Now Jorsey Judiciary ‘Superior Court - Appellate Division NOTICE OF APPEAL, ‘Lehigh Acgusions Cop. v Tp. of Crnfodandihe |e. Strenian Planning Board ofthe Tp. of Can, (Docket No. ‘SreTiOORS UUNN-L-014008) and Cranford Development Amaia, | 707 Una Aveme, Suite 301 LLC, cals vp. of Cranford, Mayor tnd Cute ef eer ioe | a6 [ORE ET ‘Tp.ofCranfor andthe Planing Bosrdol be Tp. of | te No [osrso [at stt'3t00 Cranford (Doaet No, UNNL-005759-0) (conolidat ose on a ASRS TRS@Suenioncom Vice by he et Batata. Spe ASN Division froma ClJudgment or Bf Order entered on ___ Mav 22.20 inthe mci criminal or CI Famity Part ofthe Superior Court or from a State Agency decision entered on lf not appeaiing the entre judgment, order or agency decision, specily what parts or paragraphs are being appeaied Soe atcha Exhibit A Have all issues, a to all parties in this action, before the tral court or ageney been disposed of? (In consolidated actions, all issues as o all partis in ll actions must have been disposed of) Yes No not, has the order been propery certified as final pursuant to B.4:42.27 Yes CNo For exminal, quas-riminal and juvenile actions ony Give a concise statement ofthe offense and the judgment including date entered and any sentence ‘or cisposition imposed ‘This appealis froma Cleonviction Cl postjudgment mation C)pest-conviction reli I post-conviction role, is it the C1 1st CO 2nd Cather Is defendant incarcerated? Cl Yes 0 No ‘Was bail granted or the sentence orcispostion stayed?” 0) Yes D) No in custody, name the place of confinement: Defendant was represented below by Public Defender Ciseif Cprivate counselNotice of appeal and attached case information statement have been served where applicable on the following Name Date of Service Trial Court Jusge Hon Lis F Cot 18.6, aly 30,2015, ‘rial Court Division Manager “Tax Court Administrator ‘State Agency Aorney General or Attomey for other Governmental body pursuant to B.25-1(a).(e) or) (other partes inthis ation Namo and Designation Attorney Name, Address and Telephone No, Date of Service Counsel for Pini Cranfoed_ ‘Stephon M,Eeorr Eg = ill Wack Suly 30,2013 Development Associ, LLC 203 Camape Cont, Princo, NY 08580-5226 ‘Counsel fo Pisin Lebigh Ronald D. Cuchi, Eg. - Weiner Lesniak uty 30,2013 ‘Acaustons Cap. (29 Pasigpany Rest Pangan NI 7OS4 0538 Attached transcript request form has been served where applicable onthe folowing Name Date of Amount of Service Deposit “Tiial Court Transcript Office ‘Court Reporter (applicable) ‘Supervisor of Court Reporters (Clerk ofthe Tax Court State Agency ‘Exempt rom submitting the transript request form due tothe folowing 1 No verbatim record, Transcript in possession of atorney or prose litigant (four capes ofthe transcript must be sub- mitted along with an electronic copy). List the date(s) of te tial or hearing ‘Aumus2, 35.9, 10, 1,12, 16,18, 2010; September 27, 28,29, 210; December 9,13, 2010 11 Motion for abbreviation of transcript fled with the court or agency below, Attach copy. D Motion for fee transcript fled withthe court below. Attach copy. | certify that the foregoing statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belie, | also cerify that, unless exempt the fling fee required by NWL.S.A. 22A:2 has been paid. oe san oa ota PRS SELTOATTNOTICE OF APPEAL Exhibit A Date and summary of Orders Being Appealed With regard te the interlocutory order entered by Hon. Lisa F. Crystal, J.S.c. on June 23, 2010, the Township is appealing paragraph 2 which strikes the Township's affirmative defense that CDA had not sufficiently sought to avoid unnecessary Litigation through good faith, pre-suit negotiations as required by Mount Laurel IZ, 92 .N.J. 158, 279 (1983) and its progeny. With regard to the interlocutory order entered by Hon. Lisa F. Crystal, J.S.C. on Decenber 9, 2011, the Township is appealing paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9 and 10. These paragraphs granted a Mount’ Laurel’ builder's ‘remedy, ordered the Township to adopt 2 revised Housing Element and Fair Share Plan to conform to the builder’s remedy, appointed Douglas Wolfson, Esq. as “special Hearing Examiner” to “assume the jurisdiction of the Planning Board” and to preside over development applications hearings associated with the CDA buildes's remedy project, memorialized the court’s earlier decision to deny defendante’ motion to exclude reports and maps prepared by plaintiffs’ Gngincor and to bar tcotimony of the engincer based upon the reports and maps With regard to the interlocutory order entered by Hon. Iisa F. Crystal, J.8.C. on December 17, 2012, the Township appeals the order in ite entir With regard to the interlocutory order entered by Hon. Lisa F. Crystal, J-8.c. on January 2, 2013, the Township is appealing paragraph 1. This paragraph denied the Township’s motion to disqualify the Special Master and order a new trial. With regard to the interlocutory order entered by Hon. Lisa F. Crystal, J.8.C. on April 5, 2013, the Township is appealing paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. These paragraphs adopted the recommendations of the Special Hearing Examiner and granted preliminary and final site plan approval to plaintiffs as well as ordering that plaintiffs be permitted to re-grade Birchwood Avenue to allow plaintiffs to obtain an individual Flood Hazard Area permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionWith regard to the final order entered by Hon. Lisa F. crystal, J.8.c. on May 22, 2013, the Township appeals paragraphs 4 through 6 to the extent that these paragraphs (1) support and affirm the Court’s decision te grant CDA a builder's remedy and (2) require the Township to take any actions to effectuate this the erroneous grant of a builder's remedy. With regard to the post-judgment order entered by Hon. Lisa F. Crystal, J.8.c. on July 17, 2013, the Township appeals the order in its entirety. Upon review of the voluminous record below, respondents may indeed seek to amend this notice of appeal.Order 7-23-10HILL WALLACK LLP Stephen Biadorfer, Boq, 202 Camegic Center, Princeton, NJ 08543 (609) 924-0808 (609)-452-1888 (fax) sme@hillwallack:com Attorneys for Plaintiffs TSHIGH ACQUISITION CORP, Plaintif, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE. ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendants; and CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLG, a limited Hability ‘company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETER HEKEMIAN, JEFFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN KRIKORIAN as trustee for RICHARD HEKEMIAN ond MARK HEKEMIAN, Plaintiffs, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP ‘OF CRANFORD and the PLANNING Tawoonnecsaseeeaiio) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, ‘UNION COUNTY LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-1-0140-08 UNN-[-003759-08 cIVILAcTION (MOUNT LAUREL 1) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MO/TION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY supeMent[BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF] dl ‘This matter having come before the Court on this GD day of “ia [HHP oe ntti Cranford Development Aesociaes {5 pari smmary gent onthe isues of defendants affrmtive defence of faire of by plaintiffs to engage in good faith negotiations and on Count 2 of plaintiffs’ complaint and inthe rence of enn apres; and 1h Cort hain cnsdere he apc uta hy he pares andthe ernment oun: sare he Cov fir th reasons spay et rth