Ltr to Chairman Neuer and ZBA Members w EXHIBITS FOR LTR REQUESTING 2 BD MEMBERS REQUSAL 2 10 25 PSEG 325 MT PLEASANT WO

CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC 105 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068 csglaw.com JENNIFER M. PORTER Member jporter@csglaw.com O 973.530.2071 F 973.325.1501 February 10, 2025 VIA FEDEX & EMAIL (pdn@neuerlaw.com) Chairman Neuer & Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Township of West Orange 66 Main Street West Orange, NJ 07052 Re: PSE&G/325 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, West Orange, Application No. ZB-24-06 Request for Recusal of Zoning Board Member Daniel and Alternate Dubovy Dear Chairman Neuer & Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment: As the Board is aware, we represent Public Service Electric and Gas Company (“PSE&G”) in connection with its application for preliminary and final major site plan approval with variance relief for property located at 325 Mount Pleasant Avenue (the “Property”) that is presently developed with PSE&G’s West Orange Switching Station (the “Application”). We are writing this letter to request that two (2) of the recently appointed members of the West Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment (the “ZBA”) recuse themselves from participating on the Application due to conflicts of interest for the reasons detailed below. I. Member - Robert Daniel PSE&G respectfully requests that Member Robert Daniel recuse himself from hearing and participating on the Application if he is in fact the individual listed below that resides within 200 feet of the Property, which is the subject of PSE&G’s application. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of PSE&G’s 200-foot certified property owner list obtained from the Township’s Tax Assessor’s Office. Page 6 of the list contains the following name: Daniel, Robert & Beth, 2B Buckingham Rd., West Orange, NJ 07052 ZBA model rule 2:10-2(a)(1) states “any member of the Board of Adjustment shall disqualify himself from sitting on the hearing of any matter in which he has a disqualifying interest, such as, but not limited to, the following situations…where he owns property located within 200 feet of the property affected by the action.” The Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-12b) (the “MLUL”) requires notice to be given to all property owners located in the state within 200 feet in all directions of the property which is the subject of the hearing. This demonstrates the legislature’s determination that property owners within 200 feet of the property to be affected by a zoning board proceeding NEW

he property which is the subject of the hearing. This demonstrates the legislature’s determination that property owners within 200 feet of the property to be affected by a zoning board proceeding NEW JERSEY NEW YORK 4896-9548-7511.v2

Chairman Neuer & Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment February 10, 2025 Page 2 have an “interest” in the matter. Therefore, a board member who owns property within 200 feet of the subject property is disqualified and may not sit with the board. 1 The caselaw is well-settled on this issue. Dating back to 1960, the Court in McNamara v Saddle River Borough held that the “interest” in a subject property due to property ownership within 200 feet is a disqualifying interest for a board member. 2 The Court stated that the legislature’s declaration of a notice to “owners of any property within 200 feet of a property to be affected by an appeal to a board of adjustment… is tantamount to a declaration of interest in the zoning treatment of a particular property on the part of those living within 200 feet.” 3 Nearly forty years later, in 1998, the court in Care of Tenafly v Tenafly Board of Adjustment went as far as to hold that a zoning board member whose mother owned property within 200 feet of the subject property was required to be disqualified. 4 In Care of Tenafly, the Appellate Division cites the Local Government Ethics Law, which states that: No government official or employee shall act in his official capacity in any matter where he, or a member of his immediate family, or a business organization which he has an interest, has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity of or independence of judgement. 5 In Catalpa Inv. Grp., Inc. v Franklin Twp. of Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, the Court further established that applicants are permitted discovery with respect to whether board members “own an interest in real estate within 200 feet of the [applicant’s] property” to determine whether there is a disqualifying interest. 6 In light of the factual and legal rationale cited above, we request that an inquiry be made as to whether Mr. Daniel lives within 200’ of the Property and, if so, that Mr. Daniel recuse himself for a disqualifying interest in PSE&G’s application. II. Alternate - Todd Dubovy PSE&G also respectfully requests that Alternate Board Member Todd Dubovy recuse himself from hearing and participating on the Application due to a conflict of interest by virtue of his position as a board member of Our Green West Orange. This request is made due to posts that were made by such

