Long Branch mayor
Long Branch mayor, administrator and top code official implicated in conspiracy with developer to evade state and local land use, zoning, environmental and blight regulations.
On October 7, 1998, a four count pro-se lawsuit (Mon L-5080-98) was brought against Long Branch by a commercial property owner seeking injunctive relief and damages for allowing neighbors to create blight and use and expand their property without prior site plan approval, causing severe inconvenience/nuisance conditions. (see photos) Under state and local law, site plan approval before a board, with notice to neighbors is required to change or expand a use. Injunctive relief was also sought as Defendant’s DPW refused to provide Plaintiff information on the extent of street restoration required to extend a sewer main though its municipal court earlier fined Plaintiff for maintaining a pre-existing sewage pit (Plaintiff purchased the building in August 1995) and forced him to install sewer service. Defendant tried to shut down the property in the interim. Also, Defendants sought that Plaintiff obtain a zoning permit for off street parking though already obtained thru his site plan approval for the industrial zone. Defendant further sought to retaliate & force improvements upon Plaintiff, who was already improving the property in order to obtain tenants, while failing to abate neighboring violations and maintain its own property. (Plaintiff sought to have the annex painted and all vehicles in the parking lot registered as Defendant had sought of Plaintiff) The complaint was clear that the properties at issue were directly across the street from Plaintiff’s own (see photos) Municipalities and officials are required to enforce zoning and other laws due to strong public interest in doing so, but under the Tort Claims Act, due to discretion and limitation of resources, cannot be held liable unless it is palpably (obviously) unreasonable. The mayor stated in his deposition that only a phone call is needed to enforce the ordinances and in his interrogatories that all ordinances are enforced as soon as possible. Judge Lawson of Monmouth Law Div. found, (without a hearing), the complaint was not a prerogative writ action but an action in law, denied the restraints and transferred it to the law division. Though not written as a prerogative writ, and not including the neighbors, the complaint sought mainly equitable relief and mentions Plaintiff is across from the offending properties, which should have accorded Plaintiff standing to have the equitable portions addressed in the normal course.
Long Branch subsequently answers & counterclaims and attempts to force sewer service and other improvements based upon a mere zoning permit allowing the improvements. Plaintiff answers and amends the complaint and joins the Sewerage Authority, its director and Long Branch mayor and administrator alleging various violations of his civil rights, including non-issuance of the street opening permit from DPW. The Sewerage Authority, in collusion with Long Branch, sought to have Plaintiff pay for the entire cost of installing the main extension, including the street restoration, while his next door neighbor only had to pay a connection fee.
The original four counts are dismissed without prejudice (the issues can be raised again) by the law div. judge due to lack of tort notice for damages and lack of standing due to no special damages as no appraisal report was submitted and Plaintiff “was not an ombudsman” using as an excuse Plaintiff’s effort to get city hall painted. This is dirty because as everyone knows, under the Land Use Laws, anyone within 200 feet is automatically noticed and accorded standing.
The civil rights violations (similar to this courts initial treatment of eminent domain in Long Branch) were not given the time of day by the next judge except for a finding that Plaintiff’s civil rights may have been violated in regard to the DPW permit. The sewerage authority sought dismissal and another judge, Lehrer, had to be twice recused, including involvement by AOC, having previously worked at the same law firm with the sewerage authority attorney.
Nevertheless, after filing suit and just prior to the assignment decision, the garbage trucks pictured in the photos disappeared. The assignment judge’s law clerk subsequently is hired by the city attorney’s law firm. Sewer service was nevertheless thereafter installed at the sewerage authority’s cost under guise of city wide improvements and Plaintiff paid only the connection and engineering fees.
The decision is upheld on Appeal with the finding “Plaintiff has no standing to claim dereliction of enforcement of the zoning ordinances” Pro-se Plaintiff did not dot the I’s and cross the T’s in the equitable part of his cf complaint or die from the civil rights violations and was being held to the highest standard.
Thereafter, in an obvious attempt to intimidate plaintiff out of seeking his property rights, normally competent judge Robert O’Hagan (retired) suddenly cannot distinguish between costs and legal fees, ignores a consent agreement between the parties and court which previously disposed of all remaining issues (including costs)at the trial level, and amazingly seeks to use a 1938 case which predates the governing costs statutes so to improperly take jurisdiction and adjudge costs of $3023 for the trial level, appellate and supreme court divisions thru the trial level. This not only violates the costs statutes and caselaw but also violates strong public policy to settle and penalizes plaintiff for doing so. After 3 hearings at taxpayer expense, Long Branch withdraws its judgment claim in return for plaintiff’s foregoing an appeal and new action for breach of contract of the settlement agreement.
