10 East Drive

Stanhope, NJ 07874

Feb 17, 2006

Thru: Brian Smith esq.

309 Front Street

P.O. Box 125

Belvidere, NJ 07823

To: Board of Supervisors

Sussex County Soil Conservation District - SCSCD

186 Halsey Road

Suite 2

Newton, NJ 07860

Subject: Analysis of the Department of Agriculture and Sussex County Soil Conservation District Work Breakdown Structure Analysis using Stanhope’s Block 10902 Lots 10 and 12 as a case study example

Dear Mr. Smith and SCSCD Board of Supervisors:

Mr. Smith please provide this letter to my representatives, the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to my rights under the New Jersey Constitution, Article I, Rights and Privileges, 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”.

Reference Mr. Smith’s letter of Feb 13, 2006 regarding my request for the minutes of the Board of Supervisor Public Minutes regarding Mr. Smith’s inappropriate comments regarding my OPRA request of Feb 10, 2006 items 5, 6 and 7. “These final requests, which appeared to be inserted by you as throwaway items because you ran of other things to ask for are both frivolous and harassing. No response will be made unless you clarify what you are looking for.”

As you are aware, I am participating in numerous investigations regarding the referenced illegal development and illegal issuance of certificates of occupancy and the fact that no offenses were tried in court despite over 100 emails with complete analysis, witnessed dated photographs from T. Caggiano, photographs taken by the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr., letters from sixteen (16) adjacent property owners provided to SCSCD no offenses were undertaken against the sole developer E.N.F. Development Co. LLC.

The Stanhope Environmental Commission wrote to the Land Use Board that plans were not followed.

The Stanhope Land Use Board wrote a letter requesting assistance from the Sussex County Soil Conservation District’s manager Ms. Winifred Straub who refused to conduct the evaluation even if the support of thirty (30) additional property owners was provided to SCSCD which can be confirmed with Ms. Catherine Williams of the SCSCD staff who participated in the three way conversation.

While the Board of Adjustment approved a site plan and Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the minor subdivision, the SESCP was incompetently prepared and did not comply with Stanhope Municipal Code Chapter 100-63.1 requirements for hay bales with silt fences for slopes above 8% nor had protection neither around the perimeter nor between Lot 10 and Lot 12. . Mrs. Eleanor Dawalt sold the properties to E.N.F. Development Co. LLC on Oct 10, 2001. Development started illegally on Nov 7, 2001.

Both the Stanhope Chapter 100-119 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control measures and the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act were violated as the development was illegally undertaken on both lots at the same time by the developer E.N.F. Development Co. LLC as no certified SESCP existed.

The certificate of occupancy without conditions was issued by Thomas Pershouse the Construction Code Official with the “approval” of the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. on Jul 10, 2002 violating the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act, the Board of Adjustment resolution of agreement between the Borough of Stanhope and Eleanor Dawalt and Chapter 100-119 among other laws.

On Jul 12, 2002 E.N.F. Development Co. LLC sold the property to the Lamicellas. There existed a “felony” in that an illegal 8’ high retaining wall, which was unsound and failing, was a threat to inhabitants and private property. The off-site adverse impacts were provided to the SCSCD in numerous emails and letters by all the adjacent property owners who were ignored.

Between Jul 29, 2002 and Aug 15, 2002 a lower tier retaining wall was constructed without any design, approvals in the conservation area behind Lot 10 and Lot 12. The Mayor and Town Council were fully aware of the development as the Land Use Board was briefed every two weeks for months by Thomas Caggiano and the Town Council was provided briefings up to 41 exhibits.

Over 1 feet of evidence in the attachments of the Town Council, Land Use Board and Stanhope Environmental Commission are available for SCSCD inspection. Mr. Caggiano has over 20 audio tapes of the meetings to provide a full transcript of what actually occurred and what was stated in the meetings.

Eleanor Dawalt submitted an obviously false SESCP to SCSCD in its application SH#44 which was prepared by PE Wendell Inhoffer and PP Judith Keith and incompetently reviewed and approved by PE. Joseph Sedivy. A false analysis of the two tier retaining wall was prepared by E.N.F. Development Co LLC PE Peter Schneider. As stated by the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr in his letter of Jul 27, 2002 there is no 8’ single wall in the site plan. A retaining wall would require approvals as per the Stanhope Code Chapter 100-58 C and Uniform Construction Code Tech Bulletin Retaining Walls 88-6 paragraph 2.

No design for a retaining wall was ever submitted to the Land Use Board for public review and no variance request was ever submitted. PE Peter Schneider prepared a false report.

The false SESCP was submitted to SCSCD was incomplete as no drainage velocity calculations were submitted and the control of water on the SESCP was only for a single home on Lot 10 exempt from the SESCA as the entire minor division was shown on the SESCP but ignored by SCSCD and its professional engineer Joseph Sedivy.

