February 26, 2016 Mr. Carl Gould II, Chairman CJERP Regional Planning Committee Re: Recommendation to replace CJERP Solicitor Fareris law firm

Recommendation that CJERP adopt position that the 2014 Eldred water extraction amendment was passed in error

Recommendation to replace Planning Consultant Carson Helfrich Mr. Gould, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak at courtesy of the floor at last nights CJERP meeting, in order to bring to CJERPs attention findings I have made of multiple failures of CJERP and the Monroe County Planning Commission during the drafting, review and adoption of the 2014 Eldred Township water extraction/bottling definition amendment. This amendment was discussed in draft form at CJERPs March 27, 2014 meeting, and adopted at CJERPs May 1, 2014 meeting. Prior to me speaking, two items related to my address were discussed:

I. Recommendation to adopt amendment overturning the 2014 Eldred Twp water extraction amendment

CJERP reviewed the Monroe County Planning Commissions recommendation that an Eldred Twp amendment to overturn the 2014 amendment be approved, and documented that no objection to the amendment was received from the other CJERP townships. The Monroe County Planning Commission found the amendment is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan because it restores a common definition of water extraction across CJERP.

II. Solicitor Fareri advises CJERP members to not speak about 2014 amendment, and is questioned by CJERP member Bob Boileau about a conflict of interest for Mr. Fareri

Solicitor Fareri gave an address in which he announced that he had advised CJERP members to not speak or interact with anyone about the review and adoption of amendments during the two CJERP meetings in question on March 27 and May 1, 2014. His justification is that there is a matter pending in the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas against Eldred Township, in which Eldred Twp residents have appealed the passage of the 2014 amendment; the action questions the procedure that was followed. CJERP members could be called to testify or be deposed relative to the facts surrounding these two meetings. At this point, CJERP member Bob Boileau questioned Mr. Fareri about the possibility of a conflict of interest for his law firm, since in addition to CJERP it also represents landowner Ricky Gower, who has filed a motion to intervene in this case. Mr. Fareris response was that there is no conflict of interest at this time, as CJERP and pending intervenor Gower are on the same side of the issue and both believe that the amendment was passed properly. Mr. Fareri further stated that whatever happened in 2014 may come out in due course in the court proceedings, but it isnt appropriate for CJERP members to discuss it. At this point, I was granted permission to speak, and I began by pointing out that Eldred Township and the Eldred Township Board of Supervisors are not on the same side of the issue as landowner Ricky Gower; Eldred Townships Solicitor Curtin and Heefner has released a statement that the township believes there were in fact errors in the process. A newspaper article Mistakes were made, Eldred Township admits, in the Pocono Record on February 12, 2014 documents this, and that Eldred Township will not defend the lawsuit. Mr. Fareri clarified that he stated that CJERP and landowner Ricky Gower are on the same side of the issue, and that they both believe the 2014 amendments were passed properly.

III. Review of my findings of errors by CJER and the Monroe County Planning Commission I then read off a list of serious errors I believe that CJER, its planning consultant and the MCPC made in the passage of the 2014 Eldred Township water extraction amendment. These are in addition to errors that Eldred Township may have made. Here is a summary: 1. In the records obtained, there is no indication that CJER Planning Consultant Carson Helfrich alerted anyone to the fact that the landowners amendment was defective in its stated intent and that it altered land use, no indication that he had authorization to draft the amendment, and no indication that he had authorization to forward the amendment to the Monroe County Planning Commission. 2. According to Eldred Solicitor Kaspsyzk, CJER Solicitor Fareri was solely responsible for reviewing amendments in the March to May 2014 timeframe. Mr. Fareri did not alert anyone at the May 1, 2014 CJER meeting where adoption occurred that the amendment prepared by Mr. Helfrich on or about March 27 would cause a land use change. 3. Solicitor Fareri is quoted in the May 1, 2014 transcript as stating in regards to the amendments added after March 27, theyre minor corrections to what was originally advertised. There were no major changes, some of its technical in nature, and it consists of only four pages. (pp 7-8) 4. There is no record that CJER townships reviewed the amendment, per the Intergovernmental Agreement. 5. CJER advertised the amendment on April 14 and April 21, 2014, even though Eldred Township did not authorize these advertisements. 6. The April 14 Public Notice of the amendment was published by CJER prior to either the Monroe County Planning Commission (Apr 25) or Eldred Township Planning Commission (Apr 17) holding meetings to review the amendment. 7. CJER did not properly advertise the Eldred Township water extraction amendment, because it represented a substantial change to the pending ordinance. 8. Although Carson Helfrich forwarded the full landowners amendment to Monroe County senior planners Christine Meinhart-Fritz and Eric Koopman on April 24, 2014, they did not determine in reading it that it grossly misrepresented the contents of the existing ordinance, or that if enacted, it would cause a land use change and several violations of the Comprehensive Plan. This would have been immediately noticed on an inspection of the existing ordinance. 9. Several goals of the Comprehensive Plan were violated by the amendment including: common land use designations and definitions, allocation of land use across the entire region, not by municipality, minimize conflict between non-residential and residential uses, and the location of extraction industries in an Industrial district. The Monroe County Planners did not detect any of these violations. 10. The county Comprehensive Plan goal of consistency of zoning across municipalities was violated. 11. There is no indication in the April 25, 2014 Monroe County Planning Commission Technical Review Recommendation that the water extraction amendment was reviewed. The review letter states that the amendments reviewed were previously reviewed on March 26, 2014, prior to the existence of the water extraction amendment that was presented by Carson Helfrich at the March 27, 2014 CJER meeting. In addition to the items I reported last night, there are two additional findings: 12. Mr. Helfrich stated at the March 27 CJER meeting that a change in definition from industry to light manufacturing could be made (p 30). Incredibly, as the Planning Consultant, he did not warn those in attendance of the considerations that should be given to this change (see #1 above) and that it was not simple, while he concurrently states that only simple changes could be made prior to May 1.

