MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 6:34:17 PM Pg 1 of 87 Trans ID:
CARLUCCIO, LEONE, DIMON, DOYLE & SACKS, LLC.
John Paul Doyle Esq. ID No.: 241981967
‘9 Robbins Street
Toms River, New Jersey 08753
732-797-1600 / 732-506-6340
Attomey for Plaintiffs
GASIOROWSKI & HOLOBINKO
RS. Gasiorowski, Esq. ID#244421968
54 Broad Street
Red Bank, New Jersey 0701
732-212-9930 / 732-212-9980
Attomey for Plaintfis
Lcv201914189035
STAVOLA ASPHALT COMPANY, INC. : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
and STAVOLA LEASING, LLC : MONMOUTH COUNTY
LAW DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
DOCKET NO.: MON-L-
TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL ZONING Civil Action
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; I
GREENWAY LLC; Il GREENWAY é
LLC; L & L PAVING COMPANY, INC.
alk/a L & L PAVING CO. COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF
PREROGATIVE WRITS
Defendants,
Plaintiffs Stavola Asphalt Company, Inc. with principle offices located at 175 Drift
Road, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 and Stavola Leasing, LLC, with principle offices located at
620 Tinton Avenue, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 by way of Complaint against Defendants, say:MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 2 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
ALLEGATIONS AND STATEMENTS
OF FACT COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1, The Plaintiffs Stavola Asphalt Company, Inc. with principle offices located
at 175 Drift Road, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 and Stavola Leasing, LLC. With prineiple
offices located at 620 Tinton Avenue, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 (hereinafter “Stavola”) are
both corporations of the State of New Jersey and owners of properties located in the
‘Township of Howell. Stavola Asphalt Companies’ properties are situated within 200 feet
of property which was the subject of a development application by Defendant, L&L
Paving Company, Inc. Plaintiff Stavola Leasing, Inc. appeared at the hearings in
connection with the application challenged herein as well as related planning and zoning,
board hearings related to the same Applicant and use.
2. Defendant Township of Howell Zoning Board of Adjustment (hereinafter
“Board”) is a duly constituted zoning board pursuant to the terms of NJLS.A. 40:55D-1 et
seq, being the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).
3. Defendants I Greenway LLC and Il Greenway LLC are the owners of
property located at 89 Yellowbrook Road, and known as Block 177, Lot 62.01 as shown
‘on the Tax Map of the Township of Howell, which properly is in the SED Zone,
Defendant L & L Paving Company, Inc. with offices located at 89 Yellowbrook Road,
Howell Township (hereinafter “Defendants or Applicant”) made application to the
Defendant Board in February 2018 for use variances pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(4)
(1) & (€)(6); bulk variances and for preliminary and final site plan approval with design
waivers to use this described property for the purpose of manufacturing asphalt andMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 3 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
‘storing it in six silos each to be 90 feet high where structures in that zone are limited to 45
feet in height by ordinance.
4. On May 18, 2017, the Howell Township Planning Board amended the
Howell Township Master Plan and its Land Use Element by vote determining that the use
of asphalt manufacturing should be specifically prohibited in the SED Zone.
5. OnJuly 18, 2017, the Howell Township governing body did unanimously
approve and adopt Ordinance 0-17-21 that expressly prohibited the manufacturing of
asphalt in the zone where Applicant's property is located and at subsection (5)(c ) of the
Ordinance adopted the language that “(c) manufacturing of asphalt and concrete shall be
prohibited.”
6. Pursuant to the Tax Maps of the Township of Howell the Subject Property
is approximately 30.38 acres, located on the west side of Yellowbrook Road, which is a
local two lane paved road 22 feet wide, intersected by Cranberry Road The property is
triangular in shape with a frontage of approximately 1,831 ft. along Yellowbrook Road.
‘North of the site there is residential property. There are a mixture of commercial and
residential uses including single family homes along Yellowbrook Road and Cranberry
Road as well as a gated active adult residential community.
7. Asphalt or bituminous asphalt concrete is not a concrete product. An asphalt
‘manufacturing plant is a distinct, separate and more intensive process and use than a
concrete plant creating molded conerete products such as pipe and block. The previous
use of the site as a manufacturing plant creating molded concrete product was abandoned
in 2014,MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 4 of 87 Trans ID: LCV2019141893
8. Since 1963 and until the present time, the Township of Howell prohibited the
use proposed by this application for asphalt manufacturing. It is undisputed that asphalt
manufacturing has never occurred on the Applicant's site
9, In March 2017, Defendant filed an application before the Howell Township
Planning Board seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct an
asphalt manufacturing facility. During its pendency, an application seeking an
interpretation of the zoning ordinance was filed pursuant to NJ.S.A. 40:55-70(b) with the
Zoning Board by Stavola Leasing LLC. The Stavola challenge questioned whether an
asphalt manufacturing facility was a permitted use vesting jurisdiction with the
‘Township's Planning Board or more properly should be before the Zoning Board as a
prohibited use seeking a (d)(1) use variance.
10. The Zoning Board conducted several hearings, hearing expert testimony from
both parties, between November and December 2017, regarding the interpretation of the
zoning ordinance. It determined by Resolution 18-01, dated January 22, 2018 that asphalt
‘manufacturing had not been a permitted use since 1963. Therefore, the application filed
by L&L in March 2017, was for a non-permitted use in the Special Economic (SED) Zone
requiring an application to the Zoning Board for a use variance. During the course of the
interpretation hearings, it was noted by the Zoning Board that the determination was not
based upon the Township Committee's adoption of Ordinance 0-17-21 in July 2017, but
rather upon preceding zoning ordinances.
11. The Zoning Board determined that “..the manufacturing of conerete in a
concrete plant or the manufacturing of asphalt in an asphalt plant was not a permitted useMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pa 5 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
and as such requires use variance relief.” The Zoning Board by Resolution adopted
January 22, 2018 determined as follows:
“that approval of the application of Stavola Leasing, LLC for an
Interpretation from the Howell Township Zoning Board pursuant to
N.JS.A. 40:55D-70(b) that the application of L&L Paving Co., Inc.
presently pending before the Township's Planning Board (Case SP1026A)
for preliminary and final major site plan approval and to construct a
bituminous concrete (asphalt) manufacturing facility, and a “Class B”
recycling facility on Lot 62.01, Block 177 in the Special Economic (SED)
Zone requires use variance approval as concrete or asphalt manufacturing
does not constitute a permitted principal use in the SED Zone.”
