EXHIBIT A West Essex Highlands Inc

In re West Essex Highlands Inc. January 16, 2026 Order Denying Suspension Request Page 8 of 11 WeCare asserts that the “outcome [of the Department’s permitting decision] will be chronic flooding that will impact the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in all five surrounding municipalities.” WeCare’s contention that there will be flooding from the proposed development project is speculative, is not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore does not meet the standard of irreparable harm. WeCare’s consultant’s report also does not allege any “immediate” harm as required by the Crowe standard. Prior to issuing the Permit, the Department reviewed West Essex’s applications and all concerns, including flooding concerns, that were raised by WeCare and its consultant in its public comments. The Department determined from this review that the Permit met all applicable FHA, FWW, and Stormwater rules. Accordingly, WeCare has not demonstrated a threat of immediate, irreparable harm. 2, WeCare has not Demonstrated a Reasonable Likelihood of Success on the Merits. To be entitled to a stay, WeCare must show it has a reasonable probability of success on the merits of its appeal of the permits. In order to succeed on the merits of the appeal challenging a final agency decision, as here, the challenger must make a “a clear showing” that the agency’s action “is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record.” In re Hermann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007); In re Proposed Xanadu Redevelopment Project, 402 N.J. Super. 607, 642 (App. Div. 2008); Worthington v. Fauver, 88 N.J. 183, 204-05 (1982). A decision is considered arbitrary and capricious where there is “no rational basis” or the decision is a “willful and unreasoning action without consideration and in disregard of circumstances.” In re Proposed Xanadu Redevelopment Project, 402 N.J. Super. at 642 (quoting Bayshore Sewer Co. v. Dep’t of Env’t. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973)). A final agency decision is entitled to “substantial deference” and should not be overtumed unless, “(1) it was arbitrary. capricious, or unreasonable; (2) it violated express or implied legislative policies; (3) it offended the State or Federal Constitution;