NJ DEP Notified 2/3/17 Unauthorized Activities

3/28/17 update:

The neighbors/Applicants have avoided getting DEP involved with their site plan application, (see ZB13-10 site plan application) 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 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. DEP has a 25 – 50’ or more buffer requirement in this regulated area. A wetlands fringe is also present and has been delineated on Applicant’s site plan on both sides of the brook. 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 wetlands growth to make more room for their equipment. That’s a crime. A subsequent letter was sent to the Land Use Bureau and the reply was that since the occupancy may have predated some of the riparian requirements, nothing will be done, and DEP doesn’t have the resources to look into the history of the lot titles/usage.

DEP response, recent complaint: 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 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 to which Plaintiff offered to show them documents that no CO was obtained when commencing occupation and also proof that most 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. No reference number available for tracking this down. Plaintiff was told to give it a few days to which he responded he will check back with Land Use and attempt to follow up on this.