Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout728 Reihart (2)Gary D. Reihart c/o Donald L. Reihart Laucks 9 Monroe 29 North Duke Street York, Pennsylvania 17401 -1282 Re: 86- 041 -C, 87 -073 -C Dear Mr. Reihart: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 30$ FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 728 Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair W. Thomas. Andrews G. Sieber Pancoast James M. Howley Michael J. Washo Date Decided: September 26, 1989 Date Mailed: September 28, 1989 I. Allegations: That you, a Carroll Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's or public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain in that you participated in decisions made by the Board of Supervisors which affect your personal real- estate development, Hill -N -Dale Estates. A. Findings: 1. You served as a Township Supervisor in Carroll Township, York County, Pennsylvania: a. You have served in this position from January, 1986 to the present. b. You also served as chairman of the Township Board of Supervisors during the same period of time. 2. You are self - employed as a licensed thoroughbred horse trader and breeder. You did submit a sub- division plan known as Hill -N -Dale Estates to Carroll Township. ,Gary D. Reihart Page 2 3. Carroll Township is involved in running of a sewer lifte hich would service Hill -N -Dale Estates. 4. . . of the Township . supervisor's meetings refl.etta'Setions were taken by the - township supervisors •withegafd''to the `'ter -line ,to -N Dale Estates as follows: April 3, 19 - Motion by,Eichelberger,tovipptavecthe agreement with Dillsburg SowarlAiletWitity. Second•byMr. Reihart. The voteAW&sPliteiheikt and Eichelberger . -yes and • +irs . - 8Weill y-'do. April 3, -1986 Motion by Reihart to . approve theltahildtbry sewer hook -on Ordinance #5.4 -1446. 'Second Eichelberger. The vote was ' :Reihart and Eichelberger yes and °Mrs. :Shelley - no. April 3, 1986 - April 17, 1986 - Motion by Eichelberger to = seent f '3aetter notifying Gannet Fleming Company to 'cbmplete -the-revision to Act '337 Plan "to "inc4 Te a sewer line , to :LHi1l -N -Dale Estates -. -has motion was seconded by Reihart. The vote was Eichelberger and Reihart'yes and Mrs. Shelley .no. The Hill- N- Dale .Estates litigation was brought on the floor of the meeting. At this time, the meeting was turned over to Solicitor William Schrack. A suit brought by township resident Curtis A. Eppley against the township was discussed. Mr. Schrack explained that the damage portion of this case was concluded by the signing of releases as authorized by the Liability Insurance Companies which were involved in the suit. The motion was made by Supervisor Eichelberger to adopt a resolution, #1986 -08, with regard to the equity portion of the case to authorize Solicitor Schrack to sign a stipulation of counsel on the release document. Under the terms of this settlement, the sewer line would be built from Dillsburg Borough to Hill -N -Dale Estates. This would be in accordance with a Decree of Court which was reviewed at this meeting_ The motion was seconded by Reihart The vote was Reihart and Eichelberger yes and/Mts. Shelley no. Gary D. Reihart Page 3 April 16, 1987 - April 16, 1987 - April 16, 1987 - April 16, 1987 - April 28, 1987 Motion by Reihart to award the bid for the Sewer District 1, from Mumper Lane and Orebank Road sewer line project, as per recommendation of Engineering Corporation to Boyd E. Diller Incorporated in the amount of $371,967.40 and that they be notified that this is subject to financing being arranged in at least the amount of said bid. The motion was seconded by Eichelberger. Discussion followed. Vote: Eichelberger yes, Reihart abstained and Mrs. Shelley voted yes. Motion carried. Motion by Reihart to make application to Mellon Bank for a loan in the amount of $400,000.00 for the construction of the sewer line, second by Eichelberger. Discussion followed. Eichelberger then withdrew his second. Reihart amended his motion to read to make application to Mellon Bank for a loan of $410,000.00 for construction of the sewer line. Second by Eichelberger. Vote: Eichelberger yes, Shelley yes, Reihart abstained. Motion by Reihart to begin negotiations with the developers to enter into an agreement for the purposes -of financing the project. Second by Eichelberger. Vote: Eichelberger yes, Mrs. Shelley abstained, Mr. Reihart abstained. Motion died for a lack of a majority. Motion by Eichelberger to submit the Sewer Connection Agreement drawn by the township solicitor to the developers. Second by Shelley. Vote: Eichelberger and Shelley yes and Reihart abstained. Motion carried. Sewer line discussion. These minutes consists of about four pages on the construction, costs, and financing of the sewer project. A list of those individuals who would be requesting sewage permits included Mr. Reihart and indicated that he would want fifty permits. The minutes indicated that the Sewer Connection Agreement be revised and further discussion would be Gary D. Reihart Page 4 May 28, 1,987 - July 21, 1987 held during a latter pact of the regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday3.y 7, 1987. Solicitor Griest read the Sewer Connection Agreement by . paragraphs for corrections. Motion was made by Eichelberger seconded by Reihart who accepted the agreement with the changes that Solicitor Griest noted, plus add the cost of liability insurance and that the Dillsburg Sewer Authority was dissatisfied with details concerning the basements on Mumper Lane. Vote: Eichelberger hand Shelley yes, Reihart abstained.: Motion carried. Motion was made by Eichelberger seconded by Reihart to adopt Resolution 1987 *.14 creating Sewer District 1 of Carron township Sanitary Sewer System. Vote: Reihart abstained, Eichelberger yes and Mrs. Shelley no. Motion did not carry. Later in the evening, a motion was made by Reihart, seconded by Eichelberger to adopt a resolution 1987 -14 creating Sewer District 1 of Carroll. Township Sanitary Sewer System. Vote: Reihart abstained, Eichelberger and Shelley yes. Motion carried. October 1, 1987 Motion by Eichelberger, seconded by Reihart to adopt Ordinance #02 -1987 which sets forth rules and regulations for the operation of the Sanitary Sewer Authority System along certain portions of Mumper Lane and Orebank Road known as Sewer District 1. This was tbt role call vote. Reihart abstained, Eichelberger yes and Shelley no. Motion did not carry. October 1, 1987 - Motion was made by Eichelberger, seconded by Reihart to adopt Ordinance #02 -1987 which sets forth the Rates, Rules, and Regulattens for the operation of the Sanitary Sewer System of Sewer District 1. This alto waa a role call vote. Reihart abstained, Eichelberger yes and Shelley no. Motion did not carry. Gary D. Reihart Page 5 October 1, 1987 - Motion by Reihart, seconded by Eichelberger that Solicitor Griest notify James Thawley, a builder, of his responsibility to install four laterals in the Hill -N -Dale Estates in accordance with a Court Order. Vote: Reihart yes, Eichelberger yes, Shelley yes. Shelley, said she voted yes because it is a Court Order. Motion carried. November 19, 1987: A motion was made by Reihart, seconded by Eichelberger to adopt Ordinance #61 -87, which sets forth the rates, rules and regulations for the operation of the Township Sanitary Sewer System along certain portions of Mumper Lane and Orebank Road known as Sewer District 1, and prescribing penalties for any violations. Vote: Reihart and Eichelberger yes. Motion carried Minutes reflect that Supervisor Shelley was not present. 