More Excellent Memos Sent to Borough Council

The following memos sent to Borough Council are being distributed with the authors' permission:

We purchased one of first units in the Arrowhead Condos and are very satisfied with the construction and services provided by the St Clair organization. Prior to revamping the former Hotel, the building was not being maintained, the windows were broken out, and the general condition was deplorable. I can't understand how any property owner of Indian Lake could be anything but pleased that the building has been rehabilitated and is now generating additional tax revenue to the Borough. Although I don't have all the facts of the litigation, it appears that there only a few people that are opposed to the St Clair developments and refurbished Lodge .

It is perfectly acceptable for anyone to question Governmental processes, but when the Courts have clearly overruled all the objections, isn't it time to accept the rulings and cease causing all property owners at Indian Lake to expend tax dollars?

Change is always hard to accept, but change will always happen. As long as the majority accepts changes, everyone should abide by the effects of the change.

J Ted Hollern
Unit Owner Arrowhead Condominiums
Indian Lake Borough

I support the course taken by Mayor Miscoe and wish to indicate my frustration over the continuation of litigation which serves no purpose other than to force the borough to waste taxpayer money to respond. I also support the development of new property as planned by Mr. St. Clair.

Neil Lehman

123 Syracuse Lane

Every comment sent to Council following the Mayor's request, the five that I have published, and several others that I have not received permission to publish, express the same sentiment.

Support of the St. Clair's and their developments.

Distain for the law suits.

Since the two are interwoven, the question of the hour is what can be done to stop the existing law suits and prevent new ones. In today's Council President's Newsletter, Mr. Hanson states that "Stopping the lawsuits, on the other hand, might not be hard at all. It could be very easy." I for one hope he is correct and have volunteered to work with him on any ideas that he has to accomplish this.

How Many Law Suits?

In previous Postings I have mentioned the large number of Law Suits and Legal Challenges filed against the Borough and St. Clair Developments. The following list is actions which necessitated a legal defense by either of these two parties, and in most cases both. In addition many of these 21 actions morphed into another 4 or 5 sub-actions.

Actions involving the Borough cost YOU tax money to defend.

Actions involving St. Clair Developments hurt YOU by preventing the St. Clair's from continuing to improve the Lodge and it's public facilities. Most of us enjoy and are proud of this facility. Many of us have lived here when it was closed or not worthy of going to. Whether you use the Lodge or not, it brings people and money into our community. It would be terrible if we lost it.

21 Law Suits / Legal Challenges

• 5/11/2007 2007-50442 James Lyons vs Indian Lake Borough

• 5/25/2007 Jeffery Griffith vs Indian Lake Borough / Planning Commission

• 6/07/2007 2007-50515 Mary Jo Takacs vs Indian Lake Borough et al

• 7/26/2007 2007-50681 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons vs Indian Lake Zoning Hearing Board

• 9/07/2007 2007-50860 Jack Butler, James Lyons, Mary Jo Takacs vs Indian Lake Borough

• 11/27/2007 Martincsak, McClatchy, Perl - Petitioned Somerset County Board of Elections to open Ballot Box and Recount Votes

• 12/14/2007 2007-51202 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons vs Indian Lake Borough

• 12/14/2007 2007-51203 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons vs Indian Lake Borough

• 12/27/2007 2007-51243 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons vs Indian Lake Zoning Hearing Board

• 1/02/2008 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons - Motion requesting the Disqualification of Borough Solicitor

• 3/28/2008 2008-50294 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons vs Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board

• 5/23/2008 2008-50481 Mary Jo Takacs vs Indian Lake Boro Zoning Hearing Board / St.Clair Resort Development

• 6/12/2009 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons - Appealed Commonwealth of Pa, DEP Boat Dock Permit to St.Clair Resort Development

• 10/09/2009 2009-51122 Mary Jo Takacs vs Indian Lake Borough

• 12/29/2009 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons - Appealed Judge’s ruling on Boat Dock Appeal to Commonwealth Court

• 12/29/2009 Mary Jo Takacs - Appealed Judge’s ruling on Waccamaw Building Permit Appeal to Commonwealth Court

• 2/05/2010 Mary Jo Takacs, James Lyons - Appealed Judge’s Ruling on Ordinance 144 to Commonwealth Court

• 3/11/2010 Mary Jo Takacs - Appealed Judge’s Order to Post Bond to Commonwealth Court

• 7/13/2010 David Rohrich - Presented Formal Complaint to DEP regarding St.Clair Resort Development’s NPDES Permit

• 7/13/2010 David Rohrich - Presented Formal Complaint to Somerset County Soil and Conservation District regarding St.Clair Resort Development’s NPDES Permit

• 7/15/2010 Mary Jo Takacs vs Somerset County Planning Commission

Excellent Memos Sent to Borough Council

The following three memos, which were sent to Indian Lake Borough Council, are being distributed with the authors' permission:

Dear Council,

I am responding to August issue of the Mayor’s Newsletter. My wife and I came to Indian Lake in December of 2007 when we purchased a townhome at 204 Kickapoo Ct. from St. Clair Resort Development. We knew a little bit about the actions of the Lyons, Rohrich, Takacs groupat the time but were undeterred because it “wasn’t our fight” and felt things would sort themselves out in time. Since buying our home I have dealt with Terry St. Clair on a regular basis and have developed a trust and admiration in his commitment to Indian Lake and his desire to provide a first-class resort home product. We use our home to enjoy the lake activities with our teenage daughter and son along with the many guests we have entertained during all seasons of the year. Having the commercial docks available has been not just a convenience but a luxury. I personally couldn’t be more pleased with my investment. Many of our guests have expressed different levels of interest in investing in Indian Lake Resort property but are understandably hesitant not only due to current economic instability but due to the constant litigation against St. Clair Resort Development. What I thought “wasn’t our fight” is now better defined as “the Borough’s fight” to make sure Indian Lake propertyvalue is stable and that development is healthy. If there are true legal issues motivating the efforts of the Lyons, Rohrich, Takacs group then so be it. Let the legal process take its course. If they are motivated by personal issues and self-satisfaction I hope that there are consequences and that the Borough will pursue them. In either case, I hope this issue is resolved soon so that a stable foundation can be formed for the future prosperity of Indian Lake and the mutual benefit of its citizens.

