Sei sulla pagina 1di 35
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 and MON-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 use MON-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 the MON-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 the MON-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 9 MON-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 10 MON-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 u MON-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 12 MON-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. ‘Thompson MON-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 “special MON-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 16 MON-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 7 MON-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 18 MON-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. 19 MON-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, 20 MON-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). 2 MON-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 22 MON-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 proof MON-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 " 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. 24 MON-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 25 MON-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. 26 MON-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: 27 MON-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. 28 MON-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 29 MON-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. 30 MON-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. 31 MON-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. 32 MON-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 B MON-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