Synopsis: Background, Design and Faulty and
illegal Construction, Witnesses, Recommended Criminal Investigation, Abstracts
of Laws, Chronology and an Analysis of regarding the Borough of Stanhope Block 10902 Lot 10 and Lot 12
Minor Sub-division 2 and 6 Oak Drive illegal development and
Recommendations
Prepared by Thomas Caggiano, 10 East Drive, Stanhope, N.J. 07874 973-347-4354
As of Apr 5, 2006
Thomas
Caggiano Education and Background:
Mr. Caggiano had a thirty year engineering and project management career in federal service; Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering from City College of New York with graduate engineering studies at Stevens Institute and Department of Defense Colleges – Total credits in excess of 200 credits; Treasurer of local college chapter of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers; Provided technical engineering services in full scale production plant operations at Phelps Dodge regarding copper refining by blast furnace operations and electrical refinement. Manage and direct the design, construction and operation of chemical manufacturing pilot plants. Engineering Branch Chief responsible for design, construction and operational prove-out of billions of dollars of manufacturing complexes; international technical advisor to the Corps of Engineers; author of technical report for peak overpressure and impulse equations which provide engineering guidance for blast wall design and quantity distance tables; Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation RDT&E Policy Chief responsible for preparation and guidance to 4, 000 engineers, scientist and analysts; Program Management Div Chief responsible for providing guidance and management for three Program Management Engineering Divisions; Acquisition Manager for a Major Classified Weapon system for system design, testing, manufacturing plant design and construction; and Senior level Program Management Engineer Army Acquisition Corps certified at Level III for full life cycle responsibility for cradle to grave engineering, system design, manufacturing facility design, construction and operation, integrated logistics system, testing, training, deployment fielding and decommissioning.
Mr. Caggiano has lived at
Illegal
Development, faulty design, no protection during development, destruction of
shade trees and construction defects:
Design: The
Development: The site was illegally developed and drastically overfilled
starting in Nov 2001. Illegal retaining walls were constructed in the rear of
Lots 10 and 12. An illegal certificate of occupancy was issued for
Witnesses:
Adjacent property owners that are witnesses that should be contacted by any investigator are:
a. Mr. Charles Heimberg –
b. Mrs. Kathryn Heimberg –
c. Ms. Amy Dombroski –
d. Mr. John Fleming –
e. Mrs. Margaret Fleming –
f. Mrs. Mary Pawar –
g. Mr. Iqbal Pawar –
h. Mr. Thomas Caggiano –
i. Mrs. Kathryn Caggiano –
j. Mr. Bruce. Leister –
k. Mrs. Sharon Leister –
l. Mr. Randall Deresky –
m. Mrs. Lois Deresky –
n. Mrs. Valorie Nichols –
Complaints filed with Department of Consumer
Affairs:
Misconduct, Incompetence and other
factors
Borough of Stanhope: Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr.
Developer: Pittenger and Keith Inc Professional Engineer Wendell Inhoffer and Planner Judith Keith
Soil Analysis Center Peter Schneider (walls in conservation area and drainage easements)
Recommended Criminal
Investigation:
An apparent protection racket and criminal conspiracy by the former Mayor Brian McNeilly, Town Council members, Town Administrator Teri Massood, Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr and Code Enforcement Official Arlene Fisher existed. The conduct of the Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse, Land Use Board Attorney Roger Thomas and Borough Attorney Richard Stein should also be investigated. The Department of Agriculture’s SSCC’s executive secretary Mr. James Sadley, staff member Mr. Frank Minch and SCSCD’s chairman Mr. Clifford Lundin and manager Ms. Winifred Straub as each received over 100 emails of witnessed, dated photographs, analysis, et al. The conduct of the Mr. Franklin Dawalt Jr., Mrs. Eleanor Dawalt, PE Mr. Wendell Inhoffer, PE Mr. Peter Schneider, PE Mr. Joseph Sedivy, PP Ms. Judith Keith should also be investigated. I recommend an appropriate criminal investigation authority be contacted to conduct a comprehensive criminal investigation.
Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans:
1) Borough of Stanhope approved a site plan and incompetently prepared and
approved SESCP Nov 1, 2001 for the minor subdivision – the SESCP was never
submitted by state and municipal codes to the Sussex County Soil Conservation
District prior to undertaking development and issuing certificates of occupancy
on
2) SCSCD certificated of a fictitious single home SESCP for Lot 10 certified by SCSCD on Oct 8, 2002 eleven months after the start of development and three months after the certificate of occupancy was issued for 6 Oak Drive. The developer never submitted an application with a fee to the Land Use Board for approval and evaluation. A successful appeal by Mr. Caggiano to the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC) overturned SCSCD’s certification as invalid.
3) On Sep 30, 2003, Executive Secretary’s State Soil Conservation Committee
who collaborated with SCSCD which recused itself stated the time had expired for
a review of the letter of certification submittal by E.N.F. Development Co. LLC.
to incorporate
4) On Mar 24, 2004 SCSCD certified a fictitious single home SESCP revision
for
Selected Sections of Law and Violations, Documents and Analysis
SESCA N.J.S.A 4:24-6.1 REVIEW AND APPROVAL, MODIFICATION OR REJECTION OF DECISIONS The committee may, on its own motion or at the request of any person aggrieved by any decision by a local district, review and approve, modify or reject any such decision as it deems appropriate.
On Feb 6, 2006, Mr. Caggiano filed a grievance motion to James Sadley, executive secretary of the State Soil Conservation Committee (SSCC) to withdraw certifications with a detailed OPRA request. No response.
SESCA N.J.S.A. 4:24-41 DEFINITIONS “Project" means any disturbance of
more than 5,000 square feet of the surface area of land (1) for the
accommodation of construction for which the State Uniform Construction Code
would require a construction permit, except that the construction of a
single-family dwelling unit shall not be deemed a "project" under this act
unless such unit is part of a proposed subdivision, site plan, conditional use,
zoning variance, planned development or construction permit application
involving two or more such single family dwelling units. The minor subdivision
development had 7,480 sq ft disturbed on Lot 10; 13,240 sq ft disturbed on
SESCA N.J.S.A. 4:2 4-43 -CERTIFICATION OF PLAN BY DISTRICT; DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT Approval of an application for development for any project by the State, any county, municipality, or any instrumentality thereof shall be conditioned upon certification by the local district of a plan for soil erosion and sediment control. Eleanor Dawalt’s SESCP prepared incompetently by Wendell Inhoffer PE, Judith Keith PP, and approved by Stanhope’s Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. on Oct 9, 2001, approved by the Land Use Board on Nov 7, 2001 is never submitted by E.N.F. Development Co. LLC to SCSCD. In Jul 2002, a fictitious SESCP is submitted by Eleanor Dawalt in SH#44 application for only Lot 10, certified by SCSCD on Oct 8, 2002 eleven months after the illegal start of development and three months after the illegal issuance of a certificate of occupancy was issued for Lot 12, 6 Oak Drive and submitted for a single home in violation of the SESCA.