5. You provided the following clarifications regarding the minutes of the Carroll Township Supervisors where action was taken regarding the sewer line to Hill -N -Dale Estates: a. April 3, 1986: The first two motions were not for the Hill -N -Dale sewer line, but rather an Agreement that was undertaken in 1979 for the Sewer Authority to expand their sewer plant and then to run a sewer line down the Mountain Road, which is on the other side of the Township from Hill -N -Dale Estates. b. April 3, 1986 The next April 3, 1986 motion was in regard to a law suit brought against the Township several years prior to my being elected to the Board of Supervisors. DER insisted that we adopt this 537 Plan or they would not lift the sewer moratorium that had been filed against the Township for several years prior to my election. This was merely a plan that spelled out the safe disposal of sewage for the area in Sewage District #1. It said sewers to the Hill -N -Dale area was the best method of disposing of sewage from that area. This had been Gamy D. Reihart Page 6 c. April 17, 1986 d. April 16, 1987 projected in Carroll Township's Comprehensive Plan dated in 1974. This motion was in regard to a law suit that was brought by several residents of Hil14 - bale who had malfunctioning septic systems that were permitted by the Township Sewer Enforcement Officers. The Township Solicitor and York County Judge John Rauhauser worked out an agreement. I was told that I could vote on the question to settle the law suit. This I did, but I was not voting on installing the sewer line, only that the agrement offered the Township could be accepted. This motion, which occurred one year later, was for the installation of the sewer line. It took us all that time to convince Mrs. Shelley that she would have to vote to install the sewer line or it would not get done. I was not going to vote to install the sewer and I did not vote to install that line. I abstained. e. April 16 1987 This motion was to finance the installation of the sewer line. I abstained, and the other two supervisors voted for it. We later decided that an offer from two private developers to install the line was a better idea, so we never followed through with obtaining any financing. The next two motions have to do with the private developers building the sewer line. I abstained. The other two supervisors voted for it. f. The sewer line was installed at the expense of the two developers and no township funds were utilized. g. The sewer line allowed for 565 permits for "tap -ins" aid only 20 permits were .. issued to land owners in the Hi11 -N- Dale Estates Gary D. Reihart Page 7 6. Minutes of the township supervisor's meetings reflect the following in regards to your action on matters concerning Hill -N- Dale Estates befofde the Board of Supervisors: April 3, 1986 - Motion by Supervisor Reihart to put the Gary D Reihart Incorporated 5 -lot final . subdivision on the floor. Seconded by Supervisor Shelley. Mrs. Shelley asked a question with regard to the procedure for presenting this plan. The township engineer explained these procedures. A motion was made by Mr. Reihart to amend the above motion to read, to approve this plan subject to payment of a second fee with the plan not be signed or recorded and no permits issued until the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources approves this plan. A vote was taken with Supervisor Eichelberger voting yes and Mrs. Shelley voting, no. The minutes did not mention whether Mr. Reihart voted or abstained with regard to this motion. June 5, 1986 - Motion by Reihart to adopt a revision to the 537 Plan submitted by Gannet Fleming Company as the official revised 537 Plan of Carroll Township by referring specifically to . alternative #5 in the plan as our method of handling Hill -N -Dale Estates. Second by Eichelberger. Vote: Reihart and Eichelberger yes, Shelley no. December 29,. 1986 - Moved by Eichelberger and second ,by Reihart to table the plans of Gary D. F eiiart Incorporated, Hill -N -Dale Estates lot 3 -27 lots, preliminary plan, and Gary D. Reihart and Hill -N -Dale Estates, parcel G -21 lots, preliminary plan. Eichelberger and Mrs. Shelley voted yes and Reihart abstained. Motion carried. February S, 1987• =. Moved by Eichelberger and seconded by Reihart, to approve the final subdivision plans of Bill -N -Dale Estates lot 3, 27 lots, subject to the posting of bonds in the amount of $47,000.00 for the improvement of Secretariate Drive and to add an acceptable storm water plan to be accepted by the Gaacy :D. Reihart Page 8 February 5, 1987 April 16, 1987 April 16, 1987 - township engineer. Vote: Eichelberger. yes, Reihart abstained, and Shelley no due to no preliminary plans being ,rece-ived by the Board. No action was taken. - :Moved by Eichelberger, seconded by Reihart, to approve the final subdivision plans of Hill -N -Dale Estates parcel , 21 lOts, subject to the posting of bonds in the amount of $45,000.00 and an acceptable water storm waste management plan to be accepted by the township engineer. Vote: Eichelberger .yes Reihart abstained and Shelley no, because the plan does not conform to the subdivision ordinance insomuch as the preliminary plan has never been approved by the Board of Supervisors. No action taken. Reihart presented the modified plan of Lot G of Gary D. Reihart. Motion by Eichelberger to approve the finial subdivision plan of Gary b. Reihart Dale Estates portion G,: as modified changing lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, driveways coming u i to Northern Dancer Drive and pending all previous provisions made. Bbndin4=$1B;000.00 and monuments-$150.00. Fees have been paid. Seconded by Shelley. Vote: ghelley and Eichelberger yes, Reihart abstained. Motion carried. 7. You were the developer of a cluster of townhouse aPaftffienie located at Logan and Orebank Roads within the township. 