Filed Complaint with Exhibit

17 ordinance” and will help “enliven this strip” and “calm the [zooming] a bit.” These are all statements in favor of Plaintiff’s Application. 84. The minimal findings set forth within the Resolution are wholly inconsistent with the evidence and testimony presented by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s professionals. Further, they are not supported by the evidence in the record. COUNT I The Board’s Denial of the Application was Arbitrary, Capricious and Unreasonable. 85. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 86. The request for bulk variance relief was justified because the evidence demonstrated that the Property could sufficiently accommodate a mixed-use development while being essentially compliant with the bulk requirements set forth in comparable zones. 87. Plaintiff presented credible testimony by a professional planner that the Proposed Development would meet the positive and negative criteria for variances requested. 88. The Board’s own planner indicated that the attempt to provide additional parking on-site is what was driving the majority of the variance requests; something the Board expressly desired. 89. However, the Board did not provide any factual findings or legal conclusions in support of its outright disregard for the proofs presented by Plaintiff. 90. There is simply no credible evidence in the record to contradict Plaintiff’s satisfaction of the statutory criteria for the relief requested. 91. The individual actions, as well as the totality of the actions, of the Board in denying the Application, failed to account for the weight of the evidence and proofs established byESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 17 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774