed, if we could work
through local agency and DEP regulatory
requirements; and use that as a stopgap measure
to abate the nuisance until such time as the
property could be hooked up to public sewer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Another option was to hook it up to
public sewer now or at that time.
Another option, which I had given
them, was we could -- and it really wasn't a
corrective operation; but it was to have the
tank, cesspool, excavated to get to the root of
the problem and make some observation.
But I cautioned them that that was
not a resolution; and it could also actually
further impair the situation.
Q Did you make any determination as to
whether or not the Hoangs could have the property
occupied as a residence?
A We made the determination that until
the malfunction was corrected, they could not.
Q And is that essentially what was
appealed?
A That is my understanding.
Q Do you have the -- could you go
through the appeal form itself?
A Certainly. And I would like to
state for the record also that the Township
secretary's office has proof of publication of
this hearing available. And we will refer to it
as SEO Appeal 2007-01.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
This is the application for review
filed by the Hoangs. And you as the Board of
Commissioners, under the Act 537, Sewage
Facilities Act, are the Board of Appeals because
we are not part of a countywide or joint
municipal local agency.
Q When was that application filed?
A It was filed on the 19th of April
2007.
Q Go ahead.
A Now, Mr. Stewart, what we would like
to do is work with your clients to make sure we
have a clear understanding of the application, if
that is okay.
MR. STEWART: Go ahead.
A First, I note on Item 1, just a
technicality. It is Simpson Ferry Road, the
correct identification of the street.
On No. 2, the applicant listed Mary
Hoang as the owner. And I just noted we do have
a Power of Attorney that was given to us at some
point during the investigation of the complaint,
which indicates the adult children, Joseph and
Mary, are the owners. They have addresses in, I
believe, Arlington, Virginia. And that is of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
record in our case file, so we can stipulate that
that is who the owner is.
Q Before I go further, the document
you are describing now is actually entitled
Application for Review. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And that is the top docket in the
packet you distributed?
A Yes. And this is what was filed to
initiate tonight's hearing.
Under Item 3, again, it is just
technically Simpson Ferry Road and not Drive.
And for orientation, I don't know if
anyone in the audience or the Board needs to be
oriented to the site; but the southwest corner of
Lower Allen Drive and Simpson Ferry Road there is
a Wendy's hamburger restaurant. So going west
one property is Goodall Pools; and the next
property would be the subject property. And
Trinity High School is basically in the backyard.
Item 4, the reason for appeal would
it be correct in assuming that what is written
here means that the SEO ruling is incorrect.
MR. STEWART: I think that is what
it says.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
MR. EBY: And that ruling would be
what was contained in my March 29, 2007,
letter. We just want to make sure we are
dealing with the right -- the application
did not specify what ruling.
So are we saying the ruling in my
letter of 3/29/07, which indicated that
they were incorrect in determining that
Free Flow had solved all of the problems
and it was okay to occupy?
That is near the end of the packet.
It is my letter dated March 29, 2007, to
Sarah McCarroll, who was the author of a
letter to me, at the same time that the
Hoangs wrote me a letter telling me they
intended to occupy the property.
MR. STEWART: I think that covers
it.
MR. EBY: Thank you.
In No. 5 it is stated that the
current property use is
commercial/residential.
I would like to note for the record
that the property is a vacant property at
the current time. To my knowledge, it was
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
always used as a single-family dwelling.
We checked Cumberland County tax records,
and it was built in 1940. The zoning
district, however, is Commercial 2, which
is general commercial. And we have talked
to the applicants about potentially
converting the use of the property. But I
indicated that the property could be used
for neither a commercial business or a
residence until the sewage disposal
problem is resolved.
Item 6, Mr. Stewart, I don't believe
we have a code section under appeal. I
believe it is my letter that is under
appeal. Section 175 probably refers to
Chapter 175, the township code sewer
regulations.
In No. 7, to briefly explain the
purpose of this application, it is my
understanding that this means they are
basing the appeal on the Free Flow receipt
attached to their letter of March 27.
Those are the comments I had
regarding the application to make sure the
record is clear of certain facts.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SHATTO: Before I turn Mr. Eby
loose to go down through the file, I do
want to mention that -- so that we don't
waive it, the SEO's position is that the
filing of this appeal is not timely;
although, we are not saying the hearing
should not proceed. We think it is
reasonable that the Board would hear the
thing and then resolve all issues,
including timeliness.
But so we don't waive it, we want to
mention now that we feel, based on the
correspondence in the folder that you
received, that the appellants here were on
notice considerably before 30 days before
their appeal was filed, that there was
essentially a no occupancy ruling
applicable to the property and didn't take
the appeal within that 30 days.
But as I say, we are preserving that
issues. We still think it makes sense for
the entire hearing to proceed on the
merits.
BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Mr. Eby, could you briefly go
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
through the SEO or Township's file.
A Sure. If you go past the first four
pages, which we have already covered, you come to
what initiated my involvement, which was a tenant
complaint. And these items were provided back in
August when the tenants, the Sushays (phonetic)
were experiencing some recurring backups.
The first letter, dated August 5, is
to Nancy Hoang from the Sushays and indicates
they moved into the house April 1 And they
began experiencing problems several months later.
And it is indicating there is a problem with the
septic tank.
I will note for the record, there is
no septic bank. It is a cesspool. The
difference being a septic tank would like -- this
glass of water is watertight. And then when it
would be full, there is a pipe leading to a drain
field, which is a secondary treatment of the
sewage effluent, where soil remediates some of
the virus and bacteria in the effluent.
A cesspool, essentially, is a
cylindrical shape and typically that does not
hold water. It is full of joints typically of
masonry that line the cesspool. It is a seepage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
pit deep, much deeper than a drain field would be
for a regular absorption area. And so there is a
real distinction there.
And I don't believe the tenant was
aware of that. But he did provide notice here
that he was going to complaint to the Township
and take other measures if the problem was not
resolved.
The next letter is, I guess, some
form of rebuttal or reply from the Hoangs to the
Sushays. And on the second page, it notes that
Associated Products pumped the cesspool on June
19 of 2006. So the tenants moved in in April and
began experiencing problems not long after. And
then the cesspool was pumped June 19.
The next letter dated August 8, now
the tenants are refuting some of the issues and
repeating some concerns. It indicates that they
have had a problem with the basement as far as
the odor and the cleanliness of the basement.
And it indicates some thought that there might be
clogged pipes. It refers to pictures that are in
our file that were taken and provided to us. It
indicates that there is concern that they would
have to stop taking showers, flushing toilets,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
and not doing laundry. That is the point where
they contacted us and filed a complaint.
Next page is a letter back to the
Sushays from the Hoangs dated August 14, 2006.
And it indicates that Free Flow did work August
10 and also Hoke Septic Service pumped the
cesspool on August 10. So there we have another
instance of having pumped the contents of the
cesspool.
It also somehow seems to pose a
hypothesis that a swimming pool -- there was an
above-ground swimming pool in the background,
which perhaps a lot of water was consumed to fill
the pool and refill the pool. I know May and
August last year my grass was dormant. We had
dry weather. I told them I didn't see how some
backwash or a little pool water on the ground
would cause the malfunction of a cesspool.
Q The swimming pool was in the back
yard?
A Yes.
Q And where is the cesspool?
A Front yard.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: I'm sorry, can
you repeat that?
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EBY: The swimming pool, back
yard, and cesspool was front yard.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Okay.
Q Continue.
A There is a pumping receipt. Just
for the record, this is the first one I referred
to. It shows that they pumped 1,000 gallons of
effluent out of the tank.
Q That is June 19, 2006?
A Yes. The next page from Hoke's
Service --
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Wait. Could I
ask a question on that?
MR. EBY: Sure.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Why is St.
Johns Road and Route 15 noted?
MR. EBY: Probably directions for
the driver.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Okay.
BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Continue.
A The next receipt is from Hoke's
Septic Service, dated August 10, 2006. A special
note in the box in the upper right, there is a
handwritten note that says, "Pump through pipe
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
per customer."
Well, septic system pumpers are
trained not to pump the tank empty through the
4-inch inspection pipe, because you can't do a
proper job of agitating the contents of the tank
and withdrawing the solids, the sludge that is in
the tank, whether it is a cesspool or a septic
tank.
So that is indicates he is advising
the owner that he followed their instructions. I
will note it is a cesspool and not a septic tank.
The handwritten note to conserve
water and then in handwriting also on the
receipt, Tank should be dug open to clean
properly. Tank is over full and not draining.
So there indicates the Hoke Service noticed the
problem.
The next sheet on the same day,
August 10 --
MR. YOUNG: Those notes were written
by the technician on site?
MR. EBY: That is my understanding.
BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Continue.
A Next is an invoice from Free Flow
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Drain Service on August 10.
MR. YOUNG: The same day?
MR. EBY: Same day.
A Because they were checking to see if
there was a problem between the building cleanout
at the basement wall and the cesspool. There
could have been a collapsed pipe or a blocked
pipe something causing back flow. And this
indicates, again in the comment section, problem
is with tank -- meaning cesspool in this case.
Then the next two pages are receipts
provided by the Sushays to show they this goes
back to as early as late May. There is a receipt
for Rid X Septic. It must be some product that
was put in in the hopes of improving the problem.
So if they occupied in April and in
May they are having problems, there are also
receipts for Root Killer and Cess Flow. Those
all date the May, June, July time frame, an
indication that they were trying to solve the
problem.
I will note for the record that the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protections recognizes no additive as being
effective to improve the operation of a septic
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
system.
Next we have some photographs and I
apologize, the black-and-white didn't come out
that well; but we have the file copies.
On the first sheet of photographs,
that shows that there was an attempt made to
bypass the cesspool, which is typically done when
an on-lot disposal system is malfunctioning and
can't handle the amount of water.
If you look at the lower left-hand
picture, the vertical piece of pipe that has --
or you can't tell whether it is a rag or
something stuffed in it. It was the original
cast iron pipe of the dwelling. It was severed.
It serves as the vent for the floor
drain; so it was rendered ineffective. And what
is above it is a connection from a shower and a
hand washing sink that were bypassed from the
building drain. And you can note in some of the
other pictures it goes to the sump pump.
The sump pump ejects that wastewater
to the outside. Also you can see the washing
machine, the black hose is running out the
window, basement window. Switching to the next
page, you can see the discharge of laundry water
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
onto the ground.
So the Hoangs were notified orally
and in writing that this was a violation of both
the plumbing code and the DEP regulations for
proper disposal. And they did subsequently
correct this problem.
I am just breezing through the next
couple of pages, because they didn~t come out
well. They are just showing there is a filthy
basement floor.
MR. BLACK: Do we know who did the
Jimmy-rig hookup, disconnecting and
putting it out the window?
MR. EBY: I believe Mr. Hoang did.
He is here and he can verify whether or
not he did.
BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Continue.
A The next page after the photographs
is the violation notice that was issued to David
and Nancy Hoang on the 25th of August. 2006.
And on the second page, it does
indicate the plumbing problem that we just
mentioned; but it also indicates the back flow
from the cesspool, if it reoccurs, they are to
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
notify SEO of the township. We also include a
warning about liquid waste, required to be
discharged to the treatment tank or, in this
case, the cesspool. Then we cite the PA statute
as a basis for that. And we have proof of
receipt.
Q And as you indicated, I think,
earlier, this plumbing problem with the
redirecting of some of the wastewater, not into
the cesspool but out onto the lawn, that was
corrected?
A That was corrected.
The next page is a letter from David
and Nancy just indicating that that was only a
temporary situation; and they would try to work
it out with the tenant and would put everything
back okay.
The next page is when I wrote a
letter on the 12th of October 2006. I had
between that Notice of Violation and October 12,
I think it was late September, met onsite with
David Hoang, the daughter, Mary, and the Sushays
to look at the basement problems including the
requirements to correct the plumbing.
On the day I arrived, there had an
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
backup that was just being cleaned up. A few
days later to a few weeks later, I wrote this
letter. And this is a time when I notified the
owner that there was a problem, a possibility of
violation notices and other actions to be taken.
So we normally would notify the owner and not
just the property manager.
I also was concerned in case we
weren't communicating clearly with David and
Nancy that Mary would also receive the same
information in writing.
As I noted, the County records
indicate the home was built in 1940. we don't
know for a fact that this is the original
cesspool or on-lot disposal system; but we can --
if, in indeed, it is, it is 67 years old. And
there could be a bio mat or some of kind of
sludge buildup that is preventing the cesspool
from working; but I am going on the letter to
indicate we don't know what the problem is.
On page 2 at the top I state that
the on-lot sewage disposal system is
malfunctioning. I give a deeper explanation to
the malfunction. I also indicate that waiting
until a public sewer connection is provided for
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them is not an acceptable solution to the
problem.
What that means is PennDOT, in its
15 to 581 project to build a new interchange at
Lower Allen Drive is proposing to widen Simpson
Ferry Road westbound. There is a taking action
of the front yards, of taking some property for
right-of-way. And PennDOT intended to replace
the cesspools with public sewer hookups.
So I am indicating we couldn't wait
until that occurs. And as it turns out now, that
project bid was way over bid. There is only one
bidder. It is going to be rebid in the fall. So
there is no imminent solution coming down the
pike from PennDOT.
Here is where, when I testified
earlier to Mr. Shatto's question, the bullet
points indicate the options we were providing;
vacating until a public sewer service is
available. Whether they chose to voluntarily
spend the money to hookup or until PennDOT
completed the project.
The second bullet indicates they
could have a qualified individual work with us
through the DEP and township local agency
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regulations to do a holding tank. I indicate
that they would still have to frequently pay for
the cost of pumping the tank out.
The last bullet point was to have a
qualified septic system company excavate or
expose the cesspool for evaluation. I didn't
give any indication that we could actually
pinpoint a problem and a solution. We don't know
what is in the ground. There are no records,
because it predates the local permitting program.
And I recommended that they take an
action promptly, so we can avoid any legal
proceedings.
Q Mr. Eby, you said -- is there no
permit on record at the Township for this
particular cesspool?
A Correct; because the on-lot disposal
system predates the local permitting program,
which came into effect in the 1970's.
Q Do you have any information on
record in the township with respect to any
technical aspects of the cesspool, such as the
capacity of it?
A No.
Q Or the construction of it?
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A We don't know the depth, the
dimensions, the liquid capacity or anything.
Q Go ahead.
A There is a series of correspondence
that follow that are just highlighting the
efforts of Mary Hoang, one of the owners, to get
the tenants to vacate.
We originally set approximately 30
days to vacate. In the middle paragraph of the
first page of the November 15, 2006, letter it is
indicating that the cesspool is being pumped
regularly. And both parties have come to an
understanding on routine actions with respect to
the cesspool, which include Hoke Septic having
on-call service for that premises.
So that was telling us that the
tenant and landlord had come to an agreement on
how to co-exist and ride the thing out until they
could vacate. We repeat -- they repeat that the
premises need to be vacated. So that is the
option Mary chose. She is the owner and they
chose that option.
The second page of the letter
indicates that because of the holidays coming up
and because of the arrangement to have an on-call
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service to keep the tank pumped, it was
acceptable to the Township to postpone the move
out date to January 5, 2007.
On November 27 Linda Hockenberry,
our community development complaints coordinator
repeated my bullet points in this letter to Mary
Hoang, confirming the previous correspondence and
phone conversations, that they could vacate the
premises. They could install a holding tank.
They could excavate for evaluation purposes,
which may not result in a solution or make a
public sewer connection. And repeats that our
understanding was they chose to vacate the
premises.
Q Mr. Eby, where is public sewer with
respect to this location? Where is it available,
if at all?
A The terminal manhole of the gravity
system closest to this property is right around
the corner at Wendy's on Lower Allen Drive.
Depending on the route one took to hookup, it
would probably be closer to 400 feet than 300
feet from the cesspool.
Q Is there public sewer, essentially,
in both directions from this property?
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Correct. The public sewer to the
west is quite some distance. It is at the
intersection of St. John's Road and Simpson Ferry
Road at the entrance to Shiremanstown. That is
the nearest gravity sewer line going west. And
it is quite some distance.
Q Just in case there is not any
familiarity or perhaps some of the members aren't
familiar with the location of public sewer and
why it wasn't actually -- this property wasn't
actually hooked up, can you explain that or do
you know anything about it?
A Yes. There are high points on both
sides of the property where gravity won't work
for gravity sewer. And back when the Lower Allen
Township Authority installed public sewers, there
are little pockets, areas that were not
accessible by gravity where only a few homes
existed. And the decision was made economically
not to build an expensive pump station, a public
pump station, for a handful of properties, nor to
make the property owners use a grinder pump and
forced main at that time.
Q In this particular pocket, how many
properties are there?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
A There are four: Goodall Pools and
the three properties David and Nancy Hoang manage
on behalf of their adult children.
Q Go ahead.
A The next page is just an e-mail
between Linda Hockenberry of our staff and Mary
Hoang confirming the facts we have been
discussing about the move out date. And also the
next page, the December 5 letter from David and
Nancy Hoang to the Sushays, again discussing the
vacating the premises.
The next page is an e-mail, Linda
Hockenberry communicating with Mary Hoang, dated
January 22, 2007. It indicates, I just spoke to
John, meaning me, and he reiterated that the
property at 3503 is not to be inhabited until the
problem with the sewer is corrected. And it
refers to an application for converting 3503 and
3507. And that is getting to some zoning
information.
But I had also indicated that they
could not convert to a commercial use until they
resolved the on-lot sewage disposal problem.
Next are some letters that David and
Nancy Hoang wrote in an attempt to get approval
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for two occupants. This is also including my
rebuttals to that effort.
There is a January 24 letter from
the Township Manager that was copied to three
township staff managers, including myself. And
at the bottom of page 1, it says, Today we would
like to know if we can move to 3503. The
cesspool is fit for two people.
Well, there is no basis that an
expert who is qualified determined two people is
okay. They didn't explain how they determined
that or what credentials of anyone who determined
that.
And I would use the analogy, if we
observe there is a restaurant with a deck and the
deck is structurally failing and there are 50
people with a party on the deck, we order it
vacated until a qualified structural engineer
examines the problem, finds a cause, proposes a
solution, and the solution is constructed in
accordance with permit regulations.
And then the owner would come back
and say I had a building contractor look at this
and he thinks 20 people should be allowed on this
deck; so that is what we are going to do.
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So that is the analogy of we are
being told that someone thinks it's okay for two
people to live there with a malfunction, but not
five.
I am skipping to the third page of
this letter. They make note that the tank was
pumped and cleaned. Well, you can't, as I stated
earlier, effectively clean out sludge from an old
cesspool through a 4-inch pipe.
And then at the bottom of this page,
it indicates there is nothing wrong with the
cesspool. Flip to page 4. Please can the
township send us a letter as soon as possible.
So this is an effort to ask the
township manager to send a letter telling them
that it is okay for them to occupy.
The next page is a letter I wrote on
February 9 to David and Nancy Hoang reiterating
our position on occupancy. There have been a
number of inquiries in person and by telephone.
So I indicate that because the tenants moved out,
we had a temporary abatement of the nusiance.
But in my second paragraph of the
middle section there on occupancy of 3503, I say,
Your letter dated January 24 indicates your
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
desire to move into this home based on the
assumption that the malfunctioning cesspool will
work satisfactorily with only two persons living
there.
I must remind you that unless a
specific cause for the malfunction is identified
and corrected, the cesspool can no longer be
used. Having fewer occupants in the home might
only increasing the interval between sewage
backups onto the basement floor and pumping of
wastewater in.the cesspool. 3503 must remain
vacant until the malfunctioning cesspool is
replaced with an approved method of sewage
disposal.
Q Before you go past that letter,
there was some reference, I believe, you made.
And we saw in correspondence about blockages in
the line between the house and the cesspool.
Are you satisfied that line
blockages in that location do not explain the
malfunction?
A Correct. Because in no report that
either the Hoangs or the Sushays furnished to us
did it indicate that a drain cleaner discovered a
problem with the building sewer.
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q The building sewer appears to be --
A Meaning the drainpipe between the
foundation wall and the cesspool.
Q And let me ask you, why can't the
problem be remedied by limiting occupancy to two
people?
A Because it is a requirement in the
DEP regulations that any on-lot disposal system
for a three-bedroom home -- and I am not sure how
many bedrooms this home has; but the minimum size
is a three-bedroom home. And must be able to
handle and absorb a total 400 gallons per day of
effluent.
So not knowing the cause of the
problem, and not having any prescription in the
criteria for a cesspool to know how to resolve
and correct the problem, you can't effect a
solution.
Q Let me ask you, if this were a new
recently permitted septic system, a regular
septic tank with a drain field, could this kind
of a malfunction that you've described be
remedied by limiting use or occupancy?
A No. We are not allowed to treat the
symptom. We must address the cause.
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In other words, we have a
prescription in the field manual on how to -- and
in our training, on how to approach the solution.
And obviously what we take a look at would be,
Was the site investigated properly? Is the soils
analysis correct? Was the symptom designed
properly? The conditions of installation.
There is a whole litany of things we
check, including what happened after it was
installed. Was the system abused, misused, used
incorrectly, and so forth. So we have to
diagnose the problem and treat the cause and not
the symptom.
So you don't just say, all right,
your familiar of five is moving out and my family
of two is moving in and we are going to assume
that it is going to work correctly. We have to
address the cause.
Q Are you aware of any Department of
Environmental Protection -- how would I say this,
requirements or specifications with respect to a
cesspool?
A No. In fact, in preparing for this
hearing, I reviewed my original SEO manual, my
field manual, the online guidance for Sewage
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Enforcement Officers.
I even contacted my counterpart for
Cumberland County at the Department of
Environmental Protection, who indicated you
basically don't have any criteria to fix a
cesspool. If a cesspool malfunctions, it is
history.
Q Go ahead.
A Moving on to a letter of March 27,
2007, written to me by David and Nancy Hoang,
indicating -- and this is the letter that
triggered the appeal.
This letter indicates that on March
27 of 2007, they had a Free Flow drain cleaning
specialist investigate previous blockages we
experienced at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road. And I am
attaching a document with their analysis and
comments regarding operation of our septic system
on our property.
Due to their evaluation, it is our
assessment that the system is functioning
properly; and at this point, does not create an
uninhabitable situation for us at this point.
Therefore, it is our intention to re-rent this
property.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
And that caused me concern; because
there was not an SEO or a qualified septic system
technician making this claim. I don't know what
previous blockages there were; because no
blockages were reported. The building sewer was
written up as being okay by drain cleaners.
Several of them. I don't know -- there is no
qualification to make this assessment.
The next page shows me the Free Flow
receipt from the 27th of March 2007. It looks
like they cleaned out 35 to 40 feet of 4-inch
diameter pipe. The blockage area is noted "pm,"
which I assume is preventive maintenance. There
wasn't a blockage.
I note in cleanout location, it says
exit clean out or CO is clean out, at check
valve.