in ta vino ht umn Jugen shoul! be rane, mph ae 2g ranted. py rvs on rit 49 one on “JAMZ feet onvenen rar 1, ivi’ mon orgs mary ements ante 2. thei dafenas of enantio lino togage ingot negate rer 2, secon 186.50 a pldzenes of Conor Township are dsssb ee GALE 2. _Ateve but uncriidcopy fh order shal be served upon a parti atin Fae ress Eoberouneveriererniou ‘Chrystal JSCfrie ean erase % Not opposed __ (euwpowcocsunszecorenet)SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY EEIER OPINION \NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OP THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS Sime 23, 2010 Stephen Bidovfer, Esq ‘Michael Lipa, Eig Hu Wallac, LLP 202 Carseie Center Princeton, ND 08543, ‘Ronald Cuecier, Esq Cal Woodward, Bag ‘Wore Lesniak LLP (Carella Byme Bain Gilfillan Ceci Stewart & Oltein 29 Parsippany Road 5 Becker Ferm Roed PORES Rovelmd, NJ 07058 Parsippany, NI 07056-0498, ‘Nicholas Gioia I, Bs ‘Elizabeth MeKenai, Special Master 476 Sout Avenue East, 9 Main Steet Cfanford, NJ 07016 Flemingson, NI 08822, Re Lehigh v. Cranford, cf ‘Docket No. UNN-L-140-08 esr Counsel “The courts before it fur motions. Fis th court hes before it Cranford Development “Associnion TLC (Cvanfond Development”) moon for partiel summary jaJgment on ths ise ‘08 a ogodatons, Defendat, te Township of Cranford and te Planing Bos ofthe ‘Fanahip of Cranford (“defendants”) Bled opposition. Second loin, Leigh Aoqusion Page 1 of 26Corp ("Lehigh") moved to ska the Townthip’s good fh seperate datnscs and to impose a Scare rsbutes fetal. The Township fied oppeston. Thitd, Cranford Development ‘Asvocltes end Lehigh fled a motion (0 oxshee the testimony ofthe Townships ezonome {easly expect, Vietor Furemon, °2, ALCP. Fourth, the Township fled motion to amend fie answers and assert a thict-pstycompeint aginst he Connel on Affordable Housing CECOAE?), Orel argument was heard on Apl 1, 2010. ial ie euvetly scheduled fr July 12, 2010, Background History Pini, Confort Developers Atos LC om propa consising of proxy TS ots n Gra ied e713 tod 255 Buch! Aven x Cato PrN deen os lec 9), bot 1301s Blok 29, Lat? on Cf Toss ny ese no en i comer een ca FB antes Dato ost ln rept resi es Ca Nae ere ev and nneras nemo tog! Lehigh fnst approseh the Township nd its Planning Board in August 2008 with concept plan presented athe Augie 25, 2004 mottng, (Sex Defendnts Statement of Facts, 4 ‘5. Boeatse Lehigh's development concept would require an apliceton fora "use vince," a ‘Deaoning ofthe propery or deerminaion by the Township committe thet he propety was an “et in aced of redevelopment” pursut wo th Loot] Redevelopment and Housing Law, NiIS-A.40A:12A-1, Lehigh equated that tne Planning Bord consider recommending to the ‘Township Comnite tat the 355 Soh Avenue sts be considered for examinstion as an ar oul of redevelopment. (Seg Ex. C annexed to Penlon Cet ox also Cvecaro Cen, EX. A 1 15, on Ait 6,200, te Pein Board rvewe edelopet ri propo by enign cht fee sone ng Lele eked er artes ety Le eas condor Tht oun te ero he Toms ine isco Gen a a ep Je Apron, Ex ton Seren Dgree: 2007, te Tovnsip Commies ot with, re Saute ot sti del onsen Lip et 205 100 "Gils tom bd ong i fespona, Mayor Plc suggested tt the developer “ssign a concep pln 0 gdh Township Commitee fr seve Pesca Be cpa op Seay cn of €0 ur peited by the eden plan (0? isp frome “deal of 6 untae), (Gee Canela Cor, Ex.1)-Atmeatings hel on Docomber 10,2007 Seay 1a 2008, chigh conned 0 sece an ncrete to 126 unit. Toco, = ot ional alanis i Echighnade mo otra led tv, (On September 24, 2008, Cranford Development submited specific writen proposs thon Mayor Rlcbard Pahak. The proposal consisted of plan 1o construct 396 mavket-rate mul bly urls and 63 mltsfomlly unit that would be reserved fr low and moder income Page 2.0825households, fnluded withthe propos were copies ofa conceptual ste pan, perspective ‘endering and conceprial elevation oF the proposed projet Cranford Dovelopment allege ints otement of ater fasta expressed a dese toappeanat io aoa Towasip Gost menting and ln ofred to ost with Mayr Pubak GgPEfer municipal ofcns es dotmed sppropsee (Sa eter Som P Helena to Mayor rae agtnoer 34,2008 mnaexed fo Hekenian Ct, Ex. C), Mayor Pub di pot mest alsin Development odious he ropa ordi ih Towne Comes te ttn psa he Oat [2006 eing, Conf Develop tins etn rig pble sme pvod a dof he ing (Se Octobe 7, 2008 Ser ey sto bdr Cet x H)- Mayor Puak expressed “ops tht Cranford Minute mene Jag propose fr neltionry Sevelopmt on hese, (ex Tense of pe otabe: 72008 meeting sexed Wo indore Ce, Ex, Bs asl atomay ated dias anty# Devlopentaeeeiee athe mein cee aa Coated Developme pir i en ua ows eg and Jem a nocon the egedn or that meting (Sen Ootber 21,2008 Trnsrpoaneeed {otis Cat, BJ} Cenfod Develpmnen fare lege tt Mayer Puta Cranford Destopmet hat eed nn ings oped orbs consideration wd eee opine eae ac pole li ut ive i, en expected tobe epors fos hee perm ts Mover 10,2008 owing, 5-7, ou Caner Develop, Ripe Betts Pan ines ocen Cresto ee, ee Promina eve eon gi Ka 1, Te vei oy titaek Cranford Development prior to the November 11, 2009 Township Committee meeting. It aaanae err brated Developmen wih he opr te peor a yt ask ee ee afoot, Wien Cranford Devsopment orally requested hess eps ude Tae enods Ac, tha Township rebuild te request on ie gots tat he repr {he Open he Bonin (es Novenbe 1, 2008 Tenet med 0 Sefer Ct, rere diac act propel nthe gen. Se Township Mew, a nner 12008 memed o Bbdore Car x Ly The Township oan Ms Nore por ovine raf Develops! nd that oo en 2 era hr to Planing Board orev. enon evelopment is a ie Pian tht Canto Deep shou oie or eplamton nr ererng oe Posi owe (Gee Neveboe 1) 2008 SAREE potennavo to Elsurer Ofc 9). The Township did ot opt a reson refening {HS Proposed rezoning tothe Phaning Board for review, (Sez November 11, 2008 Minutes. onlin Ou by plement a Maja fe reeset lining oud tal Canard Dovlpman had mate x popa 100 Aamininan! ate Pica iin oesordance Wath the procedures set ARISBRE Taos Doscopmesn Orne? (See November 18, 2008 eter annexed o Eater Gen, BeN). Page 3 of 26‘Cranford Developtoent ed the complsiat in the instant actlon on November 12, 2008, Complaint annered to Eisdorfer Cor). The Planing Boss filed an ser on Janbary 5, $09, (See Board Annet eanened to Eiscorer Cert, Bx 8). Cranford Township nd Mayor and ‘Counall of Cranford Township led an anewer on Jebuny 16,2008. (See Township Answer Snnewod to Bledorfer Coxe, Ex, C). On Jesus 30, 2009, Craft Developient Sed a moon for panel summary judamentseling an cede esting hatte Towchip was a vilstion of i dt "he Now less} Conetvton an he Fair Wousing Act of 1985 to create ‘licen walistic opportuni fo he eonetursion of taf, decent housing nfodable to low fd msodeate cone file o satisfy fa chae ofthe ume ropional need fr such ‘BOWIE The notion vas gasied on April 2, 2008, See Opinion dated April 2, 2009 annexed to ‘ladorier Cen, Bx, 2). The the cout consolidated with tis matter with apaor exclusionary ‘zoning Inwsuly Lehigh Aequision Corporation v. Township of Cranford, UNN-1-0140-08. The Court appoiniod Elinabedh MekKenzic, PP sa specie master to overee el futher procsedings {blo pater, The pasties engnged In extensive seovery whic is substantially complete {IL Lekigh's motion as to whether a sere resource restraint should be impose. Lehigh contend that nrestaint shouldbe pled onthe land and ll developmeatiedevelopruent speoval until ho Township has addressed its 1987-2018 low and {rodeetsinoome