You are on page 1of 2

Matt Neeb, CJERP Planner

January 29, 2016

Mr. Neeb,
I wrote to you on December 17, 2015, with questions for CJERP. You had told me in
person that questions were to be submitted in writing, for consideration and response by
I wrote you a follow-up letter two weeks later on December 31, and in that letter I
reported that Eldred Township residents who attended the September 2015 CJERP
meeting felt as though their questions were not welcome in person in front of CJERP, and
a resident supplied me with documentation of the policy you stated, to submit questions
in writing to CJERP, to your attention:

Exerpt from a September 29, 2015 email from Matt Neeb to an Eldred Township resident
I attended last nights CJERP meeting, and signed in on my way in the door. You
handed me an agenda and the minutes of the October meeting which I appreciated since
they were up front and away from the audience.
I attended the meeting, because I have not received a reply to the questions I asked in my
two letters in December. You have not acknowledged that I sent the second one, and I
received a reply of Thank you to the first one. I thought that there might be discussion
during tonights meeting, so that CJERP members could craft a response. Yet there was
no agenda item regarding my questions, and the meeting was adjourned after a scant 10
minutes. I felt slighted that my letters were not mentioned at all in light of the fact there
was hardly anything accomplished at this meeting, and I went out of my way to attend. I
did not rise to speak during public comment, because it is my belief in speaking with
others that questions arent welcome in person, and there was no possibility that my
questions were going to be discussed since they were not on the agenda.
Relative to the written questions I have submitted per your request, and in accordance
with your policy, I noted this evening that Nate Staruch used the term consistency
three times in four minutes, relative to zoning across CJERP. Mr. Staruch was
reminding CJERP members that consistency in zoning is what the goal is. This is
consistent with what both Mr. Staruch and Senior Planner Mr. Koopman of the Monroe
County Planning Commission have told me and I remind you that in the questions I
have submitted I have asked how CJERP can circle the square of the multiple
inconsistencies introduced by the 2014 water extraction amendment.
Additional Questions
1. In the October 2015 minutes that you approved this evening, there is this paragraph:

I note that this is what one would expect a record that an amendment was submitted by
a township (Polk) for review.
Can you point me to the monthly minutes that similarly document that the Eldred
Township water extraction amendment was submitted to CJER and then the Monroe
County Planning Commission? The amendment was drafted on or about March 27,
2014, adopted on May 1, 2014, and the April CJER meeting was cancelled. I dont see
how the amendment could have been reviewed or discussed at CJER.
2. On the subject of which solicitor reviewed amendments in the CJER region in 2014,
the following email indicates that Eldred Townships solicitor (Mr. Kaspszyk) and
planning commission solicitor (Mr. Lyons) were not in the loop, and that CJER Solicitor
Fareri was the one who reviewed amendments for the CJER townships:

I have found no documentation whatsoever that the water extraction amendment, which
was a landowner curative amendment, was sent to Mr. Fareri for critical review. The
curative amendment is not the two word change that was incorporated it is what has
become known as the Wimmer Letter, a two page letter dated March 21, 2014 from
landowners Attorney James Wimmer to CJER Planning Consultant Carson Helfrich,
containing a description of why the amendment is needed, and what it does. While both
the justification and effect are grossly in error, it is in fact the only description of the
amendment I am aware of. Since Mr. Fareri is the CJER solicitor, can you please supply
me with documentation that shows that Mr. Fareri reviewed the Wimmer Letter, or
something equivalent?
I look forward to the answers to my questions.
Thank you,
Don Moore