SESCA N.J.S.A. 4:24-45 LIMITATION ON TIME FOR GRANT OR DENIAL OF CERTIFICATION: The district shall grant or deny certification within a period of 30 days of submission of a complete application. SSCC and SCSCD did not have a complete application for time expiration of certification as stated by executive secretary, SSCC in his letter of Sep 30, 2003. No fee or SESCP was submitted. Mr. Sadley’s decision had a grievance issued by Thomas Caggiano on filed on Feb 2, 2006 as there was an incomplete application and no time start date was valid for government review and approval.
SESCA N.J.S.A. 4:24-46 FEES
The district shall adopt a fee schedule and collect fees from applicants for
the certification of plans and for on-site inspections of the execution of
certified plans. No fees were paid by E.N.F. Development with application via
letter from E.N.F. Development Co. LLC regarding Jul 18, 2003 letter to certify
by incorporation
SESCA N.J.S.A. 4:24-49 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR PROJECT; CONDITIONS
FOR ISSUANCE: No certificate of occupancy for a project shall be issued by a
municipality or any other public agency unless there has been compliance with
provisions of a certified plan for permanent measures to control soil erosion
and sedimentation. The
SESCA N.J.S.A.4:24-53 VIOLATIONS; INJUNCTION; PENALTY; ENFORCEMENT: If any person violates any of the provisions of this act, any standard promulgated pursuant to the provisions of this act, or fails to comply with the provisions of a certified plan the municipality or the district may institute a civil action in the Superior Court for injunctive relief to prohibit and prevent such violation or, violations and said court may proceed in a summary manner. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act, any standard promulgated pursuant to this act or fails to comply with the provisions of a certified plan shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $25.00 nor more than $3,000 to be collected in a summary proceeding pursuant to the Penalty Enforcement Law (N.J.S. 2A:58-1 et seq.). The Superior Court, County Court, county district court and municipal court shall have jurisdiction to enforce said Penalty Enforcement Law. If the violation is of a continuing nature, each day during which it continues shall constitute an additional separate and distinct offense. There were false plans, false inspection reports, and adverse off-site impacts. Do to official government misconduct and a conspiracy no violations were issued and hundreds of unreported offenses occurred. Fines would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars as each violation is a new offense each day. No notification to the DEP of the continuous violations of the general conditions and violation of SESCA and Stanhope municipal codes was undertaken by the Borough of Stanhope or SCSCD.
An investigation by authorities is required to provide to a court the hundreds of offenses that occurred and the DEP must be informed that the Permit to fill in the wetland general conditions were violated.
N.J.A.C. 2:90-1 General Provisions
and its 2:90-1.4 Application requirements
(b) iii Delineation of ..
wetlands .. within the project. SCSCD SESCPs did not define the wetland on
N.J.A.C 2:90-1.4.2 .iii contours at a two foot interval, showing present and proposed ground elevations.
SCSCD certified SESCPs had false topography and were never submitted with a complete application to the Land Use Board for evaluation. The Land Use Board approved no SCSCD certified SESCPs.
N.J.A.C 2.90-1.4.3 Appropriate fees as adopted by the individual district and approved by the Committee
E.N.F. Development Co. LLC submitted no fees for consideration of
N.J.A.C 2.90-1.4.6 Maintain a copy of the certified plan on the project site during construction. No SCSCD inspector ever reviewed the plan on-site as no municipal approval of the SCSCD certified SESCPS was ever obtained. Stanhope’s Detective Schullhammer did an investigation on Dec 2, 2002 and Franklin Dawalt had no plan, lied that he had approved plans as did the Town Administrator Ms. Teri Massood.
N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.5 Procedure:
N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.5(b) No project shall be undertaken … unless the applicant has submitted to the district .. a plan for soil erosion and sediment control for such project, and the plan has been certified by the district.
The minor subdivision never had a Stanhope approved and Department of Agriculture certified SESCP. On Jun 13, 2003 based upon Mr. Caggiano appeal to the SSCC, Mr. Sadley’s findings were undertaking the development and issuing the certificate of occupancy violated the SESCA and the SESCP submitted with SH#44 was invalid as it did not address the sub-division.
N.J.A.C 2:90-1.5 (e) “This certification is limited to the controls specified in this plan. It is not authorization to engage in the proposed land use unless such use has been previously approved by the municipality”.
The Land Use Board never approved any certified SESCP and was not provided the SESCP with fees for the SESCP application evaluation. Mr. Wooten is on the Stanhope Town Council; Mayor’s Representative to the Land Use Board and on the Land Use Board and knows no such SESCP for SH#44 was approved. The Town Administrator Ms. Teri Massood never submits the SESCP submitted with the SH#44 to the Land Use Board and buries the SESCP unapproved by the municipality in the Construction folder and lies to at least two official investigations by the Department of Community Affairs Local Government and Stanhope Police investigation.
N.J.A.C 2:90-1.5(f) The district shall furnish the municipal planning board a copy of the certification.
SCSCD did not furnish notifications about the SSCC “incorporation of Lot 12”
on Sept 30, 2003 or the Mar 24, 2004
N.J.A.C 2:90-1.9 Enforcement
N.J.A.C 1.9(a) Inspection of projects to determine execution in accordance with the certified plan shall be carried out by the district in close coordination with the municipal engineer and building inspector.
N.J.A.C 1.9(f) The municipality shall not issue a certificate of occupancy
for a project unless there has been compliance with the provisions of the
certified plan for permanent measures. The district shall provide the
municipality with a report of compliance upon completion of the project. The
N.J.A.C 2:90-1.14 Minor subdivisions Municipal approval of subsequent applicants for construction permits on lots derived from such subdivisions shall be conditioned upon district certification of a soil erosion and sediment control plan where more then 5,000 sq ft disturbed of the surface area shall be disturbed by the applicant. Concurrent construction means any activity where land is disturbed in two or more lots at the same time by the same applicant in the same subdivision.
Stanhope Land Development Code Chapter 100-15: The Mayor and Council shall enforce this chapter. In case any building or structure … or land is used in violation of this chapter, the Mayor and Council, its agents or an interested party in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action to prevent the unlawful … construction; to restrain, correct or abate such violation; to prevent the occupancy of said building, structure, or land or prevent any illegal act .. or use in or about such premises. The Mayor and Town Council and its Mayor’s representative Mr. Wooten a member of the Land Use Board were fully apprised of the illegal acts and condoned the illegal development of walls and other illegal acts. The Town Administrator Ms. Teri Massood, Construction Code Official, Code Enforcement Official, Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr provided knowingly false information to investigating authorities aborting the investigations.