Furthermore, since he stated if you authorize that, he should have realized at the end of the meeting that this did not happen during the meeting (p 30). This could have been rectified by the Eldred BOS being asked by Mr. Helfrich to authorize it at their April 2014 meeting, but there is no record that he made this request, and such a motion was not made at the Eldred BOS meeting. 13.Christine Meinhart-Fritz made a grossly inaccurate statement at the March 27 CJER meeting that the amendment would definitely be consistent with the comprehensive plan and that it would further commercial development (p 30). The amendment violated the county and regional Plans in numerous ways, including but not limited to the list enumerated in #9 and #10 above. The intent of Eldred Townships and all Commercial districts is to provide for businesses that cater to the public, which an industrial use does not. Ms.Meinhart-Fritz demonstrated a total lack of knowledge of land use and the Comprehensive Plan with this statement. She used keywords, but her statement is meaningless.

IV. Pictorial comparison of the ideal process flow of an amendment, and the actual flow of the 2014 water extraction amendment display the gross errors that occurred

In the two attached figures, the first displays how a landowner-sponsored amendment should be processed, based on the Municipalities Planning Code and the CJER Intergovernmental Agreement. The second figure shows the actual flow of the 2014 amendment. In addition to circumventing the Board of Supervisors, CJER and the CJER townships were totally left out of the process. The true effect of the amendment was lost to the layperson when Carson Helfrich converted the full text into a two-word change, without authorization. However, the professionals and consultants involved - Solicitor Fareri, Carson Helfrich, Eric Koopman, Matt Neeb, Christine Meinhart-Fritz, should still know that changing from industry to light manufacturing is a land use change, and merited inspection of the existing ordinance that would have quickly revealed the amendment was not a simple change. V. Solicitor Fareris position is that CJERP and pending intevenor Gower are on the same side of the issue. Is CJERP actually on the same side of the issue as Gower - a position adverse to

Eldred Twp? Eldred Townships position is clearly adverse to Ricky Gower, and Eldred Township is one of five townships that have collectively contracted for Mr. Fareris services as CJERP Solicitor. What is the position of the other four townships, given that last night they were unanimously in support of overturning the 2014 amendment that landowner Gower believes was properly passed? I submit that it is not Mr. Fareris place to determine what the position of CJERP is it is CJERPs decision. I also submit that CJERP should adopt Eldred Townships position, based on the recommendation of the MCPC that the new amendment satisfies the Comprehensive Plan and the findings that I reported to CJERP last night. There is no need to wait for the court case to play out to determine that major errors were made in the adoption of the 2014 amendment it is much harder to find steps that were taken correctly than those that were in error. How is it in CJERPs interest to not admit this?

VI. Recommendations 1. Appoint a new Solicitor and law firm to solve multiple issues Based on Solicitor Fareris comments last night, he has advised CJERP members to not discuss the 2014 amendment process, yet this advice to CJERP was given after his law firm entered an appearance for Mr. Gower on January 4. To not follow his advice may result in a release of information that is a detriment to his law firms new client Gower. However, what detriment could there be to CJERP to admit there were errors made, and to align itself with Eldred Township? Is it known as fact whose interests Solicitor Fareri is protecting by placing an indefinite gag order on CJERP? As quoted above, Mr. Fareri made a clearly inaccurate statement to those in attendance at the May 1, 2014 adoption hearing that the changes including the water extraction amendment were minor. The water extraction amendment was major, as those spending thousands and thousand of dollars to fight against its consequences are now finding. The costs to objectors in the resulting court action will easily rise to over $10,000 best case, the cost to Eldred Twp will likely exceed $25,000, and the cost to Gowers lessee to complete the Eldred permitting process will likely exceed $100,000. All