earing and participating on the Application due to a conflict of interest by virtue of his position as a board member of Our Green West Orange. This request is made due to posts that were made by such organization demonstrating opposition towards PSE&G and the Application. Attached as Exhibit B is information obtained from Our Green West Orange’s website as well as several posts that were made regarding the Application. The first document contained in Exhibit B lists Mr. Dubovy as a board member of Our Green West Orange. The second document enclosed as part of Exhibit 1 See Cox & Koenig, New Jersey Zoning & Land Use Administration 5-1.2(a) (pg. 60) (2024). 2 McNamara v Borough of Saddle River, 64 N.J. Super. 426, 430 (App Div. 1960). 3 Id. 4 Care of Tenafly, Inc. v Tenafly Bd. of Adjustment, 307 N.J., Super. 362, 371-373 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 609 (1998). 5 Id. (quoting N.J.S.A 40A:9-22.5d; see also Catalpa Inv. Grp., Inc. v Franklin Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 254 N.J. Super. 270, 275 (Law Div. 1991). 6 Cf. Catalpa Inv. Group v Franklin Tp., 254 N.J. Super. 270, 275 (Law Div. 1991). 4896-9548-7511.v2

Chairman Neuer & Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment February 10, 2025 Page 3 B is a Facebook post dated September 12, 2024, as shown below, which seeks donations for Our Green West Orange’s annual campaign and states, “Can always use some donations to pay for the expert we hired to challenge the cutting of 167 trees at PSE&G on Prospect and Mt. Pleasant.” The third document contained in Exhibit B is an Our Green West Orange blog post from September 27, 2024, which contains information (some of which is inaccurate) on the Application and the hearing held on September 19th, 2024 and encourages individuals to “please tell the Zoning Board and PSEG they must retain all trees along the fence, those in the proposed detention basins, and the specimen trees being cut for no good reason at all.” (emphasis added). The fourth document contained in Exhibit B, as shown below, is an Our Green West Orange facebook post dated October 16, 2024 commenting on the trees to be rmeoved and encouraging individuals to come and speak out regarding the application. These documents clearly establish that Mr. Dubovy is a board member of an organization that is directly interested in, and financially supportive of, the objector case that is currently being presented in opposition to PSE&G’s application. Several cases on this issue demonstrate that Mr. 4896-9548-7511.v2

Chairman Neuer & Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment February 10, 2025 Page 4 Dubovy has a personal disqualifying interest and therefore, must recuse himself from hearing and participating on the Application. In Grabowsky v Twp. of Montclair, the Court held, “By virtue of his or her responsibility for the organization's governance, an official who holds, or who will imminently hold, a position of substantive leadership in an organization reasonably is understood to share its interest in the outcome of a zoning dispute.” 7 Thus, the Court further stated, “If the organization has an interest in a zoning application, such an official has a disqualifying indirect personal interest and should refrain from deliberating and voting on the zoning application.” 8 The Court specifically noted, “In the rare circumstance in which public responsibilities and volunteer commitments conflict in a land use dispute, there is a simple solution: the public official should refrain from involvement in the matter.” 9 In Wyzykowski v. Rizas, the Court described the various types of direct and indirect conflicts of interest that can occur and noted that an “Indirect personal interest” exists “when an official votes on a matter in which an individual's judgment may be affected because of membership in some organization and a desire to help that organization further its policies.” 10 Of great importance to the issue before the Board is the Court’s recent decision in Diamond Chip Realty, LLC v Twp. of Sparta Planning Bd. where the court disqualified eight of the nine planning board members for being a part of an organization (Sparta Responsible Development) that actively opposed DCR’s application. In that case, the Court quoted Klug v Bridgewater Twp. Planning Bd. and stated: The question when considering whether a conflict of interest exists under the Local Government Ethics Law will always be whether the circumstances could reasonably be interpreted to show that they had the likely capacity to tempt the official to depart from his sworn public duty; therefore, proof of actual dishonesty is unnecessary. In Diamond Chip the Court determined that the planning board members’ involvement in an organization opposing an applicant before them clearly tempted the board members from upholding their sworn public duty. The court, citing Klug 11, determined that not only is there a clear