8. Minutes of the township supervisor's meetings reflect that pertinent actions were taken as follows with regards to the townhouse development. June 5, 1986 - A motion by Eichelberger to adopt Resolutiofn #1986 -09, a Resolution for a deemed approval. This pertains to the apartme{t buildings developed by Mr. Reihart at Login and Orebank roads within the township. /his tesolu pion was signed by Reihart as the dhaiimAn of the Township Supervisors. The betion seconded by Reihart. The kite w °s Eichelberger and Reihart yet ihdAte. Shelley no. Gary D. Reihart Iiage 9 a. You state that_this.motion was to establish a uniform #61icy to apply to . all persons in the Township in the event plan was not approved by the Board of Supervisors in a timely manner or because of some other defect created by the Township which would lead to an absolute deemed approval by the Courts and, in the absence of the policy, could cause great unnecessary expense to the Township. The Solicitor was then responsible to . decide whether the plan should be signed by the proper Township officials. You were advised that you could vote on this Resolution. No approval for Hill -N- Dale Estates was involved in this vote. The S 1icitor assured you that it was appropriate to do do because it was the Solicitor then who made the decision on whether or not the approval should be deemed. 9. Resolution #1986 -09 enacted on June 5, 1986 provided as follows: WHEREAS, the Municipalities Planning Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sets forth rights of landowners whose applications for approval of a plan of subdivision do not receive adequate and timely response; and - WHEREAS, an aggrieved landowner possesses the right to seek a writ of mandamus in instances in which a municipality has not complied with the Municipalities Planning Code, which writ the municipality would be required to defend; and - WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the Township of Carroll wish to establish, and do establish, a procedure which would negate the Township's having to incur the cost of responding to an action filed by.an aggrieved landowner in the York County Court. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in the event the Board of Supervisors do not undettake the appropriate action with regard to a plan Of subdivision and an aggrieved landowner complains to the Board, the Board shall.immediately refer such complaint to its Solicitor for review. If, in the opinion of the Solicitor, there exists the elements required to establish a "deemed approval ", that finding shall be communicated to the Board of Supervisors in writing. Gary b. ` Reihart Page 10 AND 1T IS FURTHER RESOI ED that ,upon receipt of the Solicitbt's opinion that there has occurred a "deemed a pproval " , 'either the Chairindn or the Vice - Chairman °of the Board of Supervisors, and the Board's Secf are hereby authorized to affix the approptiata signature to the Supervisor' approval '}black of the plan of subdivision, and arrange for recordation of said plan, and 'such action shall have the "same effect as thoiigh the Supervisors had affiinatively voted upon tfie plan, approved the 'plan, and delivered it for recording. - You signed this resolution as Chairman of the Carroll Township Board of Supervisors. 10. Township Zoning Hearing Board minutes of March 13, 1982 refract that builder James Thawley was granted permission to erect six, four unit townhouse structures at Logan and Orebank Roads. The following conditions were imposed: 1. That the construction conform in all respects to the Carroll Township Zoning Ordinance, the building regulations of Carroll Township and the regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 2. AND that ` there be no further subdivision into smaller units, of the property in question. 3. AND that a copy of an agreement or deed of the property in question, satisfactory to the Board Solicitor, be filed of record at the County Recorder of Deeds Office. The foregoing resolution was offered by L. E. Lutz and seconded by L. Hair. Vote on the resolution was as follows: GRANT /AYES: L. E. Lutz, J. R. Richwine, L. Hair DENY /NAYES: NONE 11. Township Planning Commission minutes of February 20, 1985 reflect the following information pertaining to the six, fouk =unit townhouse structures at Logan and Orebank Roads: a. During the above Zoning Hearing Board dated March 31, 1982, Mr. Reihart was granted the exception, conditionally, in that the Board imposed the following Conditions: Gary D. Reihart Page 11 "And that there be no further subdivision into smaller units of the property in question." "And that a copy of an agreement or deed of the property in question, satisfactory to the Board Solicitor, be filed of record at the County Recorder of Deeds Office." b. Following further discussion with Mr. Reisdorf, representing Gary D. Reihart, a motion was made. On a motion by Carr, seconded by Lavertue, the Planning Commission recommends to the Supervisors that both plans (Annex 5 of Hill -N -Dale Estates and Parcel A (Lot A -2) of Hill -N -Dale Estates - Gary D. Reihart, Inc.) be reiected because of a prior commitment by the owner at the time (March 13, 1982) he requested and received a Special Exception under the Township Zoning Ordinance, not to further subdivide the plot as presented to the Zoning Hearing Board at a recorded Special Hearing. Motion carried. c. There was further discussion on Hill -N -Dale subdivisions. Because Gary D. Reihart has submitted numerous subdivision plans for his Hill -N -Dale development the following motion was made. On a motion by Carr, seconded by Lavertue, the Planning Commission recommends to the Supervisors that they determine if a deed as required by an order of the Zoning Hearing Board dated March 13, 1982 was recorded as directed. (Re: pg.5, Item 3) construct the additional dwelling units to comply with the special exception. (Re: March 13, 1982, page 2, items ( &10.) And further that Gary D. Reihart be notified that no additional sub-divisions in the Hill -N -Dale Development will be permitted until such time as he presents a plan showing all previous subdivisions and a master plan for future subdivisions to the Carroll Township Planning Commission. (Re: Subdivision Ordinance Section 403 -1a) Motion carried 12. York County Recorder of Deeds Records reflect the following deeds were filed concerning property located at Logan and Orebank Roads,. Carroll Township, York County, Pennsylvania: a. January 11, 1982 - Gary. D. Reihart Inc., conveyed this - property to Gary D. Reihart and Beverly J. Reihart, his wife,_ of R.D. 5 Dillsburg, Pennsylvania. Gary D. Reihart Page 12 b. March 6, 1985 = Gary p. Reihbrt 'ari rer1 ! J. Reihart, 4 ii.le, conicre reel y thii property, to y ,, . Denise Darlene Reihart, their" daughter. c. April 29, 198`5 - This 'entry reflects that the poperty transferred to Denise Darlene Reihart from her ¶pa*rents and also listed a correction to the deed of March 6, 1985. d. You were elected to the role 'of Carroll Township Supervisor in January, 1986. 