When I was at the property, there
was no check valve. So I am assuming someone
installed a check valve; but we don't have any
record of it.
Q And what is a check valve?
A A check value would be a valve that
allows fluid to pass in one direction; but when
fluid back flows, it shuts. So it is .like a back
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
flow preventer.
Then in the comment section, ran
electric measure, which I guess is a cutting
machine, electric cutting machine, to see if
there are any roots or any problems, from house
to tank, which in this case is a cesspool. Line
cleaned and tested with lots of water. Line is
okay. No backup. Could not create a problem.
So they couldn't find a problem with the building
to the sewer.
On the next day or two days
later, I received the March 28, 2007, letter from
Sarah McCarroll, an attorney representing David
and Nancy Hoang. This letter advises me that the
cesspool has been fixed, tested, and is
operational. On March 27, 2007, Free Flow drain
cleaning specialist repaired and tested the
cesspool to make sure it was functioning
properly.
Well, as I stated earlier, they did
a preventative maintenance check to see if the
building sewer was flowing properly. I am not
aware of anyone at Free Flow drain cleaning
specialist providing any information with
professional qualifications indicating that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
cesspool was fixed. They didn't do anything to
the cesspool.
Skipping over some proof of service,
I get to my rebuttal letter. My rebuttal letter
again is what triggered this hearing tonight.
And it is to Sarah McCarroll March 29, 2007,
indicating that the facts in the two letters I
just referred to are factually incorrect. I
think I explained everything else that is in this
letter. So I basically reiterated the fact that
you need to fix the problem.
There is a letter of April 2 from
David and Nancy Hoang to me indicating or
reminding me they sent me a letter that they
cleaned out the cesspool again.
Well, the cesspool was never cleaned
out properly. There was water removed from it,
wastewater several times. And No. 4 at the
bottom indicates they can't wait. They need a
lawyer to take care of the problem. The Free
Flow company took care of the problem. They are
questioning why I don't trust them. Nothing is
wrong with the cesspool. Checked the Free Flow
paperwork. So they are trying to redirect me to
reconsider.
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also a letter dated April 9 to
Manager Thomas Verneau from the Hoangs,
indicating that they can't get an answer -- that
they can't get a good answer from me.
Well, apparently they could not get
the answer they wanted; but I consistently from
August until this time gave them the same answer.
There is a letter April 19 from Mary
Hoang to Commissioner Titzel and Manager Verneau.
And it indicates, by writing the letter, she is
property owner; and as such, she would like her
parents to temporarily move into the premises.
I got a letter dated April -- I
can't read it. I think it is April 22, 2007, to
Mr. Verneau. It indicates that now they have had
Drain Doctor come for checkup and testing. There
is no backup of water. Nothing wrong. We can
live. There nothing wrong. Free Flow took care
of it.
They are concerned that it took five
months and the house is still empty. Yet my
problem with this was that their daughter Mary,
the owner, opted to follow the route of vacating
the premises as solving solve the problem.
I don't believe the drain cleaner
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has the credentials to qualify how many people
could live there, or if anyone can live there.
April 30, 2007, is a four-page
letter to Mr. Tom Verneau, Township Manager, from
David and Nancy Hoang. It repeatedly refers back
to the tenants not there. The tenant was causing
the problem. It indicates near the bottom of
page 1 that they didn't know the house had a
cesspool; and not even I, John Eby, knew.
I certainly knew it had a cesspool;
and we had known that for some time before we got
the complaint; because we are dealing with the
sewer authority and the PennDOT plans to replace
the cesspool.
On page 2, again the middle, nothing
wrong with the cesspool. And again mentioning
the tenant situation. Page 3 in the middle, if
it cesspool is no good, why did I let them stay
two more months? I've already addressed that.
But with the correspondence between
Mary Hoang and Linda Hockenberry, it was agreed
that if they were regularly pumping and had Hokes
on call and the tenants and the owners were
working out arrangements that we could wait to
the end of the holidays to have the tenant move.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
On page 4 there is some statement
that it is fit for two people. And it indicates
I am either harassing or discriminating them.
And I will state for the record that
I have been consistent in all of the facts I
presented here tonight.
The last segment of my presentation,
I have copied guidance from the field manual for
sewage enforcement officers. It is the SEO field
manual prepared by PSATS on behalf of DEP.
On the first page I will note that
this is where I came up with the statement
earlier to Mr. Shatto's question that there is an
absorption area required for a single-family home
of a minimum of 400 gallons per day.
On the next page, a malfunction
occurs when (1) untreated or partially treated
sewage is discharged to the waters of the
Commonwealth. This is probably why the
Department doesn't want cesspools fixed; because
basically a cesspool -- if that cup of water has
loose joints fall through it, which is the way
they are constructed, and an earthen bottom. And
when we checked, with Mr. David Hoang and Mary
present, we did put a dip stick down the
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
inspection pipe and hit water at 8 feet deep.
And that is about the same depth as the basement
floor drain.
And if the cesspool, for whatever
reason is too full of sediment and sludge or
there is a hydraulic condition that is
overloaded, when that water can't get out, that
is backing up the pipe. Well, that is at 8 feet
deep under the front yard grade. So how deep is
the cesspool below that?
So it would be 15, 18 or 20 feet.
That is pretty much a conduit to get sewage
effluent into our groundwater and pollute it; so
that is why the Department doesn't allow
cesspools. That is why they don't want them
fixed. That is Item 1 And this is something we
can't prove. We don't have X-ray vision. We
don't know what is underground.
(2) Untreated or partially treated
sewage is discharged to the ground surface.
Well, that is what I mentioned in some of our
Notices of Violation and letters that there was a
violation. The owners have corrected that. But
we had at one time Violation No. 2.
(3) Untreated or partially treated
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sewage is backing up into a structure. And,
again, we had the complaints from the tenants and
we had staff observe. And like I said, the day I
was there to meet with David and with Mary Hoang
and the tenants, they were just finishing
cleaning up another back flow.
So then to correct a malfunction, I
am not going to go through all this; but this is
the departmental guidance. And because we have a
cesspool, a lot of this is not applicable. We
don't have the ability to scientifically or
systematically go through and say, What is the
cause and what is the effect? and correct the
situation.
So I believe that pretty well gets
me through all of the exhibits.
Q Mr. Eby, is the malfunction that you
cited in determining there should be no occupancy
until remediation, is that the backup into the
house?
A Correct. And that is based upon, in
the Plumbing Code of Pennsylvania, the Property
Maintenance Code, which is optional that Lower
Allen Township has adopted, and the DEP rulings
and regulations, you have to have an approved
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
method and functioning method of sewage disposal
to have a habitable dwelling; and because of
recurring problem, that does not exist.
So one of the bullet points in our
letter needs to be followed to come up with a
either temporary or a permanent solution.
Q To your knowledge, has this cesspool
been excavated or the top taken off to allow
observation for inspection of the interior?
A Not to my knowledge. And I did
caution in my letters and in personal
communications that, quite frankly, excavating it
might cause its demise; because we donut know how
deep the lid is or what condition it is in. It
might collapse into the cesspool.
If the cesspool is vacuumed out with
a septic pumping truck correctly and they agitate
the content and get the sludge out, it might
actually cause the side walls to cave in; or
conversely, it might actually really clean it up
so that it is actually polluting the groundwater
and creating Problem 1 on the list of
malfunctions.
Q And despite the correspondence and
the rebuttals and explanations, etc., has your
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
position as SEO changed at all with respect to
this cesspool and the use and occupancy of the
property?
A No.
MR. SHATTO: I believe that is all I
have for Mr. Eby.
MR. MINER: Mr. Stewart?
EXAMINATION BY MR. STEWART:
Q Mr. Eby, before these tenants moved
in, you never had any complaints about this
property? You don't have any record of
complaints with regard to this property, do you?
A No.
Q With regard to the septic?
A No.
Q And with regard to the. other
properties out there that adjoin that have
cesspool, you have not had complaints about there
either?
A No.
Q And as I guess you have explained,
there is no book on cesspools; so you don't have
any idea what the cause is? "
A No. Well, could I rephrase that?
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Yes.
A I know the cesspool is incapable of
handling the effluent that is put into it. We
don't no specifically the reasons why. It is
backing up into the dwelling. We know the
symptom. We don't know the cause.
Q You don't know the capacity of the
tank?
A No.
Q And you don't know how much was put
into that tank by the tenants?
A No.
Q And you don't know that that
cesspool could not handle a smaller amount of
effluent that was put in there by the tenants?
You don't know?
A That's correct.
MR. STEWART: That's all the
questions I have.
MR. SHATTO: I don't have any
redirect.
MR. MINER: How do you want to
handle this package?
MR. SHATTO: I would propose it to
be entered as a single exhibit. He has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
described everything in the content of it
by dates and description.
So I don't think it is necessary to
mark each document as a separate exhibit;
but either way is fine with me.
MR. MINER: Mr. Stewart?
MR. STEWART: Put in it as one.
MR. MINER: We accept the package as
Township Exhibit 1.
(Exhibit Township 1, Eby packet,
marked for Identification.)
MR. MINER: Do you have any other
witnesses?
MR. SHATTO: No.
MR. STEWART: I would like to call
Kathy Minnick as my first witness.
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KATHY MINNICH, having been duly
sworn by Gwen A. Leary, Notary Public, was
examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. STEWART:
Q What is your name?
A Kathy Minnic h.
Q What is your address, Ms. Minnich?
A 3505 Simpson Ferry Road.
Q So you live beside the pro perty in
question?
A Yes.
Q And you were present this past year
when there were problems there with the system?
A Yes.
Q And you knew the occupants of the
property?
A I did.
Q Could you describe for the Board the
number of people and the kind of activities that
were going on over there?
A Well, there were three adults and
two children living there full time. And they
had family that lived all over the country and
regular guests, sometimes 25 to 30 people on
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
weekends there wouldn't just come for the day;
but would stay throughout the weekend and
sometimes during the week.
So there was always a lot of people;
not just five people, but other people's kids and
just a lot of people.
Q And this occurred with some
regularity?
A Regularly.
Q Any other observations you have
about this situation?
A Actually I would prefer, if you
could direct questions to me? I have a lot of
opinions and observations about it; but I think
an observation I have is that I think, most
importantly, is that you have a family who has
invested several hundred thousands into your
community to perhaps in the future bring business
into the community.
And this is also a family that, at
times, there has been some language barrier and
difficulty in understanding some of the things
that need to be done. And I am there. I
communicate sometimes with some of the plumbing
people that come on Nancy's behalf and David's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
behalf because of that language barrier. And my
observation is that too much has gone on, too
long. They have spent thousands and thousands of
dollars attempting to-make corrections that
obviously are not satisfactory; and yet Mr. Eby
was there one time, from what I understood in his
testimony. One time for 30 minutes in a year.
And I understand that what Mr. Eby
is explaining with regard to the malfunction; and
not being able to know until you dig up 15 or 20
feet you, how big, how far. But has the soil
been tested in that area?
I have a lot of questions. There
are a lot of questions. And my concern for them
is that no one from the Township has been there
more than maybe an hour in a year and has not
been inspected regularly.
I know it was backing up; but if the
tenants call and say it is backing up to their
ankles, then someone should be there to check to
make sure it is backing up to their ankles. It
was backing up, but I never saw anything more
than some wetness around the floor.
So I just -- my feeling is that, in
this particular situation, thousands of dollars
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
later on both the County and the Township's
behalf and on their behalf, someone should have
been out there and getting to the root of this
rather than a year gone by and still where you
were a year ago.
MR. STEWART: That's all I have.
EXAMINATION BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Mrs. Minnick, I just want to ask you
a question. You said there were times when 25 to
30 people were visiting the property?
A Staying there.
Q Staying overnight?
A Yes.
Q 25 or 30 people?
A Yes. They got married. They had a
wedding and got married and, literally, there
were 30 people staying there.
Q You mentioned this happened -- were
there 25 to 30 people regularly or was that just
on a rare occasion?
A Regularly. There were 10, 15, 20,
30, 35. I mean, there were times that there were
ten cars in the driveway. If you multiply ten
times four, you can do the math. These people
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are my friends. I am not saying this to -- I
mean, I understand this is a difficult situation
for both sides; but at the same time, this has
just gone on too long.
Q Can you define what you mean by
regularly that there were that many people?
A Every week.
Q Every day?
A Every week.
Q That's all I have.
MR. MINER: Any questions from the
Board?
(No questions.)
MR. STEWART: I would like to call
Mr. David Altland to the stand.
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DAVID ALTLAND, having been duly
sworn by Gwen A. Leary, Notary Public, was
examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. STEWART:
Q What is your name?
A David Altland.
Q What is your address?
A My address, I live at 70 Gariston
Road (phonetic), York Haven. It is in Newberry
Township, York County.
Q Did you work for Lower Allen
Township?
A Yes, I did.
Q In what capacity?
A I was a codes enforcement officer
and assistant zoning officer.
Q In that capacity, did you have an
opportunity to visit the property in question?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you observe when you
went out there?
A I was there because of a zoning
application to establish the Asian American
Market at 3507 Simpson Ferry Road. And it would
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
have been August 10. Mr. Eby testified the Hoke
people were there to pump the tank. That is who
was there when I was there.
The Hoangs were talking to me about
this situation. So that is how I came to know
about it. They wanted me to go over to see what
was going on. And I did walk over to the house
at 3503. And the gentleman from Hoke were there
pumping it out; and they were checking lines.
And basically what they were saying
was there didn't seem to be a lot of typical
septate that they were pumping out of the tank,
out of this cesspool, but it was mostly water. I
asked how they would know that. They said just
from experience, they know how the pump runs, if
it is solids or water. And they also commented
that the lines, the drain line from the house out
to the cesspool appeared to be clear. That is
what I observed on that day.
Another occasion that I was there, I
did notice that the swimming pool in the back
yard and a couple large containers, the large
township recycling bin and a couple other tubs
that were full of empty beverage containers with
soda, beer, and wine. There was a lot of that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
And that was any time I was on the property. I
now there were a couple of times I was there, it
was always like that. There was always a very
large collection of empty cans and containers
there.
Q Did you try to assist the owners and
the tenants and giving them some suggestions,
perhaps, in correcting this problem?
A I did. I felt badly that they had
this horrible mess. They, the owners, had the
mess to cleanup; and the tenants that were there,
were having to live in that situation. I was
trying to help do whatever I could, not on an
additional township capacity, but I saw they
needed assistance.
Q Would the amount of capacity going
into that system, whatever it is, certainly have
an impact and on its ability to handle it?
A Well, yeah, it would. If you have
something that is designed to hold 400 gallons or
be able to handle 400 gallons a day and you are
putting 1,000 gallons in a day, it doesn't matter
whether it is septic tank or cesspool, it won't
handle it properly.
Q So if I had 25 or 30 people putting
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stuff into that system, the system might react
quite differently than if I had two or three
people putting stuff into the system?
A I think it would. And that is based
on my own experience with septic tanks and
cesspools; and not from something I was doing for
the Township.
Q So it would be quite possible that
this system could handle the effluent from two or
three people with no problem?
A It is possible. Anything is
possible. I do know that it was my consensus or
my opinion -- and again, it was only based on my
personal experience, not training as an SEO or
anything. But it appeared to me that there was
entirely too much water being put into the
system.
I know the one day that I was there,
after working hours -- I was there in my own
vehicle, and I was at the house with the Hoangs.
And when we walked in, there was water running in
the kitchen sink. No one was there and no one
was doing anything; but the water was running. I
thought that was unusual. I certainly would
never do that. It didn't matter if I was on city
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water or city sewer or well or septic or
whatever. The water was just running in the
sink.
MR. STEWART: No questions.
EXAMINATION BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Mr. Altland, are you certified as a
sewage enforcement officer?
A No.
Q Did you indicate you were there
twice to the property?
A I was on the property at least
twice. The first time while I was looking at the
building at 3507 Simpson Ferry Road, when I had
walked over, the Hoangs wanted me to go over and
look at something. And I was there a couple
times after that, after I was working and after I
left the township building and stopped by on my
own time.
Q I believe during your testimony you
mentioned something about if you put 1,000
gallons of water in a tank that is designed for
400, you might have a problem?
A Yes.
Q Did you give that example?
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A Yes.
Q Do you know how many gallons this
particular cesspool was designed to handle?
A No.
Q And do you have any documentation as
to how much flow was actually put into the
cesspool?
A No, no idea at all. I made the
comment. My observation was seeing it running, a
lot of water, and seeing all the party leftovers,
and the cleanup of a big weekend. That is what I
was basing it on. Anything I said on the amount
of water was based on those observations.
MR. SHATTO: That is all I have.
MR. YOUNG: You were there to
inspect the premise at 3507 for the
restaurant?
MR. ALTLAND: Yes, for the market.
MR. YOUNG: Market, sorry. And you
were asked by Ms. Hoang to come over and
take a look at the property at 3503?
MR. ALTLAND: They asked me if I
could go over and take a look. They had
some plumbing problems over there; and
that is when the Hoke Septic pumping
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
people were there.
MR. YOUNG: Now, at that time, was
there visible evidence in the front yard
along there of overflow conditions, etc.?
Was there anything there that you
could see? Not demeaning you, but would I
have been able to determine that there was
a problem with the sewage?
MR. ALTLAND: None of the times
that I was there was there any indication
on the surface of the ground that there
was a problem.
The times I was there, even out at
the septic tank, there was a cap on a
4-inch pipe. When I pulled that off, I
shined down the flashlight trying to see
what I could determine. And at no time
had there ever been any water on the
surface of the ground out there.
The only time there was every any
water on the surface that you could see
was on the side of the house when the one
drain line from the washer had been
temporarily rerouted to go out on top of
the ground. It was wet one day, one time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
when I was there. But that had been
corrected. And in fact, when I saw that,
I told them that is not the way to handle
it. You have to put that back together.
Later on I know John had given them
a letter, later on instructing that they
had to reconnect it properly.
But that was the only time I ever
saw any moisture on the surface at all. I
think any time there was a problem, a
backup, it was in the basement. It never
got to the surface, other than what was
pumped out.
MR. YOUNG: I recognize the fact you
were not called or on duty at the 3503
premises; but would there have been a
comment back to your work log for the day
to the effect that you might have been
called there and asked to look at a
problem on a semi or quasi official
status?
In other words, you had a daily log
where you kept your reports?
MR. ALTLAND: Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Was there any notation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
when you made the inspection for 3507 that
you were called to the 3503 premise?
MR. ALTLAND: I very possibly might
have. I do know that I did I talk to John
Eby about what I observed there after I
had been there.
It is very possible I did enter a
log. I donut know. That was nine months
ago, or something like that. I donut
recall exactly what I may have entered;
but it would make sense and be reasonable
that I would have made some entry on my
notes for the day.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
MR. STEWART: I would like to call
Nancy Hoang.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
NANCY HOANG, having been duly sworn
by Gwen A. Leary, Notary Public, was examined and
testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. STEWART:
Q You are the manager?
A Yes.
Q Do you feel the system would work
properly with fewer occupants?
A I feel nothing wrong. Everything
very good. Nothing concern me about it.
I make, before you know, I make sure
everything good. Even when I have tenant, they
stay and they make trouble for us. We already
have a business there. But it concern me about I
know what going on. Before everything very good
and nothing wrong.
Second concern is Mr. John Eby treat
me not right. The reason I tell you, in a way if
something wrong, I need for Mr. John Eby call him
and letter for him many time. Call him many
time. I would like his send someone to come to
us, if he don't trust me. And the letter sent
January 1 I said, Well, if I have something
wrong, then I don't want to rent any more. I am
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
concerned. My daughter wouldn't want me and my
husband moving there.
Q You and your husband would like to
move into the property?
A Yes.
Q And you are willing to limit the
occupancy of that property to two people?
A Two people.
Q And you are willing, if you do that,
to let the Township come over at frequent
intervals and inspect the property to make sure
everything is operating properly?
A Yes. I already have many companies
in there. Even today I called to -- T have one
Dillsburg Septic, he come today too to I make
sure everything okay before I go to the hearing
today.
Nothing wrong. Everything good.
And he told me that. I have different companies
come already.
Q You have had a lot of people come
out there; and they found it is operating okay?
A If Township, they want to come and
inspect and do something, that is okay with the
Township.
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STEWART: That's all, Steve.
MR. MINER: Mr. Shatto?
EXAMINATION BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Mrs. Hoang, do you know anything
about cesspools?
A My daughter and my son, we bought
the three homes together. We thinking about a
family with the family together from here.
And very important, we thinking
about that. We work for the government here
today. And we think we like Camp Hill very much.
And I think I stay back here full time. We get
home. We don't know it is a cesspool. We don't
know that.
Q Do~you know the technical things
about how a cesspool works?
A After my daughter-in-law, they have
a job in DC. And people see us get the .power and
take care of everything and manage for them, for
their house and my home together for that.
And we let people rent it. And at
first they were very good. And after a few
.months, they stop paying us for the rent and they
make the trouble, you know. They make trouble.
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They don't want to pay me rent. And I say, I
don't know what is going on. And June a lot of
guests. And I want them moving out, but I cannot
do it. I wrote a letter. I even called then.
My daughter called them, and they don't listen.
Finally they complaint with Mr. John
Eby. And Mr. John Eby -- and I tell him I don't
know what is going on. John Eby told me he can
help me let them out, and I said good.
And I am thinking about Mr. John
Eby, we work together. He help me. But concern
me about it is he don't help me. And he listen
to the tenants and turn back on me.
Q Mrs. Hoang, I am trying to
understand. Do you have any training or
education about how cesspools and septic tanks
work?
A I call from the company product and
Mr. Paul, he is the owner. He told me, Nancy, we
ready. We work for you. We pump for you and we
check for you everything. Nothing we can do.
Cesspool only about two or three people can live
there, and not a whole bunch of people.
Q Am I correct that what you know is
what you have heard from some of the people you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
68
have had out to look at the cesspool to pump it
for you?
A After. Mr. Paul told me that it is
a cesspool. We don't know it is a cesspool.
Even Mr. John Eby, they complain to John Eby; and
he don't know too. He don't know it's a cesspool
too. And I asked for Mr. Davis. He come to
investigate. And I asked Mr. Davis find out
cesspool and talk together. Can you speak
English together and make sure everything okay
and make sure I understand.
Q Mrs. Hoang, do you have any records
of septic people or cesspool people telling you
that there is nothing wrong with the cesspool?
Do you have the records here that
you can show us?
A I have some. I have Associate
Products and Mr. Paul, owner. He come in and
cleanup for me and he pump for me. And he
talking about a cesspool. That is the first
company.
Second thing, we have Hoke. They
thinking about a septic tank and they find on out
cesspool. And Hoke told me, if septic tank,
something wrong with water back up maybe -- and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
he told me maybe pump out. You find out; because
four time they are thinking about septic tank.