E.N.F. Development Co. LLC never submitted a complete application of the certified SESCP on Oct 8, 2002 by Mr. Lundin for a single home to the Land Use Board for consideration or review by the public. The false SESCP was never approved by the Stanhope Land Use Board which never received any SESCP application to reject.

Mr. Caggiano appealed the false SESCP to SCSCD and noted it was not for the project, was false as the topography was false and other issues and read every adjacent property owners’ letters to the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Lundin the chairman and Mr. Straub.

The illegal development continued. The Land Use Board reported they were powerless. They had no application submitted.

The executive secretary Mr. Sadley, State Soil Conservation Committee on Jun 13, 2003 on an appeal of the Oct 8, 2002 stated the development was undertaken illegally, the certificate of occupancy was issued illegally and the SESCP for a single home was invalid. Those facts were known to SCSCD in Aug 2002.

A letter was submitted by E.N.F. Development Co. LLC to “incorporate Lot 12” to SCSCD. The application was incomplete as it had no fee, no drainage velocity calculations, no 2 ft contour map or anything to define what Lot 12 incorporate meant. The SCSCD recused itself.

The executive secretary Mr. James Sadley then wrote a letter on Sep 30, 2003 that “no action by this office will be necessary at this time since the period of certification of the amendment is expired; and the amendment is certified by the expiration of the time frame as provided in N.J.S.A. 4:24-44. The district should continue to inspect the project”. An incomplete application occurred and a motion of grievance has been provided to SSCC pursuant to N.J.S.A 4:24-6.1 was submitted. There was no notification as required by the SESCA and N.J.A.C. to the Stanhope Land Use Board of such an event.

No such certification letter application with a fee was submitted to the Stanhope Land Use Board for public review and Land Use Board review. Rejection would have occurred.

The SCSCD certified another false SESCP on Mar 24, 2004 for a single home on Lot 10 disregarding the two directives by the State Soil Conservation Committee that the project was the minor subdivision and not a single home with is exempt from SCSCD consideration as a project. The application was incomplete as no drainage velocity calculations were provided. In violation of the SESCA and NJAC procedures the Stanhope Land Use Board was again not notified of the certification and no application with fee was provided to the Land Use Board for consideration and by the public. Such an application would have been rejected. Once again, a false SESCP plat was prepared and submitted by Wendell Inhoffer and incompentently approved by SCSCD’s PE Joseph Sedivy. The Land Use Board was again powerless as it was never notified of such a certification by SCSCD and no application for consideration ever came before the municipal body.

Another illegal certificate of occupancy was issued through the approval by the Borough Engineer’s John Cilo’s check-off sheet to the Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse for Lot 10.

The entire development was illegal and both certificates of occupancy violated the SESCA and municipal codes.

All the adjacent property owners advised the Borough of Stanhope to comply with Land Development Code and the executive secretary of the State Soil Conservation Committee, the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Lundin its chairman and Ms. Straub the manager were repeatedly advised of the situation. A motion and grievance was provided to the Board of Supervisions of SCSCD pursuant to N.J.S.A. 4:24-6.

The Deputy Attorney General for the DEP advised the Department of Community Affairs Local Government investigation that the county (SCSCD) and municipality were the responsible jurisdictions.

The Department of Community Affairs Codes and Standards investigation by Mr. Maher was falsely informed by SCSCD’s Manager Ms. Straub and the Borough of Stanhope’s Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr and Construction Code Official Thomas Pershouse that the development did not required an approved municipality and certified plan by SCSCD. A meeting was held in Mr. Caggiano’s home with Mr. Maher and is recorded in his report of investigation.

The Office of the Attorney General, Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Engineers has so far conducted a 1 year investigation of the Borough Engineer John Cilo Jr. On Feb 2, 2006 a ten member board was presented evidence of official misconduct, false SESCPs, false reports and gross professional incompetence. On Feb 3, 2006, ninety (90) exhibits were provided to the Board of Engineers. An investigation of Wendell Inhoffer PE Design engineer, Peter Schneider PE structural engineer and SCSCD’s PE Joseph Sedivy were initiated. The Board of Professional Planners initiated an investigation of PP Judith Keith.

A meeting was held in Mr. Caggiano’s home with the State Committee of Investigation (SCI) staff member Ms. Gore. Mr. Caggiano is cooperating with the SCI to recommend changes in the State Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act and N.J.A.C. so that such illegal conduct can not be repeated.

A meeting was held with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark, NJ and evidence was presented by Mr. Caggiano.

While apparently the SCSCD file did not maintain the many emails sent to SCSCD, a copy was provided to the Department of Community Affairs Codes and Standards and over 1 ft of the emails were reviewed in Trenton by Mr. Caggiano. The emails are available at the DCA for SCSCD review or criminal investigators.

To support the SCI, Department of Agriculture and investigation officials, I am analyzing all public records available at the Department of Agriculture and SCSCD. While Mr. Sadley and Mr. Frank Minch did not maintain the records, the Director did and provided various records via Mr. Caggiano’s OPRA request for investigators.

