Wednesday, June 8, 2016

The reason Nestle withdrew its application for a water extraction permit in Kunkletown, Eldred Township

On June 8, 2016, Nestle Waters announced it was withdrawing its application for a special exception permit.  After investing perhaps $250,000 in this project, why?

Let's recall that there were two hurdles for Nestle to overcome, both obtaining a permit and landowner Gower defending the court appeal of the ordinance change that allowed Nestle to target this site - if the appeal was won, it would have voided the amendment from Day 1.  Nestle needed a favorable outcome of both of these, and they wouldn't have obtained either one...

Special Exception Permit

In only an hour or two of cross examination of Nestle's civil engineer Ed Davis at the May hearing, very significant weaknesses were exposed.  First, it was established that Nestle's 30,000 gallon water silos are really tanks, and storage tanks are not permitted where Nestle wanted to place them.  Counsel Mr. Timothy R. Weston and engineer Ed Davis had tried to consistently call them silos - but slipped occasionally.  Second, Nestle ignored the fact there are two roads across the site (they didn't even show them on their Existing Features site plan), and that they had blocked one of them already with well installation.  They proposed placing a building in a road, and then had the nerve to argue it was a "driveway" with "some stone on it".  People have used this road since the 1960's as the sole access to their properties.  That Nestle thought it would get away with these absurd deceits of residents whose families have called Kunkletown home for a century or more is incomprehensible.  Is there a farmer anywhere that calls a water tank a "silo"?  Look who called a water storage tank what it is, at a Nestle Waters site only 15 miles away:

In Nestle Waters' 2004 Bangor, PA special exception application Mr. Weston called the water tanks "storage tanks".  True story.

None other than Nestle counsel Weston!  Mr. Weston's own words would have been placed into evidence if hearings had proceeded, on cross examination of Mr. Davis - who incidentally was also involved in the Bangor operation.  Above-ground storage tanks are not permitted where Nestle planned them on the Gower property.   Mr. Weston and Mr. Davis have been through this rodeo many times.  A two-person hit squad.  Busted.


If on-site roads had been shown , it would be clear an ordinance violation has already occurred
Note: Sandy Hill Path's edges (brown lines) were not shown on Nestle's Site Plan

Nestle's own exhibit NWNA-28 shows that Sandy Hill Path is a "road" - you can't make this sh!t up

Looking down Sandy Hill Path at blockage at Nestle well PB-2
Why the hell would they block the road, and not find a better place?

There is plenty more, but there is no need to go further.  Nestle needed variances for both of these ordinance violations, and former (as of June 11) Eldred zoning officer Helm didn't catch that.  If he had, Nestle would have been required to apply for variances that they could not obtain.  They couldn't obtain them because they couldn't meet the criteria.  One criterion for relief is that the site can't be used for another use.  There are two other uses already on the site - end of story, done, finished.  Thus, Nestle's application was total garbage from inception - a pile of crap.  If not for the incompetence of Helm, a lot of attorney's fees could have been avoided.  Just because Bub didn't catch it doesn't mean Nestle gets to violate the ordinance.  Bub couldn't catch a snowflake with his hat in a blizzard.
Nestle Engineer Ed Davis would have had a bad night if the June 15 hearing had taken place

If the June 15 hearing had taken place, Ed Davis' testimony would have been hacked to pieces on further cross examination.  Lot lines depicted wrong on the site plan, a right of way shown where it isn't, many other deficiencies.  It would have been ugly.  We can take much satisfaction Nestle is gone, but dang it would have been fun to pummel them into the ground on their way out of town.

Update 6/9 2:15PM See a previously unreported major deficiency in Nestle's Site Plan here.

Court appeal of amendment that allowed Nestle to apply for a permit

What has become obvious to anyone with eyes, and who has been exposed to the process that was required but was not followed, is that the procedural challenge of the amendment under the laws of Pennsylvania would have been easily won.  The recent discovery that the advertisement of the amendment was modified after it was sent to the Pocono Record for advertisement was just the icing on the cake; procedures were violated every single step of the way.  The probability the appeal would have been won at the county court was very high - 80% or more in this author's opinion.  If When won, it would have voided the amendment from the day it was enacted, meaning Nestle could not proceed.

Depositions were about to take place, and several people had reason to fear this.  Who knew about and took part in efforts to alter the ordinance?  What about Darcy Gannon altering official planning commission minutes on request of her daughter's boyfriend's attorney?  Who altered the Public Notice ad that was placed by the landowner's attorney's law firm after it was submitted, and was that it done in writing or by phone call to a "friend"?  Why didn't the CJER solicitor or county planning commission review the water extraction amendment?  In Nestle's application withdrawal statement on June 8, they said that the landowner had "concerns" about the project proceeding. Um, yeah, and lots of others too.

Conclusion
About four months ago, I looked Mr. Andreus in the eye and said "This isn't going to end well for you."  I am not clairvoyant.  The writing was all over the wall.  It's pathetic that Nestle put Eldred Township though this.  The greed is palpable.

11 comments:

  1. I can't thank you enough for staying the course in this nightmare and keeping this blog to inform us. Excellent work!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are very welcome. It was a community effort, with a few aliens here or there doing what they could to assist. There's power in numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As a former Kunkletown resident I say thank you. Nestle has raped countless communities. It's high time they were shown the door. I live in Vegas because of military and family obligations but look forward to the day I can come back home to stay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Larry, retired Air Force guys are always welcome back home

      Delete
  4. You are welcome. This ugly episode revealed corrupt behavior on the part of several individuals, and gross incompetence on the part of so-called professional consultants including attorneys. There were failures across the board, and outright deceit. The only downside to Nestle withdrawing is the possibility of some of the details not getting into the light of day.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There should be charges brought against these people!Plus sue them to get the money back it cost the people of the township!Great article & congratulations to the people of Kunkletown! Great article &congratulations to people of Kunkletown!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, most of the believed or documented behavior is likely not subject to prosecution or civil suit. If Nestle had pursued the matter much further with what is argued to be a deficient application, it is possible that at some point a tort claim could be brought against them. Bottom line - go to town meetings and find out what is going on. Anything that looks suspicious, ask questions. And have a Solicitor who knows municipal law, unlike one or two of the jokers that played a role in this disaster, names not mentioned.

      Delete
  6. Thanks for all your work on this defense, you have a great analytical mind and made it easy to understand. Your not an alien here, you always got a home here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Mr. Bill. We did it together, all contributing in our own way. It was an amazing effort. That includes people who throw in whatever they can afford to support the defense - which will have bills to pay through the next few months to wrap things up. Our water supply is priceless. I look forward to drinking some K-town water on my next visit. I am grateful for all the great people I've met.

      Delete
  7. Still. Why no mention of the "Landowner" Gower, selling out his neighbors.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My focus is the legal aspects of the case, not making things personal with the landowner, or other characters in this debacle. I have never met the landowner. I refer to him as the landowner, Mr. Gower, Gower, or Gower Estates depending on the context. It isn't my place to say he sold out the neighbors, and even if he did that he did more than anyone else. I know he tried to put a road on one neighbor's property, while blocking a road on his own that he knows others have used for several decades - and there is no reasonable way around that blockage. That sounds like selling out neighbors - I agree. But I leave to others who know him to make that call.

      Delete