Filed Complaint with Exhibit

22 111. The Board’s decision must reflect the actual deliberations and specific findings of fact made by it in order to sustain the validity and propriety of same, and such deliberations and findings must be confined to the statutory review powers of the Board. 112. The Board’s denial of the Application and the memorializing Resolution are defective and must not be allowed to stand as valid. 113. The Board’s reasons for denying the Application are based on factors that were not to be considered by the Board. 114. Further, the factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Resolution are unsupported by the evidence presented and the record established, make selective reference to the facts presented during the Hearing, are contrary to law, and erroneous, and confirm the arbitrary and capricious conduct exhibited by the Board in denying the Application. 115. The Board failed to make proper factual findings and legal conclusions in accordance with the MLUL, other statutory provisions, and governing case law. 116. The Board’s actions of denying the Application and adopting the Resolution were arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, otherwise without basis in law or fact, and unsupported and contrary to the Board’s statutory obligations and the lawful rights of Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Declaring that the Board’s denial of the Application was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; B. Declaring that the Resolution memorialized by the Board was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; C. Granting Plaintiff preliminary and final major site plan and conditional use approval and bulk variance relief, which approval shall expressly include theESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 22 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774