Several adjacent property owners have authorized Mr. Caggiano as their agent and the records of assignment are on file in Stanhope and SCSCD.

Mr. Caggiano is acting as a neighborhood coordinator as he observed the development on a daily basis and the surrounding property owners reported their findings and observations to Mr. Caggiano for consolidation.

We have obtained the support of our Federal and State representatives.

I am preparing a work breakdown structure of the Department of Agriculture and SCSCD regarding those units and personal involved with the development approvals and field inspections to assist the SCI and other investigators.

I was a federal certified Level III Army Acquisition Corps senior level Program Management Engineer and international technical advisor to the Corps of Engineers. I was not only am a professional engineer but I was also a skilled senior level program analyst and coordinated activities with legal offices and the comptroller. The effort I have undertaken is as a citizen to improve state and municipal government standing operation procedures and technical standards.

Mr. Smiths’ comments regarding my task to review the Board of Supervisor’s open public minutes does a complete disservice to the members of the Board of Supervisors. The minutes are made to demonstrate correct procedures are followed, or should be changed and improved. That is the very purpose of the minutes being taken. Mr. Smith’s comments are absurd and show he has no understanding why minutes are even recorded.

In developing the work break down structure, I will examine all public records to determine what precise recommendations should be made to the SCI for changes in the laws. The support of Senator Littell, Assemblywoman McHose and Assemblyman Gregg who have all supported our local community will again be sought by all the adjacent property owners. Each of the adjacent property owners reserves their rights to submit OPRA requests, present motions of grievances, and submittals to criminal investigators and court of appeals.

I as the assigned agent of many adjacent property owners at this time am performing an initial investigation of public records and I will be reporting my findings to all the surrounding property owners and we together will petition our representatives at the federal, state and municipal government. I expect my exploratory investigations and initial complaints and investigations with the Department of Consumers Affairs to last at least six months. I expect all the PEs and PPs to be found guilty of gross incompetence or more serious criminal activity.

I will be submitting more OPRA requests to SCSCD and the SSCC to evaluate the public records of methods of contracting, contract obligations and disbursements, scopes of work, duties and responsibilities of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Lundin the Chairman, Ms. Straub the Manager, Mr. Sedivy the Professional Engineer and the field inspectors.

A report will be made to my state representatives, the SCI, the Department of Agriculture, SCSCD Board of Supervisors, my neighbors, the Borough of Stanhope and criminal investigators and others

I expect within the Work Breakdown Structure to include all technical reports, financial reports, minutes of the Board of supervisors and the complete control methods being used by SCSCD and State government

I am also doing a Work Breakdown Structure of the Borough of Stanhope.

A work breakdown structure is also being made of the Office of the Attorney General to include the Department of Criminal Justice, Office of Government Integrity and Sussex County Prosecutor’s Office.

A consolidated overall analysis of the complete technical and financial workings and control and approvals from the Cabinet level offices to the field levels in the Department of Community Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Attorney General Criminal Justice, and Municipality of Stanhope is being developed along with a time based network analysis of dates, actions, approvals, letters from both a technical and financial basis will be made regarding Land Development.

Fortunately for me although timely that is a very simple task as I have prepared network analysis of more then 1,000 nodes and 13 levels and have analyzed funding flows through Congressional committees, through out the entire military complex into the world wide system in my roles as a Senior Program Management Engineer and Senior Program Analyst.

I expect the draft final documents to be presented to Harvard Business College, Dukes University and other colleges and universities, the State Commission of Investigation and others for peer review prior to publication and serve as a future case study to educate future students in the role of politics, laws, governance, controls, administration and technical issues.

I expect no personal profit as the activity is that of a citizen to improve State and Municipal operations and can be used by other municipalities and states via publication as a model on expected publication on the internet. Changes and improvements in both quality control, scope of work definition, financial controls, auditing, public participation, technical issues and other sections will be within the final report within separate volumes.

I have previously developed for free as a community service, the internet web sites of the South African Backpacking Club, the Mt. Diablo Police Department in California, the Seattle Woman’s Walk, the Canal Society of New Jersey and others.

I expect to expend more then a 1,000 dollars and more then a 1,000 hours on the effort and already have expended hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours. It is just a community service which I can provide based upon my thirty years of being a civil servant and my training and education which was provided at tax payer’s expense. Hopefully, the eventual outputs will be able to improve standing operating procedures, technical standards and provide law enforcement authorities a complete and comprehensive basis for possible criminal prosecutions.

Now that I have explained myself, I never want to read another superfluous and gratuitous remark from Mr. Smith.

What I demand as a citizen is simple.

I expect full cooperation and the responses to all my valid OPRA requests within 8 business days.

A citizen borne in New Jersey.

Sincerely,

Thomas Caggiano