cbligaton. Lehigh cite a eport by Elizabeth McKenzie, Special Master who ‘pportuniy te nerese toe dens base on Lzhigh sist addesring parking isos. Ths Special Mate couches . ‘constrution oF alostaD guage i Spas fie inposition of «restin sy reused fm oder i maint ie Sen oo wth ‘Seguro te soar osurce with the gol of ensuring tht low and moder income housings in compliance wit he Mount Laure detrine. ‘in oppostion, defendants cone ht high not ed fo a sere resoursrenint because caoot sta nepertle y in tf fhe Towaships mbit Ysa 2S! Laue oligaton viet fone sot impose. Defandant argue tft Eooue aaa a timan tt obligation wl tts ear. suntepucd it east incite Bed on cues and ventory only two preload ere of sufileat ‘ei musta an nlsiony develops, bu of washare owned by leit . erearenodaionl ai at hig salvador I a eS ay NUE Cora te uchgot (pages emt pn na Ll iy oe Si oetopment or redeveloren projet Purthemaoo, ena rgu ht Leigh's ‘epics upon cori cascslotspaced at in esh of hove aoe, the developer sought se "es be’ ey monn evel pet tc einai se eset Tata ‘eirnstif son dati red aint agus tal Se a re lo tp 29 Somes 6, Be ojech ive Clase r muniegally spore patel oa he ona aa Page dof 26(On March 30,2010, Ms. McKenzie submitd comments on some ofthe asus rise in ‘ne mations In both hi eter as wll aa pir inter dated Api 20,2008, Ms. MeKenze ate that is ot uncommon fer cours or CAH o impose scarce rsource eats on non Conmpit nispaies. Restalts ay apply end, swage eaten pacity ox Wate Supy. Ma: McKenzie tated the Sree Rowoure Restraint usally remains in place wile the Inunicpali's affordable housing compliance ple s being prepared and wal be court rents !pprovel ofthe compliance plan and issues a final jgment of repose Here al partis bave ekxowltged that he Township as lite remaining vacant land within is bows, The "Township hrs indicted in adopted housing element en fir hare plan that it blives itis entitled tan ajummens in fr shar obligation doen inouficiency of vacant developeble tend, Meena thus cone batt Ap] 2009 and March 2030 itr that the sere ‘ole restrint shouldbe finped on Cranford With espet the developnent an re) development of vacant and previouly developed land. However, Ms. McKenzie recommends ‘bat be saeco reanunee Yes be imponed rbjet wo ceain exemptions: > ‘lotto esbictions p andor en ston increasing by up to 25% the floor ae ofan crsting commercial stot, 2 gtdeeapoctfe ing ot fny hae ona pein bo 1200 eee ores, 3)-Bxgansion ofan exising single or to -fanity home; {2} Replacement of strcture desveyed or patsllydesuoyed by fie or od; 5) Any development that proposes ct Jast a 15% set-eside of lfbrdable housing (the " alfpblesaroventl) oat lest a 20% sot sie of ffordable housing i tr ‘Htordables are forsale) including commercial vnponcls uf «mixed use develojwout ‘Shere theres dital potion of the development satisfies one ofthese criteria, 26 The eonsretion or expansion ofa house of Worship ‘uC venamads 1ORNA US7 NH, eo Mas ier roquia ps ngonion of orl of jreichon. oo a appa. {ot eingunive coaiECaG Wt aysing IAI) appropri eats fo preteie Sree estroe "mel noaeresres hal probly be essed othe eisaton of ‘peau Lavra sbligaleesl The eout eae thet" sony after aca examination Pits creunstnon that suround sok mater tit oe ean make an iforned deaiion ‘on whether further development or use of these Zusilities is likely to huye a substantial adverse ‘pao th tose mule a viewer acme bau in ie te” (Gupta ded). Troi of saree resus est condions no a ba ae RE esse bein nee lly Som) ol ts Mount Lael COV Ua 8. Th, hs cour found it was "sng 0 fnpuse mci condtonsézsgned io conserve scarce Tesbuce in hen seeos of "ne “Hevough analy he ovo Ht [New Jersey has long recognized, ina wide variety of contexts the power ofthe juicy to prevent some thretening, irreparable mischief, which should be averted wail opporaunity is ‘onde for afl and deliberate investigation of te ase." Csowe x. De Gipin, 90 NJ. 126, 152 {NJ 1982). Crowe the court held trellis appropsiate when neceestry to preset Page $0f26,irepaabl harm, and upon 2 balancing ofthe relative hardship the partes granting or denying tlle. Crnue, 901NJ. at 132-34, Accordingly, iustve ret should sae only When ts faovent demonstrates shat gle necessary Yo prevent epee as 2) the legal: =Pphistnderying pls slauas ae sete 3) alec facts re. oncouovetd; sa 4). rela ardhip analy aves he pat equsting here at 8218.7 ‘Th ect of remiss rnp develope ieee neat alan Cup Bao oer Sl le, 2675. Spe Cp Di 100 Dra ose osanves patel a sorely ag seece ‘ese Tn eli nel ot sy. ot eng apo ty so erg poston eae fea Eee eta cnomesstan suena omy ProvidesferloW nd moderate income housing are established on the basis of regional ‘Spoonbin a8 eeMan awe S220 Mame Lael 70.131, F730, app dd 38 0 Sina, in Samaritan Coins. Borough of aglishtown, 294 NJ. Supt 437, 460 (Law Div. 1986) the cou find tha ie not predainte ator underaquliave says is the pbc niet in developing housing fr ow and moderate lncore needs In Samana. Hi ts ta phoning mnie ond eo! suboiies avearepensloe ee a : a scoaon Ths toute ‘Beso passenger eee ty iaslueas Arhosmeetctie palctall aiey end wlnrc int oat CU ESe ‘Most recently, in Bl-Connty Dev. of Clinton v, Boo W7aNJ. 301 (NJ. 2000), the court found tht cach municipality must ait or felitats iw to moder Income housing even ifthe municipality doesnot formally adopt zoning policies to mspede such housing development. The cout explained: “ve sti Gt pecnieg x eprint, Seat LS SERS ae once fines ai therein pal ofprviding els bousing Dpporunes oe T6W au moder pone dle ln aeosteeve manos REE pnt ung loon noon Tat ser Spain canoe nga ce inte MAND Dcmensty os ips Conte hows Lan Hop Miguios sister pete mencipy Sr tt aly a oy seis ls shu Seep ate rng mass eneloop aflame 7050 a2 cha ma ‘WAEQLALDE Ot te Supreme Cou aimed te eppela cous ing tbat mre payment of money ito the tons dole hous find in hea someting ‘Morbi using did ot ive develope th pho comet no 9 pele parton of _ivolialitys wwe yee ipods the es fu hatte developer yas no bung Page 60026si using B:Comn Doe. af Clinton! 174 8H), Th ssc ofits evelopment ‘esol ukemi eyopered ellie ane facing averse Coneling eodest auntie sunidplts sewer ayer would ot felt th onsmoction flower income Youre a CCOAH's rues and regulations provide that norwithstanding the eck of adequate water soior sewer atthe time « mnliplty peons for substantive caifieation he rumieialty Shall reserve and st tide now water mor sewer capacity when jt becomes avallable fo low thd moderate income housing om a pelority buss. COAH responded inthe New Jersey Regist, "The Counell expects municipalities to do everything with ter contzos to rovide infiastructure fo inchisionary ses. Certainly, muniepalies will be expeced to reserve sewer land water enpecity fer low and moderats income housing whers sewer and weter isa sear resource” 25 NIRSTI0. 