Dear Matawan Borough,

Please accept this electronic request for public records made under OPRA and the common law right of access. I am not required to fill out an official form or use a particular software platform to submit my request per N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6(f), which states that an email from a requestor including all information required on the adopted form shall suffice as a valid government record request.

I HAVE NOT been convicted of any indictable offense under the laws of New Jersey, any other state, or the United States.
I WILL NOT use the requested records for a commercial purpose.
I AM NOT seeking records in connection with a legal proceeding.

Records requested:

I request all records, documents, correspondence, engineering reviews, fee and escrow documentation, and internal memoranda related to Resolution 25-12-05, which authorizes Burlington Builders, LLC to connect the property at 156 Washington Avenue (Block 83, Lot 4.02) to the Borough of Matawan’s sanitary sewer and water system. This request includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. All documents, files, and materials related to Resolution 25-12-05:
* All drafts, internal edits, emails, and communications used to prepare the Resolution.
* All attachments referenced in or connected to the Resolution.
* All versions reviewed by Borough staff, the Borough Engineer, or Borough Attorney.

2. Engineering and T&M Associates materials:
* The complete engineering review by Robert R. Keady Jr. of T&M Associates, including the full letter dated November 25, 2025.
* All prior or subsequent engineering review letters.
* All technical comments, capacity analyses, and internal notes.
* All correspondence between T&M Associates and Borough officials.
* All emails, letters, or memos discussing sewer and water connection requirements or approvals for 156 Washington Avenue.

3. Department of Public Works documents:
* All DPW reviews of the sewer and water connection request.
* All inspection notes, comments, approvals, or objections.
* All internal DPW communications related to the Burlington Builders application.

4. Water and sewer connection application documents:
* The complete connection application submitted by Burlington Builders, LLC.
* All supplemental submissions or revisions.
* All Borough Code compliance reviews.
* All flow calculations, pressure analyses, and capacity evaluations.
* All requirements imposed as conditions of approval.

5. Connection fee schedules and escrow records:
* All connection fee schedules in effect at the time.
* All fee calculations, including sewer and water fees.
* All invoices, escrow deposits, withdrawals, billing records, and ledger entries including T&M Associates billing.
* If maintained electronically, these records must be provided in Excel or CSV format.

6. All correspondence:
* All emails, letters, memos, text messages, handwritten notes, or internal communications involving Burlington Builders, LLC, the Borough Engineer, T&M Associates, DPW, Construction Department, Planning or Zoning staff, Finance Department, the Borough Administrator, the Borough Attorney, or any Borough professional referencing 156 Washington Avenue or Block 83, Lot 4.02.

Citizen protections and legal requirements governing this request:
1. Native format production requirement (Paff v. Galloway):
* All electronic records must be produced in their native formats including MSG, EML, PST, XLSX, CSV, ICS, DOCX, and EXIF-intact image files.
* Documents originally created electronically must not be scanned or converted to PDF.

2. Metadata requirement:
* Metadata is part of the government record. Include creation dates, modification dates, authors, file paths, email headers, and version history where available.

3. Redaction rules:
* If any portion of a record is redacted or withheld, the Borough must provide a GRC-compliant redaction index with the specific statutory basis for each redaction.
* Blanket or generalized redactions are prohibited.

4. Seven-business-day rule:
* This request is made under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). The Borough must respond within 7 business days.

5. Anti-delay protections:
* A request for clarification does not pause the statutory 7-day count unless the clarification is legally necessary.
* Delays due to workload, staffing, or waiting for other departments are not valid under OPRA.

6. Anti-extension protections:
* Any extension must include:
a. A specific factual justification
b. A statutory basis
c. A firm date certain for production
* Open-ended or vague extension requests are unlawful under Burnett v. Gloucester, Paff v. DOC, and GRC precedent.

7. Splitting of records:
* Any records available immediately must be provided immediately.
* OPRA prohibits withholding records while waiting for additional departments to finish gathering others.

8. Third-party records requirement:
* Records held by contractors or consultants (including T&M Associates, engineers, attorneys, IT vendors, or outside professionals) are subject to OPRA and must be retrieved.

9. Custodian responsibility:
* If you are not the custodian, you must immediately forward this request to the correct custodian and provide their name and email address.

10. Citizen protection:
* This request is a lawful exercise of statutory rights under OPRA.
* No adverse treatment, obstruction, or retaliation may be taken against the requestor.

My preferred delivery method for all responses is email with attachments.

