Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN PLATT, : No. 19-cv-1829

:
Plaintiff : (Chief Judge Conner)
:
v. :
:
JAMES GRAHAM, :
R. CLEM MALOT, :
PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL :
CODE ALLIANCE, INC., :
NEW OXFORD BOROUGH, :
DAVID BOLTON, and :
ABBOTTSTOWN BOROUGH, :
:
Defendants :

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Brian Platt, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges

as follows for his complaint in this action:

INTRODUCTION

1. Brian Platt brings this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §

1983, to remedy violations of his First Amendment rights. Platt runs a successful

small business in New Oxford Borough. When Borough codes officer James

Graham came to the business to serve a notice of violation for a supposed “illegal

burglar alarm,” Platt asked what ordinance he was allegedly violating. Graham

refused to say and threatened Platt that, “If I have to come back out here, I’m taking

your fat fucking ass to jail!”

1
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 43

2. Platt was, in fact, not in violation of any ordinance and no enforcement

action was ever taken. However, upset at the way he was treated by Graham, Platt

made a complaint to the Borough, spoke about the mistreatment at a Borough council

meeting, and posted comments critical of Graham and Pennsylvania Municipal Code

Alliance, Inc. (“PMCA”), the codes agency Graham works for, on the internet.

When Graham applied to become police chief in neighboring Abbottstown Borough,

Platt wrote to the Abbottstown solicitor, warning about his prior experience with

Graham.

3. Graham responded by surveilling Platt, staking out his business at least

nine times over a two-week period. Graham was also seen near another property

Platt owns, which is located in a different municipality where Graham is not a codes

officer. When Platt learned of this activity, he feared for his safety, especially given

Graham’s prior aggressive behavior. Platt went to the local police, who advised him

to call 911 if Graham was seen at the properties again.

4. PMCA then issued Platt another notice of alleged codes and zoning

violations. Although the notice of violation had been initiated by Graham, it was

signed by Clem Malot, a supervisor at PMCA, because of what Malot described as

the “contentious circumstances” caused by Platt’s critical comments about Graham.

The notice of violation was not issued in response to a complaint, but on Graham’s

initiative and in retaliation for Platt’s criticism.

2
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 43

5. The notice of violation, which raised meritless and minor alleged

violations, was drafted in a threatening manner and, despite being part of a civil

codes proceeding, repeatedly accused Platt of criminal conduct. The notice was

issued without probable cause and contained numerous incorrect codes citations.

For example, while accusing Platt of having vegetation over eight inches high, the

notice failed to state where that vegetation supposedly was on the property. Even

after visiting the property himself, Malot remained unsure about what Graham has

been referring to.

6. The notice of violation was also issued to Platt despite the fact that

numerous nearby properties with similar (and far worse) supposed violations were

not cited, and that, in almost every other instance of similar alleged violations,

PMCA communicated with the property owner or issued a warning, rather than

issuing a notice of violation threatening criminal prosecution.

7. Given the glaring deficiencies in the notice of violation, it was

eventually withdrawn.

8. Platt again spoke at a New Oxford Borough Council meeting about the

threats, harassment, and retaliation he suffered at the hands of the Borough’s codes

enforcement officers. Platt also made a comment critical of Graham on Abbottstown

Borough’s Facebook page in response to a post announcing the swearing in of

Graham as chief of police of that municipality.

3
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 43

9. Within two days, Malot sent an email to Platt stating that, while he had

been content to withdraw the notice of violation, he was “dismayed” that Platt had

expressed his displeasure at the council meeting and criticized Graham on Facebook.

Malot then demanded that Platt address the issues raised in the previously withdrawn

notice and obtain permits that were, now, allegedly required again. These actions

are explicitly in retaliation for Platt’s protected First Amendment activity.

10. Graham and Malot confirmed their retaliation in an email. Graham

thanked Malot for sending the email to Platt and told Malot that he hoped this “reigns

him in.” Malot responded that he hoped Platt was astute enough to “read between

the lines.”

11. Abbottstown Borough also responded by deleting Platt’s critical

comments and banning Platt from the Borough’s Facebook page, imposing a blatant

viewpoint-based restriction on Platt’s speech in violation of the First Amendment.

12. Through this lawsuit, Platt seeks to hold the Defendants accountable

for their flagrant First Amendment violations. Notably, Platt does not seek damages.

He simply wants to put an end to the harassment and retaliation and help ensure that

others are not subject to the same abuse.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because

this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and pursuant

4
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 43

to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this action is commenced to redress the deprivation,

under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.

14. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this

district.

PARTIES
15. Plaintiff Brian Platt is the owner of United Defense, LLC, located in

New Oxford Borough, Adams County, Pennsylvania.

16. Defendant James Graham is a codes officer and zoning officer for

New Oxford Borough, appointed by New Oxford Borough pursuant to Pennsylvania

statute to enforce the Borough’s property maintenance, zoning, and building codes.

Graham is an employee of Pennsylvania Municipal Code Alliance, Inc. Graham is

also the Chief of Police for Abbottstown Borough. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities.

17. Defendant R. Clem Malot is a codes officer and zoning officer for

New Oxford Borough, appointed by New Oxford Borough pursuant to Pennsylvania

statute to enforce the Borough’s property maintenance, zoning, and building codes.

Malot is an employee of Pennsylvania Municipal Code Alliance, Inc. He is sued in

his individual and official capacities.

5
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 6 of 43

18. Defendant Pennsylvania Municipal Code Alliance, Inc. is a

Pennsylvania corporation appointed by New Oxford Borough pursuant to

Pennsylvania statute to enforce the Borough’s property maintenance, zoning, and

building codes. PMCA is sued in its individual and official capacities.

19. Defendant New Oxford Borough is an incorporated borough in Adams

County, Pennsylvania.

20. Defendant David Bolton is the Abbottstown Borough municipal

administrator, secretary, and treasurer and is responsible for the administration of

the Abbottstown Borough Facebook page. He is sued in his individual and official

capacities.

21. Defendant Abbottstown Borough is an incorporated borough in Adams

County, Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Graham Peeps into Platt’s Bathroom and

Threatens to Throw Platt in Jail for a Frivolous Codes Complaint

22. Platt is the owner of United Defense, LLC, a federally-licensed firearms

and military surplus business, located at 214 West Golden Lane in New Oxford

Borough.

23. On October 29, 2018, while Platt was on a business conference call with

counterparts in Europe, someone rang the doorbell at the business. Platt looked at

the Ring doorbell camera and saw a man, later identified as James Graham, at the
6
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 7 of 43

door. Graham was not in uniform. Graham went to his vehicle, a distinctive silver

Dodge Caliber, retrieved something, and placed it on the door.

24. Platt assumed the man was a salesperson and returned to his call.

25. Platt was then told by an alarmed employee that “a creep” was peering

into the bathroom window, attempting to see around the window covering.

26. Platt went outside to investigate and found a paper door hanger labeled

“notice of violation” on the door. There was a check in a preprinted box labeled

“call me,” next to which someone had written “illegal burglar alarm.”

27. Platt asked if Graham had left the door hanger.

28. Graham said “yes.” He did not introduce himself, show identification,

explain why he was on the property, or why he had been peering in the bathroom

window.

29. Platt asked what code he had violated.

30. Graham refused to say. He responded that Platt had an “illegal burglar

alarm” which was “a violation.”

31. Platt asked Graham to leave.

32. Graham responded, “If I have to come back out here, I’m taking your

fat fucking ass to jail!”

33. Platt, now understandably upset, responded with an expletive and told

Graham again to leave.

7
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 8 of 43

34. No enforcement action was ever taken against Platt’s supposed “illegal

burglar alarm.”

Platt Engages in Protected First Amendment Activity

By Speaking Out About Graham’s Misconduct

35. Later that day, fearing that the incident had been part of a scam, Platt

went to the New Oxford Borough office to investigate.

36. When Platt arrived at the office, he saw Graham there. Graham stared

Platt down, attempting to intimidate him.

37. Platt showed the door hanger to Dorothy Robinson, president of the

Borough Council, and asked what ordinance he was in violation of.

38. Robinson said that was between Platt and the codes officer.

39. Platt asked for a copy of the Borough ordinance addressing burglar

alarms. After Platt paid a fee, the Borough secretary, Tania Kepner, provided Platt

a copy of a Borough ordinance indicating that a property owner was permitted three

false alarms from a security system in a twelve-month period and which imposes a

fine for a fourth or subsequent false alarm that causes the fire or police department

to respond.

40. There had not been even one such false alarm at Platt’s property.

41. Platt was not in violation of that ordinance.

42. Platt told Robinson that he wanted to make a complaint about the way

Graham had treated him.

8
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 9 of 43

43. Robinson responded that the matter was between Platt and the codes

officer.

44. On November 2, 2018, Platt posted a video on YouTube showing

Graham peering into the bathroom window of the property. The video may be

viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aAvjF7Lk2E.

45. The video was accompanied by the following comment:

Here is a video showing Double Dippin “Creepy Jim”

James Graham of the PA Municipal Code Alliance peering
into my bathroom window, which has a window covering.
This is a complete and total violation of my right to
privacy and he should know better as he is a 31+ year
veteran of the PA State Police.

If you see this guy in Adams County, PA be aware he is a

total creep who thinks it is appropriate to look into the
bathroom window of a work place. We have showers in
this bathroom and put a window covering up to protect
privacy, which Creepy Jim clearly could care less about.