Respectfully,

Chris Coleman

It has become apparent to myself as well as my friends at Indian Lake that there is a feud of sorts that is effecting us all. I do not pretend to know all the details of what is happening. I do know that some times egos get in the way of good common sense. I have an A-frame on the driving range and when I bought it I knew I might find a golf ball or two in my yard ( window ) When you own a home on a developed lake you need to expect development!! I'm sorry if you happened to buy a home near possible change but you should have thought of that all along. As Americans we enjoy the right to own land and earn an income. Why does the guy who builds a house next to a farmers field for the beautiful view expect that the farmer will never sell it to a developer? That is just wishful thinking and poor common-sense. Stop wasting our tax dollars, put away your egos and start doing what is best for Indian lake.

Curtis Morgese

Borough Council:

I agree all these law suits and appeals are frivolous and ridiculous! I welcome further PLANNED development of our resort community. Without development and progress, our resort community will surely fall into a state of failure somewhat like several of the surrounding Boroughs in Somerset County. Without vision, planning, development and progress we will seal our fate as a failed Borough.

I commend Terry St Clair on his efforts in improve the Borough – his developments have all been “first class” and are to be viewed as an asset to our community. The Lodge facility is also a great asset to our community – can you image the Borough of Indian Lake without the Lodge? I hope we NEVER see that day!

I sincerely hope that the Council will approve the development at the Indian Lake Golf Course (interior front nine) – it surely will be a great asset for us as well. We cannot turn our back on the increased revenues this development will mean to the Borough! Jim Dewar and his partners have spent countless dollars and time on this development – let’s get it done!

I also commend those members of Borough Council on their tireless efforts to improve our resort community. I am certainly proud to be part of it! I am somewhat embarrassed when outsiders ask me about all the litigation and the “feuding” between our residents. I wish it would stop!

Thanks for a great job!

Jon Clapper

I applaud each of these individual for speaking up. Please, if you have an opinion send your comments to - Council@indianlakepa.us

Thank you

Is there a reason?

In the Council President's e-News of June 16th he listed several new developments at Indian Lake and the benefits they would bring to the community. Those being: Pine Cove, Musser Cove, Perigo plan, and the ILGCD. In a follow up Posting on this Blog of June 19th I added to this list all that St. Clair Developments had brought to this community.

In various other Postings I appraised you of the numerous legal suits and actions that have been brought against Indian Lake Borough and St. Clair Developments. One might ask how many actions have be filed against Pine Cove, Musser Cove, Perigo, or ILGCD? The answer is simple, NONE.

Yet the filings involving the Borough and St. Clair Developments continue to pile up. Following is a list of many of the Formal Complaints filed against the Borough and St. Clair Developments:

• Challenged the number of Sewer Taps available for Development.

• Numerous frivolous complaints to Somerset County Soil & Conservation District.

• Anonymous complaint filed with the Pa State Ethics Commission.

• Filed 2 anonymous complaints with Labor and Industry regarding the Indian Lake Resort.

• Filed 2 additional anonymous complaints with Labor and Industry regarding the Newly Remodeled Arrowhead Condominium Building.

• Filed 2 anonymous complaints with Labor and Industry regarding the new Kickapoo Lakeside Townhouses.

• Filed another formal complaint with Labor and Industry regarding the new Kickapoo Lakeside Townhouses, signed by ________.

• Filed another formal complaint with Labor and Industry regarding Indian Lake Resort signed by ________.

• Filed another formal complaint with Labor and Industry regarding the new Arrowhead Condominium Building signed by ________.

• Filed Formal Complaint with the Governor’s Office regarding Indian Lake Resort.

• Filed Formal Complaint with the Governor’s Office regarding Arrowhead Condominiums.

• Filed Formal Complaint with the Governor’s Office regarding Kickapoo Lakeside Townhouses.

• Made over 50 phone calls to Somerset County Building Inspections to complain about perceived Building Code Violations at Indian Lake Lodge, Arrowhead Condominiums and Kickapoo Lakeside Townhouses.

• Filed formal complaint to Labor and Industry about Somerset County Building Inspections.

• Filed anonymous frivolous complaint with Fire Marshall.

Is there a reason that anything done by St. Clair Developments, or the Borough which effects St. Clair Developments, is the subject Formal Complaint or law suit?

A question for you.

I would welcome your opinion.

If you request a building permit and your request is denied, or if you are issue a violation notice by the Borough's Zoning Officer, your first line of recourse is to request a Zoning Hearing Board review.

The Borough has charged a fee of $750 for said hearing, this fee has been in this amount for as long as anyone can recall.

There are those individuals who feel that the fee is too high. Similar fees of surrounding communities and the County are substantially lower (some in the $100 to $200 range).

The borough's actually cost, excluding Borough employees salaries, for a very recent, very short, very simple, hearing was $945.

Do you feel that our fee should be reduced to be in line with other communities or should it remain at its present level?

Thank you