EXHIBIT A West Essex Highlands Inc

In re West Essex Highlands Inc. January 16, 2026 Order Denying Suspension Request Page 6 of 11 allegations are beyond the scope of my review. An agency is granted great deference in its interpretation and implementation of its rules, In re Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules, 180 N.J. 478, 489 (2004), because “agencies have the specialized expertise necessary to enact regulations dealing with technical matters and are ‘particularly well equipped to read . . . and to evaluate the factual and technical issues that . . . rulemaking would invite.’” Id. (quoting N.J. State League of Muns. v. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, 158 N.J. 211, 222 (1999) (quoting Bergen Pines Cty. Hosp. y. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 96 N.J. 456, 474 (1984))). Accordingly, the Department relied on regulatory requirements, BMP guidance, and agency expertise to evaluate these highly technical issues regarding its permitting decision for West Essex. No evidence has been presented that the Permit was based on false or inaccurate information. Suspension of this Permit is not needed to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the environment. J find that WeCare has not provided good cause for the Department to suspend the Permit pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:13-22.7. B. Stay of the Permit While WeCare does not expressly request a stay of the Permit, in its third-party hearing request, WeCare requested a stay to which the Department responded that “[a]s this hearing request is denied, should Petitioner further appeal this matter and still desire a stay, Petitioner may re- submit a stay request to the Department pursuant to Rule 2:9-7." Petitioner subsequently challenged the Permit in the Appellate Division. Therefore, for completeness, I herein assess this suspension request as a potential stay request. Rule 2:9-7 requires that a motion for a stay of an administrative agency decision be “made in the first instance to the agency whose order is appealed from and, if denied, to the Appellate