Before the Eldred Township Zoning Hearing Board could begin the long process of reviewing the three volumes that make up the special exception permit of Nestle Waters, they first had to cover a number of important procedural issues.

Since this was the first meeting in the new year the board had to reorganize. The board consists of three members and two alternates. The board members are Frank O'Donnell, who was voted chairman; Albert Aumack; and Charles Ogle. Alternates Bruce George and Annette Heist were also present.Board solicitor Chad Martinez then explained the proceedings to the residents in attendance."There is a lot of evidence, and there are a lot of people who want to be heard," Martinez said. "This is likely to take a couple of meetings, and at each meeting we will give the public the opportunity to express their concerns."Martinez also explained the difference between public comment and testimony."The zoning hearing board will hear your comments and concerns, but their decision has to be based on the weight of the testimony," Martinez said. "They will determine if the applicant has met all the requirements."Another procedural issue was the identification of the parties interested in testifying and if they had standing. Normally a person has standing if the issue being considered would impact them or their interest in some way.There was some issue with the definition of standing before the board.Attorneys for Nestle had prepared a memorandum in which they narrowly defined which of the residents should have standing. Special counsel for the township Jordon Yeager said Nestle's position was incorrect in their reliance on the term "aggrieved" rather than "affected."R. Timothy Weston, attorney for Nestle Waters, was attempting to limit the standing to people who lived in the immediate impact zone or whose property was directly adjacent to the proposed extraction site.In a compromise, Martinez permitted any residents who were objectionable to Weston to have standing pending any scientific evidence put forth by Nestle's experts that proves that their place of residence would not be impacted by the operations.Eventually 19 residents were accepted as objectors with standing to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses during the hearing.The next procedural issue brought before the board was a motion for the recusal of Frank O'Donnell made by Weston. According to Weston, he had only recently come into possession of a letter written by O'Donnell to the Blue Mountain Preservation Association, of which O'Donnell is president.Weston said the letter proved that O'Donnell has already made up his mind regarding the project and that he was biased and prejudiced.According to Weston's motion, O'Donnell had referred to Nestle as a "money-hungry corporation ready to rape the mountain."Weston's motion noted cases which held that the members of the board must avoid any appearance of bias.Yeager responded to Weston's motion."With all due respect, I am not going to opine on the law," Yeager said. "But I do believe that the applicant takes great liberties with this letter."The letter written in September 2015 points out possibilities of what could happen if Nestle were to get their permit, Yeager said. Yeager also points out that the statement about "money-hungry corporations" is not in a paragraph that refers to Nestle, but in a paragraph which warns members of the association to not just sit back and let things happen.Weston was permitted to question O'Donnell, but after a few questions he said that he was standing by his motion and would be happy to wait and permit the opposition to issue a brief stating legal reasoning why they disagree with his motion.The board will decide on the motion at the next meeting.James Preston, the attorney representing a number of residents in an appeal of the zoning ordinance, which is pending before the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas, made a brief statement.Preston presented the board with a copy of the appeal as an exhibit and said he believed that sincethe zoning ordinance was under appeal for being unlawfully enacted that "Nestle was proceeding at their own risk with this application."In his opening statement Weston made a reference to the appeal."Where a particular use is permitted in a zone by special exception, it is presumed that the local legislature has already considered that such use satisfies local concerns for the general health, safety and welfare and that such use comports with the intent of the zoning ordinance."Weston was able to qualify his first expert witness, Edward Davis, before the conclusion of the meeting. Davis will testify to issues related to civil engineering, land use and stormwater and erosion.The next two hearing dates areMarch 30 and April 20. The hearing will continue to take place at the Kunkletown Volunteer Firehouse at 7 p.m.