Town CrierWest Orange, New Jersey
← Back to search

Supporting Documentation · Mar 12, 2025

Filed Complaint with Exhibit

Preserved file SHA-25678b097184f918ae04432dd39495b5caf856b621333f190f53fe0a4409822fadd

Indexed text · page 32

Show all pages
Page 32

16 circulation. 80. The Resolution also states: “Board members did not find Applicant’s traffic expert to be credible.” This is being offered without the Board having heard from an objecting traffic engineer or there being any testimony on record in opposition to Mr. Maltz’s testimony. The Board is free to disagree with an expert, but “must do so in reliance on contrary expert testimony rather than “bare allegations or unsubstantiated beliefs.” See N.Y. SMSA, at 338 (citing Cell S. of N.J., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., W. Windsor, 172 N.J. 75, 87 (2002)). 81. The Resolution also states: “Applicant fails to establish the c(2) criteria has been met as the detriments of the project substantially outweigh the benefits due to lack of required parking, lot coverage, and setbacks which do not allow for sufficient light, air and open space.” Again, Plaintiff contends this is a misapplication of the standard. At no point did the Board hear from an objecting planner to counter Ms. Clark’s planning testimony, and even when the Board’s planner suggested he had concerns about the size of the Proposed Development, there was no testimony regarding the planning proofs. Moreover, the Applicant addressed every one of the Board’s voiced concerns – a fact appreciated by several Board members on record during deliberation – over the course of the six Hearing dates and multiple plan revisions. 82. The Resolution is bare of details to counter Plaintiff’s expert testimony, and that is for good reason, as there was no such testimony. Reviewing the six public hearings, the opposition primarily came from the public who voiced concerns about traffic and safety issues along Main Street, neither of which would be impacted by this Proposed Development, and which were expressly addressed by the Applicant’s experts. 83. The Resolution further fails to address the fact that the Board’s planner testified that he thinks “this is a good use for the site and…it’s in keeping with the master plans andESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 16 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

File revisions (1)