Filed Complaint with Exhibit

27 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 VIII The Denial of the Application by the Board and the Memorializing Resolution are in Contravention of the MLUL. 137. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 138. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10g requires that “[t]he municipal agency shall include findings of fact and conclusions based thereon in each decision on any application for development and shall reduce the decision to writing.”2 139. The minimal and selective factual findings and legal conclusions of the Board set forth on the record and contained within the Resolution reflected a disregard of the evidence and testimony presented by Plaintiff in support of the Application. 140. The Board completely ignored the testimony presented that the Proposed Development was in line with other mixed-use bulk standards and matched the setbacks of other properties along Main Street. The Board also ignored the testimony that at eye-level, the Proposed Development met the setback requirements to neighboring residential properties. 141. The Board also ignored testimony that all other commercial uses along the Main Street corridor are situated at the property line, the Applicant was meeting the neighborhood scheme with the Proposed Development variance request. 142. To this end, the Resolution explicitly attempts to justify the Board’s decision based on concerns that were directly and adequately addressed by the Applicant at the Hearing. 143. Furthermore, the legal conclusions of the Board set forth on the record and contained within the Resolution are improper as a matter of law and are in direct violation of the 2 See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10g.ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 27 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774