Stanhope Land Development Code Chapter 100.34.4(3).d Issuance of a stop-work order by the Borough Engineer pending the resolution of any dispute. On Jan 8, 2002 John Cilo Jr. requested to Construction Code Official to stop work and was ignored. The Borough Engineer should have issued his own stop work order and provided violations to a prosecutor so the offenses could be prosecuted in court.
Stanhope Land Development Code Chapter 100-58C Walls: design submission and height requirements
A single 8’ high wall was falling apart, had no design, was shown on no site plan existed on Jul 10, 2002 when an illegal CO without conditions was issued. After the Jul 27, 2002 meeting among Cilo, Caggiano, Pawars and Lamicella, Cilo lied, then admitted the wall did not met code and between Jul 29, 2002 and Aug 15, 2002 a lower wall without any variance or authority was built in the restricted conservation area. No design was submitted for approval as no wall existed on the site plan. Peter Schneider PE stated falsely that all municipal codes were complied with as there was no authority to build the wall and the lower portion existed in the conservation area and drainage easement and there was non-compliance with 100-119..
Stanhope Land Development Code Chapter 100-63.1.A and 100-63.1.B(6) Critical
slopes: Hay bales with silt fences greater then 8% slope above State and SCSCD
standards are required using its police powers to protect inhabitants and
private property. No hay bales with silt fences were ever installed. Boulders
rolled down steep embankments thorough the 18 ‘ Buffer zone onto
Stanhope Land Development Code Chapter 100-65.B Application by developer for certificate of occupancy and 100-65.C request must be made in writing. No as-built drawings were submitted. There was no compliance with the SESCA and Stanhope Codes. A failing 8’ high wall a threat to private property and the inhabitants.
Stanhope Shade Tree Commission Chapter 53-5.E tree infection and 53-6.B(2) tree identification
Franklin Dawalt and Judith Keith wrote false reports. The Code Enforcement Official Arlene Fisher hide the Caggiano Complaint of Jul 23, 2002 and Scarlet Doyle the John Cilo Jr Associates professional planner ignored repeated emails about the destruction of the shade trees stating to the Town Administrator Teri Massood they were incessant as the trees were destroyed one by one in violation of plans.
Stanhope Chapter 72 Uniform Construction Code establishes “Borough of Stanhope Building and Construction Office”. The Construction Code Official shall be the chief administrator of the enforcing agency.
Uniform Construction Code Technical Bulletin 88-6 (2) Construction Permit for Retaining Walls Requires when the failure of the retaining wall … could cause significant property damage on adjoining land. Proximity of the wall to property lines may be a factor. For retaining walls not connected to building projects…it may be appropriate for the construction code official to issue permits under the UCC. No walls were shown on the site plan and an 8 ‘ high single wall exists on Jul 10, 2002 when an illegal certificate of occupancy is issued. Mr. Schneider false issued a report on Aug 15, 2002 that codes were met.
Chapter 2: Administrator Section 2.2D Removal. The Borough Administrator maybe removed from office by a two-third vote of the governing body.
DEP Wetland Permit General Permit No. 6, file No.: 1919-99-0001.1, Apr 27, 2000 general conditions
Chronology of Events and Criminal Conspiracy
Analysis
On April 27, 2000 a DEP wetland permit is issued to fill in a wetland on
On Nov 1, 2000, Stanhope’s Board of Adjustment approves a resolution with Eleanor Dawalt with the following conditions:
e. as-built drawings shall be submitted to the Borough Engineer for approval
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. No as-built drawings are submitted and
fictitious SESCP were submitted as the illegal walls were in violation of
restricted deeds and the 8 ‘single wall existed when the illegal certificate of
occupancy was issued on
i.The non-disturbance area consisting of the 18’ conservation easement along the rear property line. A second law wall was built between Jul 29-Aug 15, 2002 without any legal authority and no variance request.
The lower wall construction was a conspiracy among the Mayor, Town Council, Borough Engineer and others.
On Oct 9, 2001 the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. incompetently approved Lot
line Adjustment & Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (SESCP) Tax Map
Sheet 109 Block 10902 Lots 1, 11 &12 dated September 20, 1999, Rev per
Borough Engineers review 5/29/01 prepared incompetently by Pittenger &
Keith, Inc PE 12292 Wendell Inhoffer and PP 3553 Judith Keith submitted by the
then owner Eleanor Dawalt. The plan was for a minor subdivision with critical
slope variances on both Lot 10 and Lot 12, Lot line adjustment and a defined
minor subdivision with over 20,000 sq ft disturbed, a large 18 ft
non-disturbance, conservation area and buffer zone marked with a heavy line on
the site plan. No 8’ high walls existed. Four trees were marked and plotted on
On Oct 10, 2001 Eleanor Dawalt sold the minor subdivision to E.N.F.
Development Co. LLC. No SCC AP10 form was completed with the affidavit of
percent ownership was required by SESCA and the change in ownership was not
identified as required by law. The deeds were for
On Nov 7, 2001 the incompetently prepared SESCP submitted by Eleanor Dawalt prepared by Pittenger & Keith Inc PE Wendell Inhoffer and PP Judith Keith and approved by the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. was approved by the Board of Adjustment and development commenced in violation of the SESCA and Stanhope Land Development Code Chapter 100-119 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control measures as no certification of the SESCP was obtained from the Sussex County Soil Conservation District.
The non-compliance and violations of the Stanhope Chapter 100 Land
Development and SESCA 4:24-53, Stanhope Land Development Codes, Stanhope Chapter
100-119 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control measures and DEP Wetland Permit
general conditions was violated immediately as development was undertaken in
violation of State and Municipal laws as no Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan was approved by Stanhope and certified by the Sussex County Soil
Conservation District. Adverse impacts immediately occurred and continued
though-out the illegal development and illegal issuance of two certificates of
occupancy. Oak Drive was immediately adversely impacted as sediment from the
development was tracked onto the street as the stabilized access points on
On Jan 8, 2002, the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr wrote a letter to the
Borough of Stanhope’s Construction Code Official Mr. Thomas Pershouse with
copies to the Town Administrator Ms. Teri Massood and Municipal Prosecutor/
Borough Attorney Mr. Richard Stein to stop construction immediately and noted
violations that were required to be immediately corrected. He was ignored and no
violations were issued as continued damage to the non-disturbance, conservation
area, tree roots and off-site properties occurred. The
On Jul 10, 2002, E.N.F. Developed filed a request for a certificate of
occupancy in violation of Chapter 100-65(B), the Board of Adjustment resolution
was violated as no as-built drawings existed, and the SESCA 4:24-49 was violated
as no permanent SESCP was approved by the municipality and certified by SCSCD.