As noted by the Zoning Board, it was Stavola’s overall position that the
‘manufacturing of conerete or asphalt historically has not been a permitted use in the SED
Zone and as such the pending application should be before the Zoning Board. During the
interpretation hearings, the Zoning Board members also made specific factual findings,
including that: concrete and conerete products are not the same item and that "the
‘manufacturing of concrete in a concrete plant or the manufacturing of asphalt in an asphalt
plant was not a permitted use and as such requires use variance relief." The Applicant L &
L Paving utilized the same Planner, Christine Cofone, as its planning expert at the
interpretation hearings as it later produced for the subject application. The Zoning Board
disagreed with Cofone’s testimony in connection with the interpretation,
12. In February 2018 the Defendant L&L. filed a new application before the
Defendant Zoning Board as required by the Zoning Board interpretation decision. Public
hearings on this Application were conducted before the Zoning Board on July 9, 2018,
August 27, 2018, October 22, 2018, October 29, 2018, December 3, 2018, December 10,
2018, December 17, 2018, February 4, 2019, March 4, 2019, March 18, 2019, April 1,
2019, April 15, 2019, April 29, 2019, May 13, 2019, May 20, 2019 and May 20, 2019.MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 6 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
13, Stavola Leasing as well as numerous other objectors spoke out in
opposition to the Application, stating it would have a detrimental effect on the Zone, their
properties and the quality of living and/or on their business, as a property owner(s).
14, On June 24, 2019, the Board, notwithstanding the recently adopted
prohibitory ordinance, the facts and the law, adopted Resolution No, 19-15 granting
approval to the Applicant for “bituminous concrete manufacturing facility” commonly
known as asphalt manufacturing and for six separate silos each double the height that is
permitted in the zone, as well as several bulk variances and waivers, (Exhibit A) (The
chronology of the actions described herein is shown on Schedule 1),
FIRST COUNT
THE BOARD USURPED THE
ROLE OF THE GOVERNING BODY
15, Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation contained hereinabove as if set
forth at length,
16. Only the governing body of a municipality has the power and authority to
zone property. N.J,S.A, 40:55D-62. The 2017 ordinance prohibiting asphalt
‘manufacturing was adopted prior to the Applicant filing their 2018 application with the
Zoning Board. Itis also axiomatic that the law favors zoning by planning, not by variance.
17. OnMay 18, 2017, the Howell Township Planning Board adopted a revised
Jand use plan element of the Master Plan and a re-examination report of the existing
Master Plan, Both documents included Paragraph 14 which stated "manufacturing should
be removed as a permitted use in the SED Zone."
18, On June 13, 2017, the Howell Township Council approved on first reading
Ordinance 0-17-21 expressly prohibiting the manufacturing of asphalt and concrete in theMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 7 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
SED Zone. On June 15, 2017, the Planning Board conducted the statutorily required
re
of the proposed ordinance and found that said Ordinance consistent with the
recently revised Master Plan,
19. On July 18, 2017, the Howell Township Council unanimously adopted
Ordinance 0-17-21 expressly prohibiting the manufacture of asphalt on the L& L site and
in the zone in which it is located. The only other uses specifically prohibited in that zone
are sexually oriented businesses and tattoo and body piercing establishments. Counsel for
L&L was present at that hearing but did not speak in opposition to the Ordinance.
20. L&L took no legal action challenging the Zoning Board's interpretation that
their application was improperly before the Planning Board as it was not a permitted use.
LL&L took no legal action challenging the adopted ordinance that prohibited asphalt
‘manufacturing, Instead, L&L filed an application seven months after the prohibition
ordinance was adopted and sought a use variance for the very use which had just been
prohibited by the governing body. ‘They acknowledged a use variance application would
be needed to comply with the revised Master Plan and Ordinance 0-17-21.
21. The history and sequence of governmental actions regarding the Applicant's
site and its zoning were germane and appropriate for examination during the hearing
process on L&L's recently approved application. The Zoning Board’s Chairman arbitrarily
ruled that any mention or discussion of the interpretation application and the result was
not to be allowed.
22, Plaintiffs’ Planner Steck testified that based upon case law and his planning
expertise that the grant of a use variance for an application filed just seven months earlier
prohibiting such a use was a usurpation of the governing body's role to properly zone theMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 8 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
‘municipality. The cases of Saddle Brook Realty v. Saddle Brook Zoning Bd, of Adj., 388
jorth Brunswick v. Zoning Bd. of
Adjustment of Tp. of North Brunswick, 378 N. J. Super. 485 (App. Div. 2005) held under
similar circumstances to those before the Board that an illegal usurpation occurred. The
NJ. Super. 67 (App. Div.2006) and Township of
issue of usurpation was brought to the attention of the Board and its counsel. Both Board
and counsel arbitrarily failed to consider such valid legal precedent or to provide any
guidance regarding its appropriate consideration
23, ‘The Defendant Howell Township Zoning Board did by its determination to
‘grant a use variance in the face of the governing body’s recent prohibition of asphalt
‘manufacturing under Ordinance 0-17-21 wrongfully usurp and did exercise the legislative
power exclusively possessed by the governing body of Howell Township.