of this is an unnecessary expense, and Mr. Fareri was one of the paid professionals and consultants relied on to do a job that was not completed properly. In appointing a new law firm, CJERP would wipe the slate clean and remove what several residents believe is the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Fareris partner Marc Wolfes appearance at the February 24 Eldred Twp Zoning Hearing Board hearing on behalf of Ricky Gower has stoked the fires even more among Eldred residents. I have retained legal counsel three times in my life. In each case, the firms I considered went to various lengths to determine if they had ever represented any of the other parties in the matter, prior to agreeing to represent me. On its face, I do not see the same prudence being applied in the matter at hand. I recommend that replacing Newman, Williams, Mishkin, Corveleyn, Wolfe & Fareri immediately be given very strong consideration. Depending on how the court action proceeds, there could be a conflict of interest for Mr. Fareris firm that may or may not exist today. It would be best to eliminate the possibility of conflicts now, and move on with new legal representation for CJERP. 2. That CJERP establish a position that the water extraction amendment was passed improperly. It is submitted that there is overwhelming evidence that the process followed to pass the 2014 Eldred Township water extraction amendment violated virtually every statutory requirement that pertains to passage of an amendment, and reflects a failure of multiple parties beyond Eldred Township supervisors. Based on this, and the fact that the township has already admitted there were errors, I believe that it is untenable for CJERP to maintain that passage of the amendment was proper. There is simply no credible evidence I have found to support this, and substantial evidence to the contrary. Over 100 Eldred Township residents have petitioned to intervene in the court matter at hand, and Eldred Township is aligned with them. CJERP should join them. I recommend that CJERP admit that there were errors made in the passage of the 2014 Eldred Township water extraction amendment, as Eldred Township has already done. 3. That Planning consultant Carson Helfrichs services should no longer by used by the CJERP townships In the transcript of the March 27 CJER meeting, Mr. Helfrich stated any changes prior to adoption on May 1 would have to be simple (p 41). This implies that he believed on March 27 that the water extraction amendment, which he had already drafted, was minor. It was in fact major. Mr. Helfrich was the person most responsible for the amendment being passed, with improper notice to the public. He drafted the 2004 Eldred Township Ordinance and he was intimately familiar with it. It is astonishing to believe that he made a change that violated the primary goal of consistency and caused a land use change, and he brought neither to anyones attention which is what the record reflects. Mr. Helfrichs performance falls far short of demonstrating that he is familiar with the most basic land use concepts, that he has the requisite attention to detail, and that he has a sufficient understanding of municipal procedure. Due to these deficiencies, his firm should not be used for any future projects. Respectfully, Don Moore Attachments Petition of landowner to intervene filed by Solicitor Fareris law firm dated Jan 4, 2016 Landowner amendment critiqued (marked up) Flow diagram of the statutory process of proposal through approval of an amendment Flow diagram of the process of proposal through approval of the 2014 water extraction amendment March 27, 2014 CJER transcript page 30 May 1, 2014 CJER transcript pages 7, 8, and 41

.i-I-~---------- ---.:J1 _

j""- ,.1 "

30

is not here this evening?

MS. SalT: The resident is.

MR. HELFRICH: In any case~ I believe it was

Attorney Wimmer~ is that correct~ he made a suggestion that

there's a definition of water extraction and bottling and

the way that it was originally written is that that would be

considered industry~ it was regulated as industry~ and they

made a request that it be considered light manufacturing and

the importance of that to the property owner is that his

property is located in a Commercial district as opposed to

an Industrial district and that's certainly something that

Eldred Township could consider and make a change and that

would not really affect the other regional uses. So~ that's

something that if you authorize that -- I actually have it

included in the list of proposed changes and if you

authorize that we can go forward with that.

MS~ MEINHART-FRITZ: That prQperty islocated -- if you look at the regional future land use map

I

it is located in a growth area for commercial development~

so it would definitely be consistent with the comprehensive

plan~ also.

MS. SalT: Okay.

MR. FARERI: Anybody else? last chance.

MR. RADER: I want to say something. I was

going to say this at the end. I'm really proud of the

DonHighlight

DonHighlight

DonHighlight

7MR. BEERS: No.

MR. GOULD: Hearing none

MR. FARERI: I neglected to add as one of the

MR. GOULD: Is there any?" Jackson?

MR. KRESGE: No.

MR. GOULD: Eldred?

MS. SOlT: Nothing.

MR. GOULD: Ross?

I" we're asking you to come forward is it's easier for the

2 court reporter to take down what you say. So) is there3 anyone here who would like to express -- has a question or

4 would like to express an opinion or statement) anything for5 the record at this time?

