Springdale residents add Sunshine Act violation claim to reasons for stopping power plant implosion

Plaintiffs in the Springdale injunction case filed a motion in court Wednesday alleging that the issuing of a demolition permit for the former Cheswick Generating Station violated the state’s Sunshine Act.

The complaint, filed by attorney John Kane, claims the violation is sufficient to block the implosion of the power plant’s boiler house.

In September, 16 Springdale residents filed for an injunction to stop the implosion of the boiler house. They allege the June 2 implosion of the plant’s two smokestacks caused substantial harm and a boiler house implosion would further harm the community.

During the hearing, the plaintiffs say, they discovered additional grounds to halt the implosion and allege the permit for the demolition was improperly issued in violation of the Sunshine Act.

According to the state’s Office of Open Records, the Sunshine Act gives the public the right to comment on issues before the board.

The complaint said some plaintiffs attended Springdale Council meetings this year and have inquired how the borough allowed the implosion to proceed “given the damage to the community.”

“The responses often given were that Springdale Borough Council has played no role in the implosion and that the matters were out of their hands,” the complaint said. “Plaintiffs understood this to be the case until new facts came to light during the past month.”

Springdale’s appointed code enforcement officer, Ed Crates, issued a demolition permit for the plant in January. The lawsuit states the permit was never voted on by council, nor was it disclosed to the public in an open meeting, making it a violation of the Sunshine Act.

In court Tuesday, Councilwoman Toni Robbins, the code enforcement member of council, and Shawn Fitzgerald, the vice chairman, testified they did not know a permit was issued for the power plant’s demolition until months after the smokestacks’ implosion.

Crates testified it is his job to issue permits in the borough and that he considers Robbins and Fitzgerald to be his “liaisons” with council.

Crates said he was the one who signed and issued the permit authorizing the demolition of the power station. He did not advise Robbins or Fitzgerald before doing so. The action was included in a written report Crates provided to council.

A report from Crates presented in court lists that he issued a permit for “demolition of power plant” to Grant Mackay Co. on Jan. 17.

Crates testified he discussed issuing the demolition permit with the council’s president at the time, Mitchell Karaica, and that Karaica authorized him to issue the permit, the complaint said.

Crates also established the $1,000 fee (plus an additional $4.50 as required with each permit) and that, when he ran that amount by Karaica and Charah Solutions, the plant’s owner, both were satisfied with it.

Karaica was subpoenaed to testify in the injunction hearing Tuesday but was dismissed from testifying.

He resigned from Springdale Council on Jan. 27 to run for district judge in the Lower Valley.

Karaica said he attended only one introduction-type meeting with Charah Solutions soon after the company acquired the property in April 2022, for company representatives to introduce themselves.

The complaint alleges that Springdale has a regulation titled “building permits” where it states no building shall be “altered … until a building permit authorizing such … alteration … shall have first been applied for, obtained and issued.” It also alleges that no building permit shall be “required for … minor alterations to existing structures which do not affect the size or use of the structure.”

The complaint alleges issuing the permit constitutes an official action required to be approved by the borough council.

The regulation also states that a permit application “shall be accompanied by the proper fee as established by the borough council,” the complaint says.

“By issuing a permit and deciding the amount of the fee without a proper fee being established by the borough council, it was a violation of the Sunshine Act. The law required that the amount be decided in an open, public forum pursuant to the Sunshine Act,” the complaint said.

Plaintiffs also allege the ordinance required the permit application to include information about the lot, its buildings and structures, dimensions of yards and open spaces, and other relevant information. Failure to include a copy of a survey and drawings with the permit application would result in the permit being denied, the complaint said.

Crates testified that no other documentation was attached with the application.

“The violation of the Sunshine Act constituted damage and harm to Plaintiffs that could have been prevented or mitigated had the Sunshine Act been followed,” the complaint said. “The lack of disclosure to the public as a whole, in violation of the Sunshine Act, harmed Springdale Borough citizens, and Plaintiffs specifically. Such violation and resultant harm is sufficient to grant injunctive relief.”