But they find out a cesspool and not septic tank.
They told me septic tank, we can change new for
the whole tank. But cesspool only put the stone
together to keep the water out. And I said,
Okay. And they made a mistake. If septic tank,
I can dig that. I can do that; but cesspool, we
cannot do it, not for the cesspool.
No. 3, we have Free Flow; and No. 4,
we have Drain Doctor; and No. 5, Dillsburg
Excavating.
Q Thank you. Nothing else for Mrs.
Hoang.
MR. STEWART: The only thing we
would like to enter into the record is the one
thing you don't have in your file is the
Dillsburg Septic from today.
MR. MINER: That will be Applicant's
Exhibit 1.
(Exhibit Applicant's 1 Dillsburg
Septic receipt, marked for
Identification.)
MR. SHATTO: No objection to that
exhibit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Anyone from the
Board have any questions?
MR. BUCHER: I have two, I think.
John, are all four of those structures in the
area, are they all cesspool?
MR. EBY: Correct. The Goodall Pool
property, and the three properties managed by
David and Nancy Hoang.
MR. BUCHER: And there is no record
of problems with the other three?
MR. EBY: Correct. None that I have
seen, and none that I have been involved with.
MR. BUCHER: I think somewhere in
the testimony we expect a single-family
residential unit to absorb 400 gallons per day?
MR. EBY: The prescription of DEP is
at a minimum design, a three-bedroom home is a
minimum design; and that drain field must be able
to absorb 400 gallons per day.
MR. BUCHER: Is there any way that
we can run a series of tests for three or four
days or a week of inputting the minimum 400
gallons per day and see if it develops a problem?
MR. EBY: You can't do that unless
the tank -- the cesspool would be excavated and
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the liquid capacity determined.
The cesspool would have to be
cleaned out, and then the hydraulic testing could
occur. Again, there is no prescription for a
percolation test for a cesspool. And quite
frankly, the DEP guidance is, if a cesspool
malfunctions, you replace it. You don't fix it.
MR. BUCHER: Is it possible?
MR. EBY: It is possible. You could
possibly do a test.
MR. BUCHER: If we put 400 gallons a
day for a period of time, couldn't you observe
whether there was any backup in the basement or
any water or anything accumulating on the surface
or anything?
MR. EBY:- The correct procedure
would be to excavate an empty cesspool, determine
the liquid capacity, and then probably fill it to
the bottom invert of the pipe leading to the
house; and then do some form of monitoring to see
what flow -- how much water is being absorbed by
the cesspool.
I would be hesitant to put 400
gallons a day down the drain to see if it backs
up; because we don't know what is in the ground.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
72
MR. B.UCHER: So you are saying there
is, there is no known method to measure whether a
cesspool is operating properly?
MR. EBY: Right. Because cesspools
were never allowed as a permitted on-lot disposal
system since 1966, per the Sewage Facilities Act;
so there is no guidance on design criteria or
diagnostic and corrective measures.
MR. BUCHER: So we don't know if the
cesspool at the other three structures are
operating properly or not either?
MR. EBY: Correct. And as I stated
in my testimony, if a cesspool is operating
correctly, that is not a desirable situation
either; because they are so deep compared to a
standard disposal absorption areas for permitted
on-lot disposal systems. They can be at grade or
shallow systems.
And a cesspool, we know it is at
least -- the liquid level begins at least 8 feet
below the yard surface of the home. And we are
in a limestone topography. Therefore, it is not
a good idea to help the cesspool work correctly
sometimes; because then it will be a conduit for
waste water to the ground water.
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PRESIDENT TITZEL: John, knowing
what the conditions were that you found up there,
what is required of the Township by State and
Federal statutes?
MR. EBY: I am not aware of Federal
statutes that are applicable; but you, as the
Board of Commissioners, have an obligation under
the Sewage Facilities Act to make sure that a
potential malfunction does not occur.
And I have an obligation as a Sewage
Enforcement Officer to, independent of your
actions, do whatever I feel is necessary to
observe and correct violations, including a
malfunction.
So that would be contained in both
the Act 537 itself, and in the Title 25 of the PA
code, .which is the DEP Rules and Regulations,
Chapters 71 through 73 pertain to the on-lot
sewage disposal program.
MR. BLACK: So if I understand you
correctly, we have a sewage disposal implement
cesspool which is not recognized by DEP?
MR. EBY: Correct.
MR. BLACK: And if I further
understand you, the correct prescribed method for
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
correcting that is to install a proper sewage
disposal implement; i.e. a septic tank?
MR. EBY: That is partially true. A
septic tank would not do any good, just a septic
tank. You would need a drain field. There would
no point in putting a drain field in because the
front yard would be dug up by PennDOT and so
forth.
MR. BLACK: I understand. So the
soil condition must be appropriate?
MR. EBY: And I also indicated that,
let's say, a septic tank per se used as a holding
tank for a temporary measure is a potential
interim solution; but there are DEP and local
agency requirements to allow a holding tank.
At this point, I don't think we have
any assurance as to when the PennDOT project to
connect these properties will occur.
MR. BLACK: I understand. But a
holding tank is a sealed septic septic tank?
MR. EBY: Correct. Every gallon of
effluent that goes into it, is a gallon you must
pumped out.
MR. BLACK: Do we have a holding
tank ordinance?
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. EBY: We do not; however, the
Department of Environmental Protection will allow
a holding tank as a solution to a malfunction to
an existing residence.
But to meet that requirement, there
has to be assurances that a public sewer
connection is forthcoming.
MR. BLACK: You are advising us that
we have a malfunctioning system now. We have one
of three measures to correct that.
Put in a septic tank, if soil
conditions permit; put in a sealed septic tank
and use it as a holding tank and have a pumping
schedule regularly to get it out of there; or
seek public sewer?
MR. EBY: Correct.
MR. CHRIST: It is your contention
that no further work needs to be done at the
home. That it can operate as it is right now.
Is that accurate?
MS. HOANG: Can you talk louder?
MR. CHRIST: It is your contention
that, at your home at 3507 Simpson Ferry Road, no
further work needs to be done to the cesspool.
That you are proposing just to limit the number
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of occupants at the home?
MS. HOANG: 3507?
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Is it is 3503.
MR. STEWART: That is her position.
MR. CHRIST: Thank you.
MR. YOUNG: You had mentioned in
your testimony that there is no connection
possible with the gravity feed situation as it
stands at the present time; because of the
lowness of the property at 3503 and the fact that
the sewer is up at the Wendy's end?
MR. EBY: That's correct. The
subject properties are down gradient from the
gravity manhole.
MR. YOUNG: I think somewhere in
your testimony you mentioned something about a
grinder pump.
Is this just a device that will take
the effluent and grind it up? I presume so with
the title, and make it accessible -- that be
doesn't alleviate the gravity problem?
MR. EBY: It solves the problem
because you install a watertight tank in the
front yard. And the grinder pump then would, by
low pressure, force the effluent through a small
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
diameter main to the gravity manhole. It is a
commonly used method. In fact, we have a new
subdivision where several homes are using that
approach.
MR. YOUNG: Would this be classified
as a temporary fix?
MR. EBY: No. It would be a
permanent hookup to the Lower Allen Township
authority public sewer, which is obviously the
preferred solution to the problem; because it is
a long-term solution and it abates a nuisance.
MR. BLACK: How does the Camp Hill
Diner get sanitary sewage?
MR. EBY: I don't know. Well, that
is in Hampden Township; but I think it might be
part of Hampden that pumps to Lower Allen. I am
not certain.
MR. BLACK: Is there any possibility
that they can flow over to that system?
A I think they could explore that.
They would have to hire a sanitary engineer to
work with both Hampden and Lower Allen
authorities to figure out if it is possible.
MR. BLACK: That is another option.
It could be. And we would have to make an
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agreement with Hampden Township?
MR. EBY: There would have to be an
amendment to the intergovernmental agreement
between or among Lower Allen Township Authority,
Lower Allen, and Hampden Township.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Thank you for
asking that question. All of those businesses
over there are at a lower grade than the houses I
believe.
MR. EBY: I think so.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: How do they
handle their sewage waste? But you answered the
question.
MR. BUCHER: I can gave a little
insight on that. I don't know want to be held to
complete accuracy; but I think that was
investigated as part of t'he PennDOT thing. And
Hampden did not show any interest in dealing with
that problem.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: In dealing with?
MR. BUCHER: Adding those problems.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: They already
explored that?
MR. BUCHER: I think PennDOT looked
at several options.
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Okay.
MR. BUCHER: I am not saying it is a
done deal, but it has been looked at.
MR. BUCHER: Is there such a thing
as an above ground holding tank?
MR. EBY: Not that I am aware of,
no.
MR. YOUNG: The distance to the
manhole is approximately 400-foot to the east?
MR. EBY: Correct. It depends on
the route you take. And I measured it off the
PennDOT drawings. It is more than 300 feet and
less than 400, but closer to 400.
MR. YOUNG: Where would it be to the
west?
MR. EBY: Not even close. You would
have to go all the way to the border of
Shiremanstown Borough.
MR. YOUNG: Forget it.
MR. BUCHER: One more question. The
581 and 15 project, I realize it has been delayed
because the bids were rejected.
MR. EBY: Bid.
MR. BUCHER: The bid was rejected.
Are the off-site improvements on Simpson Ferry
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Road going to proceed as a separate project?
MR. EBY: It is my understanding
from our most recent staff discussion that the.
Simpson Ferry Road local work is not part of the
local work that will still be done. It was, I
believe, to be funded by the main highway
project.
MR. BLACK: I think we all got
copies of that letter in our packet. I didn't
see that in there.
MR. BUCHER: I am grasping at
straws.
MR. BLACK: I apologize for
continuously putting you on the spot, but I need
your knowledge.
How was PennDOT going to solve the
problem? Were they going to do a low pressure
sewer with grinder pump?
MR. EBY: Yes. That is what they
had reviewed with Lower Allen Township Authority;
that each of the four properties we talked about
would have their cesspool decommissioned and, at
PennDOT's expense, there would be a connection to
the Lower Allen sewer via grinder pumps and low
pressure forced mains.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Let me grasp at
straws too. What is the possibility of State
aid, a grant to assist the homeowners to
accomplish that?
MR. EBY: Pennvest has a program. I
don't know the qualifications; but certainly
going to the DEP website and under the waste
water and on-lot sewage disposal information is
guidance on Pennvest loans and grants.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: That is something
I would pursue; because I think I was at a
meeting one time where DEP or someone made a
statement that they have funds available to
assist homeowners in fixing their houses up that
are dilapidated. And certainly this would fall
into that the category of deserving their
attention for grant money.
MR. SHATTO: When the Board is
finished questioning, I so have just a very of
brief rebuttal from Mr. Eby. I probably should
have mentioned it before the questioning; but I
don't think would it have answered those anyway.
MR. BLACK: Steve, what do you think
our potential liability is if we allow people to
go back in the house the way it is without
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
82
solving the problem as prescribed by DEP and it
happens again?
MR. MINER: We still would have our
enforcement remedies and criminal sanctions if
there are continued violations.
But I think at this point our
instructions from the DEP are to solve the
problem. They don't tolerate malfunction. And I
don't know that we have enough information to say
we can solve it without tying it to public sewer.
MR. BLACK: We have other options.
They can explore those.
MR. MINER: But your question is
about liability. I don't know what the DEP
expects of the Township. And you have all of the
other potential things with property owners.
But I don't know where you are
headed with your question.
MR. BLACK: Well, I think John has a
responsibility to others than us. He has a
responsibility to his certification as an Sewage
Enforcement Officer, and as an officer of the
DEP?
MR. EBY: That's correct.
MR. BLACK: So we can vote however
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
we want. And if he doesn't agree with that, he
overrides us. Is that true?
MR. MINER: I don't think that is
the function of tonight. We have an appeal and
you are reviewing John's decision as a board.
I think you can rule either with the
applicant or the Sewage Enforcement Officer; but
that doesn't end Mr. Eby's inquiry.
If he finds a malfunction in the
future, he can continue with a new violation
through this format with those violations or
criminal action under the Sewage Facilities Act.
He prosecuted other things before
the district justice. He would have that
ability, if we find the current system is
functioning properly.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Any other
questions?
MR. BUCHER: I am not sure if I
understood that explanation. If we rule against
the Sewage Enforcement Officer, he does not -- he
is not at risk of sanctions from DEP because of
the fact we overruled him, or does he still have
to file a Complaint with the District Justice if
we rule in the favor?
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MINER: I am trying to stay
clear of this liability issue. I don't know what
DEP is going to do. And I have not researched
the issue about Mr. Eby has separate
responsibilities to the department from this
board. This board is hearing Mr. Eby's
determination. You can agree or disagreement.
All I am saying is if Mr. Eby still
feels there is a violation, he can bring a new
violation either in this form or before a
district justice. But I think to do that, he
better find that there are some facts on the
ground that support what he is doing. And that
may occur or not occur.
The system may work fine for 40 more
years or you may have a malfunction as soon as
people move back in.
MR. BUCHER: One more question for
John.
Can PennDOT's solution for the
replacement of the cesspools, have they
determined a route for the low pressure lines;
and are the rights-of-way available for the
applicant if they wanted to use them?
A I know the design .has been explored
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2'0
21
22
23
24
25
with Lower Allen Township Authority. I do not
know that it has been finalized in terms of
routes.
I would suspect they would put it in
the PennDOT right-of-way as opposed to trying to
negotiate separate easements with property
owners.
MR. BUCHER: So it is a possible
solution if we wanted to install their own low
pressure line, that they could use the PennDOT
plan; and if PennDOT ha to change them at a
future time, it would be PennDOT's problem?
MR. EBY: Correct. Although PennDOT
would have to issue a Highway Occupancy Permit to
locate and I think they would coordinate future
right-of-way with the current proposal.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Any other
comments?
MR. YOUNG: Is the property at the
present time vacant? And how long has it been,
if it is .
MR. EBY: I don't know.
MR. STEWART: It is vacant since
January.
MR. YOUNG: Thank you.
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BUCHER: One more stupid
comment. Since 3503 and 3507 are under the same
ownership, is it conceivable we can use one
cesspool for two properties?
MR. EBY: No.
MR. BUCHER: Just searching.
MR. SHATTO: Just very brief.
MR. MINER: Mr. Shatto has a brief
rebuttal.
EXAMINATION BY MR. SHATTO:
Q Mr. Eby, you recall during Mrs.
Hoang's cross-examination she brought over to the
table a number of documents and receipts?
A Yes.
Q Did you look at those with me?
A Yes.
Q Was there anything in that packet,
other than the documents of inspections and
pumping receipts that had you already placed in
your record?
A Only the one exhibit they entered
was the only thing I didn~t previously introduce.
Q Was that another pumping receipt?
A I think it was another drain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
cleaning expert.
Q Was there anything in any of those
documents that you reviewed with me that
indicated that the cesspool is not
malfunctioning?
A No.
Q Does anything in those documents
change your position?
A No.
Q I just want to clarify, if the
holding tank would be a possible solution to this
until the PennDOT project, would that have to be
approved by the Department of Environmental
Protection?
A Yes, and the local agency.
Q Even though you don't have any
standards or --
A There are standards for holding
tanks.
Q I'm sorry, I misunderstood your
previous testimony. So the Township does
regulate holding tanks?
A Correct. We simply don't have a
local ordinance regarding holding tanks;
therefore, to correct a malfunction, the
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
department will allow that option to be used.
But part of the procedure is to have
a public hearing and to demonstrate that there is
in the foreseeable future a guarantee that the
public sewer connection will occur.
MR. SHATTO: That's all I have.
EXAMINATION BY MR. STEWART:
Q You visited this properties just one
time?
A Yes.
Q And spent maybe about a half hour
out there?
A Probably an hour.
Q That's all of the questions I have.
MR. YOUNG: You mentioned for the
holding tank, a public hearing must be
held. Is that another public hearing or
would the this evening's public hearing
suffice for that?
MR. EBY: Not the subject matter of
tonight's public hearing. Another hearing
would be required.
MR. YOUNG: With regard to the
installation of the holding tank, another
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public hearing would be held; and the
subject matter would be the installation
of a holding tank?
MR. EBY: Correct.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Any comments from
the public?
MR. ALTLAND: I would like to add
one thing as something to think about.
You have four places there with
cesspools. If one is malfunctioning,
there is a really good chance that all
four are malfunctioning. And it is not
going to come to the surface. You are not
going to find it on the surface.
That is so deep. I think the top
of that tank at 3503 is roughly 6 feet
deep, and then the tank might be another
20 feet deep. It is very deep.
Like John said, it is going down to
the ground. It is not going to come to
the surface. There is a good chance all
these are malfunctioning. And this one
just got way too much water, and that is
why it was coming back into the basement.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Any other
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments?
(No response.)
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Hearing no other
public comments --
MR. BUCHER: How long do we have to
make the decision?
MR. MINER: They want to make a
closing and the written decision is in
seven days.
So unless the applicant would agree
to an extension of time, we have to have
something back to them next Monday.
MR. STEWART: If you need additional
time, we will extend the time.
MR, MINER: I propose that we would
at least put the decision off to the next
public meeting, which is the 29th.
MR. MINER: Take a motion to close
the record.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Do I hear a
motion to close the record?
MR. B.UCHER: I make that motion.
MR. CHRIST: Second.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Motion on the
floor and second on the motion. Any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
questions? Hearing none, all in favor say
aye.
(All say aye.)
MR. STEWART: I want to thank the
board for their attention tonight. I
think the Hoangs have done everything they
can with regard to this property; but I
think it is very important, and what Mr.
Eby said, there is no book on cesspool.
He doesn~t know what the cause of
the malfunction was. The malfunction was
really a symptom.
I think we have had the testimony in
the record here tonight very likely what
that cause is. And that is that there was
too much effluent being but into that
system. And it certainly could have been
a capacity problem.
I think Mr. Eby testified to that
and Mr. Altland testified to that. We
have testimony on a regular basis that
there were 35 people out on that property
partying with the swimming pool or
whatever.
The house was build in 1940 and
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
never at any time did you ever have any
complaints about this property until this
tenant and his 35 friends and family
members moved in.
I think the book of common sense
tells you that is the cause of the
problem. Which is why we have indicated
that we don't think there is a problem.
We don't think you will have a malfunction
if you only have two people living in
there.
And furthermore, the Township can
come out and inspect at regular intervals
to see if, indeed, there is a problem and
a continuing malfunction.
That takes more than one, one-half
hour vist or an hour visit out~to the
property.
I would certainly recommend that you
make that finding. That would protect the
Township. I think would it protect Mr.
Eby. And then go out and verify that
there is no continuing malfunction.
Certainly if there is, if you have
two people in there and it is backing up,
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then you have a bigger problem and
something has to be done.
Then I think in the interim, perhaps
what we can do since PennDOT is going to
put a sewer system in there anyway, is
to work with our legislative delegation to
see if we can get PennDOT to go in their
and at least make the improvements and
hook all those properties up to sewer, as
they are going to do any way. So we will
avoid any question of the problem.
And that is what I would
respectfully ask for your consideration.
MR. SHATTO: Thank you. I am sorry
it has taken as long as it has; but it is
an important matter for consideration by
the Board.
With respect to this system, the
cesspool being over taxed, admittedly
there is some evidence here that there was
a lot of use by a tenant over a relatively
short period of time.
But really, there is nothing of
record with respect to the size of the ~
cesspool, the condition of any cesspool,
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the condition of anything inside or the
history about it.
So to say that this has been
over taxed by use through the tenants
really has not been established by
anything other than really just
speculation. There is no expert that has
said that. We just had some anecdotal
information that perhaps would support
that as a possible notion.
But more important than that, it
really isn~t a finger-pointing exercise
here. It may be unfortunate for the
Hoangs if, in fact, overuse by a tenant
made this manifest itself as a problem.
But nobody is blaming the Hoangs.
And it really doesn~t solve it to
determine what the cause of the problem is
or who is at fault for it. That doesn~t
help anything. That is not really what
the exercise is about.
The fact is, there is a demonstrated
malfunction. That malfunction exists, and
there is really no book on how to deal
with a remedy for a malfunctioning
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cesspool; because cesspools have never
been a permitted form of sewage treatment
and disposal in the Commonwealth.
The urge the Board not to get hung
up on the issue of it wasn't their fault
because the tenants did it. I don't
really think it has anything to do with
it.
The only thing that is important is
we have a malfunctioning system. John
has diagnosed that and has given testimony
about it, and it needs to be fixed.
And therein lies the problem. We
have some issues about the timing of
PennDOT and perhaps other possible
solutions, but it needs to be fixed. It
is not a solution to allow occupancy, at
least in my judgment, without remediation
of the problem in some fashion.
The notion of just limiting the
occupancy and use to two people,
truthfully just isn't a logical thing to
do. I think John has given you one
analogy to the deck, the deck in
disrepair.
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And probably a better explanation
through his testimony on direct
examination that if this were a brand new
system, approved permitted sand mound,
regular septic, whatever it is, and he
found a malfunction, it is not a solution
to limit the use or occupancy or how much
liquid is put in. He has told you that.
That is not a solution. It doesn't fix
the problem. It is simply a symptom of
the problem.
So if it would not be an approved
solution for an SEO to deal with a
permitted, approved, properly constructed
septic system today, it certainly makes no
sense for that type of reasoning to apply
to a cesspool that is not approved in all
events.
I think what we have is really just
a -- it is an unfortunate situation. And
what makes it more unfortunate is the
timing of this road project that may offer
a solution that would not cost the Hoangs
as much, or perhaps any money.
But I would urge the Board that
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
allowing a limited occupancy is just
something that would not really elevate
the problem. It doesn't solve the
problem. It creates a nightmare in terms
of trying to monitor the issue.
Public sewer is really the solution.
Maybe a holding tank is a possible interim
solution, a regular holding tank approved
by DEP, until such time as public sewer or
this project goes through and the
connection can be made, perhaps without
cost to the Hoangs.
If that can't happen or if it is too
long a wait or the Department of
Environmental Protection would not approve
a holding tank, then public sewer is the
solution now.
Grinder pumps are in Commonwealth
throughout the Commonwealth. There is
nothing wrong with them. It is a low
pressure system that gets the sewage to
public treatment. I think most of us
would agree public sewer improvements to a
property is a good thing.
Public sewer availability, public
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
98
sewer connection is good. That is for the
betterment of community and it's for the
betterment of the property owner. I think
it is fairly well established that it
increases the property value. So you get
a bang for your buck when you pay to get
connected with public sewer. It is good
for all considered.
I think really, as we see it, there
is a malfunction that needs a proper
solution now. And that is what we would
ask the Board to do, uphold Mr. Eby's
determination. Thank you.
MR. MINER: You have an extension of
time.
MR. BUCHER: Is it a benefit to wait
for the transcript or does this become an
agenda item for our next meeting?