Subsequent appraisals show depreciation of plaintiff’s own and neighboring properties due to the City’s allowing the neighbor to expand the noisy dirty use to all lots without site plan approval, for which he was previously cited. Plaintiff files a tort claims notice on 9/25/02 for knowing failure/refusal to properly enforce (abate) zoning laws, violation of his federal equal protection rights, and that the failure is palpably unreasonable and the violations are continuing in nature. Long Branch threatens Plaintiff under the frivolous complaint statute stating the matter was already settled. The developer is allowed to further continue his illegally expanded use for many years despite having been previously cited and summoned for such and though evading 3 zoning board applications seeking use variances. (3 findings of guilt for expansion of use without prior approvals were eventually uncovered) The need for use variances coupled with the fact that the commercial use began in a residential zone (the garage headquarters is the rear of a previously residential lot), indicates it was unlawfully commenced in the first place.
This was confirmed in subsequent lawsuits Mon L2153-10 & L-4039-11 (see “A Case(s) for Elections & Reform”)
The developer now wants to sell his properties (2009) and seeks to grandfather the use to Atlantic Paving and thereby continue to evade the site plan approval process. Long Branch obliges him and the zoning officer unilaterally issues a zoning permit allowing the use on all lots without any public notice or hearings. All hell breaks loose and anything goes on these properties now. Soon several companies, not even on the illegal zoning permit appear, including Rosario Mazza Demolition which uses a crane to process its demolition waste across from Plaintiff’s new office addition. (photos) Plaintiff obtains a copy of the permit thru a public records request and confronts the zoning officer calling attention to the previous violations, summonses, and unprosecuted site plans seeking use variances and seeks to void it – but to no avail. The permit prima facia (on its face) expands the use out of the garage to all lots while jokingly & simultaneously stating “No Stockpiling or Expansion of Use” in the Conditions of Use at bottom of permit.
Mr. Turner, the asst. planning director nevertheless admits in depositions (L4039-11) that any E&L use is limited to the inside of this garage.
All this information was available to the zoning officer when considering the permit application and after Plaintiff’s visit upon learning of the permit.
The following letter was submitted to the mayor and administrator and the zoning permit was not and has not been rescinded. Their culpability, corruption and conspiracy to help the developer evade the law are evident and caused another lawsuit by plaintiff, unfortunately at taxpayer’s expense. It also evidences official misconduct, a crime.
Mr. Brian Asarnow
55 Community Place
Long Branch, NJ 07740
(Tel) 732-870-2570
Fax Number: 732-870-XXXX
October 1, 2009
Mr. Adam Schneider, Mayor
Mr. Howard Woolley, Business Administrator
City of Long Branch
Municipal Building
344 Broadway
Long Branch, NJ 07740 RE: Illegal Zoning Permit #080309-3 to E&L Paving/Atlantic Paving
Gentlemen:
Please find a newly discovered zoning permit issued to the above which seeks to grandfather a use which was established illegally and then expanded upon, despite numerous citations and three evaded zoning board applications. (see enclosed documents from zoning board files). This has been made known to you previously on several occasions. Furthermore, as Mr. Bruno has purchased, subdivided and improved his lots (without approvals) he is a developer and should have appeared before the planning, not zoning board for site plan approval.
His zoning board applications evidence that the use is not grandfathered and ZB02-08 (which was never heard) makes reference to the 100 foot buffer requirement along the brook, subdivisions for planning approval, as well as other variances. According to DEP engineers, the buffer requirement is not waivable by a municipality thru variances. As a sub-divider at the end of a dead end street, he is also required to install a cul de sac (Ord. 300-14k) and has been permitted to evade this as well.
Please see photos displaying the result of the continued evasion of law and issuing of the permit. The grandfathering of the dirty, noisy, unsightly use will cause me irreparable harm and further expands the blight and deterioration of property values. Appraisals, of which you have been made known, show this is especially true of my own building which I am seeking to improve and to which I am adding an addition so I can hire new employees. Interesting how you seemed so concerned about blight to do eminent domain elsewhere and even createated a blightmeister (Mr. Hayes) as Director of Building and Development, yet are intent on creating and expanding it here.
As it appears that the zoning department has acted unlawfully and exceeded its authority, I urge that the permit be immediately revoked, the buffer vacated and a cul de sac installed by eminent domain, or otherwise. I offer to contribute $500 in this regard. Should the permit not be revoked by October 6, I will thereafter take any and all action to enforce my rights and seek to expose and hold those accountable who have permitted this atrocity for so long, including the posting and blogging to others of this letter and photos. Tort notice was filed with the clerk on Sept. 25, 2002 for these continuing violations and you have also been notified since then and as recently as July 31, 2009. As standing can change in any given moment, you should not feel too comfortable by any previous court decisions in this regard which were made without prejudice.
Very Truly Yours,
Brian Asarnow,
Owner
Encl: ZP #080309-3 (3 pages)
9/30/02 letter to Secretary of Zoning Board showing lot histories (4 pages)
9/17/98 letter from zoning officer showing violations (1 page)
Zoning Board Application ZB02-08 (4 pages)
Photos: 9/21-2, 9/29-5, 9/30-4