The Borough Engineer illegally concurred with the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy on
On Jul 12, 2002 the
On Jul 22, 2002 the Borough Planner Scareltt Doyle wrote a letter to Stanhope
that Mr. Caggiano send several emails that John Cilo Jr. Associates had received
several emails regarding the Dawalt project. I intend to spend no more time than
required. I seek your guidance as to how to deal with this issue because he is
relentless in his emails to us. Mr. Caggiano was complaining about the
destruction of the shade trees on
On Jul 23, 2002, a letter is written from T. Caggiano to the Code Enforcement Official Ms Arlene Fisher that the four (4) trees about the violation that the trees to be preserved in the open area were destroyed. Ms. Fisher notified Mr. Caggiano she did not inform anyone of the letter left it in her desk, lost it, was given another copy and took no action. Subsequently after much discussion by many neighbors and other letters the Mayor of Stanhope stated in a Town Council the trees would be replaced with the largest possible. The tree roots were never protected per the SESCA for 8 months and then destroyed. Ms. Scarlet Doyle the Town Planner was repeated warned about the destruction of shade trees in the open area and that plans were not followed by the developer and ignored the emails writing as an associate of John Cilo Jr. Associates the complaints were incessant.
On Jul 25, 2002, a petition is signed by fourteen (14) adjacent property
owners to the Stanhope Town Council to comply with Land Development codes, the
site plan, restore the trees on
Jul 27, 2002 A meeting was held at
Jul 29, 2002 – Aug 15, 2002 In a letter from Mr. John Cilo Jr to Mr. Dawalt dated Jul 29, 2002 he directs a lower wall be built which extended up to 8 ft from the existing 8’ high wall which was emplaced in the restricted deed area, the conservation area and drainage easement without any fees, approvals or variances or approved changes to the site plan grading profile and directs trees to be replaced on a 2-1 basis.
Jul 31, 2002, Mr. Caggiano wrote a letter to the DEP subj: Ref: Case No 02073110037-23 reporting: silt has left the property and gone over 15 ft in people’s property ( 3 Valley Road ) over 7 inches deep and I had a sink hole appear in my front yard.
On Aug 1, 2002, the New Jersey Herald Newspaper headline: Stanhope residents
uphappy with new development. A group of residents told the (town) council
Tuesday they think contractor Frank Dawalt is not complying with Borough
regulations. The petition asks the council to ensure the construction complies
with Borough regulations. Included in the letter is a list of concerns of which
the main issues are soil erosion and flooding. “The seven foot wall is shoddily
constructed”. The council could not take action on the residents’ concerns
Tuesday because the matter is before the borough Land Use Board. Mr. Cilo who
took a look at the property on Saturday and did not find it necessary to stop
work” The illegally issued Certificate of occupancy without conditions was
issued for Lot 12, 6 Oak Drive on Jul 10, 2002 and the property sold to the
Lamicella on Jul 12, 2002 and was not under the authority of the Land Use Board.
The work constructing the lower wall in the conservation easement and
non-disturbance zone was conducted Jul 29, 2002 to Aug 15, 2002 was illegal as
was the entire construction. The Town Council was the proper forum for
Aug 2002 - In early Aug, Mr. Caggiano brings to the attention of SCSCD the
illegal
On Aug 6, 2002, Ms. Judith Keith PP who prepared the site plan, original incompetent SESCP and the fictitious SESCP submitted with SH#44 (SESCP44) application prepares a false letter to Mr. Dawalt that there are no trees to be saved in the open area. E.N.F. Development Co. LLC includes this false letter in his false Oct 1, 2002 in fictitious letter to the Town Administrator Ms. Teri Massood.
On Aug 7, 2002, Ms. Straub of SCSCD did an on-site inspection of the minor development and the following observations were obvious: A house was built and occupied on 6 Oak Drive, no stabilized access existed to Lot 10, storm sewer lines were not installed, there was no trees in the open area that were protected. She was accompanied by a DEP representative and did not inform him that the development and issuance of a certificate of occupancy violated the SESCA.
On Aug 9, 2002, SCSCD Ms. Straub sent a letter to E.N.F. Development Co. LLC subject Block 10902, Lots 10, 11 &12, noted “Construction at the site must be stopped until a Plan is Certified by the District”… Any and all retaining walls proposed for the subject site are not under the jurisdiction of the District and must be prepared and certified by a structural engineer.. Our consulting engineer will review the plan and possibly visit the site. The Application, fee schedule must be signed by the applicant and submitted with the appropriate fee. Each plan must be signed and sealed by the design engineer.” There are no retaining walls shown on the fictitious SESCP provided with the SH#44 application which is known to Ms. Straub.
On Aug 11, 2002, the Stanhope Environmental Commission wrote a letter to the Land Use Board that plans were not followed and requested an investigation with copy to Mayor and Town Council.
On Aug 15, 2002, Peter Schneider PE prepared a false report on the 2 wall
retaining wall stating all Borough of Stanhope regulations are complied with and
was called three times by Mr. Caggiano that his letter was false. There was no
compliance with the site plan, SESCA, Stanhope Chap 100-119, Stanhope Chap
100-58C design approval requirement, et al.. No variance request is submitted to
emplace a wall in the conservation area and drainage easement. Adverse impact of
flooding occurs to 3 and
Aug 16, 2002 Mr. Caggiano writes a letter to SCSCD’s manager Ms. Straub
complains that sediment over 7 inches deep on
On Aug 20, 2002, Eleanor Dawalt submitted a fictitious SESCP for only
On Aug 22, 2002, the Land Use Board wrote a letter to the SCSCD and the DEP that Mr. Caggiano and his neighbors appeared, provided photographs and it was clear there were sedimentary and environmental violations and requested an evaluation. Ms. Straub after a meeting in a telephone call with Mr. Caggiano and Ms. Catherine Williams refused to conduct the evaluation even if supported by thirty (30) additional property owners. The DEP is powerless as no violations are reported by Stanhope’s Borough Engineer or SCSCD.
On Aug 22, 2002, a letter was written by four (4) adjacent property owners Mr. and Mrs. Pawar, Mr. Fleming and Mr. Caggiano to the Planning Board regarding the illegal rear retaining wall on Block 10902 Lots, 10, 11 and 12. stating the need to comply with State and municipal laws on the stone retaining wall and a full review of variance of the site plan and wall design and footings and noted the development was not conducted IAW the Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act of New Jersey, Appendix C2-7, Para 2:90-1-14 Minor Subdivision which required and approved and certified SESCP for minor sub-divisions with over 5,000 sq ft disturbed by the same developer at the same time and requested a hearing and that the wall did not met Chapter 100-58C wall requirements.