MR. MINER: We have an extension
from the applicant; but if we are looking
at the transcript then we need more time
than that.
MR. YOUNG: I was thinking when we
tossed out the date, that was a relatively
short time. I know what the statute is,
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I thank you for your agreement to
extend.
But I don't know if that gives us,
this Board, sufficient time to review and
make a qualified decision upon receipt of
the transcription.
I would like to see if we can
possibly push this -- I hate to do it or
say it, but at least a month away. Our
next meeting is May 29. And the meeting
after-that is the second week in June, or
even going back to the last week in June
to give proper time.
I don't know what the transcription
requirements are, and we certainly need to
have to be able to --
MR. STEWART: If you need additional
time to make a reasoned decision, we don't
have any objection to that.
MR. YOUNG: Revisit the issue.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: June 11 we have a
meeting. June 25 we have a meeting
scheduled, but I am almost certain it is
going to be postponed or delayed.
MR. YOUNG: Why?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
100
PRESIDENT TITZEL: We have the
state association.
MR. YOUNG: The last day of the
convention is the 24th of June.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: I have the 25th
marked down.
MR. YOUNG: It runs from Thursday
through Sunday.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: I don't know.
I stand corrected.
PRESTDENT TITZEL: Could we have it
until June 25 to render a decision?
MR. STEWART: If you need that time,
I think we can accommodate you.
How long will the transcription
take?
COURT REPORTER: I should have it in
two to three weeks.
MR. STEWART: The 25th would be
acceptable.
MR. MINER: Tf we can have the
transcript circulated and have preliminary
discussion so we can get the determination
to the applicant by the 25th; or if we can
make an agenda item or give guidance on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
the 11th.
PRESIDENT TITZEL: Okay. Thank you.
We will adjourn the hearing.
(Hearing adjourned ten o'clock.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Gwen A. Leary, the officer before whom
the within hearing was taken, do hereby certify
that the witnesses that appears in the foregoing
hearing, were duly sworn by me on said date and
that the transcribed testimony of said witnesses
is a true record of the testimony given by said
witnesses;
That the proceeding is herein recorded
fully and accurately;
That I am neither attorney nor counsel
for, nor related to any of the parties to the
action in which these depositions were taken, and
further that I am not a relative of any attorney
or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or
financially interested in this action.
_.~
Gwen A. Le Rep r r
Notary Public in and
for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania
My commission expires
September 1 201 0
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP ,
SEWERAGE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Applicant: Name
Home
Phone
2.
address ~ ~~
number -
Property Owner (if different from Applicant):
Name
Home
Phone
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
address
t
number --
Address of property under appeal:
Reason for appeal:
Current property use:
Revocation of n-lot sewage permit
Denial of on-lot sewage permit , n
Code section number under appeal:,` ~L~ ~ ~ ~ 7
9. I agree that the hearing may be held outside of the 15-day period period prescribed in
Section 175-19 of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen Township Yes
No
~ ~ ~~ 11~
" f ~
I request an in-person hearing before the Board of Commissioners Yes
No
My/our signatures below certify ~
other documents or information s
are true and correct~to the bes of
Applicant(s):
Applicant(s):
Signature
Property Owner(s) (if different from Applicant(s)):
Signature
all of the above information and statements, as well as any
utted with an ade a part of this Application for Review,
' o on, ledge and belief.
N~
v Date: "(
Date:
Date:
Date:
Signature
z
~ ~~
~ .c w
'«' ~.y '«
k
~~
~~
~~
~-~~
e~ ~
t~' ~
~~
F~
~ ~
~t ~ ~ ~
~~
~~
~~ ~
T ~ ~
~~c~e ~ ~~
~' Ci1 ~ ~' ~ ~~"pF
P
~'~~'
~~
~ -~
~ ~ ~
~~~~
~~
I ~ ~? -~
I~°~~:.~
~ '~ ~ ~
`~ ~ ,~
~ ~ ~ ~~-`
~ '~ ~
I ~ ^
.~,- ~ ~
~iz~~ ~~
~ • ~~,
R ~ ~ ~~. ~~ 1,~
r
'~ . l ~ ~ e
~°
I ~~~
~~
~~ ~ , ~ ~ `~
. ~ ~ ~°
~ ~ ~
.~ ~° ~
~~~~
i1L~
~~
~ w
~~ ~
~ : ~
~~
~'l9 • ~.
.~~~6
•~
~I ~-
Fro ~` ~
~~
~~
~.
rJ~~
•~
~ ~~ ~
~'
';~ ~ `dam ~
~' ~ 1
~ .~
~~~ ~
~ NI ~
°~
~°
~~
~ ~J
~.
cR- ,,,,~ ~=+
~ ~ ~~
t•~- ~ t•~-~.,
w
~ a
N
A
u
~,
STATE BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF
SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Certificate Flo. 01820 Valid Until 6130/200$
JOHN M EBY
1993 HUMM?~i . AVE
CAMP HIi.L PA 17011-
is certi[ed as gnaffied to issuc ptrmits for indiyidua] and comrnuniry sewage
systems pnrsuant to 25 Pa Code, Chapters 71 and 73 .
COMMONWEALTH OF PEplNSYLVANIA ~ DEPARTMENT OF ENWtONMENfAL PROTECTION
Heroin, Sonia Souchet
And Elba Burgas
3503 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
August 5, 2006
~. rtan~y
350? Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Re: Sewage Problem in 3503 Simpson Ferry Road
I3eaz Nancy:
I'm writing you this letter because it's very obvious that all of the dozen calls that we ,
have made and the several talks that we have had in this matter is not working because
you still have not resolved our problem.
The problem that we are having with the sewage pipes being clogged is not something
that we have created. ~Ve only moved into this house on April l ~` of this year. The
Septic Tank problem is not something that happens in four (~) months of us living here.
The Septic Tank was foil from before. We told you it had to be emptied. You had
someone empty it and for that we thank you, but the basement when we take showers or
when we flush the toilet everything is still coming up. The poop is still coming up and
the basement stinks. This needs to be taken care of . The same way that when the 1 ~ of
the month you expect to get your rent check we also expect for this sewage problem to be
taken raze of. If you don't know what to do I suggest that you get a professional inhere
that knows what to do and fix it.
You have received this month's rent and the problem is still. here. I will call the bank and
put a hold an the rent check if you don't take care of this mess. Enough is enough. And
if this problem continues then I will take pictures of the mess, I will go to the township
put in a complaint and my last resort will be to go and put in a landlordftenant complaint
with the District Justice.
As a tenant we have kept the house and the grounds cleaned and you stipulated an the
lease agreement. We have kept our end of the agreement. Now I expect yon to keep
your end, This problem is not our responsibility is yours. We have been trying to be
very patient about this but enough is enough.
David & Nancy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-0558
Mr. & Mrs. Herbin and Sonia Souchet
And
Ms. Elba Burgos
3503 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
August 7, 2006
Re: Response to Letter dated August 5, 2006
Dear Mr & Mrs. Souchet and Ms. Burgos:
This letter is in response to your letter dated August 5, 2006. That letter addressed
multiple issues that will be addressed accordingly within this letter.
We want to address to you the fact that you indicated that we are not addressing your
problem at the above residence. Your phone calls and conversations have been properly noted
and addressed. From the initial move-in date of April 1, 2006, the first telephone call placed
regarding any type of problem was on June 16, 20(}6.
First, in response to your June 16, 2006, phone call, we had personally come over to the
premises to check out the scope of the problem and tried to resolve it as soon as you notified us.
After we analyzed the problem and were unable to deal with it ourselves, we called Associated
Products Services, where an appointment was set for the following Monday, June l9, 2006, for
the septic tank to be pumped. As such, the problem according to Associated Products Services
was resolved You did not indicate a further .problem at that.. time; por did the Associated.
Products Services serviceman indicate any other potential problems.
Second, your next phone call was placed on the evening of July 19, 2006. After
receiving your phone call, on July 20, 2006, we attempted to come over and look at the problem.
No one was home to answer the door. Subsequently, we returned again in July 21, 2006. At that
time, again, we came over to try and resolve whatever problem there was. At that time, David,
with Mr. Herbin Souchet present, pumped the pipes and it appeared that there were paper towel
napkins clogging up the pipes and resulting in the backlog. At that time, David indicated to Mr.
Herbin Souchet that there should not be any napkins placed down the toilet or pipes. Toilet
systems and the pipes are not adequately equipped far large paper products other than toilet
paper (i.e. paper towels, tampons, etc.). On July 22, 2006, we called and left a message advising
you that we would have someone stop by to check the tank and pipes. Accordingly, we
contacted our serviceman to come over and double check the tank and pipes, we showed up on
July 24, 2006, and no one was present to let us in. On July 24, 2006, we again contacted
Associated Products Services regarding the tank problem. The serviceman indicated that a tank
should not have to be pumped again so soon, especially since the tank was recently pumped on
June 19, 2006. On July 25, 2006, we placed a courtesy call to make sure that everything was
working properly and to let us know if anything else was wrong. We never heard from you with
respect to ow message.
On July 29, 2006, I ran into Ms. Elba Burgos and inquired as to the tank and pipes and if
everything was in working order. It was not until that time that she indicated that there is still a
slight problem. We were unaware of any current problem and asked why no one returned the
courtesy call if everything was still not working properly. We had discussed with you the
scheduled appointment for August 1, 2006, where you indicated the premises would be
unlocked. Accordingly, on August `l, 2005, that was the first date ow serviceman could make it
over to the premises due to the weekeAd schedule.. When we amved, once again, the doors were
:;. ...
not open. At that time, we called you again. lrmally, T was a'(iie to contaci IV~rs. Sonja 3ouchet
who then left the door open later that day. At that point, the serviceman returned. to the premises
and analyzed the problem. He suggested that certain pipe work be done.
When I received your letter on Saturday, August 5, 2006, I was quite surprised that you
indicated that we are not attempting to resolve the problem. Today; i contacted you to let you
know that the scheduled work was the pipe is tomorrow, August 8, 2006.
Third, this letter also provides notice of a direct concern that we have with the reasonable
use of water and sewer at the above premises on yow behalf. It has come to our attention that
there may be some overuse or external factors affecting the amount of water usage and/or sewer
usage from our previous conversations (i.e. third garty extensive use of bathroom facilities on a
daily basis and paper towels in the pipes and drains). From our records, the residential dwelling
at 3503 has appeared to have had the septic tank emptied on June 16, 2006. You recently
indicated that the septic tank needs to be emptied again ah~eady. This concerns us because the
time frame between the septic tanks needing to be emptied is very minimal and not in the normal
range. As such, this is a courtesy notice to remind you to try be conscientious and maintain
reasonable use of water and sewage facilities to ensure that this cost does not get passed on to
you in the future as the tenant for unreasonable use of water and sewage.
_ _ Thank you for yow time and attention to this matter.
Sincer 1 ,
t
_~--- t
David & Nancy Hoang
2
Heroin and Sonia Souchet
Elba Burgos
3 S03 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
August 8, 200b
David and Nancy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hi11, PA 17011
Response to your letter of August 8, 2006.
Dear David and Nancy:
First of all you have been made aware of this problem a week after we moved in by Mr.
Souchet. You came to the house and you put liquid Drano down the drain and it did not
work. After many calls and many attempts then on June 16s' you personally came to the
house after receiving a very upsetting call from Elba. On that day David came over Elba
tried to explain to him that the problem was that the Septic Tank was full and needed to
be emptied. David was very upset and he made referenced that we were putting paper
towels in the toilet and tampons. First of all we are not that stupid to put paper towels
down the pipes and there's only two women living here and they don't use tampons. Elba
doesn't even get a period anymore because she had a hysterectomy.
On June 1 g'~ Ivir. Souche# was here when someone came and emptied the Septic Tank.
The emblem got better for about two weeks. Sonia then called Nancy and Nancy gave
her a number to call the people of the Septic Tank. When Sonia called the number she
spoke to a plumber named Chip. He then told Sonia that they probably just emptied the
Septic Tank and didn't run a line through the sewage pipes and probably that was the
reason why we were still having a problem. He thought that they pipes were clogged
somewhere else. Sonia then called Nancy back and told her what they said. We never
said that the Septic Tank needed to be emptied again. The problem continued so we then
went to Home Depo#, Lowe's and True Value picked up professional strength drain
opener to see if it would help. Nothing worked so we called you again and told you
about the problem.
Every time you come and do something it only helps the problem temporarily this is why
we have asked that you bring a professional to take a look at the problem. Our basement
stinks and the smell is going upstairs. What I'm telling you is that this is not acceptable.
i have taken pictures of the mess in the basement. I have also taken pictures of the work
that you have done in this basement and will take them to the township so they can check
if it meets the township codes.
You make mention in this letter that we aze wasting water and that we are causing this
problem.. In other works we will have to stop taking showers, stop flushing the toilets
and not do laundry. These are everyday things that everyone does in their homes. I'm
sure you do all of these things in your home without any problems then why is it that we
have Lo be limiting ourselves from doing these things. We should not be having these
problems. Something has to be done and it has to be done now. I guarantee you that the
water that we consume or waste like you Say should be of no concern to you because we
pay the water bill and the bills are up to date.
The problem here is that you don't seem to understand that these are not acceptable living
conditions especially since we pay you rent. I'm sure that if you were having the
problems that we are experiencing here you would also complain about it. I'm sorry if
you think that we are complaining too much but this is not a way to live. We take pride
in having the home clean inside and out. When we have company come and visit we
make sure that they also help us keep the grounds and the home clean.
We have explained that Heroin and the boys are home in the mornings while Sonia and
Elba are at work, Sonia comes from Harrisburg at 2:00 p.m. every day to pick up Heroin
and the boys. Sonia takes Heroin to work and the boys go with her to her joh so after
2:00 p.m, nobody is home. So that if you need to get in the house you need to call Heroin
while he's here and he will make sure that the basement door is open. I do not know
why this is causing such a problem. We have jobs that we have a responsibility to. As a
Landlord you have to give us plenty of notice if you need to get in the home and you can
do this by calling the home in the morning while Heroin is here.
I also thank you in advance for taking care of this matter.
Sincerely,
Elba Burgos
David & Nancy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-OSS8
Mr. & Mrs. Herbin and Sonia Souchet
And
Ms. Elba Burgos
3503 Simpson Perry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
_ August 14, 2006
Re: 3503 Simpson Ferry Road Residence and Use of Water
Dear Mr & Mrs. 5ouchet and Ms. Bwgos:
In response to the previous issues at the above residence, we contacted multiple drainage
companies and the Township regarding issues with the septic system. We also contacted the
previous owners of the above residence who indicated that they have never had a problem with
the drainage at the property. In addition, they indicated that the cess pool should only be
pumped every 6 months.
' However, to be mare thorough, we hired drainage companies to work on the premises.
On Thursday, August 10, 2005, Chuck from Free Flow worked on the drainage issues. A second
company, Hoke Septic Service, was also hired to help resolve the issues. It should be noted that
the cost for these companies was not insignificant. In addition, on Friday August 11, 2006, Mr.
David Altland of Lower Township came and inspected the premises to determine the source of
any problems. Mr. Altland prescribed the use of Super Power 7 (Global Car SP7) and had given
special detailed instructions to you for its use to help fix the problem.
Furthermore, Mr. Altiand disclosed to us that the source of the problem lies within the
fact that the residences at 3503, 3505, and 3507 are not linked to the township system currently
_..:. _._ :, and;_>do not::have septic. tanks; the..prs~perties are .currently using .cess: pools. Because they have.
cess pools, the cess pools can be filled easily by any outside source of water usage along with
regular household water usage.
As our August 7, 2006, letter indicated that we ask you. to use reasonable amounts of
water at the property, in addition, in light of the recent township advisements, we are advising
you that the swimming pool used at your premises is a major contributing source of the problem.
As such, this notice, as advised by the township inspector, indicated that 3503, 3505, and 3507
should not use a swimming pool on the premises until a later date that the cess pools have been
changed over to the township sewage system. This notice was also given in person to your
neighbors at 3505 with the above information.
We will notify you as soon as the cess pools situation has changed. However, if you
continue to use the swimming pool, we will not be paying the additional expenses for the cess
pool to be pumped every month. This cost will be your responsibility as we have placed you on
notice what the problem is with the cess pool due to extra water drainage from the swimming
pool.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Thank you for your time
and attention to this matter.
r Sincerely, ~;
t~. ,r.'~t, t,.' t ~ ~ °~~
David & Nancy Hoang _ .....:.._..~.--.%
woRrcaurHOR¢anoN " ~~:~,;
1 herby authotize;yqu:to per7Qrin'ihe above deagtbed.services and i agree.to pay the amounts indicated to tfie. .
ri~,t: 1. nerr#by. aer~ry thi~t ~. >~ duly.authorized~to order arld apprbire 1Me wodc requested. .. , ; .
tsw~
DATECdMIPl.ETED WOfi1CORDEREEiBY PICKUPORDERE~$Y '~
. ^ Noonehane
Slpt~ure Il~egr~ga~owiedpql~eorYmmpb9mdYieeboredaabedlNOrk .
~~ ~ep~i+c ~erv~c~
~haricas E. Moke, Sr. (Owner)
~4p Sg~aw tialoe- Roeci
Harrist~urg, PA 17112
717-699-5794 or 800 TS4-8604
www.hokeseptic.com
-Hoang, Nancy
3543 Simpson Ferry Road
;Catrrp Hill; f'~ 1 ~~fl11
~i'~VC~ICt':
anrf its ~p
8/90!2406 14853
sc~s~~ss .
Hoang, Nancy
3x03 Simpson Ferry Road
1~amp HiN, f'~4 17fl11
..,. ,.. _. Yews .
couNT~c , .
rwe>~cto _ . ..
~~,;
Du$ on recd Cumberand 975-0558
ACCOUNT DESCRIP'TIt~N AMf~tlWT'
11 i?fl Septic Tank-pumped 'i 75.E
L ~~`~"
~
~
f ~!.~Gc
ZJ ~- c,
Z~an~~ou!
A finance dtsrpe of 1s76 per month wiN be b 6daoces aver 3o aGtyyc whfcb is an annwU
parcentape rate of lax. Af! re~Gumed Niacks suD~t to a al-s-pe of ~G0 and may also be
"~~~ .. ~''
~~
~~
serbJecl tv other panaltles or tees as pmrklad ay law. V
~t
To pery 6Y treaf# card Ft~ inform ~[ow, ~acl~ at dotted !!ne aaed ~ni bo~em ~or~ou m Hobe Septic Servu:e
~~~ ~~I
r~ `~ ~~ . ~~° ~' ~~ 1149-g9~
r Daa Meyer
486 Lewist-erry Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Drain Cleaaiag Spedalisis West: T74.45'11-East: 232-7290
Explorer 1B No. ~-1217f7rt : _ _ _ Carlfsle: 245-9879
Mileage ~ ~ ^ . ~ ~ I+1ka: 717-7747861
on w~.. _. .TxMa w r1
. _ ~r
.~~ _
PHONE /
LENGTH OF LEAF ir~N~ I~I'AN{ETER BLOCKAGE
LINE CLEANED _.~;,` '` AREA
CAUSE OF ROOTS. SLUDGE GREASE POSS. DIP RAGS ~~R'
BLOCKAGE
M.S. H.S. K.S. B.T. B.S. L.D. L.T. 'I:A. U.R. F.D. D,g, OTHER:
BLADES CLEANOUT MACHINE S.J. S.
USED LOCATION MR PP GPP PB
UNCONDITIONAL CONDITIONAL
.......MONTHS GUARANTEE ...... MONTHS GUARANTEE
COMMENTS ~~„ _ ~~' ,~ 1 `~ ~ n,,,~„ ~f~
$25 (urge on All Returned Checks
TIME - AM
IN ~ TIME ^AM ~ t
~. •i ~ SERVICE
MAN
CS~jpMER E ' -~-'""' ~ PRICE ~~
PAYMENT
FOR PROPER CREDIT PLEASE WRITE INVOICE NUMBER ON CHECK
_l
. ~~~~
,.. ~~
_~_
~ ~~
Oi
m ~ t~ ~ OI C ~? e O t r
Y
N ~ 4
t0 d r
^
/~.' {~
C 1
= C
~l ~ O ' ~ W n-i ~
'
O
t T
t
~ W
QL ~ S O
/ ~
d
O
[~
t t0
~
H
W
~ x y ..OC
ttatii y
V m
¢ ; ` i 6 VJ J
~ ~ A W g W 1 ~ F ~ r^ i N ~ ~
t
N O Q -
y
~ r'
~ O ~~,. Q
W
7
Ol
t fig } O
~ O
- ~
LL W D
^
ca ro h vc ~ tai e.a a~ i ~° Y +
' s ~ ~
n ' ~-
= ~` O
ac N -'.. fO70
"x ~ !C
X t 1'
i °
~'; x O
t"'
Y ~ VWi W ~
6
°
v - Of
o
om
m
t.e
t ~ t
v e
"
O 7
a ~ o o t
'
~
~
aKC i-
i ~ g ¢~ g
~ v ~:... :
:.: H- i2 22j~
k O t
i S F W
ttF
tD N
O ~
~
7!'C ~
i {¢y1
~ 4 Y Y OC
W W G 1O~
.
1y
Q t /-
t V x N7
C ;~ ~ OC V ~
H N =
t N
T '
h
q ~'
et
W tt M1
m a' LrJ
[rI
C17 ~
~
-
H
~
C ti n O O iED ,. O ~~ I ~ . W
'~ ~ ~
1 ~ .1+ ~ Y7 .::p -.'~ A Y
Vf z '~~' o - i ; . w ~ Q
V °c ~ Ftn ~
.. M hY.1 ~ ~ t I /~
~' V
' YI W H C V m
~ D .
'
. ~:::.. 11W..~ W W 'd N
~. ~'Z'...~N fJq ~ 01
~i M >~ i~
1 M .. ~-:.- ..
. JQ J
Q
F
l ...
W
..
= ..
6
H ~ m
f~ i
i .~.. `
R?`.
' .. y
/~~ wpm .~ .,~
.:
:. J
~ ~
} a ~ O:_ p
C .~...Y. ~L
~
~
Gi ' a
~i,,11,,
O Q
4~ J J X J ti
6 0 ~ OC
- W /
7 ,
O 1ff"'~~- .-
Q. 3' ~ 0/
RJ '- 1
1 . Ie
f
Q li ~S Y M u
.
~
C O
~~[}
. t7 O ...
~ O O Z +~
y 119 O Q
' Ri
N 1-
O K ~
Q C ¢
m ti ~
- X ;
I
J ''
a
Vl W
y ~.,._~ ~f9
C.'
O Q V 1- CC
W OC M m
IA Y7-. S
W N
N O
aC 1-- O
W . -.
,.:... K i~
K ' i
i Q.
~
~ ~
' ~
W C. O 6 Z
a !