Please confirm receipt of this request. If you are not the custodian of records, forward it immediately to the correct custodian and provide their email address.

Thank you,
John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Wynne,

I write in response to the December 9, 2025 correspondence sent by outside counsel, Plosia Cohen LLC, regarding my November 29, 2025 OPRA and common law rights request titled “Burlington Builders, LLC – 156 Washington Avenue (Block 83, Lot 4.02).”

As you know, my request seeks clearly defined categories of records related to Resolution 25-12-05, including drafts and internal edits of the Resolution; attachments and versions reviewed by staff, the Borough Engineer, and Borough Attorney; engineering reviews and correspondence from T&M Associates; DPW review records; connection applications and technical analyses; fee schedules and escrow records; and all related correspondence among Borough officials, departments, professionals, and Burlington Builders, LLC. Your counsel’s letter describes these same categories and acknowledges that they involve multiple departments and outside professionals.

I do not agree to, and do not consent to, the three-week extension requested in the December 9, 2025 letter. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) requires that a custodian grant or deny access “as soon as possible, but not later than seven business days after receiving the request.” Where additional time is claimed, the statute permits “a reasonable extension” only “in the event a records custodian is unable to fulfill a records request due to unforeseen circumstances or circumstances that otherwise reasonably necessitate additional time to fulfill the records request,” and it requires the custodian to notify the requestor of the extension within seven business days.

The reasons given for a three-week extension in counsel’s letter are: (1) the scope of the request, (2) the involvement of outside engineers and professionals, and (3) holiday-related staffing reductions and office closures. None of these circumstances were unforeseen. The breadth of the request, the fact that T&M Associates and other professionals are involved, and the existence of December holiday schedules were all fully apparent as of the date the request was submitted on November 29, 2025 and certainly by the time the Borough acknowledged receipt on December 4, 2025. These are, at most, predictable workload and scheduling factors, not “unforeseen circumstances” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i). I therefore do not agree that they justify a three-week delay, and I do not waive or relax my rights under the seven-business-day rule.

In addition, your office waited until the very end of the statutory response period to request this extension. The Borough acknowledged receipt of my request on December 4, 2025. Counsel’s extension letter is dated December 9, 2025. By that point, the Borough had already had the entire statutory response window to evaluate the scope, identify search locations, and begin collection and review. Delaying the extension notice until the last day deprives me of any practical opportunity to discuss and agree on a narrower, targeted, or staged approach while still preserving my statutory right to a timely decision.

To the extent the Borough is suggesting that compliance would substantially disrupt operations, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) requires the custodian to “attempt to reach a reasonable solution with the requestor that accommodates the interests of the requestor and the public agency.” My original request explicitly addressed anti-delay and anti-extension protections, including the principle that delays due to workload, staffing, or ordinary interdepartmental coordination are not valid bases for withholding access under OPRA. A unilateral three-week extension grounded in broad references to “scope,” “outside professionals,” and “holiday-related staffing reductions” does not satisfy the statute’s requirement to work with the requestor to reach a reasonable solution.

For these reasons, I expressly decline to agree to the requested three-week extension. I consider my rights under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) fully preserved, and I do not consent to any waiver of the seven-business-day requirement. To the extent the Borough does not provide access to the requested records, or a lawful written denial citing specific exemptions, by the statutory deadline, I will treat that non-compliance as a denial for purposes of my rights under OPRA and any available administrative or judicial review. For the avoidance of doubt, I will accept records at any time they are produced, but I do not agree that late or staggered production cures non-compliance with the statutory timeframes.

Even if you continue to contend that some additional time is necessary for certain categories of records, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) still requires that records be provided “as soon as possible,” not merely by the end of an extended period. OPRA does not authorize withholding records that are already identified, collected, or readily accessible while the Borough continues searching for additional materials. Accordingly, I request that you immediately produce all responsive records that are presently available and do not require extensive interdepartmental coordination or outside retrieval. At a minimum, this includes any existing electronic resolutions and drafts; engineering correspondence and review letters already received from T&M Associates; DPW reviews, notes, and sign-off documents; connection applications, technical analyses, and supporting documents; fee schedules, escrow ledgers, and payment records; and any emails, memoranda, or other electronic records already maintained within Borough systems. Any records that have already been located or can be retrieved with minimal effort must be produced without further delay, and may not be withheld solely because other offices or outside professionals have not yet completed their searches.