When I confronted Creepy Jim about this, he threatened to

arrest me. Yes, he was attempting to see into a bathroom
that I was naked and showering in maybe an hour before
this was filmed. And I’m the one who needs to be
arrested?

Shame on you, Jim! Your husband is an attorney, ask him

to explain the law to you.

46. The video has been viewed 80 times.

9
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 10 of 43

47. On October 29, 2018, Platt posted a review of PMCA on Google,

stating:

Complete and total unprofessional outfit. Double dipper

James Graham comes to my place of business, refuses to
explain the supposed code violation, then decides to tell
me if he comes back it will be to arrest me. First visit from
him and he provides no information and threatens an
arrest? Under no authority but his own inflated ego.

A true and correct copy of the review is attached as Exhibit A.

48. The review has received two “likes.”

49. Platt attended the New Oxford Borough Council meeting on

November 5, 2018.

50. During the opportunity for public comment, Platt told the Council what

had happened and expressed his displeasure with how he had been treated by

Graham.

51. No Council member or other Borough official offered an apology or

other comment or suggested any way to remedy the mistreatment.

52. In March 2019, Platt read a newspaper article reporting that

Abbottstown Borough Council had voted to hire Graham as a police officer,

conditioned on a review by the borough solicitor.

10
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 11 of 43

53. On March 26, 2019, Platt sent an email to the solicitor for Abbottstown

Borough, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit B. It stated:

I happened to see the article in the Gettysburg Times

where Abbottstown has decided to hire Jim Graham as a
part time police officer, pending your legal review. While
I do not live in the boro, I had the unfortunate opportunity
to deal with Mr. Graham in his official capacity as a code
representative in New Oxford.

Mr. Graham is the kind of person that represents an

extreme liability to any municipality. He came out to my
place of business on a vague complaint about an “illegal
burglar alarm” and when I asked for clarification what that
meant, he said “If I have to come back out here, I’m taking
your fat fucking ass to jail.” That isn’t an exaggeration,
those were his words, which you would be correct in
imagining it didn’t sit well with me. This confrontation
happened after my staff told me some “creepy guy” was
looking into the bathroom window for our mens room, and
I look and see yes there is some stranger looking into the
window of the bathroom facility that I was showering
naked in a mere 20 minutes earlier.

My corporate attorney at Post and Schell was prepared to

file a formal civil complaint against the boro, Mr. Graham,
and Mr. Graham’s employer for a number of issues on how
this was handled. I at the time felt that as long as he never
stepped foot on my property again, that would be good
enough for me, despite the incredible violation of my
privacy and property and threats he leveled. I can only
imagine what will happen when he is back in a patrol car,
where he will be abusing the citizens of Abbottstown
much like he abuses the citizens in New Oxford.

This won’t end well for the boro. I can at least say I
warned you guys of what he is like, how he treats citizens,
and what sort of liability he put New Oxford in from his
actions. I don’t live in Abbottstown, so it really doesn’t
11
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 12 of 43

matter what I think, however I thought it was appropriate

to let you know as the newspaper said you were doing a
legal review. I would council you to really think if this is
the kind of liability exposure your client wants.

54. Graham was informed of Platt’s email and responded by, among other

things, attempting to discredit Platt through false and defamatory allegations of

criminal conduct.

55. For example, on March 27, 2019 – the day after Platt’s email – Graham

exchanged text messages with David Bolton, the Abbottstown Borough

administrator.

56. Graham asked if, when Bolton had looked up Platt, he had discovered

a record for burglary or criminal trespass.

57. Graham told Bolton that it had “just bugged me all day that that guy

[Platt] was like that.” Referring to Platt’s email, Graham claimed, “I don’t treat

people like that” and noted that his interaction with Platt had lasted about

five minutes.

58. Graham, a former state trooper, then added that he remembered

arresting a Brian Platt about 20 years ago for burglaries in Lake Meade after finding

him under a bed in a house he had just broken into and that the burglar was 18-19

years old then. Graham texted Bolton that he thought it was the same person who

had sent the critical email.

12
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 13 of 43

59. Graham’s statement was false. Graham has never arrested Platt for

burglary or anything else, and 20 years ago, Platt did not live near Lake Meade or

even in Pennsylvania.

60. Abbottstown Borough, through Bolton, would later refer to Platt’s

“record” in a public Facebook post.

61. On April 18, 2019, Abbottstown Borough Council voted to hire

Graham as chief of police.

62. However, the Abbottstown police department and the position of chief

of police did not yet exist.

63. On June 20, 2019, Abbottstown Borough Council passed a resolution

establishing the Abbottstown Borough Police Department and the position of Chief

of Police.

64. However, Abbottstown Borough had not included funds for a police

department or chief of police in its 2019 budget.

65. Over the next few months, Abbottstown Borough developed policies

and budgeted funds for the police department.

66. The Abbottstown Borough Council addressed these issues at its

August 15, 2019 and September 5, 2019 meetings, but tabled them.

13
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 14 of 43

67. On September 19, 2010, Abbottstown Borough Council voted to

approve the Abbottstown Borough Police Department goals and objectives and to

allocate funds for the department.

68. Graham was sworn in as Abbottstown Chief of Police on October 3,

2019.

Defendants Retaliate Against Platt

69. Unbeknownst to Platt at the time, by September 2, 2019, the Defendants

began implementing a plot to retaliate against him.

70. Especially given the nature of his business, security is important to

Platt, and he has placed video cameras at various points on the property.

71. Those video cameras captured Graham surveilling Platt’s property on

at least nine occasions over a two-week period.

72. Graham began casing the property on September 2, 2019, when people

were unlikely to be there because of the Labor Day holiday.

73. Typically, Graham, in his distinctive vehicle, would first drive slowly

by the front of the building on West Golden Lane, checking whether anyone was at

the property or parked in the parking lot.

74. Graham would then drive onto the private property of neighboring

businesses in order to view the back of Platt’s property, which is not visible from a

public street, and stop to take pictures.

14
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 15 of 43

75. Upon information and belief, Graham did not have permission from

these neighboring businesses to do so.

76. Between September 2, 2019 and September 16, 2019, Graham

surveilled Platt’s property on at least nine occasions. On some days, Graham came

to the property multiple times.

77. Graham ran stop signs on West Golden Lane multiple times while

conducting this surveillance.

78. These are only the instances of Graham’s surveillance which Platt has

been able to identify from the video.

79. On one occasion, Graham noticed a video camera on Platt’s building

and attempted to move his vehicle out of view, not realizing that he was picked up

on another camera.

80. At no point, did Graham contact Platt to discuss any potential issue on

the property, ask any questions, or ask permission to come onto the property.

81. As Malot would later confirm, this surveillance was not conducted in

response to a complaint, but rather on Graham’s own initiative.

82. This surveillance was not part of Graham’s routine, and Graham had

not come to Platt’s property with any regularity prior to this time period.

83. Graham also failed to properly account for this activity with New

Oxford Borough. PMCA invoices produced by the Borough in response to a request

15
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 16 of 43

under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law show that Graham reported only a single

inspection of Platt’s property during this time period. The other eight inspections

are not reported.

84. The invoices also show that Graham surveilled Platt’s property before

clocking in for New Oxford Borough work and on days that he was not on-the-clock

for the Borough.

85. Neighbors would also later report seeing Graham’s distinctive vehicle

during this time period driving by another property that Platt owns in a different

municipality where Graham is not the codes or zoning officer.

86. On September 16, 2019, Graham emailed Malot a draft notice of

violation for Platt’s property. A true and correct copy of that email is part of the

chain attached as Exhibit C.

87. Graham told Malot, “This is the guy who told me what I could go do

and then filed a complaint with the Borough concerning my involvement with his

nuisance burglar alarm that was repeatedly sounding for no reason.”

88. Malot asked if Graham wanted the alleged burglar alarm violations to

be discussed in the notice of violation.

89. Graham responded that the alarm issue was over.

16
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 17 of 43

90. On September 23, 2019, Platt received in the mail a Notice of Violation,

dated September 19, 2019. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Violation is

attached as Exhibit D.

91. The Notice of Violation was issued by PMCA and signed by Malot.

92. Malot would later confirm that, although he had signed the Notice of

Violation, Graham had initiated it and that he was involved because of the

“contentious” circumstances created by Platt’s “social media” postings regarding

Graham.

93. The only social media postings Platt had made regarding Graham were

the YouTube video and Google review described above.

94. The Notice of Violation was designed to threaten, harass, scare, and

retaliate against Platt.

95. The Notice of Violation begins by stating that it is a:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF NEW OXFORD

BOROUGH ORDINANCES and the Pennsylvania
Uniform Construction Code Statute {35 Pa Code
7210.101 et seq}[.]

(all as in original).

96. “35 Pa Code 7210.101 et seq” is not the correct citation for the

“Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code Statute.” In fact, it is not a citation to a

statute at all.

17
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 18 of 43

97. Further, although the Uniform Construction Code (“UCC”) is

referenced in the beginning of the Notice of Violation, the body of that document

does not actually allege a violation of the UCC.

98. Reference to the UCC is included only so that the Notice of Violation

can threaten Platt with a crime, stating in its final paragraphs:

Addition to the above multitude of violations the

installation of the Land/Sea containers without the
necessary permit and approvals may be in violation of the
Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code or UCC {35 PA
Code 7210.101 et seq.}, a criminal offense in
Pennsylvania. Violations of the UCC are punishable by
fine of up to a maximum of $1000.00 per day with each
day being a new violation
(all as in original).

99. Similarly, the Notice of Violation also threatened: “The property may

also be classified as an ‘Attractive Nuisance’ and a Public Nuisance as defined under

Title 18 Chapter 65 §6504.”