J t
/)
~
~-
HN
X ~
i 1
+
i=~it {~1~
~ W. F.~
W
~{yV~ 6 O
~ `4~K~+I 6.1 Y'1
~ ~ 4 .. ~ 1 N .. .w
VJ ,:.i0
N i > N.. .. LL . ~
...t.
G~
x
w
# ;:~~
r
i h
S
1w-
p..
07 F ED 1[Y
Ql [I'f m IL7
~: ll"1
Cf
~ w
OC
O
N ~ 4
N N q
N !
N
~ N
iO. W
/i~1 0
y 0
N O 1 M W ~
~ O N
O i M ~+ w
.~
~J~
i~ii It"s
N ~ w~.1
Iii. W
~Y X~ M1
-1 P
'J ; O
1 +~ t~H
T.
~ w t
H 6 d 6 OOIi
Of J .. ¢ l+'a N 1 N l
,
V =
VJ N W {17
J~ ~,. t!9 1- D H
~ 1 O
1
~
W M+ H O
~ m
~
O O O µ7 O
0
~
~ K W
V
~
~j ~ ~ D
h O ~ 9
Oi P
0 _ K ~ ~ ' I
y
S
IMP m
6- V H ^
S'
<n
N 1"
'~
X
i .1 ..AA ~p~
li W
V
VV p~ Q N Q 6w.1 ~ ~ ~ K~ 1 ~ !
i h
~ O
s N K _
I Z W
J yA
E
t
W
rn C W
v t O
!
K~
1~ W
~-- W
.e .p T ~ , ~ F't
~
w ¢
h
w ~ ~
N w
W
J
t0 ~ 1 N ~+
~ X
~ W
O
W
W
W N QC V ~
v H g W
~ o
~
M"
Z
G y
W~
W OC Q G
W W CC
y=„ _ = Q 0.LL1
v! ¢ ~ •_
R~
L
LL i
~ o.
W
ywj ~ D H
c ~ h
~,~,-
;~„
r. J"~G'~fR~ .' .,
N~ ~,
~ r f
,{W k ~ J l
,rr ?' ~.t.F.Ar 4
~i .. J. .
lr
•j~ ~ ~ - 7 1'~,
~`.; A +'~ +~. ~i .,~
~ ~,' r~`` ~ .5.
~Y ''ti
i ~.
.e9~r~ i
s
yy:.
A
`',sue' 1
-~ ' j
/~
..:.t~ J
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIl'
1993 H1JIvIlViEL AVENUE
CAMP HII,L, PA. 17011-5938
(717) 975-7575 FAX (717) 737-4182
T;~OTICE OF VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
CHAPTER 162 KNOWN AS "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE"
AND CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
N0.2006- 24
_ ~ Davfd ~& Nancy Hoang
(Name of Recor er) (Name o Occupant or other Person
Against whom action may betaken)
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp ]E;itl, PA 17011
(Address of Record Owner}
Re; 3503 Getctysbarg Road
(Location oaf Property upon which violation exists.
(Address of occupant or other Person
Against whom action may be taken}
13-23-0553-015
`y`ou are hereby notified that you are violating the Lower Allen Township Code of Ordinances, known as the "Code",
chapter No. 162 , as amended. The Section or Sections of the Ordinance which you have violated and an explanation
of the violations are listed on the second page of this Notice. You must comply with this Notice of Violation promptly
and must commen~~e action to correct the following listed violations no later than Sept, 1, 2006 . In no case shall you
abandon the premises in such condition as to create a hazard or menace to the public safety, health, morals or welfare.
i'ailure to correct chr remove the violation by the time specified above constitutes a violation of the "Code" of Lower
Allen Township Chapter No. 162. Violation of Chapter No. lj2_ may result in the institution of criminal enforcement
proceedings before a District Justice where the District Justice may impose a fine of not more than One ($1000.00)
Thousand Dollars, plus all costs of prosecution, including the Townships' attorney's fees, incurred as a result of such
action, and in lieu thereof, to undergo imprisonment of not more than 30 da s for each violation. Each day that a violation
continues shall constitute a separate offense and may subject you to a daily fine. The Township may also institute other
appropriate action at law or in equity which may be necessary to enforce the provisions of Chapter No. 162.
Late: August 23, 2006
Bui] ' g & Zoning Coo for
2
Section 162- & PM302.1 (P)506.1, 506.2 -Description of violation and requirements which have not been met:
Alteration to plumbing system violates IRC Plumbing provisions. Sewage and grey water not permitted
to be discharged to ground, must go into the cesspool. Sump pit and pump only to be used for
foundation and basement floor drainage NO sewage.
If backflow to cesspool recurs Lower Allen Township Sewage Enforcement Officer must be contacted.
1?r:EPAIR MUST COMPLY WITH IRC CHAPTER 30 SANITARY DRAINAGE.
A PERMIT MU5T BE OBTAINED FROM THE TOWNSHIP.
PERNIIT APPLICATION ATTACHED.
All exterior property and premises shall be maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition. The
occupant shall keep that part of the exterior property which such occupant occupies or controls in a clean
and sanitary condition.
All plumbing fixtures shall be properly connected to either a public sewer system or to an approved
pri`~ate sewage disposal system.
Every plumbing stack, vent, waste and sewer line shall function properly and be kept free from
obstructions, leaks and defects.
In accordance with PA Code Title 25, Chapter 73, Sect. 73.11(c)
Liquid wastes, including kitchen and laundry wastes and water softener backwash, shall be discharged to
a treatment tank. A sewage system may not discharge untreated or partially treated sewage to the
surface of the ground or into the waters of this Commonwealth except as specifically permitted under
sections 202 and 207 of the Clean Streams Law (35 P.S §§ 691.202 and 691.207) and individual residential
spray irrigation systems permitted by local agencies under section 7.3 of the act (35 P.S. § 750.7c).
This listing of violations may not represent all violations presently occurring on this property. Other violations
may appear upon application for required permits or upon further investigation, and the Township reserves it's
right to take any and all action authorized to enforce it's "Code" as to all violations.
This list represents only violations of the "Code", Chapter No. 162. Violations of other Sections may have
occurred, and the Township reserves it's rights to enforce these and any other "Code" Sections.
Date: August 25.2006 John Ebv
Building & Zoning Coordinator
Certified Mail Article No.:
ate Mailed by Certified Mail: ~ b ~ a `~ T~ °~ s ~ `"~ ~ u ~ ~ ~'' ~ s~ ~~`~`~
Date(s) Copy Mailed by Regular Mail:
Date hand delivered ~ to
M
~l] ~ ~ ~ ~, s
~ I• i • • ,~ • • • ~
~ -~ s
~
Postage ~ , J
N
O
Oertified Fee r'
~ C1(U
L7
~
~
u em
e eq
~
~ Postrnark
Here
(Er~dor
ae
uMe
d)
R , ~s
~ Restdoted DelNery Fee
~ (Endorselnerrt Required)
fU
Total Poetege & Fees
~ //
Co
S
O t N
~. _~:~:.w..._. R.. .. .?.~. ~ . ..._. _. .~r
Cl[); State, Z(Ft4
A ~7 ~
'U
~.
O
W
OD
j
J
<?
N
P
s
9
N.
"~
Q'
O
tll
U7
0
0
tr
.c
tr
w
m
_ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~
,~, -~ -~
~,
_~
-~~.
~~
,,
~, ~
~~ ~~~
~~~ .~, r r
~, ~~
,{(~/V}^]
VVV / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r-"~''
// 11 ~ ~ _ ~ (~
t,- 'V~, ///" JJJ ~, ~'~ [/ i jam, ~ .
~~~
~ ~ c~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~ Z r ~~~r~~
~~ ~ f ~~
~ h , ~ YY
V ~ f' _ ,,, ~y /~ VVl
~v~ ~ ~ ~
~~-
~=~~~ ~-
~~ ~ -~ ,.~
~~ ; .~ ~
c '
v U~ ~~ - ~,. ~ ~ ~
~.~ ,,,
~ ~ ;~~ ~~~
~~~
-~
~~
October 12, 2006
Mary Huang
1050 N. Taylor Street
#101
Arlington, VA 22201
Re: Sewage disposal problem at 3503 Gettysburg Road
Cumberland County Tax Parcel # 13-23-0553-015
Dear Ms. Huang:
I am writing to recap my observations and conclusions concerning a recurring sewage disposal problem
at your property that is identified above. Your intervention on behalf of your parents, who manage the
property, has been helpful and much appreciated.
The single family dwelling in question utilizes a cesspool to dispose of domestic wastewater. The
home and on-lot sewage disposal system construction predate township permit requirements, so we
have no record of the cesspool installation. The tenants reported several instances where wastewater
backflowed into the basement through the floor drain, and stated that this was a recurring problem.
They also reported that drain pipes in the basement had been altered to direct water from a sink, shower
and clothes washer to a sump pit that discharged to the surface of the ground.
Review of information provided by the tenants, plus my personal observations and reports from other
township staff persons, led me to conclude that the backflow problem is the result of a poorly draining
cesspool. When the level of the wastewater in the cesspool rises to the same elevation as the floor
drain in the basement, additional wastewater being discharged through the building sewer pipe backs
up through the basement floor drain and onto the basement floor. The alterations to the drain and vent
pipes in the basement that diverted wastewater from the cesspool to the sump pit, and subsequently to
the lawn surface were an attempt to mitigate the cesspool problem.
I advised your parents, and subsequently you, that discharging wastewater to the surface of the ground
is a violation of DEP Regulations (PA Code Title 25, Chapter 73, Section 73.11 c. ). A plumber
recently advised us that the improper alterations have been restored to acode-compliant condition, but
he failed to obtain the required permit and inspection. We have been in contact with the plumber to
explain that alterations to a drainage and vent system require a permit, and hope to have this matter
resolved soon.
The repeated backflow of wastewater into the basement via the floor drain indicates that the on-lot
sewage disposal system is malfunctioning. I have explained the property owner's obligation to correct
the malfunction to your parents, and subsequently to you. This situation not only violates PA DEP
regulations concerning on-lot sewage disposal systems, but the inability to prevent sewage backflows
and to maintain a clean and sanitary basement floor surface is a Property Maintenance Code violation
that could result in a determination that the home is unfit for habitation.
I have been advised that the impending taking of additional right-of-way by PENNDOT to widen
Simpson Ferry Road includes an offer to decommission on-lot disposal systems for four properties,
including yours. The cesspools would be replaced by grinder pumps and low-pressure forced mains
that will direct your wastewater to the public sewer system. Because of the uncertain timing of this
project, waiting until a public sewer connection is provided for you is not an acceptable solution to this
problem.
Options to eliminate the sewage disposal problem include:
• Vacating the premises until such time as public sewer service is available, either by your action
and expense, or by waiting until PENNDOT completes its project.
s Having a qualified firm or individual (sanitary engineer, Sewage Enforcement Officer) design a
holding tank system that complies with PA DEP regulations for use until the public sewer is
available, and maintain occupancy of the dwelling. This will require some construction
expense, regulatory approval by the Township and DEP, and frequent and costly tank pumping,
regardless of how successfully the occupants practice water conservation.
~ Having a qualified septic system service company excavate to expose the cesspool for
evaluation. It is possible that debris that is not being removed by ordinary tank pumping of the
wastewater is causing the cesspool to drain poorly. I caution that this option might not result in
an acceptable solution, and could cause further damage to the cesspool.
I recommend that you make the proper consultations and determine a course of action promptly, so we
can avoid enforcement proceedings required by state and local laws to correct sewage disposal
problems.
Sincerely,
John M. Eby
Sewage Enforcement Officer (PA SEO Certificate # 01820)
Mary Thien Hoang
1050 N. Taylor Street #101
Arlington, VA 22201
,.T~a~ ..,.-,~.:~ ~717~ 856-6390 .. _
Mr. & Mrs. Herbin and Sonia Souchet
And
Ms. Elba Burgos
3503 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
November 15, 2006
Re: 3503 Simpson Ferry Road Residence
Dear Mr & Mrs. Souchet and Ms. Burgos:
This letter is to address the issues that we have discussed at our sit-down meeting on
November 4, 2046, specifically to address Lower Allen Township's letter dated October 12,
2006. That day, I explained in detail the situation that has arisen through recent activities by
both parties which have involved Lower Allen Township with respect to the ongoing discussions
regarding the above residence. I indicated to all of you that after speaking to Ms. Linda
Hockenbeny at the Lower Allen Township Office earlier that day, that the township's timeframe
to vacate the premises would be approximately 30 days.
At that time, we expressed to you that we do not want you to move, but in light of the
circumstances, it was beyond our control at this point. At that time, all of you acknowledged the
circumstances and strongly expressed that you do not want to leave since you like the premises.
After a lengthy discussion on both ends, you concluded the meeting with Herbin indicating that
he wanted to speak directly to Mr. John Eby from Lower Allen Township to address all of your
previous concerns with the residence and that you see no present problem at this point since the
cess pool is being pumped regularly and that both parties have come to an understanding on
routine actions with respect to the cess pool, which included Hoke's Septic having on call
services for that premises.
At the end of that meeting, I asked you to contact me after you speak to Mr. Eby to
advise me what Lower Allen Township had communicated to you or your next plan of action
accordingly. I have not heard from you, but Lower Allen Township has been in contact with me.
When I spoke to Ms. Hockenberry, I indicated that I thought that things were complacent since
you spoke to them and that I have not received information to the contrary. However, Ms.
Hockenbeny indicated that the premises will still need to be vacated. After receiving that
information, I informed Ms. Hockenberry that your family indicated that you would need some
time to start looking for a new residence and would request to wait until after the holidays as per
your indication in our sit-down discussion if that was the case. With a date after the new year,
you indicated that this would be better because it would give you the opportunity to start looking
for another rental location. As such, Ms. Hockenberry indicated that the new acceptable date by
the township would be postponed until January 5, 2007. With that said, the township is
requesting a joint letter from both parties in agreement of the time frame.
When I spoke to Nancy on Monday, she said she relayed the message that was passed to
me from the township when the inspector was at the premises. At that point, Nancy told me that
you would like to talk to Mr. Eby again and that you stressed that you do not want to move.
If you have any questions or do not agree with what is going on, please contact the
township as we are not in the position to make any effective change to the present township
decision in this matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Thien Hoang
cc: David & Nancy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975=0558
~/
/~
• /LO[!/ERALLENT04YNSHlP
~~
y993 h'UMMEL AVENUE ` CAMPHlLL, PENNSYLUAN/A 170>f
November 27, 2006
Mary Hoang
1050 N. Taylor Street #101
Arlington, VA 22201
Re: 3503 Simpson Ferry Road
Dear Ms. Hoang:
This is to confirm correspondence and telephone conversations regarding the options available for your
property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road:
t Vacating of premises
s Installation of a holding tank system
~ Excavation of cesspool for evaluation which may not result in an acceptable solution
~ Make public sewer connection now
Per our last conversation the option you are choosing is the vacating ofpremises.
We have agreed to permit the Souchets to stay at the property over the.upcoming holidays with a move
out date of no later than Sanuary 5, 200'7. After this date if they have not vacated the premises we will
have no recourse other than posting the property "unfit for human occupancy," and enforcement action
will have to be taken.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
S' ,
L' da Hockenberry
Community Development
cc: Herbin Souchet
Phone: (717) 975-7575 ~• Fax: (777j 737-4182 ~ http:/Iwww.lower-a!len.pa.us
Page 1 of 1
John Eby
From: Linda Hockenberry
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:33 AM
To: John Eby
Subject: FW: Letter 12-5-2006
From: Mary Thien Hoang [mailto:marythienhoang@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:25 PM
To: Linda Hockenberry .
Subject: RE: Letter 12-5-2006
Hi Linda,
The date of January 5, 2007, was discussed in the letter dated Nov. 15, 2006, that I forwarded to you.
As indicated in my letter today, there is a lack of communication from the tenant, that is why we had to
send a letter.
Linda Hockenberry <lnda hockenberry~,lower-allenpa.us> wrote:
Hi Mary,
Have you sent them any document with a move out date of 1/5? There should be something to
them with that official date.
From: Mary Thien Hoang [mailto:marythienhoang@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 2:59 PM
To: Linda Hockenberry
Subject: Letter 12-5-2006
Linda,
Attached is a letter that we are sending out today. I just left you a telephone message.
Thank You.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of Spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail. yahoo. com
Have a burning question? t3o to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.
David & Nancy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
:.. (717) 975-0558
Mr. & Mrs. Herbin and Sonia Souchet
Anal
Ms. Elba Burgos
3503 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
December 5, 2006
Re: 3503 Simpson Ferry Road Residence
Dear Mr & Mrs. Souchet and Ms. Burgos:
We are writing you this letter for the reason that we have placed numerous calls to discuss the
rental property with you and there has been no response to our phone calls. We have been trying to
contact you to discuss what your plans are for the upcoming weeks concerning the rental property.
The phone calls were our attempt to discuss the November 27, 2006, letter that was sent to us
from Lower Allen Township. I believe a copy of the letter was sent to you as well. At this point, if you
are seeking additional time to vacate the premises, the move-out date should be discussed with Lower
Allen Township, as we are not in the position to extend such a date.
Please contact us and let us know what is going on. Also, please do not hesitate to contact us if
you have any questions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
David & Nancy Hoang
Page 1 of 1
Linda Hockenberry
From: Mary Thien Hoang [marythienhoang@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:25 PM
To: Linda Hockenberry
Subject: Re: info
Thank You.
Linda Hockenberry <linda_hockenberry@lower-allen.pa.us> wrote:
Hi Mary,
I just spoke to John and he reiterated that the property at 3503 is not to be inhabited until the problem
with the sewer is corrected. Hopefully Mary it will be soon that PennDot gets that problem remedied.
As for the application for zoning for 3503 & 3505 specifics still need to be provided, such as the site
plan, floor plans, what use is to be established and parking plans.
If you have further questions don't hesitate to get in touch.
Linda
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
always stay connected to ftiends.
~EeE1VE'd .
Jah! ? ~= ' .; .,~
LQ4~IER RLLEI~ T~Is`~, ..L.
MR. ~ic~nal C
N1R5'
N1
hI~S
~~
~ok~, ~~~
r
t
~ ~~~~~ .
c~~~~- ~ ~ -K~~
.~;~ _~
C~
`~R~ ~c~ti
~~~ --~~aJ~~~~ CJ
~~ ,~
~~ / ~ / ~~~
~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~~
;mil ~~';i~. ~ ~-~;
~~ -~
. ~ ~ ~1 ~..
~ ~.
fie.. cr~:~-~` ~ _-~'~
~e
?~
~~ Pd
~ ~~ ~
,~- ~2
U
~ ~~ o~ ~
J S~~ ~~ ~~
~a
~~--
-~.v~ :~~~v~
~.~ ? ~~
i7oi~ .
l~
,~ o
~~
~n ~~ ~
~~~ ~~~
n ~ ".. D
n :1 'rl
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~- ~~
~a ~_y ~`~~~ ~o Cs~
'~ '~1~ "r`I ~ rou
~~4~ ~ ~'
~~n~~~ ~ Nicer U1~~ ~~
;sue ~~ ~ ~-C~~ ~'~ ~ .~ `tom
~~K- , ~,a~ ~~~06 Rmd ~~dos, )
~"
~ rus
~ I ~/ ~° ~~~a1P
~~ C ~`/c~r~~~ El`s ~~~~~~
~ ~~
f~, ~~~~~~~`~~
~~~ ~3~
-~~s~~
a
~~ ~~
,~~,~
_._.~.
~~
~~
_~
~,~~
-~i~ ~~
Q
."`~,~~
~`
~: t ~~
~ ~ ~-~~~
~.
L.~ t C.+~
e~ -ho§~e L~'~„,
~ ~ ~' Vn ~
~Y
a~K
i~
~~
~~
~~
~~,
~ ~ ~,
s~
~.
~~ ~~~~
~~-~~
~,~ ~
~~
~~ ~ ,
~~
~`~
~~ ~
s': g r, 4. o
r
~ 1
~~
c~ (~, ,J
~ v~\~ q n
~~ e~'sous . o,~
,~~ (~,
~1~~ VQ
i~~
~%
~~
t r- ~~
y~7)q
February 9, 2007
Nancy & David Hoang.
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
RE: Questions about use of properties at 3503 and 3505 Simpson Ferry Road
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hoang:
I am providing responses to a number of recent inquiries you have made in person, in letters and by
telephone regarding the above-referenced properties. I have referred to and enclosed copies of
previous correspondence to provide details, rather than creating a long, complex letter.
Occupancy of 3503 Simpson Ferry Road
A letter from me dated October 12, 2006, and a letter from Linda Hockenberry dated November 27,
2006 identified options available for dealing with a malfunctioning on-lot sewage disposal system.
These letters were sent to your daughter, Mary Hoang, since she owns the properties. The tenants
subsequently moved out, so the health and sanitation violations mentioned in these letters have been
temporarily resolved by vacation of the property.
Your letter dated January 24, 2007 indicates your desire to move into this home, based upon the
assumption that the malfunctioning cesspool will work satisfactorily with only two persons living there.
I must remind you that, unless a specific cause for the malfunction is identified and corrected, the
cesspool can no longer be used. Having fewer occupants in the home might only increase the interval
between sewage backups onto the basement floor and pumping of waste water in the cesspool. 3503
must remain vacant until the malfunctioning cesspool is replaced with an approved method of sewage
disposal.
Converting 3503 and 3505 Simpson Ferrv Road to office use
We received a zoning permit application on November 29, 2006 that proposes to convert the use of
these two properties from residential to commercial office. We have informed you several times that
we cannot process these applications until you provide site plans and floor plans that illustrate the
existing conditions and proposed changes. For example, we need to know how much building area is
proposed to be converted to office use, and confirm that the proposed off-street parking to support that
use complies with the minimum number and design criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
2-9-07/Hoang letter/3503-3507 Simpson Ferry Rd/p. 2
In addition to this reason for not being able to process your application, I cannot approve any use for
3543 until the sewage disposal issue is resolved, as explained in the preceding paragraph. I must also
determine that the proposed commercial office use of 3505 would generate waste water having similar
volume and characteristic as the waste water generated by the existing residential use before the
functioning cesspool on that lot could be used for nonresidential purposes.
I would also like to remind you that PennDOT would have to approve any modifications to or
reclassification of the existing driveways for 3503 and 3505 necessitated by conversion to business
office use. Also, conversion of use under the state building code would require compliance with a
number of regulations, including accessibility. I have enclosed my February 22, 20061etter that
provides many details regarding building and zoning issues you need to address when converting a
residential use to a business use.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Mary Hoang to keep her informed about the status of her properties
that you manage. Please ask her to contact me if you have any difficulty understanding this letter.
