Permit Revocation Enforcement Steps

yes they did

they refuse to enforce it i've tried calling them

local ones are saying no due to conflict

yeah cause there is collusion by the mayor as she is friends with the recovery home whos permit was revoked

what are my legal options

now

Background In *, Blue Mountain Escape (BME) was granted a zoning permit under the “group home” designation to operate a recovery residence at * Bailey Street. This was improper under New Cumberland’s zoning ordinance, which explicitly prohibits group homes from accepting residents directly from incarceration or parole—a restriction BME later admitted in sworn testimony they had violated.

Following three public hearings, the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) revoked the permit. BME appealed, and in *, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the revocation. Crucially, the Court also determined that BME does not qualify as a group home under the zoning ordinance—quite the opposite. This is not just a procedural issue but a substantive legal ruling: recovery homes like BME do not meet the definition of a group home under local zoning law. Despite this clear, final, and binding legal determination, the Borough of New Cumberland has taken no enforcement action. BME continues to operate at the property in direct violation of the zoning code and the court’s decision.

Government Misconduct and Conflict of Interest Mayor Joan Erney—formerly the Deputy Secretary of Pennsylvania’s Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services—has used her position to openly support and promote BME throughout the zoning and appeals process.

In the beginning, I reached out to Mayor Erney in good faith, believing she would help us. We had a private, respectful conversation in confidence before I understood where her true loyalty lies. In those messages, she even acknowledged that “it shouldn’t be that way” and agreed that the recovery home needed to be good neighbors and follow the rules. Her tone and statements gave us hope that someone in government was listening. Unfortunately, her actions afterward proved otherwise

Her continued conduct includes: • Speaking publicly in support of BME during ZHB proceedings, while the appeal was still pending; • Promoting BME through her church and on social media, including while their zoning legality was under legal review; • Being tagged in a public post by BME’s manager Melissa, made one hour before the May *, * council meeting, claiming that the Borough was going to “put us in certain places”—a statement that clearly suggests insider knowledge and pre-coordination; • Accepting sponsorship money from BME while their zoning appeal was still undecided—Mayor Erney made BME a main sponsor of a public event, and the

Borough accepted payment from BME in exchange for promotional benefits; • Most disturbing of all, I have camera footage of Mayor Erney meeting with Stacy one week before the first ZHB hearing. She parked in front of my home and walked to the BME home beside me. They were seen laughing and smiling and hugged each other before leaving. This off-the-record meeting took place with no transparency and was never publicly acknowledged;

These actions demonstrate a clear, ongoing conflict of interest. The combination of public support, financial entanglement, private meetings, and coordination with BME staff undermines public trust, violates basic ethical standards, and casts serious doubt on the Borough’s neutrality.

Since the ZHB ruling, BME staff, landlord Matt Rutkowski, and affiliated supporters have publicly blamed me and my wife for the permit revocation and the Borough’s zoning reform efforts—despite the fact that we were not involved in filing the appeal. We have been called “crazy,” “mentally ill,” “bigots,” and falsely accused of harassment and discrimination. These defamatory statements were made in public meetings, online, and on social media. I have screenshots, deleted posts, audio, and video recordings documenting these attacks.

On May *, *, the Borough held a public meeting about zoning amendments directly affecting recovery home regulation. While technically open to public comment, the meeting process was manipulated: • Non-resident BME supporters were permitted to speak first, taking up over an hour of comment time; • Many Borough residents were too intimidated to speak or walked out; • Those of us who did speak were cut off precisely at the three-minute mark, while BME supporters were allowed to exceed the limit unchallenged; • Just one hour prior to the meeting, BME manager Melissa publicly tagged Mayor Erney and BME affiliates, writing that the Borough was going to “put us in certain places”—clear evidence of insider knowledge and pre-arranged narrative setting.

What We’re Potentially Seeking I am requesting legal representation to look at the following: *. Compel enforcement (Writ of Mandamus) of the Commonwealth Court’s ruling and force the Borough to revoke BME’s unlawful use of * Bailey Street; *. Pursue civil rights, ADA, Sunshine Act, and equal protection claims against the Borough and its officials; *. Possibly file defamation, harassment, and emotional distress claims against BME, landlord Matt Rutkowski, and affiliated individuals; *. Seek compensatory and punitive damages for medical harm, emotional trauma, reputational damage, and loss of peace and privacy; *. Demand a public correction and acknowledgement that we were not responsible for the zoning appeal or permit revocation; *. Pursue disciplinary or legal review of the Mayor and solicitor for their roles in this mishandling and collusion.

I have the following ready to share: • Commonwealth Court ruling and ZHB hearing transcripts • Audio/video of meetings and public comments • Screenshots and deleted online defamation • Camera footage of the Mayor’s pre-hearing meeting with BME • Social media posts, including Melissa’s insider comments • Medical documentation from my December–January hospitalizations • Fence installation records and photos • Emails and statements submitted regarding my wife’s MS and disability impact

yes but not local cause they all say no

no

what are some firms that can help me

yes

do i have a case

which ones

sure