100. However, Graham, Malot, and PMCA do not have jurisdiction to

prosecute such criminal charges under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code.

101. Again, this reference is included only so that the Notice of Violation

can threaten Platt with a crime.

102. The Notice of Violation accused Platt of the following:

There is a large pile of rotting garbage/refuse at the rear

(North) side of the property.

18
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 19 of 43

[⁋] There is also a pile of scrap cardboard on the West side

of your property. …

There is unkempt and unmaintained vegetation on the

property that is in excess of eight (8) inches in height.

Two (2) large land/sea type storage containers have been

placed at the rear of the premises. By definition, these
containers are structures under the Borough Zoning
ordinance and require permits. No permits were applied
for or issued for these structures

103. As the supposed legal basis for these allegations, the Notice of

Violation cited to former New Oxford Borough ordinances addressing garbage and

weeds, which had been replaced by a property maintenance code passed nearly three

years earlier. Inconsistently, however, the Notice of Violation referenced appeals

procedures under the property maintenance code.

104. The Notice of Violation ordered Platt to resolve all issues stated in the

Notice of Violation within 15 days.

105. The allegations of the Notice of Violation were without probable cause

or merit.

106. What the Notice of Violation alleged to be “a large pile of rotting

garbage/refuse at the rear (North) side of the property” was, in fact, clearly neither

garbage/refuse nor rotting. Rather, they were bundled burlap sacks, pictured below:

19
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 20 of 43

The sacks, used to store coffee beans outdoors and on ships, were inventory which

Platt’s business resells and were being kept outside due to lack of space in the

building.

107. The “pile of scrap cardboard” referenced in the Notice of Violation was

set aside for pickup by the Adams Rescue Mission for recycling, to benefit the

Mission.

108. The Notice of Violation failed to state where on the two-acre property

there supposedly was “unkempt and unmaintained vegetation” over eight inches

high, and Platt has a lawn service which mows and trims the property on a bi-weekly

basis.

109. The “land/sea type storage containers” referenced in the Notice of

Violation are typical roll-on-roll-off units, which Platt is using for temporary storage

of blankets and pillows. The New Oxford Borough zoning ordinance defines the

type of “building” which requires a zoning permit as “[a] combination of materials

20
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 21 of 43

which forms a permanent structure having walls and a roof” (emphasis added).

Despite quoting this definition, the Notice of Violation wrongly concluded that these

clearly temporary units, which have no foundation or footer and are moved simply

by rolling them onto the back of a flatbed truck, required a zoning permit.

110. The Notice of Violation was also issued to Platt while similar issues on

nearby properties, whose owners did not engage in protected First Amendment

activity like Platt, did not result in a notice of violation.

111. Numerous businesses in New Oxford Borough store excess inventory

and scrap materials on their property.

112. For example, a woodworking studio about 300 yards east of Platt’s

property stores scrap wood outside its building:

113. Numerous properties in New Oxford Borough contain vegetation in

excess of eight inches.

21
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 22 of 43

114. For example, a building located about 200 yards west of Platt’s property

is literally overgrown with weeds:

115. As another example, a property owned by a reflective insulation

manufacturer located across the street from Platt’s property is overgrown with weeds

and contains scrap material and stacks of pallets:

22
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 23 of 43

116. Numerous properties in New Oxford Borough have containers used for

temporary storage without zoning permits.

117. For example, this container is found on the property located directly

across the street from Platt’s property:

118. As another example, a food manufacturer located about half a mile from

Platt’s property keeps at least four containers on its property:

119. New Oxford Borough does not require a zoning permit for any of these

or other similar containers.

120. A request was made under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law for all

zoning or building permits issued for a shipping container, roll-on-roll-off container,

23
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 24 of 43

or similar storage container from January 1, 2015 to the present. New Oxford

Borough produced three permits, all of which were for permanent sheds.

121. A request was made under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law for all

notices of violation, cease and desist orders, enforcement complaints, or similar

allegations of a code or zoning violation arising from the absence of a zoning or

building permit for a shipping container, roll-on-roll-off container, or similar storage

container from January 1, 2015 to the present. New Oxford Borough indicated that

there are no such records.

122. Platt was the first person to be issued a notice of violation by New

Oxford Borough for having a shipping container on his property without a zoning

permit.

123. Graham would have driven by many of these and other examples of

similar supposed violations while conducting surveillance of Platt’s property, but

notices of violation were not issued to these property owners, who did not criticize

Graham like Platt did.

124. The Notice of Violation was also issued to Platt despite the fact that

PMCA invoices produced by New Oxford Borough in response to a request under

Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law show that Graham routinely brought similar

purported violations to a property owner’s attention or issued a warning – in many

instances, multiple warnings – rather than issue a notice of violation.

24
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 25 of 43

Platt Contacts the Police and New Oxford Borough Council

125. After receiving the Notice of Violation, Platt reviewed footage from his

security cameras and learned that Graham had come to the property at least nine

times over a two-week period. Platt also learned from neighbors that Graham’s

vehicle had been seen near his other property in a different municipality.

126. Especially given Graham’s prior aggression and threats, this behavior

caused Platt such concern for his safety and wellbeing that he reported it to the

Eastern Adams Regional Police.

127. Platt met with an Eastern Adams Regional Police officer on Friday,

September 27, 2019. Platt gave a statement to the officer about his prior negative

interaction with Graham, his criticism of Graham online, and his complaints about

Graham to New Oxford Borough, and provided videos of Graham’s numerous

harassing inspections of Platt’s property.

128. The officer indicated that he would discuss the matter with his chief of

police, but that the matter may need to be referred to the Pennsylvania Attorney

General’s Office because of Graham’s position. The officer advised Platt to call 911

if Graham came to his property again.

129. On Monday, September 30, 2019 – the next business day after Platt’s

meeting with police – Graham emailed Malot, stating that Platt had been posting

online that Graham was harassing him and had gone to the police to have Graham

25
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 26 of 43

charged with harassment. A true and correct copy of that email is part of the chain

attached as Exhibit E.

130. Notably, Graham replied to a prior email between Malot, PMCA staff,

and Platt’s counsel, which does not show Graham as an addressee. Malot and PMCA

had blind copied Graham, so that Platt would not know of his involvement in the

Notice of Violation.

131. Graham further warned Malot that “[i]f pressed, the Chief will refer the

complaint to the Attorney General[’]s Office for a prosecutorial decision.”

132. On October 1, 2019, Platt spoke with New Oxford Borough Council

member John Lansing to remind the Borough of his prior complaints about Graham

and inform the Borough that Graham was again harassing him.

133. PMCA invoices produced by New Oxford Borough in response to a

request under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law show that the very next day,

October 2, 2019, Graham “spoke to Councilman Lansing concerning several topics

of ordinance violations and zoning in the Borough.”

134. The produced invoices cover Graham’s activity over 210 days, and this

is the only noted occasion on which Graham spoke to a Borough Council member

regarding code or zoning issues.

26
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 27 of 43

The Notice of Violation Is Withdrawn

135. Platt engaged counsel to represent him regarding the Notice of

Violation.

136. On September 30, 2019, Platt, through counsel, contacted Malot

regarding the Notice of Violation.

137. Malot indicated that he had not conducted the investigation for the

Notice of Violation, but that Graham had.

138. Malot indicated that he had become involved because of the

“contentious” circumstances created by Platt’s “social media” posts regarding

Graham.

139. Malot indicated that he would be the only codes and zoning

enforcement officer handling the matter and that Graham would have no further

involvement.

140. As shown below, Malot’s assurance that Graham would have no further

involvement in the matter, almost immediately, would prove to be false.

141. Further, contrary to that statement, Graham had returned to surveil

Platt’s property again on the morning of September 30, 2019.

142. Malot could not explain why Graham had come to the property again

that morning if he was to have no further involvement in the matter and said he

would speak to Graham about it.

27
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 28 of 43

143. Malot indicated that the Notice of Violation had not resulted from a

complaint.

144. Malot speculated that the issues raised in the notice came to Graham’s

attention because they are in plain view from the public street.

145. Malot’s speculation is incorrect because the Notice of Violation raises

issues regarding the back of the property, which is not visible from the public street.

146. Platt, through counsel, explained his disagreement with the allegations

in the Notice of Violation regarding the coffee sacks and cardboard, but indicated

that to resolve the issue as easily and quickly as possible, he would dispose of those

materials.

147. The coffee sacks that Platt was forced to dispose of in the face of

threatened prosecution would have ultimately generated $19,000 of revenue.

148. As to the allegations of unkempt and unmaintained vegetation over

eight inches high, Malot was unable specify the location of this vegetation or when

the alleged violation occurred. He indicated that he would review additional

photographs in his possession, which are not included in the Notice of Violation, and

then respond.

149. As to the allegations regarding the containers, Platt, through counsel,

asked Malot to please review the New Oxford Borough zoning ordinance’s

definition of “building,” which encompasses only permanent structures, in light of

28
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 29 of 43

the fact that these containers are mobile and not permanent, and noted the examples

of analogous containers found on several neighboring properties. Malot agreed to

review the issue.

150. Malot also confirmed that, despite the references to the UCC, the Notice

of Violation was not actually alleging a violation of the UCC.

151. Platt, through counsel, also discussed with Malot the fact that the Notice

of Violation had started appeals periods running and requested that PMCA provide

the applicable New Oxford Borough appeals forms.