Sincerely,
John M. Eby
Planning & Zoning Coordinator
c: Mary Hoang
Thomas Vernau, Township Manager
San Faust, Assistant Township Manager
Linda Hockenberry, Complaints Coordinator
encl: as stated in text
~t~CEI~'~~
~i~R ? ~ ~ fi. ~:1
f~~WER ALLEN "fYV~r
Mazch 27, 2007
Sohn Eby
Lower Allen Township
_ Hummel Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Dear John Eby:
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 we had Free Flow Drain Cleaning Specialists investigate
the previous blockages we experienced at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road and I am attaching a
document with their analysis and comments regazding the operation of our septic system
on our property.
Due to their evaluation, it is our assessment that the system is functioning properly and at
this point d es not create an uninhabitable situation for us at this point. Therefore, it is
our intention ore-rent this property.
',,
~.
Davies l~ficy Hoang
3507 Simpson Ferry Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
r
//~ ~1~~ `- ~ N~ 118002
(J`
~ ~ ~ ~ Dan Meyer
~ 486 Lewisberry Road
Drain Cleaning Specialists New Cumberland, PA 17070
West: 774-4571-East: 232-7290
Employer ID No. si-121 ~ ~ Carlisle: 245-9879
Mileage ~~ 2 Fax: 717-774-7861
P.O. No. to '7 ' ~
Y
Job Bryl
rs 1
(/ Zz241
PHONE ~ (~~ ~ ~!? -~to' ~D3~}'
LENGTH OF LE A ER BLOCKAG
LINE ~ 5~ CLEANED ~ ~ AREA /~/~
CAUSE OF ROOTS SLUDGE GREASE POSS. DIP RAGS OTHER:~~
BLOCKAGE
M.S. ~ K.S. B.T. B.S. L.D. L.T. T.A. U.R. F.D. D.S. OTHER:
BLADES E ~ CLEANOUT ~ 1 T- 6 MACHINE S.J.
USED ~-i4-~tJ LOCATION MR PP GPP PB
UNCONDITK)NAL CONDITIONAL
......MONTHS GUARANTEE /.. ~.. MONTHS GUARANTEE
COMMENTS ~~l.~~T>r~~ ~~~~_ n„ _~ ~~~+ ~
~f ~'1 /~-' lil ~' C'C ~~ Vlrs~f C.~13 '~ ~~:~~L~!`"`[~°~~ LG~1 ~S~ ~7a'
$25 Charge on All Returned Checks
TIME ^ M
IN M ~,. TIME ^ AM r ?
UT ~PM ~• J SERVICE
MAN e,J"rZl~
CUSTO~IIAER'S S NA PRICE /~~,
PAYMENT ~
~S
~~~
FOR PROPER REDIT PLEASE WRITE INVOICE NUMBER ON CHECK
t~ECEIVED
t~aRZ~
MOWER ALLEN TWP.
LAW OFFICES OF
GATES, ALBRUNEft. ~. ~ATC~, P.C.
1013 MUMMA ROAD • SUITE 100 • LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043
(717) 731-9600 • FAX: (717) 731-9627
LOWELL R. GATES, LL M.
LL. M. in Taxation
Also Admitted to Massachusetts Bar
MARK E. HALBRUNER
CRAIG A. HATCH, CELA
Certified as an Elder Law Attorney by
die Natlonat Elder Law Foundation
MATTHEW J. ESNELMAN
Board CerWied in Creditors' Rights
Representation by the American
Board of Certdicatbn
CLIFTON R. GUISE
Also Admitted to practke before the
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
SARAH E. McCARROLL
Lower Allen Township
1993 Hummel Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attn: John M. Eby
re: 3503 Simpson Ferry Road
Dear Mr. Eby,
March 28, 2007
BRANCH OFFICE:
3 WEST MONUMENT SQUARE, SUITE 304
LEWISTOWN, PA 17044
(717) 246.6909
WEB SITE:
www.Gate$LawFirm.com
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS:
Lemoyne Offioa
STACEY L. NACE
ParelegaUOfiice Manager
TRACT L SEPKOVIC
Paralegal
VALERIE LONG
Paralegal
I represent David and Nancy Hoang with regard to their management of 3503 Simpson
Ferry Road. Please be advised the cesspool has been fixed, tested and is operational. On March
27, 2007 Free Flow Draining Cleaning Specialists repaired and tested the cesspool to ensure it
was functioning properly.
The Hoangs expect this property to be occupied in the next month so, unless they hear
otherwise from you. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
CC: Hoangs
~~
Sarah E. McCarroll
RECEIVED
MAR 2 92007
LOWER ALLEN TWP.
ru ~ i ,
. .•
N a t~~
~-° ~ 3
C`
p CerdpedFae ~ ,~ .~a
p
(En~m~t Requ~) Pos6rwrfc
Here
p
~..~ ReaMded Dervery Fee
(ErWoreert~errt Required)
'..
~ 'Cote{ Poetape & Fees $ ~p 0
~ orFOeacn%
/DSO o ,~ .~.°,.~.
...
~' f- .2 Z z o/
~ ~ N.
! ~
III Y
{ j ~ ~
...L
~~
~-
N ~
p
p
O
~' p.
-..i
~.
z
~~ ~
j~ ~
I ~~ ~ `°'
i $. ru ~
t
~~
~~
I~
~__
C
o' ~ ~
~ ^~
~r
~~ ~~
~ ~~
..y
n~
Iv ~ ~
N („
..
4
a
i
•.e
^
a
~ ~
~
m
~ e
.. -
-
.,
~ x
.
~, ~~ ~
F'
~
~ ~~
:~° ataBe ~
P
.17
~ O
~~(fied Fee () PoetelerK
Hero
Q Reoeipt~
~aee~mera Aeae
d (E
47 ~~peQryuired)
~
r3 ~
N Total Poetepe & Fees
~~~
~
rt
! ,
~:'
a
m.
N
~~,
~~
~~
0
N
fJt
O
O
a
a
W
0-.
~E ~ ~,iF iED ~V l~,1L ,, -~E ~C~ iPT
~1~o mest icrM aii Daly; ~Uo ins urance lvove rage ~Pro vidcd) S
. ° ._ _-----..__ _.....,., ,...~~ti~~ ~nat.u ww.u sos:c om
Ill
Poste ~
Fee
0
~
O Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
O Restricted Delivery Fee
r,.q (Endorsement Required)
~rl
39
----~ Postmark
~-Q~ ~ Here
N Tout Postage 8. Fees ~i ?`'
'~" nt ~ _ '1a~ / S
~ ~r. -l~.,d/
O _(~'~ .~.~..... :tom ~i[~ L La ~,. ~iff~
[~- b`treet, ~ ~•:/ d / 3 n'+ K....n A ~~~~. ~/.4 7~~i
jy~y~P~4
.. O ~ ~ ~ ~
i Q ~ ~ O ~ 2
~ ~,~ ~ ~ D^
~ °~~
I U
• ~' ~
a ~ m
~~ ~
rb T ~
m
~~. ~.~~
~~ ~ ~}
a X mC) ri
~ ~ ~ ~ _
a > a
~ _ .~
~~m~E r~ ~J
U
v;~~c~i Yi ~ ~
cv s~E~~ ~
r ~ ql ~ ,Q N. Y ~~~
~~ ~ ~ ~~ s
~~~ p_ ~
~d' ArIIt~ Q
E,~£~ o ~ ~
r~ra 9a o` ~~C9
~ ^
.~
~Ed~
0
O~C U
^0^
i
~0^ a
~1n
0
s Q
M
Q ~
-. ~,
..0
;N
rn
,~
~.
_D
M1
0
0
0
0
a
fl.l
O
O
r'
S
~v
m
~.
r
T
a
~~~
' f:~
v
•
V1 ~
~acv~,~ra~~E~v rar~asrrfa
,~ ~. 1993 HU/19119EL AVENUE ~ CAMPH/LL, PENNSYL!/AN/A 77011
March 29, 2007
Sarah E. McCarron
Gates, Halbruner & Hatch, P.C.
1013 Mumma Road, Suite 100
Lemoyne, PA 17043
RE: 3503 Simpson Ferry Road
Dear Ms. McCarron:
via Certified Mail
I have reviewed your March 28, 2007 letter, and a letter dated March 27, 2007 from David & Nancy
Hoang that was hand-delivered to me yesterday. Both letters claim that the on-lot sewage disposal
system at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road is functioning properly, based upon work performed by Free Flow
Drain Cleaning Specialists an March 27, 2007, so the Hoangs intend to re-establish occupancy of this
single family dwelling. Both letters are factually incorrect.
The Free Flow receipt attached to the Hoang's letter merely documents that a service technician ran an
electric drain cleaning machine and water through the building sewer pipe, from the house to the "tank"
(cesspool), and flushed it with water to test the pipe for a blockage. No blockage of the pipe was
observed. This service receipt does not constitute Free Flow's analysis of the operation of a septic
system; as the Hoangs claim. It only indicates that a pipe from the Hoang's basement to their "tank"
(cesspool) is not blocked. The cesspool has not been fixed, tested and determined to be operational, as
your letter claims.
Consequently, the Lower Allen Township notification declaring the house unfit for human habitation
due to a malfunctioning on lot sewage disposal system remains in effect, and this house is not to be re-
occupied until the sewage disposal problem has been fixed. David, Nancy and Mary Hoang have
repeatedly been provided with oral and written instructions regarding solutions to this on-lot sewage
disposal pmblem, and have to this date chosen to keep the house vacant, rather than fixing the problem.
Please contact me if you wish to obtain additional factual and technical information regarding this
matter.
ceely,
John M. Eby, Buildin & Zoning Coordinator
PA SEO Certificate # 01820
Phone: (777) 975-7575 t Fax: (777) 737-4182 E http://www.lower-ailen.pa.us
~/~/e~
t~`
~~
~`~ ~ l~ ~~
~~
~~ ~~~~~ ~ tie ~ ~~W • -~"
Join rnwd ~ r~ ~ , Q„~ ~S
~~~~~ c~~ ~~~ y~n~°~9 ~~~y~~
~~"
n~~,~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~c~~
a~~~~f~
TpJe9 ~ ~ ~
~ ~~` ~F`~, d- v~^~ ~ -}~ Cam'
~~ ~ Cw
Ni ~~
~~vE
r~ ~~ ~ ~~
S~ y ~ I ~
r `~`~l
~` ~>
'cj~ ~~~~ ~~~~,
~~ ~~~
'~
~ ~b
~~~~i~~.
~~
~ ~~~~-~
ti~~ ~P~ ~ ~. ~~ C~le~~
lam' ~ 7~ ~-{
1~2 8~~~ ~ ~~ t,~~~ ~ ~ `e~,~ti
-~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~
_ ~-~ ti ~ ~ ~
~C~G~` 8'4, ~. ~~~ l~ 1 l1 S S t~ 1,2
~ ~~ L~"_ ~-+-t.; ~~, H~ ~ - S~ ~/ eat,
_ _ q
~~
`~1
~~ ,~ ~ ~~
~` . aa~ ~
l~~ry Then ~oang
Cosa ~. ~ray~~~ ~~xe~>~#~4~
~~-~~n~~~~, ~A z~~o~
~7~7} ~~--~3s~
Agri119, 2047
Lower Aden Township
Mr. John T. Titzel
M'r. `Thaniaa G. Vernau, dr.
Township Commissioner
1993 Hnmmei Aveuu~e
Camp Hili, PA 17411
Dear Mr. Titzel and Mr. Thr~mas G. Vernau, Jr„
I am ~~riting this letter to bath of you regarding the property siitaated at 3543
Simpson Ferry koad, Camp I-Iill, ~'A 17(! I l . 1 am the owner of the .property, As such, 1
would like my parents to be able to temporarily move into the premises.
if There are any questions or concerns, pl~aase feel free tc~ coz-tact me at the a~ot>e
number.
Thank } ou far your time and attention to this matter.
S:ncexe~y~,,;,
. ~:
M.ai3~ 1'hien lino
~~
~.~jGY?IiIY'I`;t 2°v C~,'ti:` _ dJ[9 ! r w~,.
-~`~~~ I
r ~ r-"--- -~ <
~C~ ~~~-
`1
" ~-~--c~'-'ti) F~-~'.. it ~1.L
.1 ;
`' ~- 7/l:'J~/ ~'~;t..ti')~..~~11~~j 6,..~'/LtStC/'i. (.aJt~..Vl ~T7 ~.~-U~~
~)) ` ~ ~ •' ' l: t Cl'~•c (~~, 1;U''ZS ~, ~'~' a~ ~ "~-{ r; } --Gi~i~ irv''s~. .~ 5
~, U ;_
~~ ~~ ~ ,~; '~ ~ r
'J
Vim-- ~1,~11\; ~. ~ '~, Ls.,f,l~1~ ~:. : ~'S'1 G~`
/~~ j ~u
(. :l , i~~~ 1l 4!~ ® ~~ V ~,.. 1,~1~t`;~ ~~~/~ ( (k ;I;J ~~.~ `'~~,~ '.~~t~/ 0 vL_~
~ F a /
`r +~ ` ~ YVf V'C.. l.. l.l~.L~~ ~ " C.'1.~~ 1~,~`~ J~''^~1~ r 4 ~. ~ t i~S
~ ~~ ~ G 7
_~ ~:u 11 l'3c:~i.J)i Ct'1~~' U' .~ ~ '3i L ~ 17~ b'4,Jy ~ ~ 1~ -...
;' •r-t~
(~ ~ / `G
~ ~ / y /_ : ~' x.11 ~ ~. rlc:~ -~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~- i~- ~
i• ~. Uc
1 ~ l,.- ""y~~ ~y1/9.-'t~y`~ a'~~ ~. ~ i11t+ 1.~ Or. ~ ~" ~"~ " ~' VV ~.
s.
~` ~~" , c
y~~ •~ J ld ~3F~~ ~ W ~~
~.,~ ~.~
~ -~~.
~~~ ~ }
~:
~~, 7_°
~~~ ~~i,....1_
~ ~
s
(~
C '~
-r.:. ~®y ..
U'
'
QOM .
. ~
~
I `
1 ~, M~
ots d1 N
~ ~~ ca..~N
+~V ~
~.~ Y m (C6 C p '
~Y 3~ U '
~
~ (n U
0
__
~~~~~
__ t~ --
__ __ . Wiz. ,d ~,_ ~~ t ,~.. ~
s
_ __- ~~~
._~
~ _ s
-.~___._ .__-. _ __~.~.v~.~ _._ ~ _ ~u._ . __-8-__._._.___. __.. _....___._ __ ._ ._ . _ ___,~__ _.._
~ ~~~J
sae ~ ' mP ~ aw~f ~ ~~k wu,~
J y~~ ~ ~~ R
~W'i~ ~1d2 (I~,.V eww.q ltssos~l) ~y
_ `T~a~,~ S~ --
_
- ~
~_~ G4~ 3.3-2~'~ um9
y4y~-~1Q$ y ~`~)
~
-gym Ss `
G~
~f~
~
_
~
_U~- km ,~ r
C ~ G.-~~d1Lt~5f_
'C lad ~ P~c~ . _.
I ,r~7_Shca~- _ _.
_ _.
w~
_.. . -
S ~e4
~
_- 35~15 d # .
~_
~-. ' o
2m. ~~)(~„~ N4~~ ~t.
r
_ ~ i~UiSc 9 U~ _.~
{
~~
~
~
_. Eimc
r
_
,
~_-
~~1
__. a~g 1 fi
ail~a6 ~9 ~./
~M1 ~
r U
mn -~.(ffh~.~Ma~.t)..dy~S ~~.1~
_.
9-- . _ _-
_ _
_ E _~_m_~e,~_ c~-_
_ __
cr ~p
--- __... _qJ1~. ~- - ,~eo~ 1-. .
i
- - _ --- - _ cam~._. .~1x~.R--~~-. _ _
-- _. 9 4
___ _
_--
9991r
---~#
____Iii _.
~_~,~_.
9~~ .
-_ tn9e~_°
~~/'
a _ -rte
_~. ~~-.
~_.
q ~ co#~~_-~ _ ~ __
- ~9 ~
~_ .~
~-~
~
-~
{-9~ ~~
~--9 -- ~
~o
~~ c=
~
__ „
~ ~p i/
~
~ ~
~~
_ !Yuen
fU
uu. fez. ~ (~'~v7~.~.. __
_ ~
RnR. .s~~e~..~~ )
~L
A1lc
a~R .~
dLJ ~'~(y~~~
- _~(~~l ---- -
_ 1~? t-
f1 Rte. ~uz~ gmndr~(w~
_ wza ~,~ ~~_.
~ u U u
~ewa~~~ ~ow~
SEWAGE FLOVitS IN THE REGULATIONS
Sections 73.16 and 73.17
• Absorption areas and spray fields for single-family dwellings not served by
.a community sewage system must be designed bawd on a minimum flow of
400 gallons per day (gpd) for all dwellings having three bedrooms or less.
The minimum flew of 400 gpd is increased by 100 gpd for each bedroom
over three.
• The flow figures in Section 73.17 of the regulations are peak daily flows for
the design of community onlot sewage disposal systems. The sewage flow
from single-family dwellings served by a community onlot sewage disposal
system or from apartments, rooming houses, hotels, and motels served by
an individual or community onlot sewage disposal system must be deter-
mined from the following table:
Resid®ntial Establishment
Hotels and motels
Multiple-family dwellings and apartments,
including townhouses, duplexes, and
condominiums
Rooming houses (per unit)
Single-family residences
Gallons/unit/day.
Gallons/unit BOD/unit
100 .30
400 1.13
200 .60
400* .90
* For units of three bedrooms or less. For each bedroom over three, add 100
gaIIons.
PADEP 1/02 SITE TESTING/SEWAGE FLOWS I-D-1
MALFUNCTIONS
SEOs have a responsibility to assist or legally require a property owner to
correct a malfunctioning onlot sewage disposal system.
Sections 72.41 and 73.11
Section 14 of the PA Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537)
A Malfunction Occurs When .. .
1) Untreated or partially treated sewage is discharged into the waters of the
Commonwealth.
2) Untreated or partially treated sewage is discharged on to the ground
surface.
3) Untreated or partially treated sewage is backing up into a structure.
Malfunctions Need To Be Corrected, Because .. .
• It is the law.
• They are a health hazard.
The SEO must advise the local agency of any known violation of the PA
Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537) that occurs within the local agency's jurisdic-
tion. The SEO must advise the local agency of its responsibility to prevent a
potential violation of the PA Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537). The SEO must also
independently take any necessary action within the scope of his or her author-
ity toprevent amalfunction from occurring or require its correction when
discovered.
Civil Penalties
Section 13 of the PA Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537)
• The PA Sewage Facilities Act allows a civil penalty of no less than $300 and
no more than $2,500 to be charged to violators for each violation of the act.
PADEP 1/02 MALFUNCTIONS VI-1
CORRECTIAtG F~. MALFUNCTIOl~'
1) Identify the Malfunction
• An SEO maybe notified of a possible malfunction, or
• An SEO may identify a possible malfunction.
2) Investigate the Malfunction
• The first step in dealing with a malfunction is to identify the problem.
• Thoroughly investigate the situation so that the real cause of the
malfunction is found and corrected.
OBSERVE Tim CONDITIONS
Look at what is going on inside and outside the structure.
Examples:
• Is there an area on the property that is wet and/or soft?
• Is there an odd smell coming from the property?
GATHER BACgGROUND INFORMATION
Example questions to ask the properly owner.
1) Does a permit or plot plan exist?
2) When was the system installed or when was the structure built, and how
long has the facility been used?
3) When was the treatment tank last pumped?
4) Is there a history of problems?
• Does the problem recur frequently?
• Is the problem constant or periodic?
• When does the problem happen?
5) What is the facility's daily water usage? Are there items in the structure that
use a lot of water, such as:
• Hot tub
• Water softener
• Washing machine (Are manyloads washed in one day?)
• Leaky plumbing fixtures
6) Are special activities that use water conducted in the structure?
• Canning
• Grinding materials that require water
• Beauty shop
7) When is the system used? How many days a week? How many occupants?
PADEP 1/02 MALFUNCTIONS V!-2
8) Are any waste products besides water and human waste being put into the
system?
• Chemicals
• Grease
• Excess organic wastes
• Wastes from hobbies that require water
• Photography
• Printing
• Beauty shop
9) Has the well been recently tested? If yes, did the results show a high
bacteria content?
10) Does the structure have any of the following devices connected to the
system?
• Garbage disposal
• Grease trap
• SAP PAP
• French drain
• Rain spout
INSPECT TIC SYSTEM
• Inspect all parts of the system to determine if the cause of the malfunction is
a broken or faulty system component.
• Visually inspect the overall system. If an obvious problem exists, begin the
investigation at that point. There is no correct order to inspect the system, as
every situation will be different.
When inspecting each system component, check for the following:
B1 ~_
/ Broken pipes
/ An obstruction in the pipe
• Diaper
• Toy
• paper
• Foreign object(s)
~+eatmeat Tack(s)
/ No tank-If no tank is found, a cesspool may exist
/ Sealed inlet and outlet connections
/ Leaks in the tank(s)
/ Wet areas outside of the tank(s)
/ IIectrical connection on aerobic treatment tank(s) disconnected
Distribution Method
/ Leaks in components
/ Unequal distribution in a gravity flow system
(ie: distribution box not level)
/ Improperly functioning pump in a pressure distribution system
/ Improperly functioning siphon in a pressure distribution system
PADEP 1/02 MALFUNCTIONS VIA
disposal Area
/ A spongy or ponding area
• If effluent is not being absorbed into the sand and/or soil, the system
may be clogged somewhere. Another cause might be that too much
waste is being generated. As a result, ponding will occur. The effluent
may move on to the surface in the path of least resistance.
• Cracks or breaks in the pipes
• Broken lateral risers
• Surface water improperly diverted
Note: A probe rod (also known as a poke rod) may be used to determine if
saturation is occurring within the system. If a brown or black liquid substance
is found on the rod after probing the disposal area, then ponding maybe
occurring.
The disposal area may also clog when:
• Solids move into the absorption area
• An excessive organic mat develops
• Inappropriate sand was used during construction
• The soil was too wet or was compacted before or during
construction
• The site was not properly evaluated
• The system was not properly installed
• Actual flows exceed the design flows
• Grease has entered the absorption area
Note: An organic mat develops when the soil is saturated, and there is a lack of
oxygen. These conditions cause anaerobic bacteria to grow within the absorp-
tionarea. An abnormallythick layer of organic material forms and, ultimately,
dogs the pores in the soil and reduces permeability. The effluent may travel to
the edges of the absorption area and seep out the sides. In some cases, if the
absorption area is "rested" for a period of time, the organic mat may dry out
and eliminate the problem.
FIND THE SOURCE OF DISCHARGE
test
• This test can sometimes be used to determine the source of the problem. The
dye should be placed directly into the onlot sewage disposal system. The
path of the dye may determine where the effluent is traveling.
3) Diagnose the Malfunction
• Determine the problem.