13. Mr. Joseph C. Hoheneder, Assistant Director, York County Planning Commission, advised that when a township requests review of an application for a subdivision, his commission provides a recommendation that is only advisory. a. This Commission reviews the factors involved in the subdivision against the applicable township ordinance or resolution. b. Either approval or disapproval was the normal language used by this commission on such request. c. Hoheneder stated that he never personally encountered 'a situation where a "deemed approval" resolution was involved. d. He allowed that a township could use its own language in coming up with such a resolution. e. When the York County Planning Commission receives a request to review a subdivision, they have 45 days to take action. If the commission fails to respond within this time frame, then that would amount to an approval by the eommiStion. f. Hoheneder acknowledged that this seemed to be the „i'ame mechanism used by Carroll Township in its use of "deemed approval.” 14. Records of the Pennsylvania Properties, 199 N. 40th Street, Harrisburg, PA, reflect the following information in relation to the purchase of a cluster of townhouses located at Logan and Orebank Roads within Carroll Township. a. June 18 1985 - A Memorandum of Agreement was made between Pennsylvania Properties and Denise Darlene Reihart. Gary D. Reihart Page 13 (1) This agreement reflects that Denise Reihart, at her sole expense,- by her efforts and jointly and severally with Gary D. Reihart and Beverly J. Reihart, his wife, will obtain all government approvals necessary for the , of land marked as Exhibit B with this agreement. -(2) A residue tract of about nine acres described as Exhibit C to the agreement was also set forth. (3) Denise Reihart was granted the option to purchase the nine acre tract for $1.00 under certain conditions. (4) This option was under the condition that Denise Reihart obtain subdivision approval. (•5 The previous owners of this land tract were-Gary mid Beverly Reihart. /;6 Despite. repeated reassurances from Gary and Beverly Reihart and Solicitor William Schrack, Pennsylvania Properties was apprehensive about this transaction. ( . 7 .,. 1 In a separate agreement dated August 1986 between Pennsylvania Properties and Gary and Beverly'Reihart, the Reiharts agreed to indemnify this firm for any loss it may suffer from this transaction for the sum of $1.00. 15. You provided the following information in regards to the town houses located at Logan and Orebank Roads within Carroll Township. a. In the original approval by the Zoning Hearing Board, and in granting a variance, the Board did not want each individual building sold off, making four (4) separate ownerships of the apartment buildings. However, as long as they remained together on one large lot, they did not oppose subdivision of the remaining eight (8) acres. b. Raymond Carr used his position as a Planning Commission member to attempt to withhold approval of this subdivision. Even after the Zoning Hearing Board held a public hearing to clarify their position, he argued with them that they did not know what they were doing. He tried every way to stop the subdivision. When Mrs. Shelley- continually refused to vote on this matter, some procedure had to be found to permit the subdivision to occur. The Solicitor suggested a deemed approval approach. It is important to know that Mr. Raymond D. Carr did everything he could to prevent the sale Gary D. Reihart Page 14 of this property to the purchasers. He wrote a personal letter indicating that Mr.Reihart had been involved in questionable actions which had been referred to the State Ethics Commission and generated a false ,impression concerning the legality of the actioxis that occurred with reference to this matter. 16. Former Township Supervisor ,Mildred B. Shelley provided the following information -in- relation - to this situation: a. She stated that you have voted on -matters relating to 3enrr real estate interests. b. In real estate business, you sell lots to builders and - investors. c. Some of these lots are owned by you and some by your fai.1y members. d. During 1985, you transferred ownership of ,:a land tract to your daughter, Denise Reihart. e. During 1986, as a township supervisor, you took actions relating to this land tract where townhouse apartments were built at Logan and Orebank Roadswithinthe township. f. Shelley questioned the propriety.of the benefits you received from transactions pertaining to these townhouse apartments. 17. Former Township Solicitor, William D. Schrack,.providedttie following information with regard ..to the cluster .of ctownhou e apartments located at Logan and Orebank Roads: a. During early 1986, Schrack was requested by members of wthe Board of Supervisors to determine the precise intentionof the Zoning Hearing . Board when issued its Order ..d &mod March 13, 1982. On March 10, 1986, Schrack, Township Solicitor, _i:samed a letter to the Board of Supervisors stating that ... "according to the last statement in that interpretation, the restriction was not intended to prohibit: a of the 12.85 acres as would otherwise be peritted ;by the laws and ordinance of Carroll Township.. .,.=accordimgly,_it will be appropriate that the plan be presented at-the °,next formal meeting of the Board of Supervisors:forai.ts review and consideration. There being no basis for i,lan should be approved." Gait D. Reihart Page 15 c. At the next meeting, Nobert Shelley refused to approve that plan. Gary_Reihart could' not vote and it was not approved. d. On April 16, 1986, .. Solicitor Schrack issued an opinion that the plan ham. a "deemed approval" under the municipality's planning =aft and recommended a procedure to follow that would apply tcs any resident who presented a plan that was qualified for a "deemed approval." e. This procedure was required because Supervisor Shelley would not vote for approval even though under the law there was no reason to deny approval and the Solicitor had specifically stated that the subdivision plan should be approved. f. On June 5, 1986, Gary Reihart and Mr. Eichelberger voted to adopt Resolution 1986 -09. g. Resolution 1986 -09 applied to all persons who had established a deemed approval and was not limited in its application to any one development. h. On June 1986, Solicitor Schrack, in writing, order the Board of Supervisors to approve the townhouse subdivision. i. On June 27, 1986, Raymond Carr wrote to the purchaser of the townhouse sites and stated that the subdivision was not permitted, that the matter had been referred to the State Ethics Commission and that he or Mildred Shelley would be glad to discuss the matter further. On August 20 and August 22, 1986, Mr. Schrack wrote to.the township purchaser and assured him that the subdivision was valid and that Mr. Carr was wrong in his accusations. 