152. At Malot’s suggestion, he and Platt’s counsel confirmed these aspects

of their conversation in an email. A true and correct copy of that email is part of the

email chain attached as Exhibit F.

153. Following his conversation with Platt’s counsel, Malot almost

immediately emailed Graham. A true and correct copy of that email is part of the

email chain attached as Exhibit G.

154. Malot told Graham, “One thing that was not clearly identified in the

complaint was the nature and location of the tall vegetation.”

155. Malot stated that Platt had complained that Graham was still on

neighboring properties that day.

156. Malot stated that he thought it was wise for him to take over follow-up

on the matter.

29
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 30 of 43

157. Malot also told Graham that he “need[ed] to try to work my way

through the logic of the ZO [zoning ordinance] and the UCC to be able to argue the

permitting requirements for the Land Sea Containers. I will probably be writing

another NOV [notice of violation] once I get those figured out if I need to.”

158. This confirms that Graham, Malot, and PMCA had not “worked their

way through the logic of the zoning ordinance” or “figured out” what Platt’s

supposed violation was when the Notice of Violation was issued.

159. Graham responded, “Just so you know, the neighboring properties are

business[es] that I regularly drive through when patrolling the Borough. Stop

checking those businesses?” See Exhibit G.

160. Graham’s response was wrong in at least two respects. First, security

videos from Platt’s property going back several months show that Graham did not

regularly drive through the neighboring businesses, but rather, did so when

surveilling Platt’s property. Second, without a property owner’s permission, a codes

or zoning officer must have an administrative warrant to enter private property. See,

e.g., Commonwealth v. Tobin, 828 A.2d 415, 424 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003). Graham

cannot “regularly drive through” private property.

161. Malot responded, “no not at all. Just be aware that the people that we’re

dealing with here are trying to put together a case of undue harassment,” and warned,

30
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 31 of 43

“Just be sure you can successfully articulate [y]our position if they continue to push

it further.” See Exhibit G.

162. In response to Platt’s request, Malot and PMCA provided appeals

forms. However, one of the forms was for a UCC appeal, again, suggesting that the

Notice of Violation alleged a UCC violation, despite Malot’s assurance to the

contrary.

163. Platt, through counsel, again asked Malot and PMCA to review the

Notice of Violation to understand what was at issue and provide the correct appeal

forms.

164. Following further review, on October 3, 2019, Malot withdrew the

Notice of Violation. See Exhibit F, email of October 3, 2019 at 5:35 PM.

165. On October 4, 2019, Malot met with Platt at the property.

166. Although again explaining the circumstances regarding the coffee sacks

and cardboard, Platt confirmed that they would be disposed of.

167. As to the alleged violation involving vegetation, after walking around

the property, Malot indicated that he was still unclear about the basis for that

allegation. Malot indicated that the only even potential infraction he could see was

in what he described as “no man’s land,” a gravel filled area between Platt’s property

and a neighboring property. However, Malot conceded that there was a lot of

31
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 32 of 43

confusion about the property lines in that area and suggested that Graham may have

been referring to weeds on another property.

168. Despite walking around and within a few feet of the containers, Malot

made no mention of that issue.

169. Malot confirmed that the Notice of Violation had been withdrawn and

that, as far as he was concerned, it was taken care of.

Platt Engages in Further Protected First Amendment Activity

By Speaking Out Again About Graham’s Misconduct

170. Platt attended the New Oxford Borough Council meeting on the

evening of October 7, 2019.

171. During the opportunity for public comment, Platt reminded the Council

of his prior mistreatment by Graham, told the Council about his comments on

YouTube and Google that were critical of Graham, and detailed Graham’s actions

in surveilling his business and causing the issuance of a meritless notice of violation.

172. Platt told the Council that Graham had retaliated against him for

exercising his constitutionally protected rights.

173. When Platt was finished speaking Council President Robinson

responded, “I’m speechless.” No Council member or other Borough official offered

an apology or other comment or suggested any way to remedy the mistreatment.

32
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 33 of 43

Platt Criticizes Graham on Facebook, so Abbottstown Borough Bans Him

174. Abbottstown Borough maintains a Facebook page found at

https://www.facebook.com/AbbottstownBorough.

175. The profile picture of the page is the official Abbottstown Borough

logo, and the cover photo at the top of the page is the Abbottstown Borough marker

located at the Abbottstown Borough Office.

176. In the “About” section, the page is identified as a Government

Organization and the phone number for the Abbottstown Borough office, (717) 259-

0965, is listed.

177. The homepage of the Abbottstown Borough website,

http://www.adamscounty.us/Munic/AbbottstownBorough, invites the public to

“follow us on Facebook” and links to the Abbottstown Borough Facebook page.

178. Abbottstown Borough uses its Facebook page to notify the public about

Borough meetings and events, actions taken by the Borough Council and Mayor,

public safety issues, road construction and other public works, codes enforcement,

the Borough budget, Borough personnel issues, Borough office hours of operation,

political commentary and articles, and other public issues.

179. Other Facebook users may comment on posts made by Abbottstown

Borough, “react” to posts by selecting one of five emojis (like, love, haha, wow, sad,

and angry), reply or react to comments made by others, and share posts with others.

33
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 34 of 43

180. Other Facebook users frequently comment on and react to posts made

by Abbottstown Borough, and Abbottstown Borough frequently replies and reacts

to those comments.

181. On October 7, 2019, Abbottstown Borough posted on its Facebook

page an announcement that Graham had been sworn in as Chief of the Abbottstown

Police Department. A true and correct copy of that post and the related comments,

as they currently exist, is attached as Exhibit H.

182. Forty-nine Facebook users reacted to the post, 29 comments were made

on the post, and it has been shared 21 times.

183. On October 7, 2019, an individual commented on the post, “Awesome

news...now let’s slow down this traffic...it is terrible how people speed through our

town.”

184. On October 9, 2019, Platt replied to the comment with words to the

effect of “Wow, wrong person for that. Ask me how many videos I have of Jim

Graham running stop signs in New Oxford.”

185. That same day, Abbottstown Borough replied to Platt’s comment,

stating “Mr[.] Platt, we will not stand for mudslinging, especially knowing your

record…” A true and correct copy of a screenshot of Abbottstown Borough’s reply

is attached as Exhibit I.

186. Abbottstown Borough then deleted Platt’s comment from the page.

34
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 35 of 43

187. Another individual later commented on the post: “Why are so many

comments being deleted from community members voicing concerns. This is local

government and censoring peoples concerns and voices becomes a 1st amendment

civil rights issue. Like looking into peoples windows is a 4th amendment issues.”

188. Abbottstown Borough replied: “Community members? No comments

from Abbottstown residents have been deleted. However, slander and libel are also

crimes. The borough will not tolerate rumors or unfounded statements.”

189. When Platt tried to post a comment on the Abbottstown Borough

Facebook page later on October 9, 2019, he found he was banned from the page.

190. As a result of the ban, Platt is no longer able to comment on or react to

Abbottstown Borough’s posts or the comments of other Facebook users on the page,

or message Abbottstown Borough.

191. Upon information and belief, Bolton administers the Abbottstown

Borough Facebook page, including posting content, deleting comments, and banning

users from the page, and was granted this authority by Abbottstown Borough.

Defendants Further Retaliate Against Platt

192. On October 10, 2019, at 7:51 a.m., Malot sent an email to Platt and his

counsel on behalf of PMCA and New Oxford Borough, a true and correct copy of

which is attached as Exhibit J.

35
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 36 of 43

193. The email begins as follows:

As you are aware, after conversation with you last

week and a site visit with your client, I was content to
withdraw the Notices of Violation that we had
previously sent, regarding the above referenced property,
upon completion of the site visit and as what I had
classified as a verbal agreement with the owner to continue
efforts to become quickly in compliance. I was dismayed
to learn that your client apparently was still confused
after that meeting and site visit and felt it necessary to
speak with Borough Council expressing his displeasure
and claimed financial losses from his reactions to the
enforcement. I am further dismayed to learn that this
confusion potentially continues today with Facebook
postings directed toward our staff.
(emphasis added).

194. The email then purports to summarize portions of Malot’s conversation

with Platt, though it contains inaccuracies and omissions.

195. The email then claims that Malot “totally forgot about the storage/cargo

containers for which a Zoning Permit is required.”

196. The email then references the New Oxford Borough ordinance

requiring a zoning permit for “the erection, addition, or alteration any building….”

However, the email does not mention the ordinance’s definition of building as a

permanent structure, as was previously discussed with Malot, nor does the email

address the numerous similar containers on properties throughout New Oxford

Borough, which were previously pointed out to Malot.

36
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 37 of 43

197. The email concludes:

I have attached a Zoning Permit application for your

client[‘]s referral and use. Please reassure me that your
client intends to continue his cooperation towards
compliance to help prevent further enforcement actions
and that after discussing these situations with him as
described above he no longer has confusion about how to
proceed or who is initiating this effort to achieve
compliance. I felt I had made it clear during my visit that
the enforcement action was and will remain my
undertaking and that any questions, issues, or complaints
should be directed toward me or at the very least about me
if your client is still confused or not satisfied with these
proceedings.
198. Thus, less than three days after Platt made comments critical of

Defendants at the New Oxford Borough Council meeting and one day after Platt

made comments critical of Defendants on Abbottstown Borough’s Facebook page,

Defendants re-raised the allegations of the previously withdrawn Notice of Violation

and demanded that Platt secure a zoning permit, while explicitly referencing Platt’s

constitutionally-protected activity.

199. Malot immediately forwarded a copy of the email to Graham, “[f]or

your files and reference.”

