EXHIBIT A West Essex Highlands Inc

In re West Essex Highlands Inc. January 16, 2026 Order Denying Suspension Request Page 7 of i1 Division.” The Department’s FHA rule at N.J.A.C. 7:13-23.3(b), which authorizes the Permit, directs that the Department shall “stay operation of the permit or authorization only if it determines that good cause to do so exists.” Similarly, the FWW rules, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:7A-21.3(b), mivror the FHA rules. The courts have ruled that an application for a stay of a permit pending appeal is governed by the standard set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). Under Crowe, the party requesting a stay must show that (1) the threatened harm is irreparable if the relief is not granted; (2) it has a reasonable probability of success on the merits; and (3) the balance the “relative hardships to the parties reveals that greater harm would occur if a stay is not granted than if it were.” Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 216 N.J. 314, 320 (2013) (quoting McNeil v, Legis. Apportionment Comm’n, 176 N.J. 484 (2003)). The stay petitioner carries the burden of proving that each of these factors are met by clear and convincing evidence. Garden State Equal., 216 N.J. at 320. Here, WeCare does not meet the Crowe factors. For the following reasons, the request for a stay is denied. 1. WeCare has not Demonstrated Irreparable Harm. A stay may be granted only when necessary to prevent immediate, irreparable harm demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. Garden State Equal., 216 N.J. at 320; Crowe, 90 NJ. at 132. In addition, “where governmental action is involved, courts should not intervene unless the need for equitable relief is clear, not remote or speculative.” In re Resolution of State Comm'n of Investigation, 108 N_J. 35, 46 (1987) (quoting Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 33 U.S. 426, 431 (1948)). Upon considering the submissions by WeCare and West Essex, as well as the Department’s permitting record, I find no irreparable harm would result from the Permit.