Shohola says: ‘We’re not the Gestapo’

By DIANE GLYNN

SHOHOLA — Two township residents charged the Shohola Board of Supervisors with “not taking action” regarding the recent allegations reported in the media about misconduct at the Society of St. John’s. However, in light of no eyewitness accounts of specific violations regarding local government permits issued to the organization, the supervisors agreed at their monthly meeting that there was nothing to be done, at least for now.

In the public commentary section of the meeting, Dave Churchill complained that, since the township listed the Society of St. John’s as a point of interest in the Shohola brochures, some action should be taken by supervisors to remove the listing.

“I don’t believe it really exists,” Churchill said, noting that the list is suggestive of township support of the organization, which is now under an investigation by the Roman Catholic Church.

Supervisor chair George Fluhr responded to the initial complaint, saying that if the brochures were printed today, the institute would not have been among township listings. Fluhr noted the society was included, as were two other churches, because visitors were known to ask directions to find the society.

Churchill then charged the society with environmental misconduct, and potential zoning violations. “They took away from the watershed between Route 434 and the Shohola Creek. Their septic has overflowed from overuse. They have no right-of-way access to the highway through PENNDOT, and with the flow of cars onto that property from the public, there’s going to be an accident,” charged Churchill, who was joined in his sentiments by Shohola resident Joe Zenes.

Zenes insisted that the Sewage Enforcement Officer had been called to Fatima House (owned by the Blauvelts, who later issued a notice of eviction to the society) for sewage violations. The supervisors replied that there had never been an overflow into the Shohola Creek as a result of septic problems at the house.

Both men requested that the society’s conditional use permit be revoked on the basis that it had been issued for use by five people, and that it specified that improvements had to be made to the road “which are now impossible to make.”

“We don’t know how many people there are at the society,” Fluhr said. “I don’t know how many people there are at your house, Joe.”

“But I don’t have a conditional use permit,” Zenes said.

Solicitor Edwin Abramson said that certain Federal laws protect houses of worship over local government regulation, “so we have to be very careful in any action we take.”

Fluhr then asked if anyone had proof of either conditional use or zoning violations through observation in order to support the charges made. The response from those present was a simple “no.”

“The only way to reexamine the permits is to have specific knowledge of eyewitness accounts of violations,” said Fluhr. “We cannot make judgments on the basis of someone wanting to make allegations. It is unfair to expect us to take action on the basis of allegations. When the answer is no, then there’s nothing we can do. To give credence to allegations is wrong, and we’re not the Gestapo.” Fluhr said.