NJ DEP Notified Of Unauthorized Activities Honest Service Sought from New Management
5/18/18 update:
The neighbors/Applicants have avoided getting DEP involved with their site plan application, (see “Site Plan Filed”) but Plaintiff had no choice but to call them on Feb. 3, 2017 due to the recent escalation over there since their friend, Mr. Kevin Hayes became acting business administrator, his 3rd title. Plaintiff’s building was shaking from the 2 excavators and concrete pulverizing machine operating over there in addition to the noise. The complaint was for unauthorized stockpiling/recycling/operating in a riparian and flood zone without permits. Two bureaus in DEP govern activities along a stream in his matter –Coastal Land Use Compliance & Enforcement or “CLUE” (which thus far hasn’t had any lol) and Solid Waste. (It is also alleged the site operates as a class b unlicensed recycling facility) DEP has a 50’ or more buffer requirement in riparian zones and permits are needed to conduct regulated activities in the zone regardless whether the stream is considered state open waters as DEP contends exists.
A freshwater wetlands fringe is also present and has been delineated on Applicant’s site plan on both sides of the brook though wetlands itself is not present according to DEP. Its also a FEMA 500 year x flood zone (see below “drive” link) which has its own buffer requirement which overlaps with the riparian zone. .
The solid waste official in Trenton handed the matter over to the JV team, the Monmouth Health Dept. who came and believed Rosario that processing was only once per year only for his own use and gave him a permit application to fill out. Plaintiff voiced his displeasure with DEP considering others in DEP advised that a notice of violation should have been issued and the truth straightened out thereafter, in court, if necessary. Plaintiff also mentioned that it was more of an unlicensed recycling operation since most of the material was not being re-used by Rosario, but transferred to others. The manager mentioned he would refer it to Land Use (CLUE) to which Plaintiff offered to show them documents that no CO was obtained when commencing occupation so not entitled to “grandfathering” and also proof that some lots were acquired subsequent to the riparian and flood zone buffer requirements. This would aid DEP who lacked the resources (or interest) that Plaintiff had. (lol). Nevertheless, since permits were evaded, Applicant, by law, must come up to current standards. On March. 16, 2017 Plaintiff learned from DEP that the Monmouth county investigator had again appeared and was told by Rosario that all the businesses shared the same principals, which is a lie as documented in the site plan hearing and business formation certificates. Plaintiff also learned that the matter had only a few days earlier been referred internally to DEP Land Use for investigation.
On April 10, 2017 Plaintiff provided proof to Tammy Miller of DEP/CLUE that E&L Paving began its use illegally and lacked a CO and has illegally expanded the regulated activity as evidenced by the numerous violations and summonses (also findings of guilt) for same.(the illegal expansion without prior site plan approval coincides with the increase in regulated activities subject to DEP regulation) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Ju7KWgvsxRrMuTu0nEn66vHHz7-CWU5S?usp=sharing
Nevertheless, despite the above, she maintains there are no buffers on the site based on previous letters of interpretation for adjacent properties, and E&L’s use predates the DEP and the Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules, based on findings of then CLUE administrator Jameson, so no violation. She and DEP ignore the unclean hands doctrine mentioned in the correspondence. “E&L doesn’t get the benefit of pre-existing use claimed by Mr. Jameson since his activity was never authorized by zoning or DEP” She and the new CLUE Administrator Mr. Paull refuse to answer the simple question whether there is a regulated zone along the creek and whether the occupants are in compliance, in light of the above. The many complaints over the years by the various neighbors may be mentioned but they have not been addressed according to law.
Though they were in another part of Long Branch that day, DEP failed to show up in 2009 when the new occupants arrived and cut down the vegetation to make more room for their equipment. That’s a regulated activity. Governor Corzine’s office was contacted about the problems in getting Long Branch zoning and DEP to enforce the laws and related issues. In response, the previous CLUE Administrator Mr. Jameson, first claims in his 12/1/09 letter that on visits made from 2002 to 2009, “no regulated activities had occurred on the site.” He says to contact Barbara Baus, acting CLUE bureau chief with any further questions. She is sent a letter with cc to Governor and DEP commissioner pointing out the plain language of NJAC 7:13-2.4 of the regulated activities. (see above – “Key DEP Provisions”) Mr. Jameson’s 1/19/10 letter then says the stream which is part of a flood plain is only a drainage ditch, not state open waters (a drainage ditch is man made and therefore a self serving exception to regulated waters) and admits the activities are indeed regulated but that E&L’s use predates the regulations.
Initial DEP/CLUE Correspondence
As noted, the original occupation was illegal and the activities also expanded since the Rules went into effect. DEP’s refusal to honestly address this does not bode well for the new administration and raises questions as to why not? Are certain so called environmental politicians interfering or obstructing? This will be pursued further.
6/8/18 update:
On 5/22/18 Mr. Ron Paull, the new Administrator of CLUE was emailed and advised of the above update and asked “If there is anything you think is not accurate please advise as the recent updates will be blogged out to the public/media/environmental groups. I would like to discuss this matter next week if you are available.” No answer was obtained denying any of the above allegations & facts.