• Make sure the correct cause has been identified.
PADEP 1/02 MALFUNCTIONS VI-4
4j Coned the Malfuactioa
• After the cause of the malfunction has been determined, along-term
solution needs to be implemented.
• When correcting the malfunction, the cause, not the symptoms, need to be
treated and corrected.
• If a new absorption area needs to be installed, testing to determine site
suitability must be completed in compliance with the Pennsylvania Code
Title 25, Environmental Protection Chapter 73 regulations.
• Alternate and experimental technologies may be used to correct a malfunc-
tion.
PREVENTING A MALFUNCTION
1) Install water-conserving fixtures and implement a water conservation plan
in the facility.
2) Encourage a maintenance program.
3) Regularly inspect the system and repair any broken part(s).
Section 7 of the PA Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537)
Note: When any part of the system is repaired, a permit is required.
4) Educate people at the facility about items detrimental to onlot sewage
disposal systems.
BARDS T4 ~1+i~O~ SWAGE DISiPOS9[i. S'iCST£1-
Because. these systems are "Alive," a biological mat in the system xs
constantly decomposing and trealsng raw sewage. This mat is ex~emely
sensitive #o polutcants #hat it is not able #o treat. There#ore, the homeowtler
should avoid placing the following items down the Clrairl:
• Oils mid grease
• Harsh drain clear-ezs
• Pesticides
• Paints and #hiruiers
• Disposable products, includi~sg sanitary napkins and diaper
• Paper towels
• Plastic products (children's toys; product wrappers)
• peptic tank additives/cleaners ('t'hese items are riot needed and mad
harm the system s plumbing anel/orbiological mates)
• Bones, .eggshells, or coffee grounds
• i.,QUndiy detergents with high sudsing elemen#s
Note: eliminating these items from the waste stream may heap to increas.®
the life of the onlot sewage disposal system:
PADEP t/02 MALFUNCTIONS VI-5
DILLSBURG EXCAVATING & SEPTIC
PO # If Needed. 516 Range End Road
Dillsburg, PA 17019
Phone 432-9704 / 545-2610
Work Order
111 27042
Name ~ ~ Phone~~ "~ ~- f~~ Job Dat~~7~~' ' ~i~
Twp: County
~f
Customer Paid: Check ~_ Cash
Customer's Signature:
Terms: Net 30 days.
MC Asa
Amount
SEPTIC TANK SERYK:ED
BUMP TANK 6ERViCED
CESSPOOL SERVICED a a O
GREASE TRAP SERVICED
LINE FROM BUILDING
INLET BAFFLE ~ ' ,
OUTLET BAFFLE , ..
DRAIN FIELD r'~' ,_ ~
CHEMfCAL ' g
EXTRA LABOR
EXTRA MATERIAL
COMMENTS
~ ,...
t ~ t-
_` ! ~ t 4
a
hn, Install and Repair Complete Septic Systems /
Equipment Rental • Water and Sewer Lines (/
~nd Clearing Trenching Basement Excavating Driveways
Ponds Grading ~ Storm Sewer Site Preparation
^ Bill from Office
^ No One Home
~~~'~~~~r~ ~
EXHIBIT
.~-~
WARNING! If your check bounces or fails to. clear the bank for any reason, you could be liable for three times the amount of
the check or $100 - whichever is greater - in addition to court costs, interest and a service charge of up to 520.Oamages can
be up to 5500 over the amount of the check.
NOTICE: ACCOUNTS OLDER THAN 30 DAYS WILL HAVE A FINANCE CHARGE ADDED TO THE UNPAID BALANCE
COMPUTED AT AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF 18°k.
"I, the undersigned, hereby agree that in the event of default in the payment of any amount due, and if this account is placed in
the hands of an Agency or Attorney for collection or legal action, Yo pay an additional charge equal to the cost of collection
including Agency and Attorney fees and Court costs incurred and permitted by Taws aovernina these rrancartinnc ~~
BEFORE THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS
OF LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE DOCKET No. SEO 2007-O1
APPEAL OF DAVID AND
NANCY HOANG
ADJUDICATION
BY THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS: June 25, 2007
On or about April 19, 2007, David Hoang and Nancy Hoang, (herein "Appellant")
filed an appeal with the Sewage Enforcement Boazd of Appeals after receiving a letter from
John M. Eby, Sewage Enforcement Officer (herein "SEO") restraining their return to occupancy
of a residence located at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania. The SEO for the Township alleged a malfunctioning cesspool at the
property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road, and after a number of exchanges of correspondence, the
Appellant appealed this ruling to this Board of Appeals and seeks to reoccupy the property.
A public hearing was held on May 14, 2007. By letter dated April 19, 2007, Applicant
waived the 10-day notice requirement for hearing, and accepted scheduling of the hearing on
May 14, 2007. The appellants also waived the requirement that a determination must be
rendered within seven days of the hearing by record agreement at the May 14, 2007 hearing.
Under Section 175 -19 of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, the
determinations of the SEO are appealable before this Board. This is the subject of this appeal.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants are David and Nancy Hoang, 3507 Simpson Ferry Road, Lower Allen
Township, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055.
2. The legal owner of the property is Mary Hoang 1050 N. Taylor Street #101
Arlington, VA 22201.
3. The Sewage Enforcement Officer for Lower Allen Township is John M. Eby,
who is certified by the State Board for Certification of Sewage Enforcement Officers. His
certificate number is 01820, which is valid until June 30, 2008. (Township Exhibit 1).
4. Applicants propose to use the property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road as their
principal residence.
5. The SEO of Lower Allen Township Hearing ("Township") has advised the
Appellants that occupancy of the premises at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road would be a violation of
Chapter 175 of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, the Sewage Facilities Act
and the Clean Streams Act of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6. The SEO of Lower Allen Township became aware of a possible sewage disposal
violation after being contacted by Herbin and Sonia Souchet, tenants of the Appellants in August
of 2006 (Township Exhibit 1 and N.T. 7).
7. A Notice of Violation No. 2006-24 was issued by the SEO on August 25, 2006
under Chapter 162, the Property Maintenance Code of Lower Allen Township, directed to the
Appellants for alleging violations of Section 162 and PM 302.1(P), 506.1 and 506.2 and the IRC
Plumbing Code (Township Exhibit 1). The violation involved a backflow from the property's
cesspool into the basement of the property and related violations.
8. Rather than repair the on-site sewage facility, the property owner, Mary Hoang
opted to have her tenants vacate the property by January 5, 2007. (Township Exhibit 1
and N.T. 7).
9. By letter of March 27, 2007, the Appellants informed the SEO by that they
intended to re-rent the property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road. This was followed by the March
28, 20071etter of Sarah E. McCarroll, Esq. to the SEO informing him that the property would be
occupied "in the next month.) (Township Exhibit 1).
10. By letter of March 29, 2007, the SEO wrote to Ms McCarroll and advised that the
violation was not abated, because "[t]he cesspool has not been fixed, tested and determined to be
operational." (Township Exhibit 1.)
11. The malfuncrion cesspool has not been repaired and no approved sewage disposal
system has been installed at the subject property. The Township file contained receipts from line
cleaning and septic pumping companies. The file correspondence corroborates the SEO
testimony that the cesspool is not draining and will continue to back up in the Appellants'
property (Township Exhibit 1 and N.T. 16-25).
12. The Appellant, Nancy Hoang testified that the cesspool is functioning and
experienced backflow problems only when a large number of guests were in the premises when
the premises was occupied by the tenants, Herbin and Sonia Souchet. Mrs. Hoang's testimony
on the number of occupants in the dwelling during the summer of 2006 was corroborated by
Kathy Minnich of 3505 Simpson Ferry Road (N.T. 50 and 54).
13. The Appellants also offered the testimony of David Altland a former code
enforcement officer of Lower Allen Township. Mr. Altland observed the cesspool being
pumped on or about August 10, 2006. He also observed the rerouting of laundry water onto the
ground at the subject premises. (N.T. 56 and 62).
14. Appellants offered no expert testimony.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals is the local agency having
jurisdiction to hear appeals from actions of the Sewage Enforcement Officer of Lower Allen
Township.
2. The Sewage Enforcement Officer is the individual charged by the Board of
Commissioners of Lower Allen Township with administering the on-lot sewage disposal
regulations under the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act (Act 537 of 1966 as amended).
3. The Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals has the power to sustain or overrule
the actions of the Sewage Enforcement Officer of Lower Allen Township.
4. Sustaining the enforcement action of the Sewage Enforcement Officer is
appropriate in this case, since the SEO has provided competent testimony and related
documentary evidence to show that the cesspool at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road is malfunctioning.
5. Enforcing the Order of the Sewage Enforcement Officer will protect the public
health, safety and welfare of the residents of Lower Allen Township and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
III. DECISION
By reason of the foregoing, the action of the Sewage Enforcement Officer is upheld and it
is further ordered:
1. The Appellants shall be required to provide a sewage disposal system
approved by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Environmental Resources.
2. Appellants shall not occupy the premises until the an approved sewage
disposal system is properly permitted, installed and inspected at the
premises at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road in Lower Allen Township.
SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF APPEALS
LOVkE~ ALLEN TOWNSffiP
~~
n
o
~ ~
==; t ~ ~~'
~
nz~
s {}~
r W -
^?~ f 'T?
• ~-
.~.. a.~~
.r
_ ~
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
PETITION TO INTERVENE
AND NOW comes Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, and petitions this
Honorable Court to intervene in the above referenced matter as follows:
1. Lower Allen Township is a first class Township located at 1993 Hummel Avenue, Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania 17011.
2. The Appellee in this matter, the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals, is a local agency
established and operated by Lower Allen Township and consisting of the Lower Allen
Township Board of Commissioners.
3. Lower Allen Township is a proper party for intervention because the determination of
such action may affect a legally enforceable interest of the Township. See
Pa. R.C.P. §2327(4).
WHEREFORE, Lower Allen Township respectfully requests this Honorable Court to allow it to
intervene in the above referenced action.
Date: 09/05/07
By: ~----
Steven .Miner, Esquire
Solicitor of Lower Allen Township
Attorney I.D. # 38901
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, LLC
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
717-724-9821
sminer( )a,dzmmglaw.com
YFr~tPICA'I'I~OAT
X herby veri;~y that the staterr~ents contained. in this petition ~e trite and corr~t to
the bast of m~+ knowledge, nforrtion and belief. I undcsrsta~d that f~ise
te~aents herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA ~.~. ~ ~9fCkf~, relating
to unswarn falsff cation to authorities.
__
"'~'-'~
{mate S~~ned
Thomas G. rnau, J~.,
Lower Alien To~mship Mang
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
Certificate of Service
I, Steven P. Miner, Esquire, hereby certify that I have on this day served the
foregoing Petition to Intervene by First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esquire
Johnson, Dui~ie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Dated Ste day of September, 20(17
Steven P. ,Esquire
Solicitor or Lower Allen Township
~
rn w
r
r,
~p t
'~
w~ cA,y ,...
'.~
~rt~-"~
~" ~ _
`~
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v. .
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter the appearance of Steven P. Miner, Esquire, in this matter.
Date: 09/05/07
By: ~,
Stev P. Miner, Esquire
Solicitor of Lower Allen Township
Attorney I.D. # 38901
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, LLC
103 5 Mumma Road, Suite 1 O 1
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
717-724-9821
sminer(a.dzmm aw.com
V
y
...~.
<:_.
r
rv
w
.....
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
Certificate of Service
I, Steven P. Miner, Esquire, hereby certify that I have on this day served the
foregoing Entry of Appearance by First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esquire
Johnson, Duffle, Stewart & Weidner, P.C.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Dated 5`~ day of September, 2007
~~
Steve P. finer, Esquire
Solicitor for Lower Allen Township
f
~~~
~-: ~
~:'.
r..,
~ ~ ~
.. --t
N
C~i
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
. PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
: No. 07-4371 Civil Term
PETITION TO INTERVENE
AND NOW comes Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, and petitions this
Honorable Court to intervene in the above referenced matter as follows:
Lower Allen Township is a first class Township located at 1993 Hummel Avenue, Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania 17011.
2. The Appellee in this matter, the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals, is a local agency
established and operated by Lower Allen Township and consisting of the Lower Allen
Township Boazd of Commissioners.
3. Lower Allen Township is a proper party for intervention because the determination of
such action may affect a legally enforceable interest of the Township. See
Pa. R.C.P. §2327(4).
4. At this time, no Judge has ruled on any other issue in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Lower Allen Township respectfully requests this Honorable Court to allow it to
intervene in the above referenced action.
Date: 09/17/07
B
Y•
Steven P mer, Esquire
Solicitor of Lower Allen Township
Attorney I.D. # 38901
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, LLC
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
717-724-9821
sminer(a~dzmmglaw. com
r~
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
. PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
CONCURRENCE CERTIFICATE
I have contacted Richard Stewart, Esquire counsel for David and Nancy Hoang, and he
concurs with this Petition for Intervention.
Date: 09/17/07
~~-
By:
Steven P. Miner, Esquire
Solicitor of Lower Allen Township
Attorney I.D. # 38901
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, LLC
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
717-724-9821
sminer~a~,dzmmglaw.com
a
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements contained in this petition are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. § 4904, relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
9 s- d?
(Date Signed)
Thomas G. ~' au, Jr.,
Lower Allen Township Manager
..
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
. PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
Certificate of Service
I, Steven P. Miner, Esquire, hereby certify that I have on this day served the
foregoing Petition to Intervene by First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C.
301 Mazket Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Dated 17"' day of September, 2007
Miner, Esquire
for Lower Allen Township
C7 °
~
(iV ~
.~
~
~ r , ,...
C"" C.7
~,
7~'
~ ~ -ti
~~
N
SEP 132007,p~
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
By the Court
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
ORDER
AND NOW, this (~ ~ day of September, 2007, this Honorable Court grants the
Petition to Intervene filed by Lower Allen Township.
G~:/
J. ,~„
WLS G~ O-cr, ~ f.
~O
~~
v`
O
~#1~+#'~/It~S~I'~
~~ ~!i ~ 5Z d~S tIIQZ
t' w
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Intervenor
(Real Party in Interest):
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
PRAECIPE
Pursuant to this Honorable Court's Order of September 19, 2007, please add the
intervenor, Lower Allen Township, to this matter.
Date: October 2, 2007
By. ~~
Steven 'vier, Esquire
Solicitor of Lower Allen Township
Attorney I.D. # 38901
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, LLC
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
717-724-9821
sminer ,dzmm~law.com
,~
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Intervenor
(Real Party in Interest):
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
Certificate of Service
I, Steven P. Miner, Esquire, hereby certify that I have on this day served the
foregoing Praecipe by First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Dated 2nd ay of October, 2007
Lower Allen Township
Attn: Thomas G. Vernau, Jr.
Township Manager
1993 Hummel Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Steven ~: Miner, Esquire
Solicitor for Lower Allen Township
;.~,
~- Cam,
.
, -n
~
~ --~t
tom,.} ~z -' ,
i _
..
_ a`.rJ
.. ~, -t.
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
MOTION SEEKING ORDER PERMITTINIG
NEW EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 2 Pa. C.S.A §754(a)
David and Nancy Hoang file this Motion Seeking an Order Directing Permitting
New Evidence and in support thereof, state the following:
1. David and Nancy Hoang filed a Notice of Appeal from a Decision of the
Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
2. The Appellants are David and Nancy Hoang ("Hoangs") who intend to use
as their principal residence 3507 Simpson Ferry Road, Lower Allen Township,
Pennsylvania 17055.
3. The property which the subject of this appeal is 3507 Simpson Ferry
Road, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania 17055 ("Property") and is owned by Mary
Hoang of 1050 N. Taylor Street #101, Arlington, VA, who is the daughter of the Hoangs.
4. Tenants who lived at the Property until January 2007 made complaints to
the Sewer Enforcement Officer ("SEO") for Lower Allen Township, John M. Eby,
regarding the Property in the summer of 2006.
5. A Notice of Violation No. 2006-24 was issued by the SEO as a result of
the complaints by the former tenants involving a backflow from the Property's cesspool
into the basement on August 25, 2006.
6. The Property has been unoccupied since January 1, 2007 when the
former tenants vacated.
7. By letter dated March 27, 2007, the Hoangs informed the SEO that they
intended to re-rent the Property and, later, they informed the SEO that they intended to
live at the Property as their primary residence.
8. The SEO sent a letter opining that the occupation of the Property would be
in violation of Chapter 175 of the Lower Allen Township Codified Ordinances, the
Sewage Facilities Act, and the Clean Streams Act of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
9. The Hoangs appealed the decision of the SEO to the Sewage
Enforcement Board of Appeals ("Board").
10. The Hoangs desired to have the system evaluated prior to the hearing but
the SEO discouraged a septic service company hired by the Hoangs from excavating
the system prior to the hearing out of a fear that further harm would be done to the
system. See, Transcript of Testimony, page 46, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
11. The SEO testified that he has no idea of the capacity of the tank on the
Property, the amount of effluent put into the tank or whether the tank was capable of
handling effluent generated by an ordinary household. Exhibit A, page 48.
12. As a result of the conduct of the SEO, the Hoangs were unable to have an
evaluation of the system prior to the hearing.
13. Therefore, the Hoangs were unable to present expert testimony regarding
the sewage system and its current state at the hearing.
14. After the hearing, the Hoangs were able to retain Thomas Erb of Thomas
H Erb and Sons, Inc. who performed an inspection and hydraulic test of the sewage
system on the Property.
15. Mr. Erb has been able to determine the capacity of the tank on the
Property and the level of effluent that the tank can handle on a daily basis.
16. On June 25, 2007, the Board issued a decision, findings of fact, and
conclusions of law upholding the SEO's decision to prohibit occupation of the Property
until the Hoangs obtain a sewage disposal system approved by the Commonwealth's
Department of Environment Resources and approved, permitted and inspected by
Lower Allen Township.
17. The Hoangs appealed the Board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §933 as an appeal from a determination of a government
agency pursuant to the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S.A. §701 et seq.
18. In the Notice of Appeal the Hoang contend that the Board committed an
error of law, violated the constitutional due process rights of the Appellants, and did not
have substantial evidence to support its determination that the sewage system is
malfunctioning in light of the following:
a) The Hoangs disagree that the septic system is malfunctioning and
presented evidence at the hearing that it was the former tenant's
overuse of water, improper use of the system, and frequent gatherings
of 10 or more that caused the cesspool problems;
b) The SEO did not present any independent expert testimony and visited
the Property only once, which was during the time that the system at
the Property was being overused by the previous tenants;
c) The SEO discouraged an expert from looking at the sewage system
prior to the hearing, therefore, the Hoangs were unable to obtain an
expert opinion or present any expert testimony at the hearing.
19. Furthermore, due to the fact that the Hoangs were discouraged from
obtaining and presenting expert opinion testimony by the SEO, the record before the
Board is incomplete, the Hoangs were not presented with an opportunity to be heard,
and the Hoangs should be afforded an opportunity to present the report and testimony
of Mr. Thomas Erb, a sewage system specialist, pursuant to 2 Pa.C.S.A. §754(a).
20. Counsel for the Board was advised of the contents of this motion and did
not concur.
21. No judge has been assigned to this matter.
~ . r M ~
WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue
and Order pursuant to 2 Pa.C.S.A. §754(a) allowing the Hoangs to supplement the
incomplete record below by presenting the report and testimony of Mr. Thomas Erb of
Thomas H. Erb & Sons, Inc. regarding the state of the sewage system on the Property.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
DATED: ~ D g
By:
Richard .Stewart
Attorney I.D. No. 18039
Elizabeth D. Snover
Attorney I.D. No. 200997
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Telephone: (717) 761-4540
Attorneys for Appellants
, a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date February 18,
2008 serve a copy of the foregoing Motion upon the other parties of record by causing same to
be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania,
addressed as follows:
Steven P. Miner, Esquire
Daley, Zucker, Meilton, Miner & Gingrich
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
Attorneys for Lawer Allen Township Board of Sewer Enforcement Appeals
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART 8~ WEIDNER
By:
Elizabeth . Snover
~.i ~ ~,n
s__ c...~
cif
~ _.~ r`r1
Q tiJ
~°
{
.~
-cam _
'""~ 'T`5
~-.
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG IN THE COURT OF COMMON
Appellants PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCMENT No. 07-4371 Civil Term
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Appellee
And
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
INTERVENOR and REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST
ANSWER TO MOTION SEEKING ORDER PERMITTING
NEW EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 2 Pa. C.S.A. ~754(a)
AND NOW come Lower Allen Township Intervenor and Real Party in interest on behalf
of the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township and answers the Motion
of Appellants seeking an order to permit new evidence as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is believed and averred the subject property
address is 3503 Simpson Ferry Road; not 3507.
3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is believed and averred that the record owners
of 3503 Simpson Ferry Road are Joseph and Mary Hoang, children of the
Appellants.
4. Admitted in part, denied in part. By way of further answer, Mr. Eby's correct title
is Sewage Enforcement Officer.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted upon information and belief.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Denied. To the contrary, the SEO did not discourage testimony related to septic
service companies. By way of further answer, the Appellants had the cesspool
system evaluated a number of times, but none of the service providers were called
as witnesses by the Appellants.
11. Admitted only that the SEO was unable to ascertain the amount of effluent in the
tank because of it being underground. The SEO was aware that the cesspool had a
capacity of at least 1000 gallons, based on pumping records supplied by the
Appellants.
12. Admitted in part. Denied in part. Admitted that the fioangs did not provide
expert testimony at the hearing. It is denied that they were not given the
opportunity to do so. By way of further answer, the Appellants had a number of
service providers on their property to evaluate the cesspool. Without expert
qualification by Appellants, it can not be determined if these individuals could
have provided expert testimony, but none was offered.
13. Denied, strict proof of same is demanded.
14. Admitted. By way of further answer, it is believed and averred that Ray Erb
performed the testing; not Thomas Erb.
15. Admitted only that an opinion has been provided. It is denied that the opinion in
any way changes the status of the Sewage Enforcement complaint.
16. Admitted.
17. Admitted.
18. Paragraph 18 is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To
the extent that a responsive pleading is required the averments of Paragraph 18
are deemed denied.
a) Admitted only that the parties disagree with the decision. By way of
further answer it is averred that Appellants had a malfunction of their
cesspool under the regulatory definition of the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection: "backflow of the on-lot system into the
dwelling."
b) Admitted in part. Denied in part. Admitted that the SEO visited the
property only once. By way of further answer, the visit, arranged at the
convenience of the Appellants, confirmed the presence of a cesspool
malfunction that was backflowing into the dwelling. It is denied that the
SEO is not an expert. To the contrary, the SEO is a certified by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection
regulations and was qualified to present expert testimony.
c) Admitted only that the Hoangs did not present expert opinion at the
hearing. All other averments of Paragraph 18 c are denied. By way of
further answer, please see responses to Paragraphs 10 and 12 herein.