On Aug 25, 2002, a letter is written to Mr. Hahn (DEP) and copy provided SCSCD (Ms. Straub) signed by nine (9) adjacent property owners about the violations and non-compliance with SESCA. SCSCD never contacted any of the adjacent property owners. The contractor destroyed large trees that were to be preserved in the “open area” on the Stanhope Map ST9901-A site map. They are: Mr. and Mrs. Caggiano, Mrs. Deresky, Mr. Leister, Mr. and Mrs. Heimberg, Mrs. Baker and Mr. Pawar.
Aug 25, 2002 to Dec 31, 2005 the Department of Environmental Protection
At the Aug 26, 2002 Land Use
Board public meeting, Mr. Roger Thomas “confirmed letters were sent to the
NJ DEP and SCSCD requesting them to provide answers to Mr. Caggiano’s concerns.
The Board has taken whatever action can
be taken… Attorney Thomas noted nothing further can be done. Mr. Wootten is
a member of the Land Use Board, the Mayor’s representative to the Board and a
member of the Town Council and during the numerous Town Council discussions says
nothing about the biweekly discussions within the Land Use Board. The current
Mayor Mrs. Diana
Kuncken was a member of the Town Council and lives directly across the
street from 3 and
Sep 5, 2002 Stanhope Environmental Commission meeting: “Mr. Caggiano states that the contractor violated his wetland permit. Mr. Caggiano states that he and other neighbors had a meeting with Borough Engineer Cilo; Mr. Cilo prepared a document of that meeting, dated Jul 27th, 2002 which is false and misleading.”
At the Sep 24, 2002 Town Council meeting, Mr. Heimberg questioned the wall.
“Mr. Stein stated if there is a
significant change, then the Engineer has no authority to approve that and has
to advise the applicant he has go back to the Board to get approval for the
change, which requires notice and a public hearing.” There was no variance
request by E.N.F. Development Co. LLC or Mr. and Mrs. Lamicella who owned the
property on Jul 12, 2002 to install a lower wall in the non-disturbance zone,
conservation zone and drainage easement during Jul 29, 2002 to Aug 15, 2002. Nor
was there any design submitted as required by the Uniform Construction Code
TB-88-6(2) Retaining walls and Stanhope Land Development Chapter 100-58C. Mr.
Caggiano distributed a forty one (41) exhibit presentation. In exhibit 30, “Copy
of Aug 15, 2002 letter from structural engineer Peter Schneider to Frank Dawalt.
Letter reports that his inspection of the retaining wall found it “…has been
constructed in a proper workmanlike manner and meets all the requirements of the
borough of Stanhope regulations for property development’. Mr. Caggiano stated
Mr. Schneider only reviewed part of the wall because he only covered the part
that had two walls. Mr. Caggiano stated Mr. Schneider should have asked how the
wall got built and he should have asked for the design.” (No walls should exist
per the site plan and the lower wall would require a variance it could not
obtain for it is in the restricted deed area which is required drainage to
protect the adjacent
On Oct 1, 2002, E.N.F. Development Co. LLC wrote a letter to Stanhope states that the trees are identified on site plan, that trees were infected, and that trees are not on the drawing. Letter shows knowledge and fictitious report.
On Oct 8, 2002, a fictitious SESCP submitted with Application SH#44 with
Eleanor Dawalt shown as the owner is certified by Mr. Lundin the SCSCD Chairman.
The false SESCP was prepared by Wendell
During Oct 10-17, 2002, Mr. Caggiano had meetings with Ms. Straub informing her the SESCP submitted with the SH#44 application is false in two meeting, one with Ms. Catherine Williams and the other with Mr. Krause. Ms Straub refused to conduct the evaluation requested by the Land Use Board even if thirty (30) property owners supported the Land Use Board. Mrs. Straub was brought a portfolio of dozens of photographs of the violations that occurred and refused to view them. Over 100 emails were sent to Ms. Straub and the SCSCD chairman Mr. Lundin with complete explanations, dated witnessed photographs and they were ignored. Mr. Caggiano was found guilty of harassment for providing SCSCD evidence.
On Oct 17, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Caggiano appealed the certification of the
SCSCD certified SESCP44 for only
Oct 20, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Pawar of
On Oct 22, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Fleming of 5 Valley Road wrote a memorandum they are afraid to let the grandchildren visit since I worry about a boulder coming into the house, that they were flooded and had mud all over my backyard. (Hay bales with silt fences were never installed. Boulders rolled and slide down steep unprotected slopes traveling over 70 ft and littered their back yard and smashed into their rear fence. I measured silt over 20 ft into their property. Silt fences were eventually installed, stakes were crushed and the silt fences buried for months.)
On Oct 22, 2002, Ms. Dombroski of
On Oct 22, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Heimberg of
On Oct 23, 2002, Mr. And Mrs. Deresky wrote a memorandum: My next concern
when the construction started was there were more trees being knocked down than
there were suppose to be saved. When I asked Mr. Cilo he told me that was not
the case. (All 4 shade trees to be preserved in the open area were destroyed).
I also watched the backhoe bury
construction material on the right side of the house. (Northern side of
On Oct 23, 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Caggiano participated in SCSCD appeal of the SESCP for only a single home on Lot 10, and objected to the non-consideration of Lot 12, stated the topography is false, the requirement for hay bales, the improper access point on East Drive and read all the letters for the adjacent property owners noting wanton violations and requesting an investigation. SCSCD affirms the certification of the SESCP over the appeal and objections of Mr. Caggiano that the SESCP does not consider Lot 12 of the minor subdivision, is false as it does not have the correct topography, walls are not shown, 3 of 4 shade trees are erased, the wetland is not defined, the stabilized access required on Oak Drive is erased, does not required hay bales with sediment fences and the access point on East Drive was inappropriate. Mr. Lundin asked when Mr. and Mrs. Pawar’s letter was read: Did the Borough Engineer really admit the wall did not meet code? Mr. Caggiano responded: “Yes” and Mr. Lundin “groaned” and made no mention of the discussion in the minutes. Deeds, site plan image, 3 floppy disks, Board of Adjustment resolution, letters from all adjacent property owners were provided and ignored
Oct 29, 2002, Mr. Caggiano wrote a memorandum about the destruction of trees and adverse impacts on root systems.
