A Bowmanstown official has filed a complaint against the Bowmanstown Borough Authority for what she believes to be improper fines that have been levied against her bed-and-breakfast.

Councilwoman Kara Scott, who owns Gypsies Suite Retreat, 422 Ore St., filed the complaint on Thursday in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County against the authority for improperly imposing a $3,000 fee plus a monthly Equivalent Dwelling Unit.

Scott owns the house, which before 1999, had rooms on the first floor of the house, which included a bathroom and a kitchen and could serve as an apartment. After 1999 and to present, the unit has not had a kitchen, and the house has been treated as a one-dwelling unit.

In 2021, Scott decided to have a bed-and-breakfast at the house, and applied for a special exception and a variance.

A public hearing was held before the zoning hearing board on Aug. 23, at which time the zoning office tested that according to the zoning ordinance, the house was still considered one dwelling unit with the additional use of the house as a bed-and-breakfast, and that there was no cooking facility in the unit.

The zoning hearing board granted Scott a special exception and variance and concluded that the unit did not have a cooking facility.

By letter dated Oct. 20, the authority’s solicitor informed Scott that the authority determined that the house was going to be treated as two equivalent dwelling units based on the authority’s interpretation of a resolution.

A section of the resolution outlines how the authority is supposed to determine the number of equivalent dwelling units, which exist on a property.

According to the resolution, each EDU necessitates a $3,000 tapping fee, and EDUs are determined by actual metered flow that’s used to determine tapping fees for a nonresidential improved property; a residential dwelling unit is assessed one EDU; each dwelling unit contained within a multiunit facility is assessed 1 EDU, and according to the authority’s resolution, a dwelling unit is defined as having a separate kitchen and bathroom facility; and this section deals with a multiunit nonresidential building and is applicable when there is more than one commercial establishment in a building, which relied on by the authority in assessing an additional EDU, clearly has no application whatsoever to Scott’s property.

Scott was billed for a second tapping fee, and the authority’s solicitor made it clear he was going to pursue legal proceedings against Scott if she did not pay that added tapping fee.

As a consequence, Scott has paid the added tapping fee of $3,000, the payment of which she made under protest, and has also been required to pay an additional $58 per month due to the second EDU.

Scott’s argument is that the authority and its solicitor have acted in bad faith for the sole purpose of harassing and injuring Scott, who is seeking a civil penalty, attorney’s fees and costs.

Scott is asking for the court to declare that in accordance with the resolution, the authority was not permitted to treat the house as two EDUs; that the house is to be treated as one EDU; that the authority return to Scott $3,000; and the authority return all additional charges paid by Scott due to the added EDU.

Borough council questioned over agenda item