1 previous ets, COA found tha ovaship's unmet eed dos ot isppear because otto Realine DovelepmentPatatil RDP" Ia he mater of Peton Zo Sobwtnve Cetfieston Med by Borough of Halon; motion for scare resource fries, ‘sin aon hte cron nd COA cht naa 6 dO Gos, Heaoniedclaied al of wacom ilo mex is new constuetion component sre FN lsny eect dr Shae pl whl apt EDP oft Seaton; ‘he Borough of Haddoneld ae alloing reside develope and was nor roving satfrble housing ns part oft éovslopent. Despite sh, the Plain, oud of “fesdntld approved Zor eset irs toa of 40 ns nd had reset pening bl ‘pple fine repeal onl ed COAL ed TPES one nests not depp becase of any RDF." Awe es for state reseurnpsnas, COAH Sandia apropie under eft etx ‘eadoueld wom smug ea ter develope appevalspeoting COAH's even aa aphtoval ofr amended len ‘Simailuny, a Moris County Pai Housing Conall v. Boonton Taymahin, COAH docket [No 862, dated November 3, 1986, there was no dispute ost the aeaciy of sewerage capacity fn Denville and Rendolpn Tovaships. COAH reected the Public Advoctte'a reliance up the defenses end assertions urged by Denville and Randolph trough the Mount Laurel proceedings fn the eal court that indequotereaouree exist for these municipalities to moet their Mount {Laurel obligation If st 10, COAH found thatthe tac of relying upon te stelements ofthe tir side "eid not lod self to mang the mos satisfactory reord” Id. Ths, COAT could not ‘etenmins on the rover before it wheter resoreat ocr than sewerage treatment capacity were scarce and in danger of exhaustion. 1.2 1. eho top bousing plan element and far share plan prepared by TAM Associ. sandeniorie bythe Township campilise on December 9, 2008 shows wit Townskip. of Gtr does aie Best ecag to acronzoote is 148 nit total obligation om the “fu wA¥ Seco rounds. The Speci! Maser also has sued two reports, deed Api 20,2009 ‘snd March 30,2000 ta the land ise saeco exouree, The Township Goes nt dispute thi fing Even though defendants have ened aust fo he allowing developers: 555 Seuth Avene Site, the Rivero Redevelopment Project, five Cas-1Se mnicially Page 7 026pote paces on th Moe Suzette sly prod vine fo ad see ed ieee Wie a, em, Meee eae nel, ee piney Ios wer in ais rina easton ofpeavogaaea oat wal lity of doing #0, the power to-do s0, the costs, end the ability to enforce such a condition. Fee ae ace oobed isn sonrae five ml no are ing oppumut fusmigicasmrrtenned oe xnog nse “Tequirements not réquitiig affordable housing oF permitting nc lential es om properties ‘that could accommodate on inclusionary residential developmént. While the parties in While Bi- Pr arsed he mea of oer egy, he paris ve SO a es emng vc wien tee Te spelen te Toy nog cars ir pos lve ls Fa econ on wn icency ofr develo Ind. “Therefor, the motion for sumamary judgments othe scares reso a ‘GRANTED thelectee esos testa shall be sbject oth exerptioas reeamuneaa0 by ‘Mar Makenzie. TM, Good faith negotiations 1” Cranford Developments motion for somsmary judgment as to defendants? Stlrmative defense that plants filed fo engage in good faith negotiations prior to fling the present Iiigution. canted sonia sea at pata ergee yoru: ronaie SRO a tegnatons rcto bop gato Cand Development Te appeared oreo pur twoablp comme mown andes vodainy aa eee aie Tomclip rear the popy. They conan Ct hey ade oa ea eetod qs, ofr fo cet neal, sought eda em te Fes caeslonly en ined he Towns cngagein an aeracve process. own ele Devclopat contends tai Tow need hat hy weld wt ao en nes ey paused an applican fr teonng blr he nig Bou Pe ese placed the'propoeal on the apendaiandubus Cranford: & bs ni alae heh pfesenaions ding publevonmment Seton athe ‘Glos ecmmates mesungs Cranford Development else aries thet th Township Commies sae mcr ny rene epae opel RR SS enon ase pon ih lessee sft pone ire Pie Toship Cpmiton sevens ofsed 0 make the reports avaiable 1 anid Dovey ‘nally, Cranfod Devlopoant goes tha the Township's slo spond toe popon SoS a pod dag whieh Tosh Commie was fouling a i a Cpe Dolores wetness solar eee cs ilegedly was stinnusiem along tem mectingto? a ia Fabaceae would cespond the propesal ny alee? Rontetieeively completed it prepartion ofthe fran pla. Cyaford Developmeat argues Pago 8 0 26‘thatthe Township's responses forte delayed review ofthe proposal including the assertion that {rh to “istrackits ae share planning process fs without merit Also, Cranford evelopment angus that plains’ property was already familiar tothe Township Commie. ‘The Cemmiise had previously considered a request to rane te sme property for inelusionary {nult-faily development during the previous two yers. A number ofthe member of the ‘Township Comaaites, including Mayor Pobsk bed served onthe Plenning Bosrd during tis ‘ime. The Comte dd not need longy process to int elf ofthe location and charac bthe ales Thus, Cranford Development args hat there i no evidence that they fled to gotten good ft" In opposition, defendants argue thet summary jugsnon Is inappropriate because th il court must make a eredbiliy determination as ote absence of good faith, Defendants are ‘atthe fact finder rust analyze al competent evidential material to determine wheter Eehiok ‘ogotited in bad fain Dated igus tar the ogurtmust cnsider the “subse nd enor” ‘fhe presintations med by the Cranford Development to tbe To hip, te eoesive ns “Gita ime-pespure dered snd "usvilingnese to submaitan apllesion tobe peng ‘oat ortaeaningflly pareve wnon-liignred consideration,” Defendents argue that hs court ‘nur tr teatmony trom thos mo “negotiated” on behalf of Cranford Development os well as {he Township representatives inorder fo give “olor and meaning” to Cranford Development's conduct ‘Defendants ergue that Cranford Development id not negotiie in god fat tir to Inaeating the sult Cranford Development purchased the property in September 2008. Then, {Crafiet Development broached the sso of dsited development and potential rezoning atthe ‘suse ste in a September 24, 2008 [elier om Peter Hekenin to the Township's Mayer, Robect Pubs. However, te existing zoning ofthe subject site did nat permit a projec of te ‘pre pliniis were proposing, Defendants argue that Cranford Developmen id not view the "Fovenship's request for information fom vasious deperiment heads in reponse to the plaintiff's jroposal as umreesonable. Defendants contend that plats never submited en aplication to {fo planning boerd lo consider fereroning roqust. in um, Cranford Development allegely did ot bargin at all Secon, denn ge it Ctr Deeapne made no got fh tenga comin Sitio ates Btoons ened at Eigse prety aaa rea oa hiss The pts hod ever areata nce of an ee any Cie Delonte) oa cates ee! Se er a Re Tem IDaNT am smen Cam} e Nets etinwon t Tra eee! 7 na ee ipnion obo on teas: puldee ust negotiate im good ich and attempt 1.0 aes ie sine fn eo ena een te ea eesti ‘BOiinoaeris coyotes ont tnd sre ut Crib wes, ‘a egened to sek volta medion end review ude the Flr Housing Act, Cred Beiter enact defence chose not aval elf he oppomniy fr vlamry Redland review under ory protean ofthe Fir Housing Act Hower, “Ricans ape tht a Township is aot tage COAH jection, Ths cou nt hve, Pege 9 of 26ven ft chose to, eagage in meiaton with COAE before Cranford Development led eat However, even ifthe Fur Housing Act procedure were applicable, which i not twas (Coanfurd Development's burden to exhaust his adminisrtive review sod medotion process port Inreply, Ceanford Development argues thatthe cases cited by defendants involve seleatr, bad motive, or other sees of subJective good faith. atieveG Cranford Development. Grqerstho feds have noid any case whic le ht shee gob eat eset ee ood feth negotiations” in the cortex of selusioiy zoning sc liatog The only report eat in which court has anual analyzed whet plans ‘gaged in good faith nepitione, the courts based ther analysis entely onthe objective fats ‘fe interaction betwen tho builder pint wnd municipal officals, Toll Bune. ina ‘Township of West Windsor, 173 NJ 02, $3839, 59-61 (2002). The cour in Tolls Brothers RPE approval of ho ial cous cbservation "hat it was ‘unaware of any ase whore & fulldar has me he thee-prong[bider's emedy] test and fied wo atm good fit” end feknoviodged the dfivuly, a any event, of ‘proving tht suit has been brought wnasoossaly toto a lovetage mechanism If et 5378, Caaford Development argues thatthe standard for fletermnining good fh has always been obicelive. Therefor, the ame of good fh is tppropdat for summary judge. _ ates Ss vcipmen agUaE tat ald abt Hak Utenegottons RAM he! _ Tomlin ke ff pesos hy newing swoud venesonte 6 BS rapa {igure an oplction unde the Crunord Ordnaees, Sestins135-1390535n a raed arc slop aia Be Cnr eas ot air unrea ie {i aE! Expect at least some substantive respon ts propos Feo spine roms os foal apo ei jan Cee Unis oral waa fi 26 TL UU on rmbe 08 a oe ere ent inambev pees fone Tovah ‘These may be istences when good fithnogtiations wil be ful. The pnt coosing to win tho 220 to the courthoure by elying upon the ful defense had etor be ‘ropared to prov itor nek having won the ace only to be disqualified fora fle star... Bret). w-ranlin 204 NJ Soper. 