On Oct 29, 2002 at the public Stanhope Town Council meeting, the minutes’ record is provided herein regarding two walls that were illegally constructed on Block 10902 Lots 10 and 12. Neither is shown on the fictitious SESCP with the SH#44 application. A single 8’ high wall existed when the certificate of occupancy was issued in violation of the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (SESCA) and Stanhope Code 100-119 for Stanhope Block 10902 Lot 12 on Jul 10, 2002. During Jul 29, 2002 to Aug 15, 2002 the second lower wall not shown on the fictitious SESCP was built in the non-disturbance, drainage easement, conservation and buffer zone and shows the knowledge and complicity of the Mayor and Town Council.
“Mr. Caggiano stated the deed for 6 Oak Drive was signed on Jul 12, 2002 and he asked how the Borough Engineer could direct the (prior) builder (E.N.F. Development Co. LLC) to put the second (lower) wall in after the deed was signed. Mr. Caggiano contended that two applications were required to put up the second wall which traversed both properties (2 and 6 Oak Drive). The Mayor McNeilly stated he completed his review of this project and the Borough of stands behind its position on how this project is being handled. The Mayor suggested that if Mr. Caggiano disagreed, he needs to take it to another level”.
On Nov 1, 2002, Mr. Caggiano appealed the SCSCD certification of only Lot 10
to the executive secretary Mr. Sadley, State Soil Conservation Committee that
the development, issuance of certificate of occupancy and SESCP for a single
home,
Nov 2, 2002, Ms. Valerie Nichols of
On Nov 4, 2002, Mrs. Leister of
On Dec 2, 2002, Stanhope Detective Schellhammer did an investigation as Mr. Caggiano informed the Stanhope Police the on-going development was illegal. The Town Administrator Teri Massood and Franklin Dawalt Jr. provided false information to the investigator knowing that there is no Stanhope approved and SCSCD certified SESCP and that the SESCP submitted with the SH#44 application is false. The Stanhope Police investigation is aborted and the Detective told Mr. Caggiano he could do nothing further.
During Dec 13, 2002 to Mar 4, 2003, a Department of Community Affairs Codes and
Standards Construction Code Investigation was performed by Mr. John Maher.
Mr. Maher was provided false information
by the Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse, Borough Engineer John Cilo
Jr and SCSCD Manager Ms. Straub by stating a SESCP was not required by
On Feb 13, 2003, Mr. Caggiano contacted the Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office
(SCPO) on Jan 27, 2003 and met with Detective Joseph Costello on Feb 13, 2003
complaining of an illegal development on 2 and
On Mar 24, 2003, Thomas Caggiano wrote a certified letter to Mr. Richard Stein Borough Attorney and Municipal Prosecutor documented violations with photographs and detailed analysis. No response.
On Mar 24, 2003, Mr. Caggiano attended the Land Use Board and directed the Board to complete fact finding issues he presented but the Land Use Board refused to conduct the evaluation.
On Jun 16, 2003 the Executive Director James Sadley of the State Soil Conservation Committee wrote a letter to Mr. Caggiano regarding his appeal of Nov 1, 2002. Findings were the development was undertaken in violation of the SESCA N.J.S.A. 4:24-39, et. seq. including 4:24-43 which specially states that “approval of an application for development for any project by the State, any county, municipality, or any instrumentality thereof shall be conditioned upon certification by the local district of a plan for soil erosion and sediment control” that the development and issuance of the certificate of occupancy were in violation of the SESCA and the SESCP for a single home was invalid as the project the minor subdivision must be considered. The development also violated Stanhope’s Land Development Code Chapter 100-119 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control measures.
During Jun 20, 2003 to Jul 23, 2003, the Department of Community Affairs Local Government Mr. Watkins did an investigation. The DEP DAG Harley Williams stated “There might be soil erosion violations, but they were the county’s (SCSCD) and the municipality’s responsibility” and the Town Administrator Ms. Teri Massood provided false information stating: “All his charges (Mr. Caggiano’s) were unfounded” when Ms. Massood knew the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan certified submitted with application SH#44 by SCSCD was false and never approved by Stanhope’s Land Use Board, no fee was ever paid to the municipality to review the false plan, knew the shade trees were destroyed and other issues as well as the petition signed by all the adjacent property owners.
On Jul 11, 2003 Mr. Joseph Trapp, Division of Criminal Justice, Administrator of Investigation wrote a letter to Assemblyman Guy Gregg from case CJ# 2003-4902-IC assigned. Mr. Edgar Hess stops investigation immediately and refuses to provide any explanation verbally or in writing. Significant follow-up data is provided fruitlessly to the Department of Criminal Justice.
On Jul 18, 2003, E.N.F. Development Co. LLC submitted a letter without a fee,
plans, drainage velocity calculations or definition so that the “This letter is
to request that the above certified soil erosion and sediment control plan
{SH#44} be amended to include Lot 12, in Block 10902 in the Borough of Stanhope
so that I can proceed with the development of adjacent Lot 10.” to SCSCD for
“certification”. There is no mention of what defines
On Jul 18, 2003, Ms. Straub the SCSCD Manager is interviewed by the Assistant Prosecutor Thomas Bracken and Detective Costello regarding Caggiano’s allegations.
At the Jul 30, 2003 SCSCD Board of Supervisors meeting, the Prosecutor’s Office investigation was discussed at length along with recusal. Discussed suggested language received from Mr. Sadley in response to Mr. Dawalt’s submission.
On Aug 6, 2003 the SCSCD letter wrote a letter to SSCC Sadley. Board of Supervisors recused itself after receiving the Jul 18, 2003 letter from E.N.F. Development Co. LLC in regards the incorporation of Lot 12 (there is an incomplete application per the N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.4). The Board requested the SSCC Staff/Engineer to review and certify the amendment.
On Aug 7, 2003 Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office wrote a letter to Mr. Thomas Caggiano regarding allegations. Met with Stanhope Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr., Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse, Zoning Enforcement Officer Arlene Fisher, Borough Administrator Teri Massood, Chief of Police Pittenger. SCSCD Manager Winifred Straub and contacted the DEP and Department of Community Affairs John Maher. Jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of the state’s criminal law. Based upon facts currently known there is insufficient basis to trigger our criminal jurisdiction. The prosecutor was apparently provided false information by Stanhope and SCSCD government officials. Based upon OPRA restrictions the public cannot obtain records of what Stanhope and SCSCD officials said during the investigation.
Sep 12, 2003, Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose wrote a letter to N.J. Attorney General Peter Harvey to address the grave concerns of Mr. Caggiano regarding a residential construction issue in Stanhope. No response.