24, The Zoning Board was without authority to grant this variance(s) and
effectively re-zoned the Subject Property in contravention of the authority of the Council
despite the fact that the Ordinance, never challenged, was adopted in July, 2017.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the Court issue an order for judgment:
A; Declaring the Board’s actions as arbitrary and unreasonable;
B. Declaring the Boards findings as against and contrary to the weight of the
credible evidence in the record;
C. Setting aside Resolution No.: 19-15 and reversing the Board’s grants of
approval;
D. Such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.MON-1-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 9 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
SECOND COUNT
‘THE ACTION OF THE BOARD WAS
ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE
25. Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation contained hereinabove as if set forth
at length,
26. The Board accepted the application as complete and scheduled a hearing on
the matter. This was an arbitrary decision as the application was incomplete according to
the rules of the Board and the ordinances of the Township. More specifically, a current
and complete survey with the requisite detail was not submitted as a part of the
application. The Board Engineer noted this deficiency in his initial review letter, but never
insisted on having the survey produced until the objector’s engineer testified to this failure
10 follow the prescribed standard. Despite this deficiency, the application was permitted to
proceed to an approval.
27. ‘The application requires use variances and other relief, including the
following:
1, Use Variance - The manufacturing of asphalt is a prohibited use in the SED
Zone (Section 188-79B.5(c)). In addition, an additional "d" variance is required for
the height of the silos which are principal structures, The height requirements for
both principal and accessory buildings is 45 feet whereas the silos have the height
0f 90.6 feet.
2. Other Relief requested -
a. Fence Height - Fences shall be no more than 8 feet in height in a
business zone whereas the Applicant proposes 10 feet high fences along the
scale house access road. (Section 188-128)
b. Off-street Parking Spaces (Length) ~ off-street parking spaces
shall be 19 feet in length whereas 18 space lengths have been
provided for the office building (Section 188-107A)
c. Sidewalk (Lot Frontage) ~ Public sidewalks are required along
9MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 :34:17 PM Pg 10 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
the frontage at a public right-of-way whereas no sidewalk exists or
is proposed. (Section 188-132).
4. Curbing (Off Street Parking) ~ off-street parking spaces shall be
separated from sidewalks by curbing (Section 188-226F). No curb,
curb stops or bollards have been provided for the spaces located
at the existing office building.
¢. Articulation (Portion of Manufacturing Building to Remain) —
No wall shall have a blank, uninterrupted length exceeding 50 feet
without including a revealed pilaster, change in texture, color or
material, change in plane, window, lattice, or equivalent element
Roofline offsets shall be provided along any roof measuring longer
than 75 feet in length. (Section 188-228C). The portion of the
existing manufacturing building to remain for storage features,
blank/uninterrupted walls greater than 50 feet in length and
rooflines greater than 75 feet.
f. Pacades & Exterior Walls (Portion of Manufacturing Building
to Remain) ~ Facades over 50 feet in linear length shall incorporate
‘wall projections or recesses a minimum of three-foot depth and
shall extend over 10% of the facade (188-228D) The portion of the
existing manufacturing building to remain for storage does not
feature any projections or recessions of 3 feet depth.
8 Additional relief from the standards relating to location of
‘accessory structures Section 188-11.B; site lighting per section 188-
22; Streetlights per Section 188-225.E; and Driveway width per
Section 188-106 are also required slong with other relief.
28. The Board heard the testimony of Lance Redaelli, who along with his
brother, ate the principals of the Applicant. Redaell testified extensively regarding the
proposed operation of the plan before the Board. At a later hearing, he acknowledged
during questioning from a concerned resident that he had no knowledge or experience
regarding the manufacturing of asphalt. Reliance placed upon Redaelli’s testimony by
Applicant's experts and by the Board was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the
Board’ discretion particularly given substantial evidence to the contrary offered by
Plaintiffs’ experts
10MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 11 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
29, Redaelli alleged before the Board that Stavola Asphalt Company would no
longer sell him products for his paving business as a result of filing the application. This
‘was untrue and irrelevant to the application, but noted by the Board in its resolution of
approval. Throughout the hearing, the Board in its questioning of witnesses and in its
deliberations showed its bias towards the objector Stavola and a sympathy for the
Applicant as a competitor of Stavola. This approach was arbitrary and did not conform to
the standards regarding the grant of use variances by an impartial quasi-judicial body.
30. Applicant in its effort to mislead the Board regarding the proposed operation
and its impact on the neighborhood initially testified it would not operate past 5 o'clock
Monday to Friday and possibly Saturday. As the application proceeded, Applicant had to
admit that his operations would really include asphalt manufacturing, until 10 o'clock in
the evening. Applicant also acknowledged truck traffic for the installation of asphalt on
public roads would likely cause numerous truck movements 24 hours a day, seven days a
week... The Board’s failure to properly weigh and consider such impacts on the adjoining
residential areas and zones without proper consideration of the substantial detriment to the
public good and impairment of its zone plan and ordinance was arbitrary and
unreasonable,
31. Applicant offered testimony that their business plan would be to manufacture
200,000 tons of asphalt product a year. The product would be transported in trucks each
individually having a capacity 20 tons. Additional testimony before the Board established
that the proposed new asphalt plant had capacity to produce, at its normal production
ability, over 1 million tons of asphalt per year. Objectors argued that the production
capacity of the proposed facility, not the self-serving unilateral testimony of the Applicant
uMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 12 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
should guide the Board’s deliberations, particularly with regard to satisfying the negative
criteria of not doing substantial harm to the public good. The Board arbitrarily failed to
properly consider testimony conceming the production capacity of the proposed plant and
its overall impact on the area.
32, Truck traffic impact on the area would be significant. Applicant produced a
traffic expert whose report stated that the best method to determine traffic impact and
volume was based upon the capacity of the plant and not testimony of the Applicant.
Despite that standard, the expert improperly used limited production numbers given by the
inexperienced Applicant to determine the amount of day and night traffic on nearby roads.
‘The Board's acceptance of the expert’s testimony was arbitrary and unreasonable in its,
failure to properly weigh and consider evidence concerning the actual number of trucks
and extent of traffic generated by the use. The Board arbitrarily ruled frequently that
testimony utilizing total capacity of the plant would not be allowed into evidence.