18. Former Township Planning Commissioner Raymond D. Carr provided the following information with regard to the instant situation: a. Prior to February 1985, you obtained a Special Exception from the township Zoning Hearing Board to develop townhouse apartments at Logan -and Orebank Roads on a parcel of your Hill -N -Dale development. (1) A condition of this Special Exception was that the two tracts of land in this parcel be deeded as one and that no further subdivision be permitted. Cary D. ; Reihart Page -16 (3) Because of the • oon&ition set forth the Planning Commission and the 1985 Board of Township $upelvisbrs rejected your plans. (4) Subsequently, - you voted for adoption of a resolution for a "deemed approval" of the plans for subdivision 'of these townhouse apartments. Via. The deemed approval resolution was to be used if the supervisors do not undertake the appropriate action With regard to a plan of subdivision. C. This was not the issue with regard to your plan. d. A written solicitor's opinion was required but never obtained on this deemed approval. e. Deemed approval was never utilized before or after the approval of your subdivision plans. f. Your subdivision plans were signed by township supervisors at the meeting when the deemed approval resolution was adopted on June 5, 1986. At the time of settlement, subdivision had not been approved by the township supervisors. Pennsylvania Properties then took title to the entire 12 acre tract Cfl the condition that they would return approximately eight acres to you (or Denise Reihart) for $1.00 if subdivislaf approval was obtained within a certain time limit. h. You (or Denise Reihart) obtained eight acres of land for $1.00. g. (2) 'In February 1985, you filed .subdivision plans for these two tracts. 19. Township Supervisor Larry E. Eichelberger provided the following information with regard to the instant situation: a. He voted for the deemed approval of townhouse apartments at Logan and Orebank Roads which were developed by Mr. Reihart. o., He checked the Township Code and Solicitor William Schack suggested the deemed approval of this subdivision. c. The origin of the transaction occurred before Reihart became a township. supervisor. Gary D. Reihart Page 17 d. During 1985, Reihart transferred the deed on this 12 acre lot to his daughter, Denise Reihart. (1) This transfer was beneficial to Reihart for tax purposes. (2) Reihart was not a township supervisor in 1985. (3) Reihart was not considering a run for election to township supervisor during 1985. e. This incidence of deemed approval was the only time the deemed approval resolution was utilized in the township. (1) Former Supervisor Mildred Shelley blocked the approval of Reihart's subdivision from December 1984 until June 1986. (2) Similar incidents have not occurred because Reihart has not blocked like - requests for subdivision brought before the. Board by members of the Shelley family. f. Pennsylvania Properties was the buyer of the townhouse apartments. g- (1) An agreement was struck with Pennsylvania Properties that this firm would hold the deed to the 12 acres of land until subdivision was approved by the township supervisors. (2) Eichelberger stated that he saw nothing wrong with such an arrangement. He voted to run Sewer District One through the township to Hill -N -Dale Estates. (1) He had been trying to have the sewer line completed since the mid- 1970's. (2) A county judge handed down an order to complete this sewer line. (3) Shelley and at least one other former township supervisor had always blocked approval of this sewer line. Gary D. Reihart Page 18 ; ; - h. Reihart, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, presented a modified ,plan of his own- development at a meeting of the Board. . c (1) He was aware that Reihart as a developer was presenting; this planv a Board which included Reihart as a voting member. (2) He advised that Reihart as Chairman presents all similar plans to the--Board. 20. You provided the following information to a State Ethics Commission investigator: You have owned as much as 400 acres of township land. The Township's comprehensive plan permitted the future development of land in Carroll Township. c. You purchased land for the purpose of raising horses, but have subdivided and sold off part of the land. d. In 1982, plans were presented to develop townhouse apartments at Logan and Orebank Roads to the Township Planning Commission. You've stated that Raymond Carr used his position as Chairman of the Planning Commission to block approval. 2. The plan for subdivision was dated December, 1984 and during calendar years 1985 and 1986, approval was blocked by Mildred Shelley. e. Since Supervisor Shelley was still blocking approval, you considered a lawsuit against the Township because of the provision of the municipality's Planning Code. 1. Solicitor Schrack took action to prevent the Township from making a costly mistake by virtue of Mrs. Shelley's refusal to permit approval of the subdivision. 1. 2. Shrack recommended that a resolution for a deemed approval be voted on by the Township Supervisors. 3. You seconded a motion and voted to pass a resolution because of the recommendation of the solicitor. Gary D. Reaihart Page 19 4. You emphasized that you voted for what your solicitor wrote in the resolution and that this ' resolution applied to all residents who had a deemed approval. 5. You related that Schrack, as legal officer of the Township, wrote in the resolution and recommended it be adopted. 6. You emphasized that you voted for what your solicitor wrote in the resolution and recommended it be adopted. g. As a developer, you are a party defendant with the Township and others to a lawsuit pertaining to malfunctioning septic systems. 1. You were not a township supervisor when the problems with the septic systems occurred. 2. Solicitor Schrack recommended settlement of the damages portion of the suit and an agreement was struck with several insurance companies. 3. You stated that based upon the recommendation of the Solicitor, you voted to accept the court ordered settlement. a. A county judge eventually . handed down an order to resolve this matter. b. You stated.that you voted to accept the order of the county judge. 4. You related that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources order the Townshiprto develop an acceptable plan for a sewer system. h. Mildred Shelley and Raymond Carr have personally done everything possible to embarrass and- frustrate your efforts to lawfully subdivide your land. 1. Mildred Shelley has a long - standing personal animosity toward you. 2. Mrs. Shelley, all during the time you served as Supervisor, did everything in her power to thwart the lawful construction of the sewer line ordered by the Department of Environmental Resources. Gary D. Reihart Page 20 II. ileaation: That you, a Supervisor in Carroll Township, York County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1 when you participated in decisions to place funds with the Adams County National Bank after the bank gave you a $70,000 personal mortgage. Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. S403(a). A. Findings: 21. Finding #1 is incorporated herein by reference. 