Filed Complaint with Exhibit

5 west corner of Main Street and Park Drive North. She testified to the drastic grade change along the Property as it moves to the rear west on Park Drive North, with the grade rising approximately 15 ft. from Main Street to the rear. She testified that there is currently a retaining wall along Main Street which would be eliminated with the Proposed Development to open up the neighborhood commercial portion of the Proposed Development. She also walked the Board through the bulk standards of the B-2 Zone and the Proposed Development. 18. Ms. Klimm also described the overall site development, as well as the proposed traffic and pedestrian flow to and from the Property. She also testified to the floor plans, unit breakdowns and sizes, and exterior building materials. 19. Ms. Klimm testified to the building height, and that although the Proposed Development is technically a 3-story building, from the rear it appears as a 2-story building due to the substantial grade change. 20. Ms. Klimm also testified that the Proposed Development meets all required building and safety codes and would be fully sprinklered and ADA accessible. She also testified to the energy efficient measures included in the Proposed Development. 21. Ms. Klimm also testified that the Proposed Development meets the conditional use requirements as it has a 900 sq. ft. commercial space on the ground level and a separate entrance for the residential component of the Proposed Development. 22. Ms. Klimm testified that the parking would be screened from view of neighboring properties. She also testified that the driveway entrance is located along Park Drive North to prevent vehicle entry onto the busier Main Street, and that the garage doorway is 22 ft. wide to allow vehicles to enter and exit at the same time. 23. Ms. Klimm also responded to questions from the Board that a taller building wouldESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 5 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

6 not necessarily allow for increased parking due to the Property topography, and would then trigger a height variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(6), thereby shifting jurisdiction to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 24. The Board professionals made comments that canopies could be installed rather than black-out windows to screen the parking areas and that as a condition of approval a term be added to the lease clarifying that the “1-bedroom plus den” units could not use the den as a second bedroom. 25. The matter was continued at a Board meeting held on August 7, 2024 with preservation of notice. Benjamin T.F. Wine, Esq. appeared as Plaintiff’s counsel at this hearing. At this meeting, Ms. Klimm was recalled to testify. She testified to a changed façade that better integrates with other historic buildings along Main Street, including bringing the main building entrance on to Main Street with wider sidewalks along with changes to the window sizes, designs and locations. 26. Ms. Klimm responded to questions from the Board regarding the trash room and roof access. Ms. Klimm also responded to questions from the Board professionals regarding trash location and pick up. Ms. Klimm also responded to questions as to whether a green roof was considered. 27. The application was open to public questions of the architect, and Ms. Klimm responded to questions from the public regarding the artistic rendering, the warning lights and sound from the garage door, and the building height. Ms. Klimm also responded to a question from the public regarding the side yard setback to clarify that although at ground level, the setback is only 5 ft., at the upper residential levels which are at level with the neighboring residential properties, the Proposed Development does meet the 10 ft. setback requirement.ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 6 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

7 28. Next the Plaintiff called upon its professional engineer, Aliasgar Rangwala to testify. Plaintiff had Mr. Rangwala sworn in as a licensed engineer and accepted as a professional to present testimony regarding the Proposed Development. 29. Mr. Rangwala testified to the plans he prepared, with revision date May 16, 2024. He testified to the proposed setbacks and coverages for the Proposed Development. He also testified to the improvements in stormwater management proposed, which would result in collecting 95% of all stormwater on the Property which will slowly empty into the sewer system. 30. Mr. Rangwala also testified that due to Property conditions related to the grade, it is impossible to create a fully ADA compliant sidewalk. 31. Mr. Rangwala also testified to proposed site conditions, including the landscaping plans with new trees and shrubs acting as a buffer to neighboring residential properties. 32. Mr. Rangwala also testified to the exterior and interior lighting plan, which complies with the Township’s lighting requirements. 33. Mr. Rangwala also responded to questions from the Board regarding the setbacks as well as the slope of the Property and at the garage exit. He also testified that all of the down spouts will be connected to the underground stormwater system. 34. Mr. Rangwala responded to questions from the Board professionals regarding the stormwater detention system. 35. The hearing was opened for questions from the public, and Mr. Rangwala responded to several questions regarding utility connections, stormwater management, the landscaping plan, and sidewalk replacement. 36. The Application was then carried to the September 4, 2024 meeting with preservation of notice.ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 7 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