33. Applicant presented a representative of the company who would sell and
provide the equipment for the new asphalt manufacturing plant. This witness
acknowledged that she had never seen this site nor made any conclusions regarding its
suitability for the site. Her testimony was that the plant would be environmentally safe and
‘was the state of the art. The Board by its deliberations and resolution found this testimony
to be persuasive, without acknowledging the significant New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) regulations governing the air quality, stormwater
4A various
‘management and operations of asphalt manufacturing plants. (N.J.A.
sections) and arbitrarily failed to consider that regardless of its equipment, asphalt
12MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 13 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
manufacturing was a prohibited use since 1963, which prohibition was reffirmed by the
recently adopted ordinance.
34. Applicant concluded its case before the Board by calling its planning expert
Christine Nazzaro-Cofone whose opinion was that the site was particularly suitable for the
proposed use because it had been used for conerete products such as blocks and pipes in
the past. The Board gave improper weight to the testimony and used it as a basis for
‘granting the use variance. The Board disregarded significant facts that refuted the
planner’s testimony and conclusion. The evidence established that prior users of the site
‘molded concrete products and that multiple 90 foot silos were not on the site with prior
uses. The prior products were manufactured and delivered in the daytime. Prior uses did
not operate in the evening with its accompanying noise, odor or heavy duty truck traffic,
As concrete uses cement powder and water and not oil for a binder, the smell associated.
with the production of asphalt was not present in prior uses. The report put forth by the
Applicant's own expert established that the manufacture of concrete products ceased by
the end of 2014. Applicant, in an earlier site plan application, admitted that the plant
would not be reused. The overall testimony was that the entire asphalt manufacturing plant
would be new and was not dependent, in whole or in part, on any of the remaining
conerete plant. The Board’s reliance on evidence concerning the site’s prior use and grant
of a d(1) use variance was misplaced and failed to recognize that the site’s prior uses were
entirely different from the Applicant’s proposed use which is now prohibited under its
ordinance.
35, Plaintiffs produced George W. Thompson who had previously served as
chief executive officer of a large intemational asphalt manufacturing company. ‘ThompsonMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 14 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
spent decades in the business of asphalt manufacturing. Now retired, he had been honored
by induction in the industry’s Hall of Fame and was the only person who testified before
the Board with expertise in the use, nature, operations and business of asphalt
manufacturing, He brought before the Board new and additional proofs concerning the
amounts of recycled asphalt product (RAP) whose storage would overwhelm the site,
‘Thompson offered his experience concerning the inability of the plant operator to control
the movements, operation and negative effects caused by the use of independent truckers
hauling materials throughout the area. Thompson testified that the plant would cause
significant noise, smell and disturbance if the plant were approved. Despite the expertise
and testimony offered by Thompson, the Board arbitrarily gave little weight to his
testimony. Thompson was cross-examined in an overly aggressive manner by Board
‘members in contrast to their mild, supportive and defensive questioning of the Applicant's
witnesses.
36. The Board’ failure to fairly consider and weigh all expert testimony offered
by the objectors was evident with Norman Dotti, a sound expert who has served on the
State Noise Control Council. Dotti testified that the Applicant’s noise expert had failed to
do appropriate modeling and consider the various sources of noise that would occur at the
same time in the evening producing decibel levels above state and local standards on a
regular basis. His testimony was arbitrarily rejected by the Board.
37. Plaintiffs produced their engineering expert Carolyn Feigin, P.E. who
testified regarding stormwater management and drainage. Feigin provided detailed
testimony regarding the Applicant’s failure to meet state and local codes for stormwater
management and drainage. She detailed the absence of any on-site structures designed to
14
|MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 15 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
lessen the water flow; the failure to provide for treating and holding stormwater on site;
and the absence of any final plan for the Board to review. The Board engineer
acknowledged that there would be further work needed to be done with the Applicant's
engineer to adjust the proposed stormwater management plan, She produced evidence and
‘gave testimony about the insufficient testing, analysis and conclusion given by the
Applicant's engineer. She testified that the testimony regarding pervious and impervious
coverage upon which the Board gave significant reliance was severely flawed. The Board
arbitrarily and improperly allowed an incomplete application and site plan to have the
necessary variances for a use expressly prohibited under its zoning ordinance, in total
disregard of the expert facts presented.
38. Plaintiffs offered testimony of Syed Husain, P-E., P.P. who brought evidence
before the Board for the first time that the application, in order to be fully approved,
‘would need a permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
required of any hot asphalt manufacturing plant proposal. He opined that after reviewing,
the regulations, the site, and his own experience on such an application, two separate
stormwater management basins would be required to be installed on the site. There are no
such basins shown on the approved plan which the Board should have considered,
39. It was Husain's testimony that the necessary N.J.D.E.P. permits should have
preceded the Board application so that the Board could have a full understanding of what
‘was required on the site which the Board arbitrarily disregarded in its grant of approvals.
40. Plaintiffs called as an expert witness Peter Steck, a professional planner with,
‘over thirty (30) years of experience working for public agencies and applicants as well as
interested parties before land use boards. Steck opined that there were no “specialMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 16 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
reasons” for the Board granting the application and he agreed with the testimony of
George Thompson that the prior use of molding concrete produets isa totally different use
than the asphalt manufacturing application before the Board. Steck concluded that the
site's prior use which ended five years earlier was not relevant from a planning
perspective to the application before the Board. Taking all of the testimony into
consideration, he concluded that there would be a substantial negative impact upon the
surrounding area. The Board erted in its statutory finding of no substantial negative
detriment to the zone plan and public good.
41. Steck testified that the action of the Township Committee in expressly
prohibiting the proposed use of asphalt manufacturing in July 2017 should be the central
consideration by the Board. He testified that the site had not changed in the two year
period from July 2017 and there was no justification for the Board’s usurpation of the
Township's power to zone as it had legislated with the adoption of Ordinance 0-17-21.
42. At the final hearing, the public was allowed to address the Board concerning
the application. Previously, the public was limited to questions of the witnesses. Public
questioning was often improperly limited by the Board. The meeting place for the final
hearing was a school auditorium rather than the municipal building meeting room which
had a capacity of approximately 260 persons. The previously scheduled hearing for citizen
input scheduled for the municipal building meeting room had to be adjourned when the
capacity was well exceeded and the township fire marshal required the meeting to end.