200. Graham emailed Malot, “Well composed correspondence to Mr. Platt’s

attorney. Hopefully, his attorney reigns him in.” (Emphasis added.) A true and

correct copy of this email is part of the chain attached as Exhibit K.

37
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 38 of 43

201. Malot replied, “You are welcome. Hopefully the attorney is astute

enough to read between the lines like most attorneys do!” (Emphasis added.)

202. Graham has also continued his surveillance of Platt’s property, even

after the Complaint in this action was filed. Between October 22, 2019 and the

present, Graham has come to Platt’s property an additional 18 times (on average,

every two-and-a-half business days) and continued to drive onto neighboring

property to view the back of Platt’s property.

COUNT 1
First Amendment Retaliation
(Against Graham, Malot, PMCA, and New Oxford Borough)
203. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated as

if set forth in full.

204. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a

person’s right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress of

grievances, including the right to be free from retaliation under color of state law for

engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment.

205. Platt engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment by making

complaints to New Oxford Borough, speaking at New Oxford Borough Council

meetings, writing to the solicitor of Abbottstown Borough regarding Graham’s

potential hiring as a police officer, making comments critical of Defendants on

38
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 39 of 43

internet and social media sites, and making complaints to the Eastern Adams

Regional Police Department regarding Graham.

206. Graham, Malot, PMCA, and New Oxford Borough retaliated against

Platt by falsely accusing Platt of committing crimes, surveilling Platt’s property,

issuing the Notice of Violation, and re-raising the allegations of the Notice of

Violation after it had been withdrawn and demanding that Platt secure a zoning

permit.

207. Platt’s protected First Amendment activity was a substantial or

motivating factor in the retaliatory actions of Graham, Malot, PMCA, and New

Oxford Borough.

208. Graham, Malot, and PMCA have policy-making authority with regard

to code and zoning administration and enforcement in New Oxford Borough.

209. New Oxford Borough failed to train or supervise Graham, Malot, and

PMCA, and that failure amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons,

including Platt, with whom these agents come into contact.

210. Graham, Malot, PMCA, and New Oxford Borough, acting under color

of state law, violated, and continue to violate, Platt’s First Amendment rights.

211. As a direct, probable, and reasonably foreseeable result of the

deprivation of his First Amendment rights, Platt has suffered, and continues to

suffer, injury.

39
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 40 of 43

COUNT 2
Violation of the First Amendment
(Against Bolton and Abbottstown Borough)
212. The preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby incorporated as

if set forth in full.

213. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a

person’s right to freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress of

grievances.

214. Abbottstown’s Facebook page is a public forum or, in the alternative, a

designated or limited public forum.

215. Bolton and Abbottstown Borough’s deletion of Platt’s comments and

banning of Platt violates the First Amendment because it imposes an unreasonable

and viewpoint-based restriction on Platt’s participation in the Abbottstown Borough

Facebook page.

216. Bolton and Abbottstown Borough’s deletion of Platt’s comments and

banning of Platt violates the First Amendment because it imposes an unreasonable

and viewpoint-based restriction on Platt’s ability to petition the government for

redress of grievances.

217. Bolton’s actions were taken pursuant to Abbottstown Borough’s Social

Media Policy.

40
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 41 of 43

218. Bolton has policy-making authority with regard to the Abbottstown

Borough Facebook page.

219. Bolton and Abbottstown Borough, acting under color of state law,

violated, and continue to violate, Platt’s First Amendment rights.

220. As a direct, probable, and reasonably foreseeable result of the

deprivation of his First Amendment rights, Platt has suffered, and continues to

suffer, injury.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

judgment in his favor as follows:

(a) A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202,

declaring that Graham, Malot, PMCA, New Oxford Borough, Abbottstown

Borough, and David Bolton violated Platt’s rights guaranteed by the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution;

(b) An injunction enjoining Graham, Malot, PMCA, and New Oxford

Borough from further retaliation against Brian Platt, including any enforcement

action arising out of the issues raised in the Notice of Violation;

(c) An injunction requiring Abbottstown Borough and Bolton to unban

Platt from the Abbottstown Borough Facebook page and prohibiting Abbottstown

41
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 42 of 43

Borough and Bolton from deleting Platt’s comments or banning Platt from the

Abbottstown Borough Facebook page;

(d) An award of the costs of suit;

(e) An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

(f) Such other relief as the Court deems just, proper, or equitable.

DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so

triable.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 23, 2019 s/Jason G. Benion

Lawrence F. Stengel (PA 32809)
Jason G. Benion (PA 307500)
Morgan S. Hays (PA 322712)
Saxton & Stump, LLC
4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 201
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717-216-5505
les@saxtonstump.com
jgb@saxtonstump.com
msh@saxtonstump.com

42
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33 Filed 12/23/19 Page 43 of 43

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this date the foregoing document was served through

the Court’s transmission facilities by Notice of Electronic Filing to the following

Filing Users:

Rolf E. Kroll
Jason P. McNicholl
Margolis Edelstein
3510 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
717-760-7502
rkroll@margolisedelstein.com
jmcnicholl@margolisedelstein.com
Attorneys for Defendants James Graham, R. Clem Malot, Pennsylvania
Municipal Code Alliance, Inc., and New Oxford Borough

Michael G. Crotty
Brian C. Conley
Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP
941 Pottstown Pike, Suite 200
Chester Springs, PA 19425
610-321-5500
mgcrotty@sianalaw.com
bcconley@sianalaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants Abbottstown Borough and David Bolton

Dated: December 23, 2019 s/Jason G. Benion

Lawrence F. Stengel (PA 32809)
Jason G. Benion (PA 307500)
Morgan S. Hays (PA 322712)
Saxton & Stump, LLC
4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 201
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717-216-5505
les@saxtonstump.com
jgb@saxtonstump.com
msh@saxtonstump.com
43
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-1 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-1 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-2 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT B
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-2 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2

 


+!' #..

 / +   
 

,-+) 1#". "%

.,/#-",,$2%''/ ,*%
 *..,-*0( +*  !& +&

: (@1?+>

 )99!4! ?7 >!! ?*! =,1! ,5 ?(! !??G>A:' ,3!> E*!:! 7??>?7E4 (> !, ! ?7 *,:! ,3 :(3 >  9=
?,3! 971.! 7""+!: 9!4 +4' G7A: 1!'1 :!D,!E *+1!  7 47? 1+D! +4 ?*! 7:7  * ?*! @4"7=A4?! 7997=A4+?G ?7
!1 E,?( : :*3 .4 (,> 7$,,1 9,?G >  7 ! :!9:!>!4??+D! ,4 !E F"7:
: :*3 ,> ?(! 0,4 7" 9!:>74 ?(? :!9:!>!4?> 4 !F?:!3! 1,,1,?G ?7 4G 3A4+.91-?G
! 3! 7A? ?7 3G 91! 7"
A>,4!>> 74  D'@! 7391,4? 7A? 4
,11!'1 B;'1: 1:3
4 E(!4  >0! "8: 1:,"+?.74 E*? ?*? 3!4? *!
>,
"  (D! ?7 73! 0 7A? *!:! 3 ?0,4' G7A: "? "A0,4' >> ?7 /.1
(? +>4? 4 !F''!:?,74 ?(7>! E!:!
(+> E7: > E),( G7A E7A1 ! 7::!? +4 ,3',4,4' ,? + 4? >.? E!11 E+?( 3!
*,> 74":74??,74 *99!4! &!: 3G
>?$ ?71 3! >73!
:!!9G 'BG
E> 1770,4' ,4?7 ?*! ?*:773 E,4 7E "7: 7@: 3!4> :773 4  1770 4 >!! G!>
?(!:! ,> >73! >?:4'!; 1770.4' .4?7 ?(! E.4 7E 7" ?*! ?(:773 ".1.?H ?(?  E> >(7E!:,4' 40! +4  3!:! 
3,4C?!> !:1+!:
G 7:97;?! ??7;4!G ? 7>? 4 *!11 E> 9:!9:! ?7 ".1!  "7:31 .D+1 7391,4? '.5>? ?*! 7:7 : :*3
4 ; :(3> !3917G!: %:  4A3!: 7" .>>@!> 74 (7E ?*,> E> *4 1!
 ? ?(! ?.3! "!1? ?(? > 174' > *!
4!D!: >?!99! %7? 74 3G 9:79!:?G '.4 ?*? E7A1 ! '77 !47C'( #7: 3! !>9.?! ?(! .4:! +1! D.71?+74 7" 3G
9:.DG 4 9:79!:?G 4 ?*;!?> (! 1!D!1!
 4 741G ,3',4! E*? E,11 *99!4 E*!4 *! ,> 0 ,4  9?:71 :
E*!:! (! E,11 ! A>+4' ?(! .?,I!4> 7" 7??>?7E4 3A( 1,0! *! A>!> ?*! ,?+I!6> ,4 !E F"8: 
(.> E74? !4 E!11 "8: ?(! 7:7
 4 ? 1!>? >G  E<4! H7A 'CH> 7# E(? (! +> 1.0! *7E (! ?:!?> .?.I!4> 4
E*? >7= 7" 1,,1,?G (! 9A? !E F"7; .4 ":73 *+> ?+74>
 74? 1,D! .4 7??>?7E4 >7 +? :!11G 7!>4? 3??!; E(?
 ?(+40 *7E!D!;  ?(7A'(? ,? E> 99:79:.?! ?7 2!? G7A 047E > ?*! 4!E>99!; >, G7A E!:! 7,4'  1!'2 :!D.!E

E7A1 7C4+1 G7A ?7 :!11G ?(+40 ." ?(,> ,> ?(! 0.4 7" 1,,1,?G !F97>A:! G7A: 1,!4? E4?>

11 ?*! !>?


Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-3 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT C
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-3 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 3

From: Clem Malot

To: James PMCA
Subject: RE: 214 West Golden lane, New Oxford Borough Violations
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 8:02:51 AM

Ok thanks.

From: James PMCA <code4@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 8:01 AM
To: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: RE: 214 West Golden lane, New Oxford Borough Violations

Hello Clem.

He was previously given the warnings about the alarms and they have since stopped. I think the
alarm issue is over.

Jim

James R. Graham
Zoning and Code Enforcement
PMCA
(717) 809-2207

From: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:43:22 AM
To: James PMCA <code4@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: RE: 214 West Golden lane, New Oxford Borough Violations

Want me to discuss violations for the nuisance alarms also?

From: James PMCA <code4@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 12:20 PM
To: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: 214 West Golden lane, New Oxford Borough Violations

Hello Clem.

As per our discussion last week. Attached is the started notice of violations for 214
West Golden lane, New Oxford Borough.

There are two shipping containers placed on the property, two large piles of refuse
cardboard, and high weeds to the west side of the property.

This is the guy who told me what I could go do and then filed a complaint with the

Benion000088
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-3 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 3

Borough concerning my involvement with his nuisance burglar arm that was
repeatedly sounding for no reason.

Thank you.

Jim

James R. Graham
Zoning and Code Enforcement
PMCA
(717) 809-2207

Benion000089
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-4 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT D
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-4 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-4 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-4 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-4 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-5 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT E
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-5 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 3

From: James PMCA

To: Sharon - PMCA; Clem Malot
Subject: 214 W Golden Lane New Oxford
Date: Monday, September 30, 2019 12:41:11 PM
Attachments: N.O. Chap 10 Health & Safety.pdf
ATT00001.htm
N.O. Chap 20 Solid Waste.pdf
ATT00002.htm
Ord 459 Property Maintenance.pdf
ATT00003.htm

Hello Clem and Sharon.

I am informing you of recent developments involving Mr. Platt, 214 West Golden Lane.
While I was away on vacation Mr. Platt was posting on youtube that I, and employee with
PMCA had been harassing him, I am “double dipping”, worked on Labor Day and has gone to
the Eastern Adams Chief of police to have me charged with harassing him. If pressed, the
Chief will refer the complaint to the Attorney Generals Office for a prosecutorial decision.
Jim

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Sharon - PMCA" <sharon@pacodealliance.com>

To: "'Jason G. Benion'" <jgb@saxtonstump.com>
Cc: "Clem Malot" <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: 214 W Golden Lane New Oxford

Good morning Jason, I have included Clem in this email so you have his contact email. His
phone number is: 717-377-8350. I would anticipate he will respond to this email as soon as he is
able to get the discussion initiated. Thanks in advance for contacting us.

Find attached the ordinances. If I have missed anything please let me know. Take good care,
sharon

Note the reference to the Zoning Ordinance on the attached Chapter 27 duplicates the section
#1402 (the second reference to that section should actually be #1403 as referenced in the Notice
of Violation)

Sharon Hamm - PMCA

Administrative Services Manager
380 Wayne Avenue, Chambersburg, PA 17201
Office: 717 496-4996 ext: 101 Cell: 717 387-0025

From: Jason G. Benion <jgb@saxtonstump.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 3:31 PM
To: Sharon - PMCA <sharon@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: Jason Benion Contact Info

Benion000061
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-5 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 3

Sharon,

Thanks for speaking with me a few minutes ago. Again, I represent Brian Platt, the
owner of 214 West Golden Lane, New Oxford, PA 17350, regarding the notice of
violation dated September 19, 2019.

My contact information is below. Please ask Mr. Malot to give me a call at his earliest
convenience.

Also, would you please forward copies of the ordinances at issue, which appear to be
Chapters 10, 20, and perhaps 5, along with the zoning ordinance? New Oxford does
have some ordinances on its website, but given some of the citations in the notice,
they may be out of date. For example, I could not find any Section 111.1 (referenced
on page 2 of the notice) in any chapter on the borough website, and there are two
versions of the zoning ordinance on the site.

Thank you,

~Jason

Jason G. Benion| Shareholder

4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 201

Harrisburg, PA 17112
Phone: 717-941-1208
Cell: 717-695-1455
Fax: 717-547-1900
jgb@saxtonstump.com
www.saxtonstump.com

Benion000062
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-6 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 6

EXHIBIT F
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-6 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 6

Jason G. Benion

From: Sharon - PMCA <sharon@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 5:35 PM
To: Jason G. Benion
Cc: Clem Malot
Subject: RE: 214 W. Golden Lane - New Oxford Borough

Importance: High

Jason, Thanks for the phone conversation – based on my discussion with Clem he is withdrawing the Notice of Violation dated 10-19-
19. Clem intends to go to the site 214 W. Golden Lane to ascertain the status. He would appreciate the opportunity to meet with Mr.
Platt tomorrow, Friday 10-4-19 on site. I am not certain when Clem will be in New Oxford but his intent is to be during the morning
hours. Your assistance in contacting Mr. Platt would be appreciated. Thank you in advance, sharon

Sharon Hamm - PMCA

Administrative Services Manager
380 Wayne Avenue, Chambersburg, PA 17201
Office: 717 496-4996 ext: 101 Cell: 717 387-0025

From: Jason G. Benion <jgb@saxtonstump.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 4:45 PM
To: Sharon Ͳ PMCA <sharon@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: FW: 214 W. Golden Lane Ͳ New oxford Borough

Sharon – Per our phone call, here is the email I sent Clem this morning. Thanks.

Jason G. Benion| Shareholder

4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 201

Harrisburg, PA 17112
Phone: 717Ͳ941Ͳ1208
Cell: 717Ͳ695Ͳ1455
Fax: 717Ͳ547Ͳ1900
jgb@saxtonstump.com
www.saxtonstump.com

From: Jason G. Benion

Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:07 AM
To: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: RE: 214 W. Golden Lane Ͳ New oxford Borough

Clem,

Thank you for your response. I too look forward to continuing to work through these issues.

1
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-6 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 6
I appreciate your offer to extend any appeals deadlines. Unfortunately, however, there is authority in Pennsylvania
holding that appeals deadlines prescribed by statute are jurisdictional, meaning that, unless an appeal is filed within the
deadline, the appeal boards would not be able to exercise jurisdiction over the appeal, even if both parties had agreed
to extend the deadline.

My other concern is that, while no enforcement action has been taken, the notice of violation does suggest that Mr.
Platt committed a criminal offense. Given the nature of Mr. Platt’s business, that suggestion is highly detrimental and
could affect licensing and other governmental applications which may arise during the next two months.

In light of these issues, would you please consider withdrawing the notice, without prejudice, while we continue to
discuss the matter? If the alleged violations have been corrected, then compliance has been achieved, and there is no
reason for the notice. If we are unable to reach agreement and the alleged violations continue, then another notice can
be issued at that time.

~Jason

Jason G. Benion| Shareholder

4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 201

Harrisburg, PA 17112
Phone: 717Ͳ941Ͳ1208
Cell: 717Ͳ695Ͳ1455
Fax: 717Ͳ547Ͳ1900
jgb@saxtonstump.com
www.saxtonstump.com

From: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 8:05 AM
To: Jason G. Benion <jgb@saxtonstump.com>
Cc: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>; Sharon Ͳ PMCA <sharon@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: RE: 214 W. Golden Lane Ͳ New oxford Borough
Importance: High

Mr. Benion,
Thank you for the correspondence below. It was a pleasure speaking with you on Monday. I will attempt to address
your points below line by line. But first, I too want to help preserve any rights your client may have during the process.
In that light I am willing to extend any deadline for appeals for a period of approximately two months or until
December 01, 2019. Should the need arise we (New Oxford Borough) will honor any appeal request withint hat time
period as if it were filed today. In addition, in the interest of obtaining voluntary compliance, I will not file any charges
within the same time period. I look forward to a successful resolution.

1. Regarding what is described in the Notice as “a large pile of rotting garbage/refuse at the rear (North) of the
property” – I explained that these are not “garbage” nor “rotting,” but rather are storage sacks designed to store
agricultural products (usually coffee beans) outdoors and on ships, and are inventory of the business operated
on the property. Mr. Platt will begin relocating or disposing of these sacks.
a. Thank you. Please advise when complete.

2
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-6 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 6
2. Regarding what is described in the Notice as “a large pile of scrap cardboard on the West side of [the] property”
– I explained that Mr. Platt had an arrangement with a local charity to pick up this cardboard, which the charity
would then sell or recycle for its benefit; however, pickup was inconsistent. Mr. Platt will begin disposing of this
cardboard.
a. Thank you. Please advise when complete.

3. Regarding what is described in the Notice as “unkempt and unmaintained vegetation on the property that is in
excess of eight (8) inches” – I asked you to please describe and specify the location of this vegetation, and to
specify when the alleged violation occurred. I noted my surprise at this alleged violation given that Mr. Platt
contracts with a service that mows and trims the property on a biweekly basis. You indicated that because you
did not personally investigate the facts underlying the Notice, you would review additional photographs in your
possession, which are not included in the Notice, and get back to me.
a. That is correct. After some deliberation I will visit the site today or tomorrow to personally view the
property, to determine the extent and nature of the infractions. I can appreciate the fact your client
has a service responsible for these types of maintenance. I will advise you of my findings.

