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-~----------

j-""

---.:J1

.1 "

30

is not here this evening?

MS. SalT:

The resident is.

MR. HELFRICH:
Attorney

Wimmer~

is that

In any

correct~

case~

I believe it was

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 is

located -- 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:
MR. FARERI:
MR. RADER:

Okay.
Anybody else?

last chance.

I want to say something.

going to say this at the end.

I was

I'm really proud of the

I"

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

court reporter to take down what you say.

anyone here who would like to express -- has a question or

would like to express an opinion or statement) anything for

the record at this time?

The record should reflect that no member of the

public has indicated that they wish to make any statement

and we will then proceed to ask any members of the

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

MR. GOULD:

13

MR. KRESGE:

14

MR. GOULD:

Is there any?" Jackson?

No.
Eldred?

MS. SOlT:

Nothing.

16

MR. GOULD:

Ross?

17

MR. BEERS:

No.

18

MR. GOULD:

Hearing none

19

MR. FARERI:

15

So) is there

I neglected to add as one of the

20

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

21

advertisement) but I'm going to make it one of our exhibits

22

as well for the hearing and

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

t~at

is an actual copy of the

8
1

originally advertised.

it's technical in nature) and it consists of only four

pages.

proceeding here tonight.

that 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:

10

12

I'd like to ask one last time) are

there any questions from the audience at all?

Hearing none) motion to close the public

11

comment session of this hearing.

13

MR. ECKERT:

I'll second that.

14

MR. GOULD:

Motion and second.

15

(Unanimous vote.)

16

MR. GOULD:

17

down

18.

tree items to approve.

19

which is the zoning.

e acronym list.

21

MR. GOULD:

24
25

I believe we'll go right

We have

Our first is Ordinance No. 2014-01

Motion to approve 2014-01?

MR. ECKERT:

23

So. moved.

All in favor?

Cnestnuthill will go first.

20

22

So) we'll mark that as Exhibit No.4 to this

And with that) unless there's any other matters

There were no major changes) some of

Can you repeat -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

41

prepared to join and I anticipate that towards the end of

the summer.

I'm sorry if I'm the only -- I'm a

what the procedure actually is.

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

we can make additional amendments

MR. HELFRICH:

MS. CLAUSEN:
MR. HELFRICH:

11

going to do it by May 1st

12

MS. CLAUSEN:

13

MR. HELFRICH:

littl~

confused as to

We're going to defer voting

Correct.
Okay.
But what happens is if we're

It has to be simple.
Well, no, not only does it have

14

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

15

but you cannot conduct a hearing any earlier than 30 days

16

prior to when the change? are communicated to the township

17

planning commissions and to the county planning commission.

18
19

Could you just clarify because

10

MS. CLAUSEN:

MS. CLAUSEN:

Right.

So, the

~hanges

that will

be proposed are those that we have discussed tonight.

20

MR. HELFRICH:

21

MS. CLAUSEN:

Correct.
Now, just one question.

The

22

water extraction issue, I believe our planning commission

23

voted to recommend that.

24

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

25

connection with voting on the ordinance?

We, as supervisors, haven't

8
1

originally advertised.

it's technical in nature) and it consists of only four

pages.

proceeding here tonight.

that 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:

10

12

I'd like to ask one last time) are

there any questions from the audience at all?

Hearing none) motion to close the public

11

comment session of this hearing.

13

MR. ECKERT:

I'll second that.

14

MR. GOULD:

Motion and second.

15

(Unanimous vote.)

16

MR. GOULD:

17

down

18.

tree items to approve.

19

which is the zoning.

e acronym list.

21

MR. GOULD:

24
25

I believe we'll go right

We have

Our first is Ordinance No. 2014-01

Motion to approve 2014-01?

MR. ECKERT:

23

So. moved.

All in favor?

Cnestnuthill will go first.

20

22

So) we'll mark that as Exhibit No.4 to this

And with that) unless there's any other matters

There were no major changes) some of

Can you repeat -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