43, At the subsequent hearing, more than 300 people were present. Dozens
testified against the application, They lived within the area of the application and used
roads that would be used by the numerous trucks that would be part of the proposed
16MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 17 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935,
operation, Paragraph 23 of the Board’s resolution suggests that there were other members
‘who indicated support for the application. In fact there was no more than a handful of
such views of suppor.
44, In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in the Medi
se, Medici
BPR Co, 107 N.J. 1 (1987), applicants seeking a use variance for a commercial use must
demonstrate through “an enhanced quality of proof” that the variance is not inconsistent
with the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
45. As set forth in the prior Count, the Township Council changed the Zoning
Ordinance for the Subject Property, making it more difficult for the Board to reconcile this
deviation from the uses permitted in the SED Zone.
46. At the conclusion of the hearing, a motion was immediately made to grant
the approval. Member Sanclementi erroneously based his motion upon the long-standing,
existence of the concrete plant and its supposed similarity to what was proposed. The
basis for his motion was contrary to credible evidence in the record that clearly established
significant differences between the prior use and the proposed use. He erroneously
concluded, “This application, itis not a new use, itis a continuation of what the site has
always been...” Despite the expert testimony, and citizen comments to the contrary,
Sanclementi found no substantial detriment to the neighboring properties and arbitrarily
failed to consider the specific prohibition of this particular use adopted by Ordinance O-
17-21 less than a year earlier in 2017.
47. Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. He commenced his reasoning for
supporting the application saying "I's important to note this application was deemed
complete and scheduled to be heard before the planning board and Council made any
7MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 18 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
ordinance change concerning asphalt plants. This would permit this application to be
heard outside of any ordinance change that was done after the application was in process."
This is factually wrong and reflects the arbitrariness of the process, vote and resolution on
the application. The application before the zoning board was submitted in February 2018
afier the unchallenged ordinance prohibiting asphalt manufacturing in the SED zone had
been adopted. Mr. O'Donnell wrongly treated the application before him and the Board as
if it was the 2017 application that was wrongly sent to the planning board and
subsequently withdrawn by the Applicant. Thus, he applied the "time of application”
statute with the wrong starting date so as to illegally grant the application i's approval.
bias in this action was reflected in his subsequent comments: "L& L was not really a
difficult case at all, it was made very difficult because of one objector. You have a small
group of people led by a competitor. And I take that into consideration..." In fact over 300
people showed up in opposition that evening separate and apart from the objection
rendered by these plaintiffs.
‘The legitimization of this bias and misapplication of the time of application rule by
the resolution comment "Mr. O'Donnell noted that the application initially was deemed
complete and presented to the planning board before the ordinance change in July, 2017"
only compounds the arbitrary actions and bias of the Board and it's professionals.
48. Board Chairman Nanson acknowledged that the application was incomplete
bbut was satisfied that further improvements would have to be designed with respect to
drainage and stormwater management, His partiality was evident when he faulted
Plaintiffs’ experts for "criticizing his professionals." Plaintiffs’ experts applied proper
18MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 19 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
statutory and ordinance standards that the Board and its professionals arbitrarily chose not,
to apply to the application.
49. The Board adopted by the minimum votes necessary (Syes- 2 no) a resolution
granting all relief applied for by the Applicant, which included: a (d)(1)use variance; the
variances for the six silos which substantially exceeded height requirements and every
bulk variance and waiver requested despite an incomplete application and without
sufficient reasons or based on credible evidence in the record.
50. The Board erred in its application of the legal standards and in its total
disregard of the ordinance prohibiting the use they granted. The Board arbitrarily
considered factors which were not applicable to the matter and improperly limited cross-
examination of witnesses. The Board’s actions throughout were arbitrary, unreasonable
and without a basis developed in the record as required by law.
51. Based upon the failure of the evidence or incompetent evidence in the
record, the Board’s actions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious, per se.
52. The Board ignored the zoning designation of this Subject Property and
offered no sustainable rationale for its decision to override the action of the Council
prohibiting asphalt manufacturing plants.
53. Regarding the negative criteria, numerous residents of the surrounding area
spoke out against this request at the hearings, detailing the multitude of negative impacts
this use would have on the Zone and their properties.
54. Nevertheless, the Zoning Board failed to give due consideration to the
substantial detriments the variance would have on neighboring property owners, including
Plaintiff.
19MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 20 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
55. Furthermore, the Zoning Board’s Resolution of Approval does not offer
any reasons greater than those asserted by the Board during deliberations.
56. The Board acted contrary to the facts and the law, and its decision to grant a
use variance(s) and other relief, in this case is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, and
capricious.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintifis request the Court issue an order for judgment:
‘A. Declaring the Board’s actions as arbitrary and unreasonable;
B, Declaring the Board's findings as against and contrary to the weight of the
credible evidence in the record;
C. Setting aside Resolution No.; 19-15 and reversing the Board’s grants of
approval;
D. Such other relief as the court may deem appropriate,
COUNT THREE,
FAILURE TO RENDER A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
DECISION BASED UPON THE FACTS PRESENTED
AND THE APPLICABLE LAW REQUIRE REVERSAL,
QE THE BOARD'S DECISION
57. The Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation contained hereinabove as if
set forth at length.
58. The Defendant Board is charged by statutory and case law to determine
applications before it fairly and impartially based upon the facts and law. Plaintiffs allege
‘the Board failed to properly discharge its duty as a quasi-judicial body.
59. Board Chairman Nanson lives on Yellowbrook Road on which the
Applicant's property is located. During the hearings, he made numerous personal
observations relating to substantial issues raised in this matter including traffic, noise,
20MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 21 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
aesthetics, structure height and visibility, drainage and stormwater. As his property is
greater than 200 feet from the Applicant's, site he was not required to recuse himself.
However, the very nature of Yellowbrook Road and the surrounding uses, operation and
history were prominent throughout the hearings and were often subject to Mr. Nanson's
unsolicited comments and viewpoints.