19. Paragraph 19 is a legal conclusion.to which no responsive pleading is required.
To the extent that a responsive pleading is deemed required, the averments of
Paragraph 19 are deemed denied.
20. Admitted.
21. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Appellee and Intervenor respectfully request that this Honorable Court
deny the Motion of Appellants Hoangs to introduce new evidence into the record.
Respectfully submitted,
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, L LC
Date: ;_'.. ? ~ ~' ~ ~ ,: By:
Steve P. Miner, Esquire
Lower Allen Township Solicitor
Attorney I.D. #38901
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
(717) 724-9821
sminer@dzmmglaw.com
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v. :
THE SEWAGE ENFORCMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS
Appellee
And
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
INTERVENOR (REAL PARTY IN
INTEREST)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
Certificate of Service
I, Steven P. Miner, hereby certify that I have on this day served the foregoing
Answer to Motion Seeking Order Permitting new Evidence Pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S.A.
§754(a) by First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
~ ~'"~
Dated ~~ ~ day of February, 2008
Stev n P. Miner, Esquire
r`'
-r
~°:a
~a
r-cd7 -; ~
~t ~' ~-
_ ~ ~~ T~
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
AMENDMENT TO MOTION SEEKING ORDER PERMITTING
NEW EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 2 Pa. C.S.A §754(a)
David and Nancy Hoang file this Amendment to Motion Seeking an Order
Permitting New Evidence and in support thereof, state the following:
1. In correction to paragraph 21 of the Motion Seeking an Order Permitting New
Evidence, the Honorable Judge Oler has previously been assigned to this matter on a
Petition to Intervene.
WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue
and Order pursuant to 2 Pa.C.S.A. §754(a) allowing the Hoangs to supplement the
I ~
incomplete record below by presenting the report and testimony of Mr. Thomas Erb of
Thomas H. Erb & Sons, Inc. regarding the state of the sewage system on the Property.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By:
Richard .Stewart
Attorney I. . No. 18039
Elizabeth D. Snover
Attorney I.D. No. 200997
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Telephone: (717) 761-4540
a~_ ~~ Attorneys for Appellants
DATED: ~~~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date February 27,
2008 serve a copy of the foregoing Motion upon the other parties of record by causing same to
be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania,
addressed as follows:
Steven P. Miner, Esquire
Daley, Zucker, Meilton, Miner 8 Gingrich
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
Attorneys for Lower Allen Township Board of Sewer Enforcement Appeals
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By:
E izabet . Snover
~ " C:1
_ cry ~..~...0
~~.~~
s ~ ~ Y'
~
N -;
'
C!">
~~ -~
DAVID and NANCY HOANG, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Appellants CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. CIVIL ACTION -LAW
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP,
Appellee NO. 07-4371 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2008, upon consideration of Appellants'
Motion Seeking Order Permitting New Evidence Pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S.A. §754(a), a Rule
is hereby issued upon Appellee to show cause why the relief requested should not be
granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service.
BY THE COURT,
~i ~~
'~.~
r ~1
esley ~ ; Jr., J.
Richard W. Stewart, Esq.
~zabeth D. Snover, Esq.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Attorneys for Appellants
~
even P. Miner, Esq. V
p
1035 Mumma Road
Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
Attorney for Appellee
:rc
n,
6 Z ~' {~~ ~_ ~~'~ 80
~~lUa` ~~ x oz
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Appellee
and
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
INTERVENOR AND REAL
PARTY INTEREST
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
ANSWER TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Now comes Lower Allen Township, by and through its attorneys, Daley Zucker Meilton
Miner and Gingrich, LLC and answers this Honorable Court's Rule to Show Cause entered on
March 5, 2008.
A. Summary of facts
The Court has entered an Order upon the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of
Lower Allen Township and Lower Allen Township to show why the David and Nancy
Hoang,(herein "Appellants") should not be able to reopen the record to introduce new evidence.
This matter is a Sewage Enforcement Appeal that was heard in Lower Allen Township and
appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
The basis of the Appeal is the actions of the Sewage Enforcement Officer (herein
"SEO") of Lower Allen Township who required the Appellants to abate a property maintenance
violation involving the on-site sewage disposal system at the property at 3503 Simpson Ferry
Road.. (Lower Allen Township Notice of Violation 2006-04 for a malfunctioning cesspool).
The Appellants chose to abate the violation by vacating the tenant occupied property. This
matter went to a Sewage Enforcement Appeal when the Appellants requested to make the
premises their personal residence without correcting the violation. This matter is governed by
the Sewage Facilities Chapter 175 of the Codified Ordinances of Lower Allen Township, the
Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act (35 P.S. Section 750.1 et seq.) and the Clean
Streams Law (35 P.S. Section 691.1 et seq.). A hearing was held on May 14, 2007. An
adjudication was rendered from that matter affirming the actions of the Sewage Enforcement
Office.
The record is replete with undisputed testimony that the cesspool malfunctioned by
backing up into the dwelling. (See John Eby testimony at pages?-9 for Township, Kathy
Minnich testimony at page 52 for the Appellants, David Altland testimony at pages 61-2 for
Appellants, attached hereto)
B. Issue
Whether the Appellants, David and Nancy Hoang, should be granted leave to permit
new evidence pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S.A. §754(a), in this matter?
Suggested answer: NO.
C. Argument
The basis of this matter is a Sewage Enforcement Appeal. The Appellants are seeking to
reverse the decision of the Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township.
The Appellants have a malfunctioning cesspool at their property at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road,
Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Pennsylvania. (The property is owned by the Appellants;
children, 3oseph and Mary Hoang)
The Sewage Enforcement Officer introduced evidence at the hearing that the cesspool
was malfunctioning and has required either replacement of the system or vacation of the
property. The Appellants have chosen to vacate the property and it has not been inhabited since
January 2007.
Despite the clear instructions to either connect to public sewer or to provide some other
remediation program, the Appellants have insisted that the actions of the SEO were
inappropriate and that the Board's action should be reversed.
First, the SEO is acting under the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with
regard to the Clean Streams Law, the Sewage Facilities Act and other related regulations
dealing with on-site sewage disposal systems. The SEO has no discretion to continue the clear
and present danger to the public health caused by a malfunctioning cesspool. Appellants had a
malfunction of the cesspool under the regulatory definition of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, backflow of the on-lot system into the dwelling. Under the
regulations of the Department of Environmental Protection, a cesspool is not an approved on-lot
disposal system, and once one fails, it must be replaced with public sewer or an approved on-lot
system.
For this reason alone, it makes very little sense to seek opinion testimony about the
current condition of the cesspool. There is adequate evidence in the record indicating that the
cesspool backed up into the dwelling at 3507 Simpson Ferry Road. This resulted in an
inspection by the SEO who rendered his decision, which was affirmed by the Sewage
Enforcement Board of Appeals. The SEO did not discourage testimony related to septic service
companies. Appellants had a number of service providers evaluate their system. However, they
chose not to call them as witnesses. (See Nancy Hoang testimony at page 65, attached hereto)
Even assuming arguendo that additional evidence is necessary, it is not clear what the
testimony of Ray Erb, the alleged expert, will prove. Mr. Erb can only provide hydraulic
analysis on a vacant property at the time of his visit. He can not speculate on the observations
of the Township SEO at the time of the violation. Whether or not Mr. Erb observed any
malfunction at the time of his visit does not take away from the fact that there was a
malfunction at the premises, observed by the SEO. It is expected that Appellants will seek to
convince the Court that the cesspool will operate satisfactorily when the Appellants return to the
property. They base this on the assumption that a married couple will generate less daily water
usage then the tenants that resided at the property at the time of the malfunction. This argument
is not relevant either, because the malfunction has occurred and the violation has been cited.
The SEO has no discretion under the ordinance or statutes to return to the status quo and
endanger the public health.
Conclusion
The Appellee, Sewage Enforcement Board of Appeals of Lower Allen Township and the
real party in interest, Lower Allen Township, respectfully request this Honorable Court to deny
the Relief requested in the form of an order permitting new evidence in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
DALEY ZUCKER MEILTON
MINER & GINGRICH, L LC
Date: ~ 7 ~ °~ By: ~ `~
Steve P. Miner, Esquire
Lower Allen Township Solicitor
Attorney LD. #38901
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
(717) 724-9821
sminer@dzmmglaw.com
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Appellee
and
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
INTERVENOR AND REAL
PARTY INTEREST
Certificate of Service
I, Steven P. Miner, hereby certify that I have on this day served the foregoing Answer to
Rule to Show Cause by First Class Mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Richard W. Stewart, Esquire
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esquire
Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, P.C.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
(~
Dated ~ d day of March, 2008
/~(,_---
Steven P Miner, Esquire
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But the short version is,
essentially, that sometime last August we
received complaints from the tenants of the
Hoangs at 3503 Simpson Ferry Road regarding a
recurring problem of the drain and the basement
backing up with sewage from the on-lot sewage
disposal system.
So we initially did a complaint
investigation with in-house staff; building
inspectors and our complaint coordinator. And
when it became apparent that it was an on-lot
system malfunction, I became involved as the
Sewage Enforcement Officer.
There will be a series of
communications that I will discuss, where we
indicated that the malfunction of the cesspool
was at a point where they had to take some course
of action.
At that time they opted to have the
premises vacated. The tenants left. So the
malfunction was in an abeyance until earlier this
year when we received requests from the Hoangs to
occupy the structure. At which time I reiterated
my obligations as the SEO to have the malfunction G
corrected first.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
That was not a satisfactory answer.
So they filed letters indicating they intended to
occupy within approximately a month of those
letters. And that was back in March.
Q Of this year?
A Of this year. And I wrote them a
letter back indicating that was in error and they
were not to do that. That precipitated the
appeal.
Y believe their letters were a
letter from David and Nancy Hoang on 3/27/07 and
a letter from an attorney representing them Sarah
McCarroll an 3/28/07. So T rebutted that on
3/29/07 with a certified letter to David and
Nancy Hoang, who manage the property through
Power of Attorney to their daughter, Mary, who we
had been dealing, who is one of the owners, along
with her brother, and to Attorney McCarroll.
So that is what precipitated the
appeal, their objection over my stance regarding
the malfunction.
Q What stance is it that you took,
just very briefly?
A That in the course of our duties as
Sewage Enforcement Officers, we are compelled to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
find a cause of a problem and make sure the /
problem is resolved. ~j
We know the symptom, that there was
recurring malfunction by backup of sewage into .
the basement; but we don't have a cause.
And quite frankly, a cesspool is a
system in Pennsylvania that has not been
permitted as a method of sewage disposal since at
the Sewage Facilities Act went into effect in
1966. '
So there is no technical guidance in
the SEO training manual, in the SEO field manual,
in the regulations or the statutes governing our
work to give us any guidance on repair of a
cesspool.
Q What.did you order or direct or
determine with respect to the use of the
property?
A That the Hoangs could follow several
courses of action. They could attempt to have a
holding tank constructed, if we could work
through local agency and DEP regulatory
requirements; and use that as a stopgap measure
to abate the nuisance until such time as the
property could be hooked up to public sewer.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
behalf because of that language barrier. And my
ob~servatio~n is that. too much has gone on, too
long. They have spent thousands and thousands of
dollars attempting to make corrections that
obviously are not satisfactory; and yet Mr. Eby
was there one time, from what T understood in his
testimony. One time for 30 minutes in a year.
And I understand that what Mr. Eby
is explaining with regard to the malfunction; and
not being able to know until you dig up 15 or 20
feet you, how big, how far. But has the soil
been tested'in that area?
I have a lot of questions. There
are a lot of questions. And my concern for them
is that no one from the Township has been there
more than maybe an hour in a year and has not
been inspected regularly.
I know it was backing up; but if the`
tenants call and say it is backing up to their
ankles, then someone should be there to check to
make sure it is backing up to their ankles. It
was backing up, but I never saw anything more
than some wetness around the floor.
So I just -- my feeling is that, in
this particular situation, thousands of dollars
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
people were there.
MR. YOUNG: Now, at .that time, was
there visible evidence in the front yard
along there of overflow conditions, etc.?
Was there anything there that you
could see? Not demeaning you, but would T
have been able to determine that there was
a problem with .the sewage?
MR. ALTLAND: None of the times
that I was there was there any indication
on the surface of the ground that there
was a problem.
The times I was there, even out at
the septic tank, there was a cap on a
4-inch .pipe. When I pulled that off, I
shined down the flashlight trying to see
what I could determine. And at no time
had there ever been any water on the
surface of the ground out there.
The only time there was every any
water an the surface that you could see
was on the side of the house when the one
drain line from the washer had been ~
temporarily rerouted to go out on top of
the ground. It was wet one day, one time
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
when I was there. But that had been
corrected. And in fact, when I saw that,
I told them that is not the way to handle
it. You have to put that back together.
Later on I know John had given them
a letter, later on instructing that they
had to reconnect it properly.
But that was the only time I ever
saw any moisture on the surface at all.. I
think any time there was a problem, a ~j
backup, it was in the basement. It never
got to the surface, other than what was
pumped out.
MR. YOUNG: I recognize the fact you
were not called or on duty at the 3503
premises; but would there have been a
comment back to your work log for the day
to the effect that you might have been
called there and asked to look at a
problem on a semi or quasi. official
status?
In other words, you had a daily log
where you kept your reports?
MR. ALTLAND: Yes.
MR. YOUNG: Was there any notation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
concerned. My daughter wouldn't want me and my
husband moving there.
Q You and your husband would like to
move into the property?
A Yes.
Q And you are willing to limit the
occupancy of that property to two people?
A Two people.
Q And you are willing, if you do that,
to let the Township come over at frequent
intervals and inspect the property to make sure
everything is operating properly?
A Yes. I already have many companies
in there. Even today I called~to -- I have one
Dillsburg Septic, he come today too to I make
sure everything okay before I go to the hearing
today.
Nothing wrong. Everything good. ~
And he told me that. I have different companies
come already.
Q You have had a lot of people come
out there; and they found it is operating okay?
A If Township, they want to come and
inspect and do something, that is okay with the
Township.
C? ~ C)
L }. ~ '11
r t ~
"CS
:•
~ _
~!ry
V~ T?
` ~ ~ .
M1 ~~
„_ t~
»_~ ""~
l
DAVID and NANCY HOANG, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Appellants CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. CIVIL ACTION -LAW
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP,
Appellee NO. 07-4371 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: APPELLANTS' MOTION SEEKING ORDER
PERMITTING NEW EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO
2 PA. C.S.A. X754
AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2008, upon consideration of Appellants' Motion
Seeking Order Permitting New Evidence pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S.A. §754(a), oral argument
on the motion is scheduled for Thursday, June 12, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No.
1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
BRIEFS shall be submitted to the court at least five days prior to the argument.
BY THE COURT,
Wesley Ode , Jr.,
chard W. Stewart, Esq.
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esq.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Attorneys for Appellants
even P. Miner, Esq.
1035 Mumma Road
Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
Attorney for Appellee
:rc
J
~ { 1
!~ t ~ .~fil~^.l
~i r, '~J
_.: i
DAVID and NANCY HOANG, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Appellants CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. CIVIL ACTION -LAW
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP,
Appellee N0.07-4371 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: APPELLANTS' MOTION SEEKING ORDER
PERMITTING NEW EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO
2 PA. C.S.A. §754
AND NOW, this 2°d day of June, 2008, upon consideration of the attached letter
from Steven P. Miner, Esq., attorney for Defendant, and with the agreement of Richard
W. Stewart, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, oral argument on the above-captioned motion is
rescheduled for Tuesday, July 1, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland
County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
BRIEFS shall be submitted to the court at least five days prior to the argument.
BY THE COURT,
/Richard W. Stewart, Esq.
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esq.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Attorneys for Appellants
/Steven P. Miner, Esq.
1035 Mumma Road
Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
Attorney for Appellee
rc
n //.
l:~ t E;S rYt~ t (~c~
1
b`3~~
~~
Lo
J. esley Ole Jr.,
Z ~ ~ 1 ~d ~- ~t~f ~Z
,~~b:l.~F`~~:~ ~~.u ~,i~ ~~~1. ~C
R
DAVID AND NANCY HOANG
Appellants
v.
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
Appellee
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 07-4371 Civil Term
PRAECIPE TO ATTACH EXHIBIT TO MOTION SEEKING ORDER PERMITTING NEW
EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 2 Pa. C.S.A. §754(a)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please attach the enclosed Exhibit A to the Motion Seeking Order Permitting
New Evidence Pursuant to 2 Pa.C.S.A. §754(a).
DATED: ~~ a~-3 6 ~
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By:
Richar .Stewart
Attorney I.D. No. 18039
Elizabeth D. Snover
Attorney I.D. No. 200997
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Telephone: (717) 761-4540
Attorneys for Appellants
~"
ridge ~vs
Parker McCay
glen Judge
05/25/07
~;s.z'~ 13 {Pages 46 to 49)
Page 46~ Page 48
1 method and functioning method of sewage disposal , 1 Q Yes.
2 to have a habitable dwelling; and because of 2 A I know the cesspool is incapable of
3 recurring problem, that does not exist. 3 handling the effluent that is put into it. We
4 So one o€the bullet points in our 4 don't no specifically the reasons why. It is
5 letter needs to be followed to come up with a 5 backing up into the dwelling. We know the
6 either temporary or a permanent solution. 6 symptom. We don't know the cause.
7 Q To your knowledge, has this cesspool 7 Q Yon don't know the capacity of the
8 been ezcavated or the top taken o$to allow 8 . tank?
9 observation for inspection of the interior? 9 A No.
j 10 A Not to my knowledge. And I did 1 o Q And yon don't know how mach was pat
11 caution in my letters and in personal 11 into that tank by the tenants?
12 communications that, quite frankly, excavating it 12 A No.
13 might cause its demise; because we don't know how 13 Q And yon don't know that that
14 deep the lid is or what condition it is in. It 14 cesspool could not handle a smaller amount of
15 might collapse into the cesspool 15 e@lnent that was pnr in there by the tenants?
16 if the cesspool is .vacuumed out with 16 Yon don't know?
17 aseptic pumping truck correctly and they agitate 17 A That's correct.
18 the content and get the sludge out, it might 18 MR STEWART: That's all the
19 actually cause the side walls to cave in; or 19 questions I have.
2 0 conversely, it might actually really clean it up 2 0 MR SHATTO: I don't have any
21 so that it is actually polhrting the groundwater 21 redirect.
2 2 and creating Problem 1 on the list of 2 2 MR MINER How do you want to
2 3 malfunctions. 2 3 handle this. package?
2 4 Q And despite the correspondence and 2 4 MIZ SHATTO: I would propose it to
2 5 the rebuttals and eznlanations. etc.. has voar 2 5 be entered as a single exhibit. He has
Page 47~ Page 49
1 position as SEO changai at all with respect to 1 described everything in the content of it
2 this cesspool and the use and occupancy of the 2 by dates and description.
3 property? 3 So I don't think it is necessary to
4 A No. 4 mark each document as a separate exhibit;
5 MIt. SHATTO: I believe that is all I 5 but either way is fine with me.
6 have for Mr. Eby. 6 MR MINER: Mr. Stewart?
7 MR. MINER: Mr. Stewart? 7 M.R. STEWART: Put in it as one.
8 8 MR MINER: We accept the package as
9 EXAMINATION BY MR: STEWART: 9 Township Exhibit 1.
10 Q Mr. Eby, before these tenants moved 10 (Exlu'bit Township 1, Eby packet,
11 in, yon never had any complaints about this 11 marked for Identification.)
12 properly? Yon don't have any record of 12 MR MINER: Do you have any other
13 complaints with regard to this property, do yon? 13 witnesses?
14 A No. 14 MR SHATTO: No.
15 Q With regard to-the septic? 15 MR STEWART: I would like to call
16 A No. 16 Kathy Minnich as my first witness.
17 Q And with regard to the other 17
18 properties oat there that adjoin that have 18
19 ecsspool, yon have not had complaints abo~ there 19
2 0 other? ~ 2 0
21 A No. 21
2 2 Q And as I guess yon have ezplained, 2 2
2 3 there is no book oa cesspools; so yon don•t have 2 3
2 4 any idea what the caaise is? 2 4
2 S
.......~ A No. Well, could I rephrase that.?,
Y,...~-.~...~...-._..~.,..,~....~w~....W .p....~ ..,........ 2 5
. ,.." ,
.t
Leary Reporting " ~~ (717) 233-2660
Mechanicsburg, PA ~~(~I,Ibi~'" ~ Fax (717) 691-7768
R~
~h
..
.~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, the undersigned does hereby certify that she did this date, June 23, 2008,
serve a copy of the foregoing Praecipe upon the other parties of record by causing same to be
deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania,
addressed as follows:
Steven P. Miner, Esquire
Daley, Zucker, Meilton, Miner & Gingrich
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
Attorneys for Lower Allen Township Board of Sewer Enforcement Appeals
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
By:
lizab D. Snover
~`~ r..,
C.
.
~E +
.
~} ?7 fT;
iF~
7"
-~ ~
?7
~. ~
"~
Cm+.x
DAVID and NANCY HOANG,
APPELLANTS .
v .
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF LOWER
ALLEN TOWNSHIP,
APPELLEE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 07-4371 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: APPELLANTS' MOTION SEEKING ORDER PERMITTING NEW EVIDENCE
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2008, upon
consideration of Appellants' Motion Seeking Order Permitting New
Evidence Pursuant to Pa. C.S.A. Section 754, and following oral
argument held on this date, the matter is taken under advisement.
By the Court,
chard W. Stewart, Esquire
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
For Appellants
even P. Miner, Esquire
1035 Mumma Road, Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
For Appellee
:mae
I
~~ :~ ~~d Z- ~~!~' ~iiZ
A~~+~}~~~~~ L~ ~~Ni ~U
~^i:!~; ~-CIL
DAVID and NANCY HOANG, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Appellants CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v' CIVIL ACTION -LAW
THE SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD OF APPEALS OF
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP, :
Appellee N0.07-4371 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: APPELLANTS' MOTION SEEKING ORDER
PERMITTING NEW EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO
2 PA. C.S.A. §754
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 2°d day of July, 2008, upon consideration of Appellants' Motion
Seeking Order Permitting New Evidence Pursuant to 2 Pa. C.S.A. 754 a
briefs submitted by the parties, and following oral ar ment § ~~~ and of the
l~ held on July 1, 2008, the
motion is denied.
BY THE COURT,
hard W. Stewart, Esq.
Elizabeth D. Snover, Esq.
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Attorneys for Appellants
teven P. Miner, Esq.
1 Q3 5 Mumma Road
Suite 101
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
Attorney for Appellee
4 j
J~ Wesley O , Jr., J.
V
:rc
~~~~
~~ . ~
~+~ : ~ 4 ~ ~~ liif 8~)Z