A Carbon County judge sided with a Bowmanstown borough official when he ruled that the Bowmanstown Borough Authority must reimburse her $3,000

In January 2022, borough Councilwoman Kara Scott filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County against the authority for what she believes to be improper fines that have been levied against her bed-and-breakfast; specifically a $3,000 fee plus a monthly Equivalent Dwelling Unit.

The Carbon County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 19, following a non-jury trial determined that the authority in its 2005 resolution does not have the provision to charge Scott with an additional tapping fee.

Carbon Judge Steven R. Serfass, in his ruling, states that the property at 422 Ore St., is to be assessed as one equivalent dwelling unit.

Also, within 30 days of the date of this decision and ruling, the authority is to reimburse/return to Scott the tapping fee in the amount of $3,000 which she paid for the additional EDU together with all additional fees/charges which were paid in connection with the additional EDU assessed by the authority.

The judge said:

• There is no provision within the resolution which permits the authority to determine that the structure has two EDUs.

• “The authority’s interpretation of the resolution is inconsistent with the resolution itself and is, therefore, erroneous as applied to Scott.”

• “There is no provision within the resolution which concerns itself with those situations in which a residential dwelling has a business within the structure.”

• “A section of the resolution is inapplicable to the facts in this case in that the plain language of this section does not concern itself with a situation in which a residential dwelling has a business within the structure.”

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, 2021. The board said the house was still considered a one dwelling unit with the additional use of the house as a bed-and-breakfast, and there was no cooking facility in the unit.

The zoning hearing board granted Scott a special exception and variance.

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.

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 fee.

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

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

Scott was 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.