Sunbury committee reviews enforcement plan for proposed erosion and sediment controls

At its Jan. 8, 2025, meeting, the City of Sunbury Services Committee heard a staff presentation on enforcement and escalation provisions that will accompany a proposed erosion and sediment control ordinance, including how third‑party inspections, correction timelines and penalties would be applied.

The committee was shown the planned enforcement flow: a warning issued after an initial inspection; a third‑party inspector documents remediation with photographs and a correction timetable (commonly 3, 7 or 10 days as specified in the project SWIP); if remediation is inadequate the matter would escalate to the city for further action, including written notice, new timelines, stop‑work orders for earthwork of up to 90 days and, where necessary, corrective work paid from a developer deposit or fee structure.

Marlon (staff member), the presentation lead, said, “So at the council meeting tonight, you will hear the first reading for the erosion and sediment control standards.” He summarized the planned role of a city‑retained third‑party inspection team that would produce photo documentation and weekly reports and said the city intends to use fee deposits to pay for oversight and corrective work if developers do not act.

Why it matters: Committee members and residents described recurring construction runoff and street silt in multiple existing phases of development; staff said the proposed enforcement tools are intended to create clearer, more consistent requirements and to shift accountability to developers instead of leaving recurring cleanup to residents or ad hoc staff action.

Key details staff and committee discussed: - Correction periods: staff described common SWIP timeframes of 3, 7 or 10 days for specified remediation tasks and said those periods will be written into SWIPs going forward. - Third‑party inspection: the city plans to hire its own third‑party inspectors, funded by fees and deposits collected at permit/phase approval; developers may request their own third party but the draft legislation leaves that at the city’s discretion and staff indicated the committee can remove that caveat. - Escalation options: staff said the city could inspect itself, direct a new timeline, stop earthwork for up to 90 days and take corrective measures paid from deposits. “We could also direct the third party to issue a new timeline for corrections. We could stop the work up to 90 days,” the presenter said. - Penalties and enforcement pathways: staff and counsel described a penalty ladder in the draft ordinance that begins with misdemeanor prosecutions—a fourth‑degree misdemeanor ($250 per day, with each day an ongoing offense)—and escalates to a first‑degree misdemeanor (up to $1,000 per day) if a notice violation is not cured within 45 days; staff also said the committee could explore adding a civil fine schedule to allow city‑imposed civil penalties that would not require criminal filings. - Evidence and documentation: staff emphasized the need for photographic evidence, GPS or address metadata, and a 24/7 site contact in preconstruction submittals so the city can reach the responsible party quickly when violations occur.

Committee members pressed staff on implementation details. One member asked whether the city could require developers to notify nearby residents when remediation will take longer than the correction period; staff said such a resident‑notification requirement could be written into future SWIPs. Several members pushed for stiffer day‑of‑noncompliance remedies (daily fines or mandatory daily inspections) to create stronger incentives for rapid remediation; staff noted those measures increase inspection cost and would need to be budgeted in contracts or added as in‑house capacity.

On existing developments where problems persist (Eagle Creek, Price Ponds, Magnolia Park), staff said the fee and deposit structure for new phases would generate funds that could be used to remediate some legacy issues, but that the ordinance would primarily apply to newly approved phases and that individual lot agreements on existing lots would be a separate process.

The presentation named prospective third parties and partners discussed during outreach, including Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District, which staff said has indicated it would provide GPS or location data with infractions.

Ending: Staff will bring the ordinance through the council process; the presenter said the item will appear for first reading at the council meeting that evening and that committee feedback will inform second and third readings. Staff also said they will examine adding a civil‑fine schedule before second and third readings and will return with implementation language on developer deposits, third‑party contract terms and potential resident notification requirements.