60. Throughout the proceedings, Chairman Nanson often ruled on questions of
relevance and evidence. His decisions and rulings in this matter were largely in support of
the Applicant's case despite objections raised by counsel. In so doing, Chairman Nanson
barred proper cross-examination of the Applicant's witnesses and denied proper and
relevant direct examination of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses as well as testimony from the
public.
61, Chaitman Nanson treated the Board's professionals in a proprietary sense as
"his" experts, and not as objective professional witnesses subject to questioning as with
any other sworn expert witness. Before casting the crucial fifth vote in favor of the
application, Nanson referenced Plaintiffs’ professionals who had challenged the
sufficiency of the Applicant's submissions regarding the standards for stormwater
‘management and drainage control. Nanson stated, "Your professional attacked our
professional, my professional. I don't like that ...they (Board professionals) have always
dealt with the water retention in the stormwater runoff. I's never been something that the
Board does really go into." These comments reflect a clear bias and failure to properly
weigh and consider the testimony of all experts in the matter. When Plaintiffs’ counsel
requested cross examination of the Board’s professionals, it was denied by the Chairman
and Board attorney in violation of NJL.S.A. 40:55D -10(d).
2MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 22 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
‘The Chairman's statement that matters involving stormwater management is
something the Board doesn’t involve itself represents an improper delegation of the
Boards responsibility to assess the sufficiency of the stormwater management plan to its
professionals. It also denied the public the opportunity to review the future plans and
comment on them,
62. The Chairman’s frequently interrupted the objectors witnesses and limited
improperly their examination and answers.
63. Following the direct testimony of Applicant’s planner Cofone, the Board’s
planner Jennifer Beahm advised the Board on the record that she agreed with Cofone’s
conclusion that an approval would be appropriate. This statement by a Board professional
‘was made before the Board had an opportunity to consider the testimony and evidence of
all witnesses, expert or otherwise, which would be offered during the hearing. Beahm’s
"unsolicited statement regarding approval had the capacity to unfairly influence the Board’s
ultimate decision on the matter.
64. Board Planner Beahm wrote the revision of the land-use element and the
reexamination of the Master Plan that recommended the prohibition of manufacturing in
the SED Zone where the Applicant's property is located, Planner Cofone was required
under the Medici case to reconcile the proposed asphalt manufacturing plant against an
ordinance which expressly barred the use. The professional opinions of Planner Cofone
during the hearing failed to satisfy the requirements of the Medici case. Beahm
volunteered at the hearing to tell the Board what really occurred at the planning board
meeting, despite the fact there was a transcript of what actually happened at the hearing
22MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 23 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935,
when the recommendation to prohibit asphalt manufacturing in the SED zone was
reached.
65. During the hearing, the Board’s Planner Beahm aggressively cross examined
Plaintiffs’ Planner Steck and continued her support of the testimony offered by the
Applicant's Planner Cofone. Beahm’s conduct before the Board and partiality toward the
Applicant’s expert planner occurred after Beahm had been sworn in as a witness.
66. Beahi's expression of agreement, despite her authorship of the Master Plan
prohibiting asphalt manufacturing with the opinions offered by Applicant's planner
Cofone was cited by Board member O'Donnell as a reason for casting a decisive vote in
favor of the application. Beahm stated during the hearing that she was the Board’s
professional planner and that opposing counsel had no right to cross-examine her
regarding her concurrence with the opinions expressed by the Applicant's planner. The
failure of the Board to permit cross-examination of this witness was arbitrary and denied
Plaintiffs’ fundamental faimess and due process during an administrative hearing.
67. While @ Zoning Board’s professionals may aid with certain technical issues
requiring particular expertise, no authority exists which permits a Planner to usurp the
Zoning Board’s power and effectively act in the Zoning Board’s stead.
68. Beahm consistently interjected her opinion in matters outside the scope of
her expertise and/or effectively acted as an “eighth member of the Zoning Board” and
further impermissibly injected herself in the proceedings so as to create the appearance of
impartiality, including but not limited to Planner improperly testifying to facts and/or
expert opinion without being made available by the Zoning Board cross-examination and
offering her expert opinion as to the satisfaction by the Applicant of the burden of proofMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 24 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
prior to conclusion of the evidence and/or hearing the Plaintif’s case, the objections and
cross-examination, thereby tainting the proceeding and/or giving the appearance of bias
and impartiality to the proceeding.
69. By way of example, at the conclusion of the Applicant Planner's direct
examination - prior to cross - examination by Stavola Leasing and prior to any public
‘comment -- Beahm announced to the Zoning Board and the public that "..as far as I'm
concemed, I feel that the applicant has met its burden under the law." The effect this
statement, opinion and comments similar to this had on the hearing is clearly manifested
of the December 10, 2018
throughout the hearings and in particular at the conclu:
hearing when the public asked when it could comment on the testimony of Cofone, the
Chairman advised "Comments are after-- the opposing attorney will probably put his
witness on, then they'll be cross-examined, then you'll have the opportunity to ask them
questions, and then we'll open the comments at the conclusion of the hearings" to which
the audience replied "Are they going to matter?"
70. Beahm's statement of her opinion to the Zoning Board prior to the
conclusion of the testimony and even the case presented by the objector and public
comments, unfairly biased against the public and the objector and improperly caused an
insertion into the deliberating process of an conclusory opinion, and/or activity before all
the evidence was presented, clearly unfairly and improperly tainting the hearings and the
integrity of the process under the MLUL, not to mention the appearance of impropriety
and bias in favor of the Applicant.
24MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 25 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
71. The actions of Beahm, tolerated and supported by the Zoning Board, served
to taint the proceedings and take away from the Zoning Board's responsibility to decide
the substantive issues in the case.
72. Beahm's actions tainted the proceedings before the Zoning Board,
rendering the action of the Zoning Board void.