22. Minutes of the township supervisors' meetings reflect the following information: a. January 22, 1987 -It was moved by Mr. Reihart, seconded by Mr. Eichelberger to adopt a resolution designating Adams County National Bank and C.C.N.B. as depositories for the Police Pension Fund, using the bank which offers the best interest rate at the time of the deposit. Vote: Eichelberger, yes, Reihart, yes. Motion carried. 23. You provided a copy of a commitment letter from Adams County National Bank dated August 26, 1986 which approved a personal loan application for you. That letter contained the following: a. Your application had been given favorable consideration and the bank approved a collateral loan for you in the amount of $70,000, payable over 20 years at 10% interest. 24. You provided the following information regarding this loan: a. Your application for this loan was favorably considered almost five months before you voted. b. You voted for the bank, either Adams County National Bank or C.C.N.B., which paid higher interest. Gard D. Reihart Page 21 c. The Board moved all of the money except $100,000 out of the Adams County National Bank within sixty days after making the deposit because this bank would not pledge stock as security. d. Your financial status would allow you to borrow' $70,000 from any lender in Pennsylvania. e. You are not an officer or director or holder of stock of Adams County National Bank which would exceed 5% of the equity at fair market value of the business. III. Allegation: That you, a Carroll Township Supervisor, violated Section 5(b)(5) of the State Ethics Act which requires that the Statements of Financial Interests include the name and address of any person who is the direct or indirect source of income totalling in the aggregate of $500 or more and 5.5(a) and (b) of the State Ethics Commission regulations which state that the person required to file shall list the names and addresses of any direct or indirect interests in real estate of the person, his spouse, and minor dependent children and real estate interest shall include ownership in the form of title, as fiduciary, by option agreement, partnership or corporate share, easement, trustee - beneficiary type interest, or any other form of interest in realty in that you failed to list your sources of income and real estate property. A. Findings: 25. Finding #1 is incorporated herein by reference. 26. Carroll Township records disclose that you have filed Statements of Financial Interests as follows: a. March 2, 1983: b. June 17, 1985: c. March 27, 1986: d. January 17, 1987: e. April 25, 1988: For 1982 calendar year as township supervisor. For 1984 calendar year as for township supervisor. For 1985 calendar year township supervisor For 1986 township For 1987 township calendar year supervisor. as as calendar year as supervisor. candidate for a candidate an incumbent incumbent incumbent Gary D. Reihart Page 22 27. The Statement of Financial contained the following: a. Item #13: b. Item #14: c. Item m #15 : d. Item #18 e. Item 19 #: a. Item #9: b. Item #10: c. Item #11: d. Item #14: e. Item #15: 30. The Statement contained the following: Real Estate b. Item #14: Creditors: Interests: None Creditors: Commonwealth National tank 14% Farm Production Credit 42% Cumber Valley Satrings 4 & oah 15% Sources of Income: PA•Breeders Awards Vraining Fees Sale of Horses Rental Income Office of Directorship in any Business: a. Item #1 - 1 through 17: None Interests filed on Ma -rah 1 2, 1'383 Gary D. Rehart , Inc. President Financial Interests in any legal entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc. 28. The Statement of Financial Interests filed on June 17, 1985 contained the following: 29. Statements of Financial Interests filed on March 27, 1986 Contained the following: Real Estate Interests: None Creditors: None Sources of Income: Commonwealth of PA Breeders Awards Office of Directorship in- any$usiness: None Financial Interest in any legal entity for profit: None of Financial Interests filed on January 17, 1987 a. Item #13: Real Estate Interestss None Hill Financial 14% Adams Co. National Bank 10% Gary D. Reihart Page 23 c. Item #15: Sources of Income: PA Horse Breeders Assoc. Real Estate Investments Penn National Race Track Philadelphia Park d. Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business: Gary D. Reihart, Inc. - President and Owner Flying "R" Stable and Equus Swimming Center - Owner e. Item #15: Financial Interest in any 'legal entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc. 31. Statement of Financial Interests filed on April 25, 1988 contained the following: a. Item #9: Real Estate Interests: None b. Item #10: Creditors: Adams Co. National Bank 10% Hill Financial 14% Drovers and Mechanic 10 c. Item #11: Sources of Income: PA Horse Breeders Assoc. Penn National Race Track Philadelphia Park Gary D. Reihart, Inc. d. Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business: Gary D. Reihart, Inc., - Owner - President Equus Aquatic Center, - Owner e. Item #15: Financial Interest in any legal entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc. 32. Carroll Township records confirm that you filed amended Statements 'of Financial Interests with the township on September 30, 1988 for 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 calendar years. Those forms contain the .following: a. Amendment to form filed June 17, 1985: (1) Item #9: Real Estate Interests: (9) properties at R.D. #5, DilIsburg, PA. -r,- (2) Item #10: Creditors: Farmers. Trust Co. (Truck,) 12% GMAC (car); 1st National : .Bank of Wilmington 12% 15% WY D. AettArt Page 24 b. Item *11: Sources of •ncome: VA Breeders Fund Gary Reihert, 111. Phi a 'Park Imiret 1 1%A Board of HbrOlts Penn *Atonal Race Tick Traibihg fees Sales of Real lEsthte (4) It *14; (5) Item *15: Office of Directorship in 'any Business: Gary D. Reihart, Ind., Prebident Financial Interest in any legdi entity for profit: Gary D. Reifiart, Inc. AmeAdment to form filed March 27, 1986: (1) Ttern #9: (5) properties Otis & Thelma Craun 8% C.C.N.B. 11% Hill linantial 14% ( Item #10: Creditors: GMAC (car) 12% 1st National Bank of Wilmington Otis & Thelma erdan C.C.N.B. 11% Hill Financial 14 (3) Item tilt: Sources of Income: Carroll Tiv. Supervisor PA Breeders Fund Sales Of Real estate Penn National RadeTruck Phila Pak Race Trade Rental of Real' ESAO:dte Gary D. ReIfiart, Tfie. Trainin4,f7ett Board Of Aortes c, Amendment to7form filed January , 19, 19437: (1) item#94 (4) properties (2) Item. #104 Creditors: 1st National Bank of Wilmington' 1 GMAC (car) Otis & Thelma Craun Gary D. Reihart Page 25 (3) C.C.N.B. 11% Adams Co. National Bank 10% Hill Financial 14% Item #11: Sources of Income: PA Breeders Fund Real Estate Sales & Rental Penn National Race Truck Training fees Gary D. Reihart, Inc. Phila. Park Race Track Sale of Horses (4) Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business: Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President