4. Regarding the alleged violation of the Borough zoning ordinance due to what is described in the Notice as “two
(2) large land/sea type storage containers … placed at the rear of the premises” – I asked you to please review
the Borough zoning ordinance’s definition of “building,” which encompasses only permanent structures, in light
of the fact that these containers are mobile and not permanent. I also noted the examples of analogous
containers found on several neighboring properties.
a. Thank you. I will consider your comments, review the facts of the complaint, and further advise within
the timeframe stated above.

5. Regarding the mention of the Uniform Construction Code (UCC) found in the Notice – you clarified that the
Notice is not alleging a violation of the UCC, but rather only raising a potential issue for discussion.
a. You are correct, if found to be non-complaint I will further advise within the timeframe stated above.

6. I noted that the Notice triggered certain deadlines and that, although we are continuing to discuss the matter, I
may need to appeal the Notice in order to preserve my client’s rights and avoid any waiver. To that end, would
you please provide a copy of the form for an appeal to the Board of Appeals and the Zoning Hearing Board?
a. By way of copy of this email, I am asking Ms. Sharon Hamm, our Administrative Services Supervisor, to
forward you a copy of the Adams County Building Code Board of Appeals application and the New
Oxford Borough Zoning Hearing Board Appeal application. Once you have had a chance to look at
them please feel free to contact either of us with additional questions or concerns.
b. As stated above the deadline for appeal is extended through November, until December 1, 2019.

Thank you for your prompt response above and for your attention to these important matters.
Sincerely,

Clem
Sincerely,
R. Clem Malot
R. Clem Malot, MCP
Chief Code Official
PMCA
380 Wayne Avenue
Chambersburg, Pa. 17201
Phone: 717 496-4996
clem@pacodealliance.com

The information contained in this transmission is confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or organization(s) to whom it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or further distribution is not permitted
unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing. Further, PMCA is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.

3
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-6 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 6

From: Jason G. Benion <jgb@saxtonstump.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 5:49 PM
To: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: 214 W. Golden Lane

Mr. Malot,

Thank you for speaking with me yesterday regarding the aboveͲreferenced property. Below is a summary of several
issues we discussed relating to the September 19, 2019 Notice of Violation (Notice). Please let me know if I have
misstated anything. I look forward to hearing from you soon per below.

1. Regarding what is described in the Notice as “a large pile of rotting garbage/refuse at the rear (North) of the
property” – I explained that these are not “garbage” nor “rotting,” but rather are storage sacks designed to store
agricultural products (usually coffee beans) outdoors and on ships, and are inventory of the business operated
on the property. Mr. Platt will begin relocating or disposing of these sacks.

2. Regarding what is described in the Notice as “a large pile of scrap cardboard on the West side of [the] property”
– I explained that Mr. Platt had an arrangement with a local charity to pick up this cardboard, which the charity
would then sell or recycle for its benefit; however, pickup was inconsistent. Mr. Platt will begin disposing of this
cardboard.

3. Regarding what is described in the Notice as “unkempt and unmaintained vegetation on the property that is in
excess of eight (8) inches” – I asked you to please describe and specify the location of this vegetation, and to
specify when the alleged violation occurred. I noted my surprise at this alleged violation given that Mr. Platt
contracts with a service that mows and trims the property on a biweekly basis. You indicated that because you
did not personally investigate the facts underlying the Notice, you would review additional photographs in your
possession, which are not included in the Notice, and get back to me.

4. Regarding the alleged violation of the Borough zoning ordinance due to what is described in the Notice as “two
(2) large land/sea type storage containers … placed at the rear of the premises” – I asked you to please review
the Borough zoning ordinance’s definition of “building,” which encompasses only permanent structures, in light
of the fact that these containers are mobile and not permanent. I also noted the examples of analogous
containers found on several neighboring properties.

5. Regarding the mention of the Uniform Construction Code (UCC) found in the Notice – you clarified that the
Notice is not alleging a violation of the UCC, but rather only raising a potential issue for discussion.

6. I noted that the Notice triggered certain deadlines and that, although we are continuing to discuss the matter, I
may need to appeal the Notice in order to preserve my client’s rights and avoid any waiver. To that end, would
you please provide a copy of the form for an appeal to the Board of Appeals and the Zoning Hearing Board?

Jason G. Benion| Shareholder

4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 201

Harrisburg, PA 17112
Phone: 717Ͳ941Ͳ1208
Cell: 717Ͳ695Ͳ1455
4
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-6 Filed 12/23/19 Page 6 of 6
Fax: 717Ͳ547Ͳ1900
jgb@saxtonstump.com
www.saxtonstump.com

5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT G
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 4

From: James PMCA

To: Clem Malot
Subject: Re: 214 W Golden Lane New Oxford
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 9:56:40 AM

Got it.
Jim

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 1, 2019, at 9:23 AM, Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com> wrote:

Jim, no not at all. Just be aware that the people that we're dealing with here are
trying to put together a case of undue harassment.

Just be sure you can successfully articulate Your position if they continue to
push it further

From: James PMCA <code4@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 8:07:52 AM
To: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: Re: 214 W Golden Lane New Oxford

Clem.
Just so you know, the neighboring properties are business that. I regularly drive
through when patrolling the Borough. Stop checking those businesses?
Jim

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 30, 2019, at 5:11 PM, Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com> wrote:

Jim,

Just spoke with the Attorney in this case. We are working to get things
resolved.

One thing that was not clearly identified in the complaint was the nature
and location of the tall vegetation.

The Atty told me that his client complained that you were on neighboring
property today still “investigating” the complaints. I think it wise for me to
take over the follow ups, I clearly told the Atty that it would be me who
files any charges if they become necessary but hoped that I did not need
to at the end of the day.

I need to try to work my way through the logic of the ZO and the UCC to

Benion000077
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 4

be able to argue the permitting requirements for the Land Sea Containers.
I will probably be writing another NOV once I get those figured out if I
need to.

Clem

From: James PMCA <code4@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 12:41 PM
To: Sharon - PMCA <sharon@pacodealliance.com>; Clem Malot
<clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: 214 W Golden Lane New Oxford

Hello Clem and Sharon.

I am informing you of recent developments involving Mr. Platt, 214 West
Golden Lane.
While I was away on vacation Mr. Platt was posting on youtube that I, and
employee with PMCA had been harassing him, I am “double dipping”,
worked on Labor Day and has gone to the Eastern Adams Chief of police
to have me charged with harassing him. If pressed, the Chief will refer the
complaint to the Attorney Generals Office for a prosecutorial decision.
Jim

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Sharon - PMCA" <sharon@pacodealliance.com>

To: "'Jason G. Benion'" <jgb@saxtonstump.com>
Cc: "Clem Malot" <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: 214 W Golden Lane New Oxford

Good morning Jason, I have included Clem in this email so you

have his contact email. His phone number is: 717-377-8350. I
would anticipate he will respond to this email as soon as he is able
to get the discussion initiated. Thanks in advance for contacting
us.

Find attached the ordinances. If I have missed anything please let

me know. Take good care, sharon

Note the reference to the Zoning Ordinance on the attached

Chapter 27 duplicates the section #1402 (the second reference to
that section should actually be #1403 as referenced in the Notice of
Violation)

Sharon Hamm - PMCA

Benion000078
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-7 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 4

Administrative Services Manager

380 Wayne Avenue, Chambersburg, PA 17201
Office: 717 496-4996 ext: 101 Cell: 717 387-0025

From: Jason G. Benion <jgb@saxtonstump.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 3:31 PM
To: Sharon - PMCA <sharon@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: Jason Benion Contact Info

Sharon,

Thanks for speaking with me a few minutes ago. Again, I

represent Brian Platt, the owner of 214 West Golden Lane,
New Oxford, PA 17350, regarding the notice of violation
dated September 19, 2019.

My contact information is below. Please ask Mr. Malot to

give me a call at his earliest convenience.

Also, would you please forward copies of the ordinances at

issue, which appear to be Chapters 10, 20, and perhaps 5,
along with the zoning ordinance? New Oxford does have
some ordinances on its website, but given some of the
citations in the notice, they may be out of date. For
example, I could not find any Section 111.1 (referenced on
page 2 of the notice) in any chapter on the borough website,
and there are two versions of the zoning ordinance on the
site.

Thank you,

~Jason

Jason G. Benion| Shareholder

4250 Crums Mill Road, Suite 201

Harrisburg, PA 17112
Phone: 717-941-1208
Cell: 717-695-1455
Fax: 717-547-1900
jgb@saxtonstump.com
www.saxtonstump.com

Benion000079
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-8 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT H
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-8 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-8 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-8 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-8 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-9 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT I
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-9 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-10 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT J
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-10 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 5

Jason G. Benion

From: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 7:16 AM
To: Jason G. Benion; 'Brian Platt'
Cc: Sharon - PMCA; Clem Malot
Subject: RE: 214 W. Golden Lane - New Oxford Borough
Attachments: N.O.Zoning Ord Permit-App_8-11-16(f).pdf

Importance: High

Mr. Benion;
As you are aware, after conversation with you last week and a site visit with your client, I was content to withdraw the
Notices of Violation that we had previously sent, regarding the above referenced property, upon completion of the site
visit and as what I had classified as a verbal agreement with the owner to continue efforts to become quickly in
compliance. I was dismayed to learn that your client apparently was still confused after that meeting and site visit and
felt it necessary to speak with Borough Council expressing his displeasure and claimed financial losses from his reactions
to the enforcement. I am further dismayed to learn that this confusion potentially continues today with Facebook
postings directed toward our staff.