8 37. At the September Hearing, the Applicant recalled its Architect, and this time testimony was given by Yogesh Mistry of Mistry Design. 38. Mr. Mistry was sworn in and accepted as a licensed architect. 39. Mr. Mistry testified to plan updates, specifically the addition of a green roof element that had been requested by the Board, totaling 1,600 sq. ft. of green infrastructure. Mr. Mistry also testified to the relocation of the trash room and lobby area, in response to prior comments from Board planner Mr. Haizel, shifting the trash area more interior to the building. 40. Mr. Mistry also testified that with the proposed changes, one unit would be changed from a “1-bedroom plus den” to a 1-bedroom. He also testified to the inclusion of an ADA bathroom in the commercial unit, in response to a prior comment from the Board. 41. Mr. Mistry also testified to changes in the exterior lighting, including warning lights near the entrance of the parking garage. 42. Mr. Mistry also testified that the design layout change allowed for the addition of a 14th parking space in the garage.1 43. Mr. Mistry responded to questions from the Board and the public related to the plan revisions. 44. Plaintiff next offered Harold Maltz, who was sworn in and accepted as an expert in the field of traffic engineering. 45. Mr. Maltz testified to the trip generation analysis and site parking analysis prepared by his firm. 46. Mr. Maltz testified that Park Drive North is a one-way traffic street where traffic is not permitted on the left side (the Property side) of the street. He also testified that Main Street 1 In the initial iteration of the Application, only 13 parking spaces were provided.ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 8 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

9 measures 46 ft. wide with two-way traffic and a 25mph speed limit. There is no parking permitted on the streets in the early morning hours (2am-5am). 47. Mr. Maltz testified that bus stops exist in front of the Property along Main Street and immediately across Main Street, and that the Property is in a prime corridor for transit- oriented development. 48. Mr. Maltz testified to the trip generation analysis he prepared. Mr. Maltz testified that under Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) standards, 12 residential units would produce 5 peak hour morning trips (4 out trips and 1 in trip) and in the evening hours it would generate 6 peak hour trips. He also testified that for the commercial unit, he calculated separately for office use and retail as it is currently undecided. For both retail and office, there are 2 trips calculated in morning peak hours while the retail (higher) generates 6 evening peak hour trips. Mr. Maltz testified this gives a total of 7 morning peak hour trip and 12 evening peak hour trips for the Proposed Development. This is an average of 1 trip every 5-9 minutes during peak travel hours, and less during off-peak times. 49. Mr. Maltz testified that the calculated trip generation is deemed inconsequential for any impact on Main Street or Park Drive traffic. 50. Mr. Maltz also testified to the parking study. He testified there are 14 proposed spaces for 12 residential units and 1 commercial space. Pursuant to the State of New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards (“RSIS”) and Township standards, the Proposed Development would require 27 parking spaces, and taking the EV credit that results in 25 parking spaces required, or a deficiency of 11 parking spaces. 51. Mr. Maltz testified that RSIS standards state the number of parking spaces required based upon the number and size of units, as well as the availability of on-street parking andESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 9 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

10 access to mass transit options. Mr. Maltz testified that the Proposed Development is in close proximity to multiple bus stops. The New Jersey Transit Publication Planning for Transit Friendly Land identifies parking reductions for residential and commercial developments within a ¼ mile of public transit, resulting in a 10% reduction in demand for parking. Taking the 10% reduction from the Proposed Development results in real parking demand of only 22 spaces, meaning the actual parking deficiency is only 8 spaces. 52. Mr. Maltz further testified that there is a municipal lot to the North off Main Street, the Plaintiff would work with the Township to obtain permits for any added parking needed. 53. Mr. Maltz also testified that the bus stop on Main Street is not property painted and extends 32 ft. past the required distance, and that correcting this issue would create increased on- street parking. 54. Mr. Maltz responded to questions from the Board regarding RSIS standards and his methodology of preparing the traffic and parking analysis reports. He also responded to questions regarding a possible lease of parking space from Bethany Church, right across from the Property on Main Street. Mr. Maltz also testified that he has no concerns with the proximity of the garage entrance to the intersection of Park Drive and Main Street. 55. Mr. Maltz responded to questions from the Board professionals regarding general parking availability on Main Street and Park Drive. Mr. Maltz was also asked if it would be better to have the garage entrance on Main Street, to which the Applicant clarified that in conversations with Essex County, a curb cut would not be permitted along Main Street. 56. Mr. Maltz also responded to questions from the public regarding on-street parking and local traffic congestion. Mr. Maltz also testified that the Proposed Development is deemed a low trip generator by ITE standards and would have a negligible impact on local parking andESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 10 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

11 traffic. 57. The Application was carried to the November 6, 2024 meeting with preservation of notice. At the hearing the Applicant reviewed all plan changes to date based upon comments from the Board and its professionals. The Applicant called upon Mallory Clark, professional planner, to testify. Ms. Clark was sworn in and accepted as an expert in professional planning. 58. Ms. Clark testified that the Proposed Development is in the B-2 Zone where mixed- use developments are a permitted conditional use. Ms. Clark testified that the required conditions for a mixed-use development are: (1) the ground floor must contain a permitted commercial use; (2) dwelling units are permitted above the ground floor; (3) access to the upper floor residential units must be separate from access to the commercial space; and (4) the lot size must exceed 5,000 sq. ft. with 50 ft. of lot frontage. Ms. Clark confirmed on the record that the Proposed Development met all of these conditions. 59. Ms. Clark testified that the general permitted uses in the B-2 Zone are more traditional commercial uses that require a substantial amount of surface parking to serve the use. The Proposed Development does not propose high traffic commercial space and therefore has a lesser need for parking than the other contemplated permitted uses. She testified that the B-2 standards do not align with the goals of the Master Plan as it relates to the conditional uses in the B-2 Zone, and that the Proposed Development is in line with the goals of the Master Plan. 60. Ms. Clark also testified that due to the irregular shape of the Property, its drastic grade change, and its siting on a corner; in order to comply with all of the bulk requirements of the B-2 Zone, any application would be limited to a 3,000 sq. ft. building footprint with 8,000 sq. ft. of open area, which does not align with modern development standards for mixed-use development.ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 11 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