On Sep 30, 2003, Mr. Sadley of
the State Soil Conservation Committee without any engineer review sends letter
to SCSCD with a delay in responding to SCSCD Aug 6, 2002 letter regarding the
reference project (Block 10902, Lot 10 Sussex District Plan #SH44). No action by
this office will be necessary at this time since the period for certification of
the amendment is expired; and the
amendment is certified by expiration of the time frame as provided in
N.J.S.A. 4:24-44. The district should in continue to inspect the project in
accordance with the district inspection policy. No fees were paid to consider
the certification nor were any 2 ft contour SESCP plat provided resulting in an
incomplete application submission which was not processed in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.1 et. seq. procedures. There is no notification of the
certification to the Borough of Stanhope Land Use Board per the SESCA. The application is incomplete as there is
no SESCP plat, no drainage velocity calculations or any fees paid. The SESCP
submitted with application SH#44 that showed the subdivision is
fictitious.
Mr. Caggiano complains to the Town Council to fire the Borough Engineer, change the certificate of occupancies without conditions to certificates of occupancy with conditions and initiate removal action for the Town Administrator pursuant to Chapter 2-2.D hearing.
Sep 30, 2003, Senator Robert Littell wrote a letter to N.J. Attorney General Peter Harvey to address the grave concerns of Mr. Caggiano regarding a residential construction issue in Stanhope. No response.
On Oct 9, 2003, the Borough of Stanhope threatened Mr. Caggiano with criminal harassment and criminal trespass if he took further efforts within the Stanhope Environmental Commission, Land Use Board, Town Council, Police Chief, Code Enforcement Official, Borough Engineer, or contacted any representative, wrote to or contacted the Borough in any manner or enter Borough of Stanhope property for any reason. Mr. Caggiano was forbidden under threat of criminal charges to inspect any Borough record in violation of the Open Public Records Act. Mr. Caggiano’s New Jersey Constitutional rights under Article I Rights and Privileges Section 1: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness and Section 18: The people have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances were violated.
On Nov 20, 2003 DEP’s Lisa Jackson wrote a letter to Mr.
Thomas Caggiano: “You have alleged violations of the soil erosion and sediment
control plan certified by the SCSCD and have requested the Department find that
EMD Associates {sp E.N.F. Development Co. LLC} is in violation of that part of
their Statewide General Permit #6 requiring compliance with soil erosion and
sediment control measures. Consequently, any further DEP involvement would be
limited to and contingent on the finding of a violation of the certified plan.”
In actuality the general conditions required compliance with state and municipal
laws. The Borough Engineer, Borough of Stanhope and SCSCD issued no violations
so no offenses were reported to a court. The SESCP certified by the SCSCD was
fictitious and the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. and SCSCD Joseph Sedivy’s PE
reports noting compliance with the fictitious SESCP were also false. A further
false report is issued by Sedivy on Mar 12, 2004 concerning a revision to the
single home SESCP with another fictitious SESCP revision issued by Wendell
Inhoffer. No SCSCD certified SESCP is ever submitted to the Land Use Board for
municipality review and approval. As there is no announcement to the adjacent
property owners or the Land Use Board for local public review the local
community is unable to issue an appeal. False inspection reports were issued by
the Borough of Stanhope and SCSCD inspectors as adverse impacts occurred
off-site as noted in all the adjacent property owners letters, petition and
multiple signed letter provided to SCSCD as SCSCD and the executive secretary of
the SCSCD engaged in a collaborative effort without notifications to the
municipality and without municipality approvals with known fictitious SESCP
plans. The conservation areas drainage system is adversely impacted by walls,
improper installation of drainage grates and storm sewers at wrong elevations
and improper site grading slopes not in accordance with the site plan or the
fictitious SESCP grading profiles adversely impact water surface flow
directions. The north and central collection grates as ineffectual. The gutters
from
On Nov 30, 2003, Mr. Caggiano visited the U.S. Attorney’s Office in
On Dec 8, 2003, John Cilo Jr. Associates without an approved and certified SESCP for the minor subdivision recommended a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued. John Cilo Jr. included the approval from Peter Schneider PE regarding the rubble retaining wall even though Mr. Cilo knew a two wall retaining wall was not on the site plan and also knew the Land Use Board never approved the SESCPs certified by SCSCD.
On Mar 12, 2004, SCSCD’s Joseph A. Sedivy PE again incompetently approved a
false SESCP rev to
On Mar 24, 2004, the false SESCP certification revision was approved by SCSCD once again for a project Dawalt single family home but now submitted by ENF Development Co. LLC revisions (ENF) without an AP10 form identifying the percentage ownership affidavit. No drainage velocity calculations were provided. By direction, from the State Soil Conservation Committee, the certification of a single family home was invalid as the project must be for the minor sub-division. The revision submitted has a revised SESCP plat attachment which is false as it does show properly that the grading profile in the non-disturbance area was adversely impacted, that the topography of walls existing in the non-disturbance area and conservation zone were not shown which adversely impact drainage, that the 8” shade tree which is plotted but destroyed, does not show the existence of a prior wetland or the other 3 shade trees that were to be preserved in the open area as defined on the site plan. The revision was a false SESCP. The Borough of Stanhope’s Land Use Board was not notified of the certification revision and no municipal approval was provided.
On Nov 2, 2005, Stanhope Borough Clerk denies access to Mrs. Pawar for OPRA records.
On Nov 30, 2005 Mr. Caggiano met with U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Mr. Nobile and
Mr. Beet in
On Dec 5, 2005, Mr. Russo the Executive Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Professional Engineers notified Mr. Caggiano he would be a witness at an investigatory inquiry against the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. in response to Complaint 05-13.
On Dec 15, 2005, Office of the Inspector General assigns case number DEC006.
On Feb 2, 2006, an investigatory inquiry was held by the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Professional Engineer’s against John Cilo Jr. with Mr. Caggiano as a witness. On Feb 3, 2006, Mr. Caggiano wrote a letter to the Board with ninety (90) exhibits On Feb 2, 2003, formal complaints were registered against PE Wendell Inhoffer 12292, PE Peter Schneider 26056 and PE Joseph Sedivy 17094 and PP Judith Keith 3552 for misconduct, incompetence or other factors regarding the Oak Drive minor subdivision development.
On Feb 2, 2006, Mr. and Mrs. Pawar prepare a detailed record of the violations that occurred during the development. Mr. Caggiano has reviewed the memorandum and verifies his observations confirm the accuracy of all statements. The memorandum is provided to the Board of Engineer’s in Mr. Caggiano’s Feb 3, 2006 letter as an exhibit.
On Feb 6, 2006, Mr. Caggiano provided a grievance to Mr. Sadley the executive
secretary of the State Soil Conservation Committee to withdraw the certification
of the incorporation of
There is no response.