445, <6) (Law Div. 1983), However, the court eauioned ‘But plates “choosing fo win the rave the courthouse by relying upon he fly defense bod wetter be prope to preve itor ik having oon th raze only to be disqualified fora false tr.” TE araet The cour explained tat the benefit vento the Set builder to Sis “ot intended to itu the Court's edmonton that pla must xt n good fh nd attempt to obtain relief ‘without tigation." Finely, the court explained (YIhis coun’s experience his demontrated het it is very lol to provers ‘thas bean brought unnecessary or as a loverage mechanism. Experience has ‘vo demonstrated, however that there ial othe aumber of pasts Page 10.026nested to vindicate the constnlonal obligation and that excessive plant can ‘masculate the muniipal plang options.” JW. Field, 454 ‘The court eoognize that bilder’ remedies shoal be granted as a matter of couse” were the developer demonstees non-compliance of the orinanes, proposes a substantial set Taso nd he contucton ean be plemested wihout pubstantial negative environment oF lenning impact Id at 451-452, The cout also noted that he issue of good faith “wil ordinarily Eeveselved st he eame tne th trshold detennination of entitlement is made Ido 461 [Even where the value o pie of tbe property is the principal insu, the cont exognizes that the owner may be 9 intrensgent in his o hr postion aso prose mesningt Aisewsions, Canty of Monmouth v, Whispering Woods at Bamun Holl, 222 NJ. Super, 1,9 (App. Div. 1987), ced by Sute by Comun"s of Tramp, x, Carol, 123 NJ. 308 QI 1991), The (ae cxpllnod: Th cout dogo not suggest that tho condemnor nay pense witht tttary {inty to engage in bona fide negotons merely because the positions ofthe parties are fer apart brave expressed in strident tnee. The out weald be sor on realism, however, wer itnotio, vote Watt akex at ent two to negotiate and the record shuld be reviewed with that in mins In Whisporing Woods the cout found that th appllnt’s flue to supply responders with {Be appraaa! andthe manaer in whish the emoant of such offered compensation had been ‘Calculated pot to lgetlon onstinted such “signiiemt statutory dereliction sto compel ‘lemisea ofthe complain.” Ub. “tye quentontofietendant's goo faithdoes not led fue trendy definition athe, t must be sensitively eate in ight ofl th ettndant facts and cramstances which give oolor i iycaning o oteswise neu conduct, Evans, 29678. Sager. t 117. The cout in Beans ‘ated thatthe underaking ean “rately succeed except aftr a presentation of ll he evidence {rough dvce and ersy-scaminsion and uti n opportunity hasbeen afforded observe the ‘emesnor of the witness However, the cour in Ens eautoned tha it afing only indeates ‘Ravinocestty” ofa judge meking the legal deterniasons on which the partie rights hinge on & Fil nnd complete record, The curt explained “I, om plenary hearing, the jug finds no Factual eave prsent or fins a moving party i ented fo Judgment as e mater of law, then Judgment shouldbe enford accordingly.” Id. Sor Jackson v, Mublenbxg Hosnia, 53 NI 138, a2 (1968) ("Tbe sue projcted bythe complaint implicates "highly significant policy Consderttony and forts reson ele should not have been decided on les han afl eco) Care must be taken to make certai tat Mount Laurel isnot used ws an uninended ‘bargaining chip ina builders negotitons withthe municipality, and that the cours nat be used eRe eater for the builder’ tres ta bing Mount Lanse igaion if muaiipa aprovels for jets containing no lower income hovting aro not frtteoming, Qseanport folding LLC. x, ‘of Oxtinport 396NNJ, Super. 622, 628 (gp. Div. 2007, eting Mount Lauel I, 92 Nor at 279-00, tus a veloper mse otempt ose oie witht iigation Ld et 853, m2. tn Toll Brothers, lnc. Pp. Of West Windsor, 173 NJ. 502 (2002) tbe Supreme Court ndessed te neue of good fut nthe context ofa balers remedy. The Court reognizad that ior to commoneng ligation nd even afer th ling of ts on, the developer had eae esicred with te tniipalty on several occasions. 1d st 960, The cou also recognized age 11 of 26‘atthe developed evinced a willingness fo seo oa multiple obeesions. Significantly, the cours ‘al tht dosing to apply fo the Planning Board for xo application was not an acto bad faith. It eg is ese wo negate lot be ead to ale abe ober ery pes nopagotied n good fit Sat by Comm of Tens, Cv 123.308, 318 (J WSoiy te St oho no negotiate n oe when the prope ove i s0 {Eloigenin his peston af pecude neigh decsons” Ht 326. fn Canal, he ‘pret Cour acted batt State's appa Was complied end dill to flow. ‘Nazerhetey, ms not so unntlle or nompreensele as to negate the elise Merely for Sones nepaone 324, The cut was sified at he infomation Preeti ccemingly tnticest, i m1 mislead the tis or fal wo equa he pies abt ancl appoeth wed and under the ceunstmoes rd ous fr purposes of ents sonst ogatatons, Id Defence nade wo repens to either of tin ste’ tr {ithe Some oud tht ihe had Wished to cots negoans, he could ave nquied about {eters er edo renew dissin before he Seo fled is ondetmaton cops [In {igang he cout determined ate stato ad adequaly evinced ts itenton ‘Eaton in god ath nd dnt prematurely or unensonaby ea off egostons. sei Babb dene tat Ce Develo cai nga inn ne re recat Miguonf eens oegstions ee ot a Te re ander ire sao ctvenseciingwinesstesicony ond un ‘Seaver whieh a enneble itsiader old in tn anit led he nstnt it GENTLY isthe ebsone ny Ination ie On the contrary, Cranford Development I rested evidence tat tapped ties repue lovoshipeommavee meedngs sd use tronshop msctings ove a patod of eight weeks to reqs ht the Township rezone Trop, SERGE Ae sap evden hat Crenford Dvslopment atempted io engage Mayor «Putte te Towship Comite in negotiations ror oho prea Igation ‘Therefore, the motion for suramary julyment to tke the Township's good fits defense is GRANTED. b. Whether Cranford Development filed to negotiate In good faith negotiations beens they filled to exhaust an administrative remedy. “The Township Commie refused to consider pil’ s equsstto rezone its propery for snctusionnry Zong Wales plsiatfs fast made sn epplication fr rezoning under §§136-59 of Gianfnd's Land Use Ordioane before the Panning Boer, Cranford Development argues that {Be applostion process is eqlvalont ofa development application ia which the Township elas isan required to adopt the recommendation. The Cranford Land Use Ordinances CaREry 15689 segute «plan ofthe exiing conditions and proposed development that nclues tae oul