The Honorable Arthur Zulick

Monroe Court of Common Pleas

610 Monroe Street Suite 221
Stroudsburg, PA 18360
June 24, 2016
Re: 9478 CV 2015 Deihl, Dunkelberger & LoMonaco v. Eldred Twp & Eldred Twp
Board of Supervisors
Dear Judge Zulick,
I am writing to bring a few things to the Courts attention, in light of the fact that there is
no record in this case and Intervenors Ricky Gower and Gower Estates have filed an
early Motion for Summary Judgment.
I am not a lawyer, but I note that a Motion for Summary Judgment is appropriate when
there is no dispute over material facts. This case is all about a dispute of material facts.
Discovery is not yet complete in this case, so the Court has not yet been exposed to a few
critical items that are in the public record.
The advertisement of the amendment at issue was not printed as authorized, in addition
to not being of sufficient detail
In Gowers filings thus far at least two different, and marginally or illegible depictions of
the April 14 and April 21, 2014 advertisements for the amendment in question have been
presented.

From Exhibit B in Gowers proposed Motion to Strike filed as an exhibit on Jan 4, 2016

From 10(q) of Gowers Motion for Summary Judgment filed on June 9, 2016
There is a far more legible example of the advertisement available, as shown below.
However, the advertisement was not printed as intended.

Here is a legible depiction of the advertisement as printed, supplied by the Pocono

Record classified department legal clerk Patricia Meadus:

And the advertisement if it had been printed as it was submitted to the Pocono Record:

Note in these two figures that there are two discrepancies in the water extraction
amendment between what was printed in the Pocono Record, and what was submitted.
To stress the change of the amendment, the new use manufacturing, light was to be
emphasized with underlining, and the previous use industry was to be displayed with a
strike though. However, these notations were removed prior to printing.
Ms. Meadus verified in the past month that she still has the email and the file containing
the amendments that were submitted to her for advertising by CJER law firm Newman
Williams on April 8, 2014, and has no written documentation that explains these
discrepancies.
In the amendments submitted to be advertised including the questioned amendment, there
were a total of 23 items to be underlined, and 13 to have strike through. All were printed
as submitted except the Eldred Township water extraction amendment. This is seen in
Exhibit A. The evidence suggests strongly that the advertisement was intentionally
altered to obscure its effect a land use change, a substantial change to a pending
ordinance which would not have been sufficiently described even if the ad had been
printed as authorized and intended.
The draft March 20, 2014 Eldred Township Planning Commission minutes were edited
prior to adoption by Gowers attorney
Gower has relied heavily in his replies and motions on the adopted March 20, 2014
Eldred Township Planning Commission minutes. Via a Right to Know request, an email
from Gowers attorney James Wimmer to then Eldred Township Planning Commission
secretary Darcy Gannon on March 21, 2014 was obtained. The email contains
substantive changes suggested by Mr. Wimmer to be made to Ms. Gannons draft
minutes, which evidently she supplied to him. Ms. Gannon adopted Wimmers changes
to the letter, without contact with planning commission members or Solicitor Lyons to
alert them of this communication or that she had any difficulty with recalling what
transpired at the March 20, 2014 planning commission meeting. The email is attached as
Exhibit B. Ann Velopocek supplied this email and is the Eldred Township Right to
Know Officer.
Of note is that the Eldred Township planning commission members have subsequently
stated that they concurred with nothing related to Mr. Wimmers conversation with
Solicitor Lyons at the March 20, 2014 meeting, and in fact there was no discussion or
comment by any planning commission member. It was a dialog between Mr. Wimmer

and Mr. Lyons, and Mr. Wimmer submitted nothing in writing. Furthermore, Mr. Lyons
is quoted in a 2016 newspaper article as not having any foundation to opine on Mr.
Wimmers unannounced non-agenda proposal that evening, since he had not reviewed the
current or pending ordinances.
The record does not show that either CJER Solicitor Fareri or the Monroe County
Planning Commission reviewed the questioned amendment
Gower has stated multiple times that the Monroe County Planning Commission
(MCPC) reviewed the water extraction amendment, and submitted a review letter dated
April 25, 2014 to support this conclusion. However, in examining Exhibit H of Gowers
Motion for Summary Judgment, the letter states that the amendments reviewed by the
MCPC had previously been reviewed in March 26, 2014. This was the Pending
Ordinance that was discussed at the March 27, 2014 CJER meeting. The record reflects
that the Eldred water extraction amendment did not exist on March 26, 2014, and was
received by the MCPC on April 1, 2014.
Also, an examination of CJER law firm Newman Williams billing for the period
spanning at least April 1, 2014 through May 1, 2014 shows no billing at all for the
supplemental amendments that were added after the March 27, 2014 CJER meeting
(Exhibit C). Solicitor Fareri was solely responsible for reviewing amendments during
this time frame, according to Eldred Solicitor Kaspszyk.
These are just a few examples that demonstrate that procedures were not followed
correctly as Gower argues in his filings there are several more, including that voting to
continue the March 27, 2014 meeting on May 1, 2014 is not at all the same as voting to
authorize an amendment, as Gower has argued.
Conclusion
As stated above, I am not a lawyer, and I am not a party in this case or making a legal
argument. However, I find it necessary to bring the items above to the Courts attention
in an effort to emphasize that there are significant facts in dispute, which would be more
evident if discovery were to be completed and additional facts became known to the
Court.
Respectfully,

NEWMAN, WILLIAMS, MISHKIN, CORVELEYN, WOLFE & FARERI

A Professional Corporation
712 Monroe St., P.O. Box 511
Stroudsburg, PA 18360
570-421-9090
E1N: 23-1919147

~(;;
C~

~~

~'*

,\~'\

~'Q' ~~S-<S
~'iI:v\,,\0

~~'0
v~y-S

May 1,2014

Invoice# 91054
The CJER Regional Planning Commission
clo Chestnut Hill Township
P.O. Box 243, 273 Route 715
Brodheadsville, PA 18322
Our file#
019196
048909

NF

Billing through May 1,2014

Agreement/Ordinance
Balance forward as of invoice dated March 31, 2014
Payments received since last invoice
Accounts receivable balance carried forward
019196
048909
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

$913.50
913.50
$0.00

04/30/14

RJI<

Conference call

0.30 hrs.

$145.00 /hr

43.50

05/01/14

NF

Attend second CJER public hearing

Total professional services:

1.00 hrs.

$145.00 /hr

145.00
$188.50

Fareri, James V.

1.00 hrs

$145.00 /hr

145.00

Kidwell, Robert J.

0.30 hrs

$145.00 /hr

43.50

Billing Summary

Total professional services

$188.50

Total of new charges for this invoice

$188.50

Total balance now due

$188.50

Visa, MasterCard and American Express Accepted

CJERP Regional Planning Fee Breakdown - 2nd Public Hearing 5-1-14

Township
Chestnuthill
Jackson
Eldred
Ross
Polk
Totals

Population (2010
census)
17,156
7,033
2,910
5,940
N/A
33,039

See Attachment 'A' for Attorney Invoice

% of Total
Population
52%
21%
9%
18%
N/A
100%

Total Pocono
Shared
Individual Twp.
Record Fees
Attorney Fees
Attorney Fees
Owed
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
N/A
N/A $
$
$
$
-

Attorney Fees
Owed
$
97.88
$
40.13
$
16.60
$
33.89
$
$188.50

Total Fees Owed

$
97.88
$
40.13
$
16.60
$
33.89
$
$
188.50