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

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