thot would be equred for an aplication fr preliminary site approval. §§ 135- Bndb) end (Ch, 1SO2ID. in dln [trues pyroet of fig fee mud fo for eviw by {ho development conse. §§136-0, 1364). The review culminates ina writen ase vecednton by die Pinging Boerd tothe Township Commitee es whether it should ‘opt the ordiaanoe emendeet ope 12.0826cranford Development argues that thre sno xed sander fora favorable recommendation tis wholly dseretoamy ule a development application under the Shanice Lend Use Law ("MUL"), Purermore, unlike statutory lend development veatcons governed bythe MLL, the alr ofthe Plumning Board to make a decision within ‘bays fs deemed to be an automstc denial Tir, the Plnning Boerd hes no power to grant {ny sata allt on only make recommendation, Sexton 136-69 provides tata "Township Gehamites may determine, nis sole dlcrtion, weber or not to act on any application and Shuther or ao fo grant, xy or modify any application.” ‘Ths, tho aministtive remedy ould cane Shall bes lable soltion The Planning Board would nt be able to make a binding aon tutonaldoterninaton sto the validity ofthe snipe zoning ordinance. It also could ‘ov fc ny such conatiational defect even if Ht made a finding, ‘Also, Cranford Development argues tht under Mount Lanse municipalities exnot in th guise of good fit nogotiatoneroqle tht bude paint exhovst any local (Usniseative rernd. In Mount Laue) I the Supreme Cour noted “swe comment hereon the dafendets' clam tha plaints should have exbansted tdininiative remedies before bringing this sil. Tere is no soe requirement in ‘Mount Lael gation, I party ig alleging theta mafoipalty has not met is ‘Mount Lauel obligation, a conatinsional issue is presente tat loa! Minlnlseative bodies have no euthoiy to decide, Ths it is extaialy appropriate {ora pasty saiming a Mount Laurel voleon o bring its elaim dee to our.” Seo, eg Mount Saul, $2 NJ 198, 342 73 (1989); Bulan w- Citas 9 N17 (1952) Gling hat no enhsnstion of eminowative remedies i required where only a question ee aera) 2 Cooper, Sato Adminiszative Lav 578 (1965). Thus, Cranford Development crete air to pes sn appentin (othe Planing Board for rezoning dvs not precinde See elo. Such an egurnent sy dvect omit withthe spec holdings of Monnt Laurel tn oppostica, defendants argue that Crenford Developmen is unable to cite to single uthorty tut the Craford Ondinenons impose aditona requires not express authorized by JRONILUL. Defeadents cooteod tht Cranford Development eis on general propositions ‘Reming municipal police power uder tho MLUL and sic application of the procedurs TEEak clansang bod inay act each conclusions of law on constitaonsl question, caer nee ae witha the mbit ofits power under the MULL, Messer v,Burinston Tw. 17a NU Super 479, 87 (Law Div, 1980). Defendants also egue that NLS, § 0:85D-1 unambiguously provides that roe to the adoption ofa development eplaon revision or amendment thereto, the planting bow “Ran euce nad tans othe governing body within 35 daye after efera, oreportinehading rane a ion af any povisons i the propored development reglation. "Ths, defendants een Rata soning matter re fe by govereing bodes to thet respctve aunltpal siete Dou for review sd reeommardaten. Defendants lao ce Con, Zing and Land Berns E, a eoatce which provides that te "MUL i llent wih spect to any specie ve ete ulloned by andoweos desiring fo bve te zoning designation of i Page 13 0f 26thngea.” Ia §349. Te testi explains that “most eninanoes provide that she planning ‘Sond shall upon reeipt of epas fom its professionals, make a recommendation fo the [Bverning bor ether fo adopt or nt adopt the proposed hang. Those smunitzlies not [to lavesene erdinasees enacted by others Eaving ihe Wind of odingncs would do fl oi om others mound and sda one of these fo thir own nesds" Id. (mphasis added) ‘Cumford Ondianceo §§ 136-59 suhorizes applications for rezoning and provides ia potinent pat “The owner of any real propery inthe Townhip of Cranford may submit ‘9 application othe Planing Bond ofthe Township of Cranford for the ‘cooing ofits real propery. A*davelopec™ as that er uso in the Maricipal Lend Use Law, NSA. §40:55D-1, eq, may soba 2x pplication fr rezoning, provided ft such aplietion is submitted with {he wltlen consent of he ocor ofthe affected propery.” “Thus defendoats nue thatthe ordinances dal ibe procedurt] aspect of such plication, Bvey peoposed ste evelopment aplication, respective of is sie, is subject to ‘tds procedure. inthis cao, the court has found tht athe Cranford Development or high Sled the switin ete bargain chip in tbe sgoison process. As Cnnford Developme as mgued, TWA suttry tnd davelopmenreplietions govemed by the MLUL, the slr of the Fleasiae Bsr to make adeision within 120 day is deemed to be a astomatc dena Fee is Planning Bond des not have any power fo grant stil elle Rae iL aaay only Ses cresommendaton, Section 136-9. Even if Cranford Development and Lehigh xerised Treduinsatve reed, the Planing Boar coud not issu a binding constitional ‘Dhecanaton a0 tu vty of te inlepal zoning orinane. ould not fix any ceesetional defect even fitmode a fnding. Ths, the adinisave renedy would not be & fable solution, Finally, under Mount Laurel, 92 NJ. 158, 3420.73 (1983), municipal Tee inthe git of Bod faih negotiations eguire tet a bull plalate eds eny local SEnnisoadve ened hghssalseee tha rater Develpent lsd 6 engage in good aa sley beau they Sled wo xh tn Heise seaedy-Theefores Pegan} Developments motion fr summary Judament as the good fat claim fer flee 1: “ns a nitive remedy is GRANTED. Lehigh’s motion to strike the affirmative defense of good faith, Int spur meson sti th ood ath ene adn! mse, Lehigh capes tear te gh nner 4, 208, ere were pont 28 See ee omecaay ent srry tne etpmen Sane eee ain tt snk of be Tovaips expr reviewed iret ‘eae tpn ureter sperms ea in teste a ana tet a igaon pig ti. Peeing i tine dps soled wit Be plans denonste Page 14 0f 26“Lghigh's good fit: Thus, Lehigh axuos thatthe good Sth defense rst be seken fom ‘Seendant’ affimnsive defenses Te opposition, defeadents agus the summary odpm iappropat because «gad suite onsur cri intent, vation od ress, Defendants suet te fc Fan asaya compote! evideatiel materials to determine whether Leigh negotiated i {at fh, efidanta it ane. Habe Pols Den’. 236. Ser. 113 (App, Di. 1989) and DY Me Amat, 305 NJ, Suber 108(App. Div. 1997) nvhich be ‘Boas hee hata good fet claim is bost served by at pea mers. ls, Stns Sa Thy thy date of Lehigh’ dling of the aut the Township was akeady vera year xo Hae aca of ks naw raster pln, which included a Housing Element and Fir Shar Pl ‘Tasriyaoptdrtevelopot ie call fr Bsn, nebig L's Fear eeeok eb. wats the 555 South Avenue Site. le Coochen Cet, Ex. A): ey s ‘Beton arp fm while tho Towashipofeedto approve an nceat 1090 wt Canid Bessie apd Letigh spy od sat enosming is Deesmber 1,207 demnd for 126 ° “unites ‘urihermore, defendants agus in opposition thatthe frequen of communications with she Towhly aot evidence of good fit lone, Rather, defendants argve thet the Township ‘SGopied wis nny of Langh’s toques, On Api 62005, he Planing Bou reviewed cerreelopment project proposed by Lehigh, Walch called for 60 nls of age-reeuitedhovsing, {Cohigh ated fore meximom density of BO units subject to condtons, Tt equest was Capri by te Townchip in the Redeveloraect Plan dated January 4 2006, See Cea Fae od se ala Township Joint Appendix, Ex. E). Eis Sepibe to Dovarber 2007, the Seon Gouatee met