ment in an organization opposing an applicant before them clearly tempted the board members from upholding their sworn public duty. The court, citing Klug 11, determined that not only is there a clear conflict of interest, but that “it is virtually impossible to separate their organizational membership goals in SRD, and the impartiality necessary to render a fair determination on a site plan approval. (emphasis added). Notably, the Court held that the interest does not have to actually influence the board members, “only that the interest creates a conflict.” 12 In light of the documentation and caselaw cited above, we believe that Mr. Dubovy has a disqualifying personal interest and therefore, should recuse himself from hearing and participating on the Application. 7 Grabowsky v. Twp. of Montclair, 221 N.J. 536, 561 (2015). 8 Id. 9 Id. at 562. 10 Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509, 525–26 (1993) 11 Klug v Bridgewater Twp. Planning Bd., 407 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div 2009). 12 See Meyer v. MW Red Bank, LLC, 401 N.J. Super. 482, 492 (App. Div. 2008) 4896-9548-7511.v2

Chairman Neuer & Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment February 10, 2025 Page 5 Lastly, while we do not have direct knowledge as to whether any other Board members are members of Our Green West Orange or have potential conflicts of interest, we believe that the information above and attached necessitates the Board’s inquiry and attention. We are happy to provide copies of the cases cited herein if the Board would like them and we will be available to discuss this further at the upcoming Board meeting, if necessary. We appreciate the Board’s attention to this matter and look forward to continuing the discussion of PSE&G’s application at the February 20, 2025 meeting. Very truly yours, Jennifer M. Porter Jennifer M. Porter Member JMP:tb cc: Diana Chandler, ZBA Secretary/via email Enclosures 4896-9548-7511.v2

EXHIBIT A

created on 7/30/2024 Buffer Report T H E T O WN S H I P O F WE S T O R A N G E Office of the Assessor 66 Main Street West Orange, New Jersey 07052 Telephone: (973) 325-4060 Facsimile: (973) 669-4859 Highlighted feature(s) Parcel Limits (1) Municipality Block Lot Qualifier Parcel Address West Orange 155 Township 26.01 325 MT. PLEASANT AVENUE Owner Name P.S. ELECTRIC & GAS CO.T24A TAX DEP Owner Street Owner Owner CityState Zip 150 CIRCLE CLIFTON, 07011 AVENUE NJ Property Mailing 325 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, West Orange, NJ, 07052 § List of adjoining feature(s) that intersect 200 foot buffer from Parcel Limits. Adjoining Properties (80) Municipality Block Lot Qualifier Parcel Address Owner Name Owner Street Owner CityState Owner Zip SPOKANE, WA 99210 West Orange 82.03 27 Township 510-520 PROSPECT AVE. BREA WO EMERITUS,LLC%ECOVA PO BOX 2447 3349 West Orange 83 Township 5.01 303 MT. PLEASANT AVENUE GBSJ PROPERTIES LLC West Orange 83 Township 13 504 PROSPECT ALBURQUEQUE, AVENUE NICHOLAS 504 PROSPECT WEST ORANGE, 07052 AVENUE NJ West Orange 83 Township 15 502 PROSPECT ALBURQUEQUE, AVENUE NICHOLAS 504 PROSPECT WEST ORANGE, 07052 AVENUE NJ West Orange 83 Township 19 500 PROSPECT 500 PROSPECT AVENUE AVENUE, LLC. 22 WITTE PLACE West Orange 84.01 37 Township 8 MARCELLA AVENUE West Orange 84.01 45 Township 492 PROSPECT SONRIA REALTY LLC, AVENUE 3 LINCOLN PARK, BUCKINGHAM NJ 07035 RD MAIN STREET 8 MARCELLA COUNSELING SERVICE AVENUE 1 675 MORRIS AVENUE #201 WEST ORANGE, 07052 NJ WEST ORANGE, 07052 N.J. SPRINGFIELD, NJ 07081 Property Mailing 510-520 Prospect Ave., West Orange, NJ, 07052 303 Mt. Pleasant Avenue, West Orange, NJ, 07052 504 Prospect Avenue, West Orange, NJ, 07052 502 Prospect Avenue, West Orange, NJ, 07052 500 Prospect Avenue, West Orange, NJ, 07052 8 Marcella Avenue, West Orange, NJ, 07052 492 Prospect Avenue, West Orange, NJ, 07052 Developed by Civil Solutions, using myiDV