Filed Complaint with Exhibit

25 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 the right of Plaintiff to develop the Property with a three (3) story, mixed-use building with 12 residential units and approximately 900 sq.ft. of commercial space; and D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem equitable and just, including attorney’s fees and costs of suit. COUNT VII In Denying the Application, the Board Improperly Rejected the Testimony and Proofs Presented in Support of the Application. 127. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 128. As set forth above and in the record, Plaintiff presented factual, lay, and expert testimony establishing that the Application, including bulk variances, could be granted in accordance with the requirements of the MLUL. 129. The record established is devoid of credible evidence or testimony that contradicts the evidence and testimony presented by Plaintiff’s witnesses and the Board’s own professional staff. 130. In reviewing the Application, the Board’s professionals did not raise any significant issues that might support a denial. 131. While the Board may appropriately weigh or reject expert testimony, it may not doESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 25 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774