6 The record should reflect that no member of the

7 public has indicated that they wish to make any statement

8 and we will then proceed to ask any members of the

9 individual boards of supervisors if they.have any comments

10 or questions or anything else to add before the public

11 hearing would be adjourned.12

13

14

15 /

16

17

18

19

)

20 exhibits to this -- and it's contained within the

21 advertisement) but I'm going to make it one of our exhibits22 as well for the hearing and t~at is an actual copy of the

23 amendments that were made 'after the last hearing and I would

24 just say for members of the public that these are available.) 25 They're not -- they're minor corrections to what was

DonHighlight

DonHighlight

DonHighlight

))

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

originally advertised. There were no major changes) some ofit's technical in nature) and it consists of only fourpages. So) we'll mark that as Exhibit No.4 to thisproceeding here tonight.

And with that) unless there's any other mattersthat the individual boards want to raise we can officially

close the public hearing and then you could individually)if you so choose) adopt these amendments.

MR. GOULD: I'd like to ask one last time) arethere any questions from the audience at all?

Hearing none) motion to close the publiccomment session of this hearing.

MR. ECKERT: I'll second that.

MR. GOULD: Motion and second. All in favor?

(Unanimous vote.)MR. GOULD: So. moved. I believe we'll go right

down e acronym list. Cnestnuthill will go first. We have

tree items to approve. Our first is Ordinance No. 2014-01

which is the zoning. Motion to approve 2014-01?

MR. ECKERT: Can you repeat --

MR. GOULD: Motion to approve 2014-01. That is

the zoning ordinance.

MR. ECKERT: I'll make that motion that we

adopt Resolution 2014-01.

MR. GOULD: I'll second that. Any questions at

DonHighlight

41

1 prepared to join and I anticipate that towards the end of2 the summer.

3 MS. CLAUSEN: Could you just clarify because4 I'm sorry if I'm the only -- I'm a littl~ confused as to

5 what the procedure actually is. We're going to defer voting

6 which means we may readvertise so that means we can amend,

7 we can make additional amendments

8 MR. HELFRICH: Correct.

9 MS. CLAUSEN: Okay.

10 MR. HELFRICH: But what happens is if we're

)

)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

going to do it by May 1st

MS. CLAUSEN: It has to be simple.

MR. HELFRICH: Well, no, not only does it have

to be simple, yes, that's important, it has to be simple,

but you cannot conduct a hearing any earlier than 30 days

prior to when the change? are communicated to the township

planning commissions and to the county planning commission.

MS. CLAUSEN: Right. So, the ~hanges that will

be proposed are those that we have discussed tonight.

MR. HELFRICH: Correct.

MS. CLAUSEN: Now, just one question. Thewater extraction issue, I believe our planning commission

voted to recommend that. We, as supervisors, haven't

considered that yet, but we would propose to do that in

connection with voting on the ordinance?

DonHighlight

DonHighlight

))

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

originally advertised. There were no major changes) some ofit's technical in nature) and it consists of only fourpages. So) we'll mark that as Exhibit No.4 to thisproceeding here tonight.

And with that) unless there's any other mattersthat the individual boards want to raise we can officially

close the public hearing and then you could individually)if you so choose) adopt these amendments.

MR. GOULD: I'd like to ask one last time) arethere any questions from the audience at all?

Hearing none) motion to close the publiccomment session of this hearing.

MR. ECKERT: I'll second that.

MR. GOULD: Motion and second. All in favor?

(Unanimous vote.)MR. GOULD: So. moved. I believe we'll go right

down e acronym list. Cnestnuthill will go first. We have

tree items to approve. Our first is Ordinance No. 2014-01

which is the zoning. Motion to approve 2014-01?

MR. ECKERT: Can you repeat --

MR. GOULD: Motion to approve 2014-01. That is

the zoning ordinance.

MR. ECKERT: I'll make that motion that we

adopt Resolution 2014-01.

MR. GOULD: I'll second that. Any questions at

DonHighlight

CJERP_Letter_exhibits.pdfApr2701222016_0000Apr2701222016_0001Apr2701222016_0002Apr2701222016_0004Apr2701222016_0005Apr2701222016_0006Apr2701222016_0007Apr2701222016_0008Apr2701222016_00092014 03 27 CJER Minutes Cleaned Up.pdf2014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_12014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_22014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_32014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_4

2014 03 27 CJER Minutes Cleaned Up.pdf2014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_12014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_22014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_32014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_4

2014 03 27 CJER Minutes Cleaned Up.pdf2014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_12014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_22014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_32014 03 27 CJER Minutes_Page_4

P7_8_May.pdf2014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_12014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_22014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_32014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_42014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_52014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_6May_CJER_Minutes.pdfMay101222016_0000May101222016_0001

P7_8_May.pdf2014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_12014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_22014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_32014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_42014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_52014 05 01 CJER Minutes_Page_6May_CJER_Minutes.pdfMay101222016_0000May101222016_0001