If I understand the issues correctly, a large concern was that he felt he was required to dispose of several pallets worth
of burlap coffee bags. During my site visit last Friday the bags were either neatly stacked on shipping pallets behind
the building or were placed in the dumpster for disposal this week. Your client volunteered that these bags or sacks
were an “over order” that he had stored outside at this location for some time. He also stated that he had no room to
store them inside; and since it was an over order he had decided to dispose of them. I believe I assured him he did not
have to throw them away, but would need to find a better storage method. His general response was that he wanted
to be cooperative with the municipality and that sending them for waste was no problem. He was intending to dispose
of them over a several week period as there was obviously more than one dumpster full.

We toured the rest of the outside of the facility and found no other issues (cargo containers not withstanding) except
for the previously cited complaint of Tall Grass and Weeds. What we discussed was an unkempt area in the western
gravel parking lot that has not been maintained. This gravel lot area is an area that appears to be seldom used as a
parking lot with the current business, as they have little need for that many spaces usually.

It appears as if the snow removal efforts in the past have created windrows of loose gravel where the snow plow
stopped pushing snow. These windrows have , over the course of the summer, become the basis for an area of weeds
that cannot be simply cut with a lawn mower. Your client also indicated the use of a power mower has caused concern
in the past due to the scattering of stones by the mower and the close proximity to the neighbors parking lot. I agreed
this could be a concern and that alternate methods should be considered in dealing with the vegetation. I also
suggested contacting the snow removal person or another appropriate business to relevel the windrows to make them
more manageable and that perhaps weed whacking or trimming the weeds at a slightly higher level may prevent the
need for concern about throwing stones onto the neighbors. I felt we had reached an agreeable method(s) of
resolution.

We also discussed completing this task in the near future while observing this would probably be the last time this year
that trimming was necessary due to the lateness of the season.

I apologies I totally forgot about the storage/cargo containers for which a Zoning Permit is required. Review of the
Zoning Ordinance indicates a permit is required for the installation and use of the storage/cargo containers which have
been installed to the rear of the property. This is outlined in the New Oxford Borough Code of Ordinance as a zoning
requirement as follows:

New Oxford Borough Code of Ordinance Chapter 27 (Zoning) Part 14 Section 1403: Permits; Subsection A. Requirement
of Permits - A zoning permit shall be required prior to the erection, addition, or alteration of any building or portion
thereof; prior to the use or change of use of a building or land; prior to the change or extension of a non-conforming
1
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-10 Filed 12/23/19 Page 3 of 5
use. It shall be unlawful for any person to commence work for the erection or alteration of any building or for a change
in land use, until a permit has been duly issued therefore. No such zoning permit shall be required in case of normal
maintenance activities, minor repairs, and alterations which do not structurally change a building or structure.

I have attached a Zoning Permit application for your clients referral and use. Please reassure me that your client
intends to continue his cooperation towards compliance to help prevent further enforcement actions and that after
discussing these situations with him as described above he no longer has confusion about how to proceed or who is
initiating this effort to achieve compliance. I felt I had made it clear during my visit that the enforcement action was
and will remain my undertaking and that any questions, issues, or complaints should be directed toward me or at the
very least about me if your client is still confused or not satisfied with these proceedings.

Should you require validation for anything stated above, have additional questions or concerns, or wish to submit a
completed Zoning Application please feel free to contact me directly at the contact listed below. Again, I sincerely look
forward to voluntary compliance and cooperation in resolving these issues if at all possible.

Best regards,
Clem
Sincerely,
R. Clem Malot
R. Clem Malot, MCP
Chief Code Official
PMCA
380 Wayne Avenue
Chambersburg, Pa. 17201
Phone: 717 496-4996 Ext. 101
Cell: 717 377-8350
clem@pacodealliance.com

The information contained in this transmission is confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or organization(s) to whom it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or further distribution is not permitted
unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing. Further, PMCA is not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of this communication nor for any delay in its receipt.

2
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-10 Filed 12/23/19 Page 4 of 5
NEW OXFORD BOROUGH
124 NORTH PETERS STREET
NEW OXFORD, PA 17350
PHONE: (717) 624-2188
Date Received:___________________ Permit No.:__________________________

ZONING/LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION

TO BE FILLED IN BY APPLICANT:
Application is hereby made for a permit in compliance with the New Oxford Zoning Ordinance. The application
shall be considered complete when all adequate required documentation is submitted, zoning permit fee has been paid and
the application is signed by the applicant.
A Site Sketch Plan/Plot Plan shall be submitted with this application showing the location of the proposed
building or structure and use shall accompany this application (scale not needed). Show dimensions of all property boundaries
comprising the lot/parcel shape, locations of existing right-of-ways, stream(s), flood plain(s), public roadway(s), private
road(s), driveway(s), well(s), septic(s), existing structures, underground utilities, and present usage or occupancy. No changes
will be made to this application and/or Plot Plan without submitting written notification and plans for such changes.

1. Property Owner(s): __________________________________________ Phone: ______________________________

2. Owner(s) Address: _______________________________________________________________________________
3. Applicant: _________________________________________________ Phone: ______________________________
Cell Phone: _______________________________ Email: __________________________________
4. Applicant Address: _______________________________________________________________________________
5. Location of Property: ___________________________________________________________________________
6. Area of Lot/Parcel (sq.ft or acres): __________________ Parcel/Tax I.D.#: ___________________________
7. Describe Present Uses/Structures: _________________________________________________________________
8. Parking Spaces (off street): Present: _________ Proposed:________ Height of Proposed Building: ___________
9. Present Use: ________________________________ Proposed Use: ___________________________________
10. Describe Project (Check all that apply):
Erect a New Structure(s) Home Occupation
Replace a Structure(s) Change of Land Use
Add to a Structure(s) Change of Occupancy
Pool
Erect/Replace a Sign See Sign Permit Zoning Application to be included with this application
Other (Please Specify): _______________________________________________________________________
10. Describe Proposed Project/Use in more detail: _______________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I verify that the foregoing statements are true to the best of my information and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S.A. relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. I also
understand that it is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain a Building Permit prior to starting construction as per
Act 45. I hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the named property, or that the proposed work is
authorized by the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to make this application as his
authorized agent and I understand and assume responsibility for the establishment of official property lines for
required setbacks prior to the start of construction, and agree to conform to all applicable laws of this jurisdiction. I
certify that the Code official or his representative shall have the authority to enter the areas in which this work is
being performed, at any reasonable hour, to enforce the provisions of the Codes governing this project.

___________________________________ _________________________________ ___________________

Applicant Name – please print Signature of Applicant Date

Fee of $50.00 is required at time of Zoning Permit Application – to be paid to New Oxford Borough – Thank you
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-10 Filed 12/23/19 Page 5 of Page
5 2 of 2

For official Use Only

TO BE FILLED IN BY ZONING OFFICER/ADMINISTRATOR:

The following shall be the minimum requirements for the proposed project(s) as set forth in the New
Oxford Borough Zoning Ordinance.

1. Plot Plan Submitted? YES NO NOT REQUIRED

2. Zoning District of Property: ______________________________________________
Required Building Setback: Front: _________ Rear: _________ Side: __________________________
Proposed Structure Setback: Front: _________ Rear: _________ Side: __________________________
Second Structure Setback: Front: _________ Rear: _________ Side: __________________________
Does proposed project conform with Building Setback requirements?: Yes No Not Applicable

Remarks: ________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

3. Minimum Loading Space: ________ Loading Space Provided: ________

4. Maximum Sign Area: _____________________ Proposed Sign Area: ____________________________
5. Maximum Lot Coverage: _________________ Proposed Lot Coverage: ___________________________

6. Remarks: ___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Fee: $ ____________ Date Paid: __________________ ( Check #: ____________ Cash)

CERTIFICATION
1. The proposal DOES DOES NOT comply with the New Oxford Borough Zoning Ordinance.
2 The proposal DOES DOES NOT require any new water and sewer connection, tapping fees or
connection fees and complies with the New Oxford Municipal Authorityy’s Rules & Regulations.
3 A Uniform Construction Code Building Permit is required YES NO
Remark: __________________________________________________________________________
4. A variance is required YES NO
5. A Special Exception is required YES NO
6. A permit for the above described project/use was GRANTED DENIED EXEMPT
on this ______ day of __________________, 20 _____
7. This permit expires on the _______day of___________________, 20_____
8. If applicable, the following conditions were placed on a special exception permit by the Zoning Hearing Board:
a. ______________________________________________________________________________________
b. _____________________________________________________________________________________
c. ______________________________________________________________________________________

9. Signature of Zoning Officer: ____________________________________ Date:____________________

Amended 08-11-16
Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-11 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT K
 Case 1:19-cv-01829-CCC-MCC Document 33-11 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2

From: Clem Malot

To: James PMCA
Subject: RE: 214 West Golden Lane
Date: Thursday, October 10, 2019 9:43:17 AM

You are welcome. Hopefully the attorney is astute enough to read between the lines like most attorneys do!

-----Original Message-----
From: James PMCA <code4@pacodealliance.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 9:01 AM
To: Clem Malot <clem@pacodealliance.com>
Subject: 214 West Golden Lane

Good morning Clem.

Well composed correspondence to Mr. Platt’s attorney. Hopefully his attorney reigns him in.
Thank you.
Jim

Sent from my iPhone

Benion000087