Frank O'Donnell will remain as chairman of the Eldred Township Zoning Hearing Board for the Nestle Waters request for approval for water extraction in the township.

That was the first point of contention for the hearing Wednesday night for the proposal to extract up to 200,000 gallons of water per day from property owned by Ricky Gower at 122 Sandy Hill Path, Kunkletown. After three hours of testimony, the hearing was continued to late April.Chad Martinez, solicitor for the board, addressed Nestle's request to have the board's chairman, Frank O'Donnell recuse himself from the proceeding.Nestle made its argument based on a letter written by O'Donnell to a conservation group of which he is president."I have reviewed the briefs and memorandums of law presented by the parties in this matter. Mr. O'Donnell has stated that neither he nor Blue Mountain Preservation stand to have any financial gain as a result of any decision made by this board," Martinez said."I have also read the letter in question and have made it a part of the record. I find that the letter does not go to the tender of the application of Deer Park. Deer Park is not the sole purpose of the letter, but rather the letter is encouraging members of the organization to champion their cause and get involved in their community."Martinez then left it up to O'Donnell to decide if he would recuse himself."I have shown no bias and I see no reason to recuse myself," O'Donnell said.TestimonyNestle representatives started up where they left off last month with the testimony of Edward E. Davis, director of engineering for Miller Brothers Construction before the Eldred Township Zoning Hearing Board.With that, Martinez moved on to a request by intervenor Donna Deihl to have Donald Moore speak on her behalf during the proceeding.Moore is a resident of Easton and has no standing to testify before the board. Deihl explained that she was uncomfortable speaking and wanted Moore to speak for her.Nestle objected to the request stating that a party has a right to be represented by an attorney in such matters and not by a lay person.Martinez noted the objection, but agreed to let Moore into the proceedings on Deihl's behalf.Moore said he is a retired system's engineer and high school math teacher.Polk Township Supervisor Michael Hurley also addressed the board.Polk Township has entered an appearance in the matter due to its concerns with the effect that the additional tractor-trailer traffic will have on its road, specifically the intersection of Route 209 and Silver Springs Boulevard.Nestle's and Gower Estate's attorneys both objected to Polk Township being added as a party in the hearing, claiming that the intersection in question was too far from the site and that Polk should go through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.Township Attorney Mark Freed, said the intersection is discussed quite prominently in the application.Martinez agreed to take the request under advisement to give Polk Township's solicitor an opportunity to address the matter at a later date.NestleDavis testified on behalf of Nestle. Davis' testimony covered the location of the site, the current and future land use for the property and the location of buildings and driveways at the site. Davis also went into great detail on storm water management, sediment control and drainage as well as any effect the use might have on the flood plain.Davis testified about the design of the withdrawal facility and the two water storage tanks. Lighting, landscaping and engineering practices were also covered. His testimony took three hours and he is expected to continue on direct examination at the beginning of the next hearing which is scheduled for 7 p.m. April 20.Freed and attorney Jim Preston, on behalf of a number of residents, both objected to a considerable number of exhibits."The basis of my objection to each of the exhibits is that they were not part of the original application and they are all significant material changes to the application," said Freed. "These changes are fatal to the application."Earlier in the evening, Freed had asked Nestle to withdraw its application and resubmit with changes. Nestle argued that case law supports amending the exhibits to support changes requested as part of the process and that it should be expected.Martinez set a schedule for the parties to submit briefs and responses regarding the amended exhibits and requested that Freed and Preston also include their positions regarding the "fatal" flaws in Nestle's application.The matter will be decided at the next hearing.