wih Cap to cseuss a eres tn deus, vue er Uehgh evar fanisree of 12020 140.un ior the nga 60 wt eave Tanne re ptiok slasesed that the developer design 4. concep plano be presented tbe Towa Ess eons By eter Gated December 14,2007, Lehighscounoe] advised he STorahip at it peoposed an incensed density of 126 uns up from the maxon off nis ‘Rants by the edevelopenent plan ( density 16 wate), (Sue Cvectazo Cnt. ED At Pegs eld on December 10,2007 and Jemuary 14,2008, Leigh continued to demand an ae OG unite, The Towaship responded that icon only plan for 80 units, Defendans ‘acto at Lehigh mado no counteroffer nd undertook no effort to determine whether there Pera co nogoite, Rates, filed sl wo days later. Defevant contend that Labgh's aera a dtly escalated, Aslste at October 21,2009, Lehigh demanded 240 uns, tn roply, Lehigh makes several erguments. Legh contends tht it sed to bo placed on se Towns Goma agenda numerous mes, Leigh wzte fo the Township in alter datod ‘hy 202009 o increase dons on th te aswel sedation in xerow sn ppllstion Te enomend to Cucchin Cert). Letigh apescet at the Township's Septrber 24,2007 eee Id ate C. Lehigh thea followed vp withaneamal ded Ontober 4 2007 requening smecting. 1b Commitee meting. id. #1 Ex.D. The Township Administrator admised dat she (tee team auerpt ro have the mater put ona future agenda. Ses Sebald deposition Reve hans Core, Ex. B), Ina November 21, 2007, te sminstratr ecknowledgnd sane ap rxnp of anil requested of high Lehigh apparel ot the Decarbe 10, a reg and peated is requests, However, Lehigh received no response. The Poge 15 0f 26sudministetor acknowledged that several telephone calls were exchanged between herself and Lehigh’ sttommay but she testified that se never spoke to anyone fo sehodale Leigh foren sppeerance, dat 122:3-7. September 4, 2007, Oeober 4 2007, November 12,2007, ‘iamber 10, 2007, The sdastratorallogely didnot advise Lehigh ofthe proper persen to anc in onde to be schedule on the noxt agenda. [dat 1251-10. Ate numerous ena ‘onalngrequasts, and the Township's etal oo mythig to mend the redevelopment plan ier the coure of seven month, Lehigh agues itis evidence tat it negotited in good fit ‘Purthecmore in reply, Lehigh argue thatthe Tovneip's proposition tat "tte of ming” ss equifed in «good fat eotion i misplaced Lehigh cites Evans v, Elizabeth Police Dep’, 236 NI Super. 115 (app. Div. 1983), in veh the reviewing cour analyzed a good faith hima ‘Bd upon the "fetal material Submited in soppor of te motion anything which cold be ‘Rconably interpreted as eressing ts queso of the police officer's good fet a making the ‘Teese [de 117 tn Evang there were no documents which memodlize the astions ofthe [oligo ofier Offical minstos were nt ten and voted upon, leer: were not received end vontraing emails didnot exist Lehigh also argues hat defendants? reliance upon D'Amato bs ‘SauBherson v,D'Amatn, 305 1. Super. 109 (App. Diy. 1997) salto misplaced. The Township ceeseitintinthst case, the cout found ha the osimony mst be taken at wilt determine (ed fnith, However, te ction wns smissed because plain hed filed o provide any Cenfeation or afidavits alleging ty actions made in bad faith. 1g 112 sar i ind Wik pew Cnafid DEopmen’s motion to domi ssp a dain te con suet senatvey teat palais pod sh eosin it of alk ‘Bebeentn nts and css He cours fd ita et Ser could ot od that Be aria ovaepnene or ekgh Sos the win en beraaing pm nee gs Stir ooo uC Devoe or Lah esta eee erin endece tt they tretee! gon i etlement ngrtistons were nt Tat Ungar bjetne standard tere so evidence cdg witon onimony ao “demeaneror eh areasonble ft Ener cool ind st plas iled to ints sit 2 oe ieee tent Oc. ore ne BEWPREY US Centra Dovloment nd Lehigh mate god faith negotiation. Ligh punted evidence that appeared a zee og twp commit esting and ree Pe cueing to rogue tthe Towatip zoe tbe propery Lets exchanged song TER Shel ate niones fom he eoranins eens andthe tancrps sow tat ‘RSE tnde oral presets Soe,ansvered quslony, feed net normally, sought dr Fonte Townchp en is potsonaly invited te Towaship io engage nan ineactive proces ‘therefor, the motion for summary judgment tose the Township's good faith defense is GRANTED. IV, Whether an administrative remedy under Cranford Lad Uso Ordinances 5126-59 would have been fale, Cceanford Development argues thatthe Planning Board had recently considered pplcadon for fezoning of teste property forincsionary resiental development et auch Page 16 of 26,lower density, I hed four public herngs and received extensive testimony In dition, it received atomendation fiom ite planer thatthe property be rezoned for resdenil oes. Plnuning Bowed affirmatively voted tzject rezoning of th propery for residential wes end to leep the property zoned exclnvely fr ofice uses, Thus, Cranford Development argues tht 3 ‘new applction fr rezoning ofthe property for residential uses ots moc higher density wold have been ful Furthermore, te Planting Board already wocopied a draft plan ou November 12,2008 that he rnieipalty had no uamat housing need and that there was no need for any sutonal inchsionary development. Tm opposition, defendants eve that Ceaford Development was sill required to exhaust his adzlaistative review. Defendins cite 1.1, Field Company, Ine. v, Township of Frank 204 NJ. Super. 445 (Law Div, 1985), which holds tht a party must prove the fut of ‘adminisvative review filly before the court may conclude tht an ainistative remedy w properly exhausted ‘There may be instances when good Ath negotiations wil be fue. The pains choosing to vin tha eae to the courthouse by rely upon the Fllity defense had bate be (prepared to prove itor rac having wen the ros only o be disqualified fora fale stat. M0, ‘eld Co. v,Crankin, 204 NJ. Super 445, €6) (Law Div. 1985). Th cout explained thet he ‘Bena given fo tho fat bilder foe "aot intended to dius the Con's monitons that Pol mst actin good fith end stem o obtain eie witout iigstion.” Finally, the cout ‘explained {This cour’s experience has demonstrated that iis very dificult to prove hat a shitias been brougnt unnocrscarly of as aeverage mec. Experiuvs ss tise demonstrated, however, that der is itt the numberof pllsifts ecded to viniieste ch eontutonal obligation aod that exossve plant an soul the muniipal plang options.” 3.W. Fil et 454. Courts have eachod the sme contusion in oer contexts whero negotiations aro ‘mane pir to igaton such os cases brought under the eminent domain state, Stat by sioner a 123 NJ. 308 (1991) The foressocble fuity of uch pplication relieves hem from eny such obligation. In this case the court hs found that fit finder coud not find that either Cranford Developmont or high led the witln suc asa barging chip inthe negotition procs ‘Therefore, whether or not Cranford Development was zequred to exhaust this administrative review wal nt be decided by De cout a this ime. ¥. Whether the Townabip may amend their answer to assert a third party Complaint against the Counell ox Affordable lousing, ‘he Béwand K. Bloustein of lamang and Publis Policy, Rutgers Unversiy (“Blowstein Schoo!) reeafly ious a growrh shaco” data and mnelyss hat revealed COARs third round fegulatons and “growth share” projections end "hr share” lloctins tobe inaccurate, ‘RBttsonubl, and ietional. The Blouin’ Scho’ Impact sessment was pubily issued Page 17 0f 26ty the SPC on January 13,2010, Ox February 9, 2010, Governor Caste issued xcotive Odor No 2, whieh ozs COAH?s operation as follows: Forte next 