On Feb 6, 2006, Borough Deputy Clerk responded to request by Mr. Caggiano to inspect documents pursuant to the OPRA that “While the OPRA statute certainly allows for the inspection of documents that can only be accomplished if you are legally allowed to enter the Municipal Building, which unfortunately your are not allowed to do so.” There is no court order or hearing. The letter from Stanhope violates the N.J. Constitutional rights and the OPRA and prevents Mr. Caggiano from presenting grievances, visit the police to report the criminal activity, and execute actions to assure compliance with Chapter 100-15 enforcement, et al. The act by Stanhope is an obstruction of justice preventing the obtaining of records to support requests with evidence in the Board of Engineers, Board of Professional Planners and Criminal Justice system.
On Feb 9, 2006, Mr. Caggiano sent seventeen (17) denial of access complaints
against the Borough of Stanhope to the Government Record Council as the Borough
of Stanhope denied all inspections of government records as required under the
Open Public Records Act. “C.47:1A-5 Times during which records may be inspected, examined, copied;
access; copy fees. The custodian of a
government record shall permit the record to be inspected, examined, and copied
by any person during regular business hours”
On Feb 10, 2006, Mr. Thomas Caggiano wrote a letter to SCSCD pursuant to SESCA N.J.S.A 4:24-6.1 and presented a grievance and request to withdraw SCSCD Mar 24, 2004 certification of a single home Block 10902 Lot 10 revision by E.N.F. Development Co. LLC for application incompleteness, a fictitious SESCP, invalid as for on a single home and not the project the minor subdivision, other issues and no notification to Stanhope’s Land Use Board.
On Feb 13, 2006 SCSCD’s Mr. Smith states there will be no further investigation of the Dawalt subdivision. “If you feel that the SCSCD has acted illegally, you are free to institute a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. Your letters are copied by me and sent to the district. However, the board will not conduct an open session meeting for you to air “grievances” as the time to appeal district action has long expired.”
On Feb 23, 2006 The GRC requests a Statement of Information request regarding
Thomas Caggiano v. Borough of Stanhope,
2006-27 through 2006-43.
On Mar 7, 2006 Stanhope new
Municipal Clerk/OPRA Custodian Robin Kline lift “ban” to examine records if make
appointment. Stanhope Letter to GRC on Mar 10, 2006 that I did as of Mar 9, 2006
not heard from Mr. Caggiano regarding offer of inspection.
On Mar 7, 2006 Board of Engineers
issues complaint #06-16 against Peter Schneider.
On Mar 9, 2006 Board of Engineers
executive director Mr. Russo calls regarding complaints against Wendell Inhoffer
and Joseph Sedivy (and Peter Schneider) and I provided info. Asks motive for
actions.
States only handles the licenses.
On Mar 9, 2006 Letter to Stanhope’s Ms. Kline rejecting offer as “ban” refuses permission to go onto Borough property, attend public meetings, present grievances and violated NJ Constitutional rights.
On Mar 10, 2006 Board of Engineers
issues complaint #06-17 against Wendell Inhoffer.
On Mar 13, 2006 Board of Engineers
issues complaint #06-18 against Joseph Sedivy
On Mar 15, 2006 Governor Corzine
writes letter to Caggiano with cc Farber.
On Mar 16, 2006 Mr. Cilo’s attorney
sends threatening letters to Mr. and Mrs. Pawar that if they don’t withdraw
their complaints against Mr. Cilo (Complaints 05-13a and b), they are
considering suing them for abuse of process and libel and are given 10 days to
respond.
On Mar 17, 2006 Caggiano writes letter to Attorney
General Zulima Farber about jurisdiction and forwards three
letters.
On Mar 19, 2006 Mr. and Mrs. Pawar
write letter to Board of Engineers about the threat and documentation of the
meeting on Jul 27, 2002 and their observations and request support regarding the
intimidation.
On Mar 19, 2006 Mr. Caggiano advises
Ms. Farber of the Cilo threat and provides a floppy disk containing a 22 page
assessment of the laws that were violated, a chronology of events and
recommendations.
On Mar 20, 2006 Letter from State
Board of Professional Planners executive director Mr. James Hsu to Mr. Caggiano
regarding investigation of Judith Keith.
On Mar 23, 2006 Prosecutor
Supervisor and Coordination Bureau (Kathy 609-984-2814) Build file and assign
attorney
On Mar 24, 2006 Letter from
Department of Consumer Affairs Director Kimberly Ricketts informing others of
investigation file
On Mar 29, 2006 GRC Gloria Luzzatto
(609-341-3480) Mediation offer denied by Mr. Caggiano as no documents from
Stanhope in reply to OPRA requests.
On Apr 4, 2006 Caggiano letter to
the Land Use Board for hearing comply with the site plan.
On Apr 5, 2006 Respond to Cilo
Lawyer’s threatening letter dated Apr 1, 2006.
On Apr 6, 2006 GRC sends letter to
Stanhope for more information concerning Stanhope
complaints
On Apr 10, 2006 Wrote letter to
Governor with evidence about fax to McKoy that was ignored, a floppy disk with
my 22 page report and other evidence and that there was no response from
anyone.
On Apr 10, 2006 Mr. Cilo’s Lawyer
telephone me and requested I stop sending faxes to his office as over the
weekend I provided his office over 50 pages of evidence refutting his letter and
also notified him of my letter to the Governor concerning his misconduct in
threatening us.
Recommendations:
Administrative procedures be taken against professional engineers and professional planners and the overall matter of a conspiracy should be referred to the appropriate criminal investigators. Correction of the site grading profile, reconstruction of the deck on 6 Oak Drive to the correct site of the house, restoration of large shade trees on 2 Oak Drive, removal of walls in the conservation area, correction of gutters directly connected to the storm sewer system, removal of buried gypsum boards and construction materials and construction defects in the water collection system and sewer elevation must all be corrected to provide proper protection to the inhabitants and private property, comply with codes and regulations and assure the general health and tranquility of the neighborhood.
A comprehensive criminal investigation be under taken by the New Jersey Attorney General. A review of the conduct of the Department of criminal justice’s Mr. Edgar Hess, the Office of Government Integrity, the Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Agriculture, Sussex County Soil Conservation District, the Borough of Stanhope, the developer E.N.F. Development Co. LLC, professional engineers, professional planner and the Stillwater and Lake Hopatcong court proceeding wherein Mr. Caggiano was convicted by sending a letter to the Attorney General signed by Mrs. Pawar, Mrs. Caggiano and himself, and harassment by providing 100 emails of evidence to SCSCD’s chairman Clifford Lundin and manager Winifred Straub who certified SESCPs for a single home in violations of the SESCA and NJAC, ignoring all seventeen adjacent property owners were ignored as Mr. Caggiano was denied the right to call witnesses in his defense.
Prepared by