73. During the hearings, the Applicant placed great emphasis on the fact that the
site had been once used for producing concrete block and pipes. Such finite end products
are distinguishable from asphalt manufacturing concrete that is delivered in barrel trucks
and poured on site. The record supports a finding that the site’s prior production of
concrete block and pipes was clearly a different use than manufacturing asphalt. The use
of molding concrete products had stopped in 2014 as acknowledged by the Applicant's
‘own environmental report. Applicant acknowledged in testimony before the Planning
Board in an earlier application that the plant would not be used for a purpose for which it
was formerly used. Despite these facts, planner Cofone testified the site was particularly
suitable for the prohibited use of asphalt manufacturing because the site had been once
used for molding concrete products. Cofone acknowledged that the site and the area were
no different when the prohibitory ordinance regarding asphalt manufacturing was adopted
and when the application was made, Despite this testimony, the Board arbitrarily gave
improper weight and consideration to the nature of the former use in abrogation of the
prohibition under Ordinance 0-17-21 This consideration was factually irrelevant as the
proposed use was significantly different than the former use, which in any event had been
abandoned. It was legally irrelevant as this applicant sought a (d)(1) variance for its
25MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 6:34:17 PM Pg 26 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
proposed use not a (4) (2) variance for the continuation of a preexisting, nonconforming
use,
74, The Board's partiality and its mindset to grant the approval to L&L
regardless of the facts or law is evident in the Board Chairman's closing remarks just
before he voted. He chose to comment on a decision of the Board in the Stone Quest
application that was made in the previous month. That application involved a property in
an adjacent zone that had as an overlay the SED Zone provisions. ‘The applicant there was
an existing business that sold stone. The owner sought a use variance to manufacture
crushed stone from its stone, There was to be no silos, oil binder or evening truck traffic.
‘The Board denied the application for a use variance on the vote of the very members who
voted to grant L&L a use variance. Mr. Nanson distinguished the two cases noting that the
Stone Quest case was for a new operation, but the L&L application was "not a new
application as far as concrete production, asphalt production." Based upon all the facts it
‘was clear that the L&L application was for a truly new manufacturing plant producing,
asphalt product that never had been manufactured on that site before, asphalt and brought
with it a mumber of new and negative impacts. The continued fact-finding and conclusions
of the Board that the proposed use was a continuation of a pre-existing use was the height
of arbitrariness and reversible error.
75. All of the aforementioned acts improperly delegated the Zoning Board's
decision-making authority to the Zoning Board's professional(s) and made the decision-
making process vague and/or unenforceable.
76. The Zoning Board’s decision was therefore arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable.
26MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 27 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the Court issue an order for judgment:
A. Declaring the Board’s actions as arbitrary and unreasonable;
B. Declaring the Board’s findings as against and contrary to the weight of the
credible evidence in the record;
C. Setting aside Resolution No.: 19-15 and reversing the Board’s grants of
approval;
D. Such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
COUNT FOUR
THE APPLICANT FAILED TO GIVE PROPER
NOTICE DEPRIVING THE BOARD OF JURISDICTI
77. The Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation contained hereinabove as if
set forth at length,
78. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing Paragraphs of the Complaint by
reference as if those Paragraphs were fully set forth at length herein,
79. The Applicant failed to provide proper notice in accordance with the
MLUL.
80. The subject application is for approval of a hot mix asphalt manufacturing
plant as expressly prohibited by Ordinance 0-17-21. The Applicant deliberately did not
use laymen's terms such as "asphalt" in its application or public notice- utilizing terms
such as "Bituminous Concrete Manufacturing Facility," in order to mislead the public as
to the use.
81. Prior to the public hearings in connection with the Application, the
Applicant published notices using specific misleading and purposeful identifiers
including, in relevant part, the following:
27MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 28 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
«to build a bituminous concrete manufacturing facility.
‘The use of the site as a concrete manufacturing facility will continue albeit
asa bituminous (asphaltic) concrete manufacturing facility
69. The notice(s) state that the Applicant also intends to locate a Class B
recycling facility with recycling equipment which will include the recycling of
"concrete, bituminous conerete, brick and soil," which will add to truck traffic.
Although not stated in the notice, if in fact the “asphalt plant” was approved, this
additional use would be exempt from local approval.
82, The public notice(s) is deliberately misleading as the site was never used
as a "concrete manufacturing facility" but rather was used to manufacture a specific
concrete product, concrete pipe. This is a distinct use which at one time was permitted in
the zone. Moreover, use of the phrase "bituminous concrete" rather than asphalt is
terminology a lay person would not understand.
83. The Applicant’s failure to set forth with requisite specificity the nature and
character ofthe proposed development’s use and daily operations and the proposed
changes from the prior use and/or the Applicant’s use of identifiers to mislead the public
as to the proposed and prior use of the site rendered its notice insufficient pursuant to
NSA. 40:55D-11.
84, Property owners within 200 feet of the property affected were not provided
proper notice in accordance with the MLUL. Further the public, residents beyond 2008,
but within Howell were equally if not more greatly prejudiced by the public notice.
85. Accordingly, the Defendant Zoning Board did not have jurisdiction to hear
and/or grant the Applicant’s requested approvals.
28MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 29 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and
severally, as follows:
A. that the action of the Defendant Board be reversed as it lacked jurisdiction
to hear the application;
B, that an order be entered enjoining the Applicant from obtaining any
development permits to proceed with the development of the subject
property in accordance with the improper approvals heretofore described;
iff be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit;
D granting such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.
COUNT FIVE
‘THE RESOLUTION HAD INSUFFICIENT
FACT FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS
TO JUSTIFY THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCES AND SITE PLAN
86. The Plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation contained hereinabove as if
set forth at length.
87. The Resolution failed to set forth adequate findings of fact and conclusions
of law. The Resolution failed to set forth adequate findings of fact to justify the granting
of the relief sought as well as the conclusions of law which would have justified said
variances and actions of the Board.
88. The Resolution failed to adequately articulate or explain how the purported
findings-of-fact supported the alleged conclusions of law, failed to identify the facts
relating to each requested variance/waiver, and failed to articulate the exact relief granted.
89, The Resolution is further replete with incorrect and/or unsupported findings
which taint and/or otherwise void the ultimate findings the Zoning Board used to justify
its actions, including but not limited to the Zoning Board’s inaccurate account of the
29MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 30 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
procedural history of the case and the conclusion that the Planning Board application was
transferred to the Zoning Board when in fact a new application was filed with the Zoning
Board after the adoption of Ordinance 0-17-21, resulting in the Zoning Board’s
misunderstanding/application of the time of the application rule.