Equus Aquatic Center, Owner (5) Item #15: Financial Interest in any legal entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President Equus Aquatic Center, Owner d. Amendment to form filed April 25, 1988: Item #9: (3) properties (2) Item #10: Creditors: 1st National Bank. of Wilmington 15% Drovers- and Mechanics Bank 10h% Hill Financial 14% Otis & Thelma Craun 8% Adams Co. National Bank 10% C.C.N.B. 11% (3) Item #11: Sources of Income: PA Horse Breeders Training Horses Boarding Horses Phila. Park Race. Track Penn National Race Truck Charlestown Race Track Sale of Horses Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business: Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President Equus Aquatic Center, Owner Itb #15: Financial Interest in any legal entity for Gary D. Reihart Page 26 profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President Equus Aquatic Center, Owner 33. You provided the following information regarding your filing of Statements of Financial Interests. a. You were initially confused about the requirements Of these statements. b. Other township officials were also confused and failed to report necessary information on their statements. c. An out -dated front page of a statement entitled "supplemental directions" was Misleading to you. d. Your farm is collateral for all of your loans, and also is where your residence is located. e. You are self- employed and have no employers to consider when completing your statements. f. Some entries on your statements were under wrong captioi'is or should have been listed under more than one caption of the statement. g. I ran a write-in election, and therefore did not get the forms in a packet as you do when going through the noel procedure. I did not get the form until June 17 after the May election. That day was my anniversary, and I was going out for dinner. The Township clerk asked me if I had filed a statement about 3 :30 p.m., I said no, and ran horn to fill it out quickly. I was back at the Township office before closing time at 4:30 p.m. I told the clerk it didn't seen like I filled in much information, she said I know', 00St of the people don't fill much in. h.. You denied having any reasons to conceal information that should be listed on these statements. B. Discussion: As a supervisor for Carroll Township, you are a "public official" as that term is defined under the ttliiics Acct. 65 P.S. 5402; 51 Pa. Code 1.1. As such, you are subject to the restrictions of that law. In the instant matter, three allegations have been raised regarding your conduct as a: supervisor: whether you participated in decisions which would effect your personal real estate' development; whether you placed funds in the Adams County National Dank after you received a personal mortgage from that institution and lastly, *teeth t Gary D. Reihart Page 27 you omitted certain disclosures from your Financial Interests Statement as to sources of income and real estate interests As to the first allegation, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use. his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other -than compensation provided by lay% for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. §-403(a). As to whether your actions violated Section 3(a) regarding participating in matters concerning your own personal real estate development, our inquiry must focus on two specific areas: the Hill - N -Dale Estates and also the townhouse apartment developments at Logan and Orebank Roads. The particular concern regarding Hill -1 -Dale involves whether your actions as to the installation of a sewer system which services, in part, Hill -N -Dale Estates transgresses Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above. Factually, it appears that at a point in time prior to your serving as Township Supervisor, several residents of Hill -N -Dale. Estates filed a law suit because of their malfunctioning septic systems. The law suit was eventually amicably resolved and approved by York County Judge John Rauhauser. Approximately one year thereafter, a motion to formally settle the law suit was put before the township board and it was carried by two votes with your abstention, Thereafter the sewers were installed and paid for by two developers; no township funds were used for the installation of the sewer. In addition, the sewer line allowed for 565 units which could tap in through permit. Hill -N -Dale Estates had only 20 permits out of the total number; 545 went to other units in which you had no interest. You also abstained regarding a motion to finance the installation of a sewer line. Although the record establishes that you did abstain on certain votes regarding the Hill -N -Dale law suit settlement is also noted that you did actually make or second certain motions in addition to actually voting on the settlement on the litigation. Although your actions resulted in A derivative financial benefit to your subdivision, Hill- N -Dajee estates and although you did use public office through either making motion, seconding motions or voting to approve the lawsuit, it is also true that the sewer installation not only benefitted Hill- N-Dale Estates but also a large section of the township. The foregoing is evidenced by the fact that Hill -N -Dale only accounted for approximately 3% to 4% of the permits that were Gary D. Reihart ,Page 28 issued relative to the ,sewer line that was installed in the township. In Markham, Opinion 85 -013, we held that a public official could vote on a matter wherein he had a financial interest if he had a remote interest which was affected to the ,same degree as anyone else in the class or subclass. Under the facts And circumstances ;of this case we believe that your overall interest in this matter was remote and therefore we find that you did not violate Section 3 of the Ethics Act regarding your participation as to the sewer line installation. Turning to the matter of the township apartment development at Logan and Orebank Roads of which you were the developer, this matter could not be resolved by the three member board of township supervisors: you abstained as to the development, one supervisor voted in favor and the other voted against. Because of the foregoing deadlock, the township solicitor advocated the adoption of a "deemed approved" ordinance. Thus, if action was not taken to approve a given development plan within a certain number of days by the board, the plan would be "deemed approved" as a result of the inaction by the board. Although you voted in favor of the "deemed approved" ordinance, and although it appears that your development at Logan and Orebank Roads was the only development plan which was "deemed approved" through this ordinance as a result of the inability of the board to act upon the plan, we do not find that your action in voting for this general township ordinance violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act based upon our analysis in Markham, supra. Turning to the allegation regarding the placement of funds in the Adams County National Bank which had given you a $70,000 personal mortgage, it•is noted that the bank is not a business with which you are associated as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Section 2. Definitions. "Business with which he business in which the person person's immediate family is owner, employee or holder of is associated." Any or a member of the a director, officer, stock. 