As stated in my original request, all electronic records must be produced in their native formats with associated metadata, including but not limited to MSG/EML/PST for emails, XLSX/CSV for spreadsheets, DOCX and similar text formats, and EXIF-intact image files. Metadata, including creation and modification dates, authors, file paths, and email headers, is part of the government record. Please confirm that your searches and productions will comply with these format and metadata requirements and that records will not be printed, scanned, or otherwise converted in a way that strips metadata when native files are maintained.

Your counsel’s letter acknowledges that responsive materials are held not only by Borough departments but also by outside engineers and professionals. My original request specifically noted that records held by contractors or consultants, including T&M Associates, engineers, attorneys, and other outside professionals, are subject to OPRA and must be retrieved when they are made, maintained, or kept on file in the course of Borough business. Please confirm that your OPRA search includes all such outside professionals and that responsive records they hold on the Borough’s behalf are being collected, reviewed, and produced (or properly redacted with specific cited exemptions) in the same manner as records held internally.

For any records you contend are exempt in whole or in part, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g) and 5(i) require you to (1) identify the specific statutory exemption(s) relied upon for each record or category of record, and (2) produce all reasonably segregable nonexempt portions. In line with my original request, I reiterate my request for a GRC-compliant redaction index identifying each withheld or redacted record, the specific exemption(s) asserted, and a brief description of the record sufficient to understand its nature without revealing the allegedly exempt information. Generalized references to possible privileges or exemptions will not satisfy these statutory requirements.

If you ultimately determine that any specifically described category of records does not exist, or that no responsive records are maintained for a given category, please provide a certification of non-existence consistent with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), identifying the offices, systems, and locations searched so that the completeness of the search can be understood.

Counsel’s letter invites me to “limit the scope” of my request by date range or document type. At this time, I decline to narrow or limit the request. The request already describes discrete, well-defined categories of records tied to a specific resolution (25-12-05), a specific property (156 Washington Avenue, Block 83, Lot 4.02), and clearly identified Borough actions and professional reviews. However, consistent with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), I am open to discussing reasonable, good-faith staging of production (for example, by record type or originating office), provided that such staging begins with records that are already readily accessible and does not delay the prompt release of records that are currently available.

Finally, because the December 9, 2025 correspondence was issued by outside counsel rather than directly by you as Records Custodian, I respectfully request that you confirm in writing that the positions stated in that letter, including the claimed need for a three-week extension, the described search process, and any future determinations about redactions or withholdings are your determinations as custodian and that all actions on this OPRA request are being taken under your authority and in compliance with N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq.

Thank you for your attention to these issues. I look forward to the Borough’s immediate production of all readily available responsive records, prompt rolling production as additional records are collected and reviewed, and full compliance with the timing, access, and justification requirements of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i) and 47:1A-5(g).

Sincerely,

John Certo

Dear Records Custodian Karen Wynne,

This is a records preservation notice issued pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9 and the common law right of access. Please preserve, maintain, and not destroy, delete, alter, overwrite, conceal, or modify any records responsive to this OPRA request, as well as any records responsive to all OPRA requests I have previously submitted to the Borough of Matawan, while each request is pending and until each is fully and finally resolved. This preservation obligation applies immediately upon receipt of this notice.

This duty applies regardless of routine or automated deletion policies, email retention limits, backup overwrites, document management schedules, device replacement, or any other internal records management practice.

This preservation obligation applies Borough-wide and includes records maintained by any department, office, official, employee, contractor, or agent acting for or on behalf of the Borough.

This preservation obligation applies to all formats and locations where responsive records may reasonably be maintained, including emails, attachments, drafts, internal notes or memoranda, logs, tracking records, databases, shared drives, cloud storage, third party systems used by or for the Borough, metadata, and system generated records maintained in the ordinary course of business.

This notice is issued by me solely in my capacity as a private New Jersey resident exercising statutory and constitutional rights under the New Jersey Constitution, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Open Public Records Act, and the common law right of access. No adverse action, retaliation, obstruction, or discriminatory treatment may lawfully result from the exercise of these rights.

If any responsive record is later asserted not to exist, please provide the written certification of non existence required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(g), certifying that a reasonable search was conducted across all systems and departments where responsive records are ordinarily maintained.

This preservation notice does not modify, restart, or toll any statutory response deadlines under OPRA and is issued solely to ensure compliance with existing legal obligations.

This obligation continues through any administrative review or appeal related to these OPRA requests.

Thank you.

John Certo