90. The Resolution constitutes a net opinion.
91. The Zoning Board’s actions in this regard were arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable and contrary to law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants as follow:
‘A. An Order vacating and setting aside the Resolution;
B. An Order vacating and setting aside any and all relief granted by the
Defendant Zoning Board to the Applicant as memorialized in the
Resolution; and
C. Any and all other relief the Court may deem equitable and just.
COUNT SIx
PLAINTIFF STAVOLA ASPHALT COMPANY, INC. WAS
PARTICULARLY AND UNIQUELY DAMAGED BY THE
ACTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT BOARD REQUIRING THE
REVERSAL OF THEIR DECISION TO GRANT
DEFENDANT L&L’s APPLICATION FOR A USE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW ASPHALT MANUFACTURING
92. Stavola Asphalt Company, Inc. owns property located on Yellowbrook
Road directly across that street from the Defendants’ property. The Stavola Asphalt
Company, Inc. land holdings total 76.37 actes of which approximately 10 acres is used
for a pre-existing nonconforming asphalt manufacturing plant. This plant unlike the
Defendants” proposal has two silos both of which are within the height limitation in the
zone. This contrasts with the Defendants’ application for a prohibited use and approval for
six silos each of which are twice the allowed height. The Stavola Asphalt Company, Inc.
30MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 31 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
plant continues to operate. Board member statements to the contrary were without any
testimonial basis and are additional elements of arbitrariness.
93. This Defendant was aware of the introduction and adoption of the
ordinance prohibiting asphalt manufacturing plants, Stavola chose not to contest the
ordinance, It believes and agrees with the Planning Board and Township Council that the
area would best be developed consistent with the new ordinance. The intrusion of the
prohibited asphalt plant through the variance mechanism would limit the development
potential and marketability of the significant vacant land owned by this defendant as well
as the redevelopment possibilities of the land occupied by the current Stavola plant.
94, This Defendant's 30.38 acre parcel isthe third largest property amongst the
24 properties in this SED zone. It's frontage of a third of a mile along Yellowbrook Road
is the longest of all the properties fronting on that road in this zone. This property is
located at the very zone and center of the zone. (See Exhibit 0-21 in evidence before the
zoning board attached hereto as Exhibit B).
95, The size, frontage and location of the Defendants’ property within the zone
makes its development critical to the future development or redevelopment of every other
property within the zone, This reality was central to the discussion and recommendation of
the Planning Board for an ordinance prohibiting concrete and asphalt manufacturing
facilities. The adoption of that ordinance reflects the vision and jurisdiction of the
governing body to ensure that the negative impacts from such manufacturing plants would
not occur in the future by reason of a new and large plant such as is proposed by the
Defendant L&L and approved by the Defendant Board. Their collective effort destroys the
combined efforts of the Planning Board and governing body to properly plan for this area.
31MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 6:34:17 PM Pg 32 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
96. ‘The facts stated in this count were clearly brought to the zoning board’s
attention by the testimony of Mr. Steck and the arguments made by Plaintiffs’ counsel
throughout the hearings, These facts were further buttressed by the discussion of the
Planning Board members and the comments made at thei meeting when the land use
clement and the Master Plan reexamination report authored by Board Planner Jennifer
Beahm was adopted. While Ms. Beahm inexplicably reversed herself, the resulting
prohibition ordinance should be enforced so as to preserve and protect not only this
Plaintiff's property but also the other properties in the zone who seek to develop their
ands in accordance with the Planning Board’s recommendation and Township Council
legislative enactment,
97. The action of the zoning board granting the application renders the very
recent decisions of the Planning Board arid Township Council meaningless. It violates the
purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law and the establishment of sound land use
planning for the Township of Howell and in this particular this zone and area,
Therefore, the action of the zoning board was arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious and.
should be reversed by this court,
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request the Court issue an order for judgment:
‘A. Declaring the Board's actions as arbitrary and unreasonable;
B. Declaring the Board's findings as against and contrary to the weight of the
credible evidence in the record;
C. Setting aside Resolution No.: 19-15 and reversing the Board’s grants of
approval;
D. Such other relief as the court may deem appropriate.
32MON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 33 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL ATTORNEY
‘Pursuant to R.4:25-4 John Paul Doyle, Esq. and R.S, Gasiorowski have been
designated as trial counsel in the above captioned matter,
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to R. 4:5-1, the Plaintiffs’ attomey hereby certifies to the best of his
knowledge there is no other action or arbitration pending in which the matter in controversy
is the subject, nor is there any other action or arbitration proceeding contemplated, There are
no other know parties who should be joined in this action
: CARLUCCIO, LEONE, DIMON,
DOYLE & SACKS
A Plajti
GASIOROWSKI & HOLOBINKO.
By:MON-L-002638-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pag 86 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
‘oaran” | “aye
Exhibit BMON-L-002838-19 08/12/2019 5:34:17 PM Pg 87 of 87 Trans ID: LCV20191418935
SCHEDULE 1
Timeline of Notable Dates and Occurrences for L&L application
March 2017 ‘May 18,2017 July 18,2017 | Jamuary 22,2018 | Februsry 18,2018 | June 24,2019
TRL appliedio | Panning Board opis | Township Coun | The Zaring Board | UAL flesanow | Zoning Board
Planning Boar for | revised Land Use | adopted Ordinance | adopted Resolution | application before | epproves the Use
preliminary and | Plan Element und Re- [0-17-21 which | which dtemnined | the Zoning Board | Varisnce and
fina siteplan | Bvarination Report expestly prohibited | L&L'seppiction application
approval to ‘that recommended the | the marufscturing | before the Planing const an asphalt
consret an eephalt | use of arphalt of asphalt ‘Board requires manufacturing plant
‘manuficturng plant | manufacturing should "D-I" Use Variance
be specifically
prohibited in tbe SED
Zone