65 P.S. S402. Since you are not employed nor an officer or director of the bank in question, it is not a business with which you are associated. The bank gave you a personal mortgage prior to the time you voted to place the funds in that bank. There could not be a use of office to obtain a financial gain for yourself or a business with which you are associated under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above. Accordingly, you did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you participated in the decision to place funds in the Adams County National Bank. Gary D. Reihart Page 29 The third and final allegation relates to the issue as to whether you failed to disclose certain financial matters - in.yaar. Financial Interests Statement. This specific allegation relates to the possible failure to list certain sources of income and real °estatte interests on your Financial Interests Statement. Section 5. Statement of financial interests. (b) The statement shall include the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the person required to file the statement and the members of his immediate family: (5) The name and address of any person who is the direct or indirect-source of income totalling in the aggregate $500 or more. However, this provision shall not be construed to require the divulgence of confidential information protected by statute or existing professional codes of ethics. 65 P.S. §405(b)(5). 55.5. Real estate. (a) The person required to file shall list the names and address of any direct or indirect interests in real estate of the person, his spouse, and minor dependent children as follows: (1) Any real estate sold or leased to Commonwealth or any of its agencies or political subdivisions. (2) Any real estate purchased or leased from the Commonwealth, or any of its agencies or political subdivisions. (3) Any real estate which is subjected to " any condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth . or its agencies or political subdivisions. .- 51_._c Pa. Code §5.5(a)(1)(2). (b) Real estate interests shall ;include ownership in the form of title, asfiduciary, by option agreement, partnership or corporate share, easement, trustee- beneficiary type interest, or any other form of interest in realty. 51 . Pa. Code 55.5(b). Gary D. Reihart Page. 3,Q For the Financial.. Interests Statements on'fileF consisting of the 1982 calendar year and 1984 through 1987 calendar •years inclusive, you listed: "none" under the category of real estate -interests, your thoroughbred horse: raising` and trading btis`irieibt as a Source of income (except for the 1984 calendar year), certain creditors (except for the 1984, 1984 calendar year), and various interests it legal entities for profit as well as your offices and business for the years 1982, 1986 and 1987. You now have filed amended statements for the ca lendar years 1983 through 1987 inclusive where you have included your real estate interests in various properties in the Dillsburg' area as well as adding various sources of income and some other financial interests items in other categories. In determining whether your actions violated Sections 5(b)(5) and 5.5(a) and (b) of the regulations, you did not violate those provisions of law regarding your real estate interests because you are only required to file those real estate interests which are either leased to the Commonwealth or a political subdivision or subject to condemnation proceedings or are somehow involved with the Commonwealth or a political subdivision. Since it does not appear that any of the foregoing conditions were applicable, you were not required to list those real estate interests and therefore you did not violate the Ethics Act by your failure to include those real estate interests in your original filings. As to the second part of this allegation concerning the listing of sources of income, the record does establish that you did not list all sources of income, but you did make disclosures through your amended filings. Since there does not appear to be any evidence that your failure to disclose was either intentional or an effort on your part to conceal financial interests, we find a technical violation regarding your failure to list certain sources of income but we will take no further action in light of the fact that you have filed amended Statements of Financial Interests. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a:Carroll Township Supervisor you are a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act regarding matters involving your realLestate development Hill -N -Dale Estates•or your townhouse apartment developments at Logan and- Orebatik Roads. 3. You did not violate Section 3(a) regarding the placement of full in the Adams; County National. - Bank. since that is not ra °businesa'with' which you are associated under-the Ethics Act. Gar4, D. Reihart Page 33. 4.. You did not, violate the Ethics Act regarding your failure to list your real estate interests since those interests were not leased or involged in condemnation proceedings with the Commonwealth or a political subdivision. 5. There is at technical echnjcal violat 'ion. of 5(b)(5) of the Ethics Act regarding you failluxe to list certain sources of income, however, this Commission will take no further action because you filed amended statements and because there is no evidence to indicate that there was any intent or any attempt on your part to conceal financial interests. This Order is final and will be made available as a public document tteen days after issuance. However, you may request reconsideration which will defer public release of this Order pending action on your request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this Order. A_ reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within fifyt3een days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of you reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity 51 Pa. Code $2.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a) during the fifteen day period and no one, including yourself, unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, . confidentiality does not preclude you from discussing this case with your attorney at law. Any person who violates confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, 65 P.S. 409(e). By the Commission, Robert W. Brown Vice Chair Chairperson Helena G. Hughes did not particpate in this matter.