Dear Marlboro Township,

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 NJSA 47:1A-6(f), which states that an email from a requestor including all of the information required on the adopted form shall suffice in place of a completed form 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 government records for a commercial purpose.
I AM NOT seeking records in connection with a legal proceeding.

⸻

Summary:

Records and correspondence related to Zoning Board Application Z.B. 21-6758 (masjid variance), including communications about delays and related meeting materials.

⸻

Records Requested:
1. All emails, memos, or letters from Jan 1, 2023–present referring to:
• Application Z.B. 21-6758
• A masjid/mosque/Islamic center variance
• Postponement or cancellation of related hearings
2. Meeting agendas and minutes (draft or final) for Zoning Board meetings on:
• Apr 11, 2023 · Jun 13, 2023 · Dec 12, 2023
• Mar 26, 2024 · May 28, 2024 · Dec 10, 2024
• Mar 11, 2025 · Jun 10, 2025 · Jun 24, 2025
3. Any explanation documents for delays on those dates (e.g. quorum issues, location problems).

My preferred delivery method is email with attachments. Please confirm receipt. If you are not the custodian, please forward to the correct party and provide their contact.

Yours faithfully,
Marl Boro

Dear Marlboro Township Clerk’s Office,

Thank you for your response and for providing access to the meeting agendas and minutes related to Application Z.B. 21-6758.

However, it appears that portions of the request were not fulfilled. Specifically, I requested:
1. All emails, letters, or internal memos referencing postponement or cancellation of hearings related to Z.B. 21-6758, or generally involving a “masjid,” “mosque,” or “Islamic center.”
2. Explanatory documents regarding meeting delays—including quorum issues, scheduling conflicts, or room unavailability—especially for the following dates:

• April 11, 2023
• June 13, 2023
• December 12, 2023
• March 26, 2024
• May 28, 2024
• December 10, 2024
• March 11, 2025
• June 10, 2025
• June 24, 2025

I respectfully request that these remaining items be provided as soon as possible. Please confirm whether they are being reviewed or if a separate response is forthcoming.

Thank you again for your assistance.

Dear Marlboro Township Clerk’s Office,

Good morning, and thank you for confirming the delivery of documents via ShareFile.

After reviewing the contents, I would like to acknowledge receipt of the agendas, minutes, and application materials. However, the response appears to be incomplete based on the original scope of the request.

Specifically, the following items were not included:
1. Internal communications (emails, memos, letters) from January 1, 2023, to present referencing:
• Postponement or cancellation of hearings related to Z.B. 21-6758
• Any reference to a “masjid,” “mosque,” or “Islamic center” within the context of zoning or scheduling
2. Explanatory documents or internal notes regarding delays for the following meetings:
• April 11, 2023
• June 13, 2023
• December 12, 2023
• March 26, 2024
• May 28, 2024
• December 10, 2024
• March 11, 2025
• June 10, 2025
• June 24, 2025

Please confirm whether these items were omitted intentionally, or if they are still being processed.

Thank you again for your time and assistance.

Dear Marlboro Township Clerk’s Office,

Thank you for your response to my OPRA request. I acknowledge receipt of the meeting agendas, minutes, and application documents.

To address the denial regarding internal communications, I am narrowing and clarifying my request in accordance with Elcavage v. West Milford Twp..

I am requesting the following:

1. Emails and internal communications from the following individuals:
– Zoning Board Secretary (or equivalent)
– Township Clerk
– Zoning Board Attorney

Between: January 1, 2023 and July 1, 2025

Subject contains ANY of the following keywords:
– “Z.B. 21-6758”
– “masjid” OR “mosque” OR “Islamic”
– “meeting canceled” OR “no quorum” OR “hearing postponed” OR “reschedule”

2. Regarding the denial of explanatory notes:
I understand certain internal deliberative notes may be exempt. However, if any non-deliberative factual summaries or scheduling memos exist (e.g., statements of cancellation, attendance records, or meeting logistics), I request those as they are not advisory in nature and should not fall under the ACD exemption.

Please confirm receipt of this narrowed request and advise if any additional clarification is required.

Dear Marlboro Township Clerk’s Office,

Thank you for your reply to my request (OPRA-Req-25-0692).

I would like to formally respond to and challenge the blanket denials issued, particularly as they pertain to internal communications and email records.

⸻

1. EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS

Your office cited Elcavage v. West Milford Twp. (GRC 2009-07), noting that requests for email must identify:
• Subject/content
• Date range
• Sender
• Recipient

I respectfully note that my original request did meet these standards, as it included:
• Subject/content: Specific search terms such as “Z.B. 21-6758,” “masjid,” “meeting canceled,” etc.
• Date range: January 1, 2023 – July 1, 2025
• Sender/Recipient: Limited only to three individuals—Zoning Board Secretary, Township Clerk, and Zoning Board Attorney

This is a targeted and narrow request that should not be deemed overly broad or burdensome. Denying it outright contradicts both the Elcavage standard and subsequent GRC opinions which uphold keyword-based email searches across narrow custodian sets as valid.

Regarding the Zoning Board Attorney: I acknowledge attorney-client privilege may apply to some records. However, blanket denial of all email communications—regardless of content or recipients—lacks specificity and violates the requirement that privilege claims be made on a document-by-document basis (see Burnett v. County of Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super. 506 (App. Div. 2010)).

I therefore request that:
• Non-privileged emails responsive to the search terms be released
• A privilege log be provided for any withheld attorney communications

⸻

2. INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS / MEETING LOGISTICS

You cited multiple cases to deny the internal communications portion as “overly broad.” I disagree. Requests for:
• Notifications of cancellation
• Staff coordination over meeting logistics
• Communications referencing attendance or quorum issues

…are clearly identifiable records, particularly if they exist as memoranda, emails, or written notices. These are routinely disclosable and have been upheld as public records when separated from purely advisory or deliberative content.

Further, under Gannett v. Borough of Raritan (GRC Complaint No. 2005-13), factual materials and logistics communications, even when prepared by officials, are not exempt under the ACD rule.

To clarify:
• I am not seeking deliberative opinions or recommendations
• I am requesting non-deliberative factual records, including notices, logistical plans, or communications surrounding rescheduling or capacity concerns

If responsive records exist, they should be provided. If not, a certification of nonexistence per Paff v. City of East Orange is required.

⸻

3. Township Website References

While some attendance and cancellation data may appear in adopted minutes or online calendars, these do not substitute for underlying communications about the cancellations. I respectfully request that your office not use publicly posted summaries to withhold internal source documents.

⸻

Next Steps

Please:
• Reconsider the denial of request #1 and #2 based on this clarification
• Provide the responsive records or a document-by-document basis for exemption
• Otherwise issue a formal denial that includes the specific legal basis for each withheld category

I remain open to refining the request further if needed. Please advise.