By Diane Petryk
The Daily Item
—
NORTHUMBERLAND — Codes officer Paul Ruane says Tamara Runyan’s sidewalk petition, targeting his walk at 409 Water St., “don’t hold no water.”
That’s because petitioners don’t “labor under great inconvenience” because of it, he said, quoting wording in the borough’s sidewalk ordinance where it provides for petition for redress of nonexistent or nonconforming pavements.
She still says they do.
Runyan submitted her petition Aug. 3 with 21 signatures. Five are required by the ordinance, and installation or repair is required within 30 days.
Ruane told Borough Council members at their regular meeting Tuesday that Runyan was just trying to get back at him for a code ruling against a relative. Runyan denied that.
Ruane then carried a picture of his sidewalk from spectator to spectator. “Does that look like it’s a danger to life and limb?” he asked.
In the words of the ordinance, a petition is valid “where there are no paved sidewalks, or the sidewalks already laid so differ from the established grade and the other adjacent pavements as to render them dangerous to life and limb or inconvenient for public travel.”
Runyan said after the meeting his walk is inconvenient for public travel, and she intends to pursue the matter at the borough’s safety committee meeting next week.
Runyan’s petition asks that Ruane be forced to fix his walk because it violates four parts of the sidewalk ordinance: B1, on technical standards, and C2, C3 and C8 on replacement standards.
B1 calls for all sidewalks to be at least five feet or the width of any abutting sidewalk.
C2 says any sidewalk that has one significant crack and one of the pieces on either side of the crack has risen or fallen one inch or more than any of the adjoining sidewalk sections does not meet standards.
C3 stipulates that any section of sidewalk that has risen or fallen one inch or more above or below an adjoining sidewalk section or curb does not meet standards.
C8 says any sidewalk that has flush edges that have risen or fallen by one inch or more over a 12-inch span does not meet standards.
Ruane said four signers of the petition wrote letters asking that their names be taken off the petition, and two called with the same request.
Runyan told the council that was because they were afraid of retaliation from the codes officer and the board.
“Some people didn’t sign because they feared if they did you wouldn’t give them permits to get their homes fixed,” she said.
But six names off the list, she said, leaves 15, and that is still three times as many as the ordinance requires.
In other business, council President Greg Carl brought up a proposed code of conduct for council meetings. “We had some issue with too much discussion,” he said.
The proposed code would require residents who want to address the board to request to speak by the Thursday before regular Tuesday meetings — and restrict their comments to three minutes. The code also would require “complete attention” be paid to the speakers, with no interruptions or side conversations.
Councilwoman Judith Groninger balked, saying it sounded “restrictive.” The matter will be sent back to the rules committee for further consideration.
After information technology problems at the police department, the council voted 4-0, with three members absent, to have Geise Associates Ltd., of Sunbury, handle its technological support needs.
“You can trust we’re not trying to sell you anything,” Bill Geise told the board.
“It’s nice to have someone who knows what to do and is readily available,” Carl said.
The board also sanctioned the Pineknotter Fudge Run, which will be held along King Street on Oct. 2.
