EXHIBIT A West Essex Highlands Inc

In re West Essex Highlands Inc. January 16, 2026 Order Denying Suspension Request Page 10 of 11 3. The Equities do not Favor a Stay. For a stay to be appropriate, WeCare would also need to show the “balancing of the equities and hardships favors injunctive relief.” Brown v. City of Paterson, 424 N.J. Super. 176, 183 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Waste Mgmt, of N.J.. Inc. v. Union Cnty. Utils. Auth., 399 N.J. Super. 508, 520 (App. Div. 2008)). In other words, WeCare needs to show the harm that would result by denying a stay outweighs the harm to the public if a stay is issued. Additionally, a stay may be denied, even despite a substantial showing of any other factor, where it would greatly harm the public interest. Waste Mgmt. of N.I., Inc., 399 N.J. Super. at 521. Here, the equities do not favor a stay. Ihave considered WeCare’s flooding concerns which form the basis for their public interest and equitable argument. As previously discussed in the irreparable harm section.above, the weight of the permitting record demonstrates the Department correctly found the project complies with the FHA and Stormwater rules. As these rules directly ameliorate the flooding harms WeCare fears, I find those harms to be speculative and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, cannot be weighed in favor of WeCare. WeCare does not argue the public interest would weigh in its favor of staying the Permit. New Jersey courts take a wide stance on matters that are considered those of significant public importance. See Garden State Equal., 216 N.J. at 329 (the court considering the public interests in a case involving depriving a group of New Jersey residents of their constitutional right to equal protection during the appeals process); see McNeil, 176 N.J. at 484 (the court granting a stay finding the public interest is best served by preventing harm to the voting public and maintaining the status quo); see also Penpac. Inc. v. Morris Cnty. Mun. Utils. Auth., 299 N.J. Super. 288, 293 (App. Div. 1997) (staying order that voided government contract for public bidding requirements), New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Comm’n v. DiVincenzo, 445 N.J. Super. 187, 196-97

In re West Essex Highlands Inc. January 16, 2026 Order Denying Suspension Request Page il of 11 (App. Div. 2016) (finding an issue to be one of significant public importance where it involves the enforcement of an Act and where an agency is faced with opposing legislative directives under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c)). But even if a court were to find the permitting decision involves a matter of significant public importance, the impacts that WeCare alleges would arise by operation of the Permit are merely speculative. Accordingly, I find that the public interest does not weigh in favor of a stay. WeCare has failed to demonstrate that a stay is warranted under the governing standard and to the extent WeCare intended to request a stay in its May 7, 2025 suspension request, that request is denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, | find that WeCare has not demonstrated that a suspension or stay of the Permit is warranted. Accordingly, WeCare’s request for a suspension or stay of the Permit is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2026 ~LaTourette, Commissioner Department of Environmental Protection