12 61. Ms. Clark compared the Property to development standards for mixed-use development within the Township’s Downtown Redevelopment Plan (the “DRP”) Edison Mixed Use Residential Zone (“E-MR Zone”) standards. She testified that in the E-MR Zone, which also contemplates mixed-use development along main thoroughfares, the DRP provides for 0 ft. front yard and 3 ft. side yard setbacks. Combined with the coverage requirements, development pursuant to those standards would allow for a 7,100 sq. ft. building footprint on the subject Property. 62. Ms. Clark also testified regarding the Central Valley Corridor Redevelopment Plan (the “CVCRP”), which requires a 7 ft. front yard setback, 10 ft. rear yard setback, and 4 ft. side yard setbacks. Ms. Clark testified that applying those standards to the subject Property would result in an 8,300 sq. ft. building footprint. 63. Ms. Clark utilized the DRP and the CVCRP as examples of the two other districts in the Township where mixed-use development is contemplated. 64. Ms. Clark also testified regarding the story variance, and that although the B-2 Zone limits development to 2.5 stories, the Proposed Development presents as three stories along Main Street where there are other three- (3) story developments, but along Park Drive North, where the properties are residential, it presents as 2.5 stories due to the significant grade change. 65. Ms. Clark testified to the side yard setback variance sought, stating that although 10 ft. is required and the Proposed Development is providing 5.22 ft. at ground level, the upper floors provide the full 10 ft., and the ground floor is screened by dense landscaping. In addition, Ms. Clark testified that while the required font yard setbacks are 25/30 ft., the Proposed Development is contemplated at 5 ft. which is more in line with expected setbacks for mixed- use development, especially along Main Street. Ms. Clark testified that the ProposedESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 12 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

13 Development is still consistent with median setbacks in the area and the Township is better served connecting the Proposed Development to the streetscape rather than having an incongruous setback. 66. Ms. Clark also testified regarding the parking variance, that 25 spaces are required and 14 are proposed. She testified that this deficit has been addressed through a co-parking agreement with Bethany Church across the street and the availability of permits in the municipal lot, which Plaintiff would venture to secure for the occupants of the Proposed Development as needed. Ms. Clark further testified that the Township Ordinance allows for off-site parking within 250 ft. of the subject property, with which the Proposed Development complies. 67. Ms. Clark testified to some of the benefits associated with the Proposed Development, including the improved stormwater detention system, green roof system, and improvement of a vacant lot with attractive development, and improvements to the sidewalk and crosswalk. Ms. Clark also testified that the Proposed Development meets objectives 9, 11, and 13 of the Township’s Master Plan. 68. Ms. Clark testified that pursuant to the c(2) balancing test, an applicant must show that the benefits associated with the Proposed Development substantially outweigh the detriments, if any. Ms. Clark testified that she believes the Proposed Development meets that test. 69. Ms. Clark responded to questions from the Board regarding the ground floor setbacks, stating that in a perfect world the Proposed Development would comply at the ground floor, but the proposed footprint allows for more parking and better circulation which in her opinion was a better benefit, especially given the Board’s and the public’s focus on trying to achieve parking compliance. Ms. Clark also responded to questions regarding the impact toESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 13 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

14 stormwater runoff with the implementation of a green roof. 70. Ms. Clark also responded to questions from the public, testifying that the Proposed Development does allow for “light, air and open space” to occupants and neighbors. Ms. Clark also testified in response to a question from a member of the public that the Proposed Development is density-compliant. 71. The public hearing was then adjourned to the December 4, 2024 date with preservation of notice. At the December 4, 2024 hearing, Ms. Clark testified again to the public benefits associated with the Proposed Development, specifically the improvements in stormwater, green roof, beautification of the property, and bringing the corner of the Main Street corridor more in line with other uses. She also testified to the safety improvements for pedestrians proposed related to the garage and crossing Main Street; specifically, that the Applicant reached out to Essex County and were advised that the addition of a crosswalk across Main Street would be a welcome addition irrespective of the subject Application in order to connect pedestrians to the bus stops on both sides of Main Street. 72. Ms. Clark again answered questions from the Board and public, primarily related to parking and the use of Bethany Church and municipal lot for additional parking. 73. The Application was opened for public comment, where several members of the public voiced their concerns and some in support of the Proposed Development. 74. The Hearing was then adjourned to December 11, 2024 with preservation of notice. 75. At the December 11, 2024 hearing, Mr. Wine delivered a closing argument. The Board then entered into deliberation and a vote, whereby a motion to deny the Application was made and succeeded with a vote of 6-3. IV. The ResolutionESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 14 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774