90 days, COAH was to ore om taking any fro action to posses applications for substantive certifiation orto ‘stay other ses fo implement the fird ound regulations. The Tovmhp was made aware of thege facts on February 10,2010. Defendants move fr leave to arsed Its ansecs to asec third party complaint against CCOAHL. Defendants Modan answer on Jensary 16, 2008, Defendants azve thatthe did ound culations are erbtirry and exprcioos" and therefore invalidated Although te Excoutve Carer ater stayed on appeal by the Appellate Division, at this sage othe fnstantItigation, {Paves Gut bon tothe vali ofthe third round regulions as wells the continued viability of COAdT fuett Bist, defendants argo tat COATT san indispensible party under Rl 428-1 Feaee SOA ns an interest n he instant iigstion, Second, defeodentsargus thet COAL Sala be joiod a a party Beease the Towaship wil challenge COAs third zound regulations caeRgplea” as teingoncssive, unrensonble afbitrtio, and capricious under Ru 4:28- Aad) Te, defendents agus tat COAH rast be joined sen lnspensile party pursuant to the ce controversy doctrine under Rule 4304. Im oppositin, Lehigh sues tht jursicion of en challenge tom stion of sie agenoy ls vids ibe Appllte Division toda Rale 22-32). Te Appellate Divisions lready teetering a challenge tothe third round methodology. Bot court may reec inconsistent careissons, Algo, Lekigh contends that th Townchip Is already paricipting in the Appels ‘Division sctfonshallenging the third round rales. The New Jersey League of Municipalities is « pre ic uoton, Cronfrd fe wot = sere mica ofthe Larue but itbas alo helped to Fnodos the gation. Also he grow share projecion found tat te third round eguasons eereesoncbo, Lahigh argues that the Towachp sl ha unmet ts ist and eoond round Mhigutes COAH’s calultions ofthe Township's pir round obligation were 148 nits, The aon previously submited by Lehigh planse, At emma, PP. ound that he Siguion na 99 unity after ees were applid. The Special Master, Blizaboth MeKenais, PP. covet that 360 unis of new constoetion, of Which includes the prior round unmet obligation Gao cequned. Lehigh is proposing 8 Sanit rental project wih a 15% set aside of 28 units Gunnell Development es proposed a63 units st side. These to project togetier donot even Seiag the Toumabip's pice ound obligation ater applying the czas, Thus, Lehigh argues thst xs ful clleageo te third round obligations woud be imelevant. Fourth Lehigh argues ‘jelidcteare motlen doesnot implica th ene controversy doctrine becaus he Township data the objerion fo COAH's third round methodology as early 98 Masch 2008. Defendants ‘buted Marc 19,2008 Iter to COAH objecting to it (Sas Felon Cert, Ex A). ‘In opposition, Cranford Development arguos the Appellate Division has exclusive juredion ger defendant third party cli. Cranford Development contends tht municipal se housing obligations en cstabished by regulation of COAH. NAG. 5:7-2.2(2). Such Giileages to adminitetive rales must be made by appeal othe Appellate Division under Role Se sces). Cranfond Development cts several cases to show that there are few and nsxow xeeptions to tis ul. See Inn Ni (Gomtaision, 187 NJ 212 (2006); Prado. Sale, 186 NJ. 413, 421-422 (2006); Cental BB. GEGEN 172,165, on. cand, 367 0.8. 928 (1958). Cranford Development argues that Page 18 of 26under Ras 2:5-4(0), th Rules of Court provds tht an spplicafon can be made to the Appellate Division to supplement the cord, to remend the matter othe ageney to make a record ot 10 refer the miter fos epeiallysppoined tial judge. R 25-40). ‘Further, Cranford Development argues hat defeats" motion to amend shout be denied because the motion i untimely. The proseat complaint makes the same conentns thet te curently ponding before the Appellee Division in an appeal brought by the League of ‘Mnleiplites— tht COAH?s deerminaton of municipal growth sare oblignions ints regulation ls evbitrary sad captilous, The League's appeal was brought on behalf of Cranford thal was Sled on October 2, 2008, Thus, defendants” contentions are not new. Defendants have ‘ot ben dligent in asserting this contention before the cou. Purter, Cranford Development argues tht the motion opens up an array of issues at sxe collateral othe remaining isso nthe itgaion. Affordable housing edvocstes have Stacked those regulations a= nconsittonal onthe grounds tha they set the id round housing ng low, Defendants’ conteaion i thar ths tird round tir share housing obligation i tuo igh, Ths, te cout cannot open the ease to one se of contentions without opening > othe st of contentions, Ccranfct asserts thet even fhe cout grants defendans’ motion it should not postpone ‘otra which would not be alfred bythe outcome ofthe third pat’ lim. The instant {iseation involves two issies: whether Cranford Development can provide substantial and ‘moderate income housing ad elo whether defendants are ened to prevail on ther effirmative ‘Bifesen ,covltamsentalprosems prentsfinginlusonary development snd good falth epotitions {na March 30, 2010 letter to the cov, Ma. MoKenzie contends that granting the motion to amend the complnstwgunst COAH wonld have no efecto the outcome ofthe tis. The "Township! sec fo challenge the basis for COAH's projection of Cranford’ thirtound fair ‘Sure obligation. However, the Township as filed to address its prior round obligations. ‘Thorefne, amendment of the complaint would have no effet onthe outcome ofthe ia “Tle cours heering Mount Laure cases whieh have not been transfered to the couneil should follow the council’ flr ohare methodology, unless thst methodology is shown tobe ‘bans or exnriciousBi-Counh ilo B GENER 77a NF Super. 455, 458-459 (Law Div. 1988), When te Lepslanae enacted the Felr Housing Act it eovistoned thatthe coun, rater than the cot, would assume primary responsi fr enforcement of the Mount Laurel obligations of New Jersey munilpalites, I NJAC. § 597-22 provides tht municlpal housing obligation consis of three components: (4) The neod for affordable housing inthe Sa, and in cach of he Stas she fouing roping, is deteniaed on » mneipal bass as explained in chapter “Appel A, inoomporsted herein by reference, and isthe um of Page 1906261. The rebabtaton share; 2. The prior round obligation; and 3.Tho growth sare. SeeNJAC. 59722. “The code also provides that "prove share is defined as he fllowing: “The grow share forthe period January 1, 2004 through December 31,2018, ‘hall tally be ealeulted based on projections. Projections of bouschold and fmployanent growth shall be convert into projected prowth share effordable Rousing obligations by applying aati of one affordable unit among five fecidetil units projec plus one affordable nit for every 16 newly crested Jobs projected. The household and employment projections provided fa each ‘elnaliy ia chapter Appendix Fae bated on New Jersey Department of {Eubor tnd Workforce Development county projections which are allocted wo the ‘ntpl evel based on histories! tends for each municipality andthe extent to “iil each munilpaity approsehest physical groweh expacty. Alematvely, a eras upalty muy wl ts own growth prostions to ealulte the growth share pursuant fo NJ A.C, 597-2 2(, provided the municipal projections exceed the rajoctions in Appendix F.A miniipality with innafficint vacant land may FEsuet an adjustment to the projections In Appendix F pursuant N.J.A.C. 5975.6" SeeNJAC. 597-22. Rule 22-3 provides that challengos to view ial deisons or ations of ay ciate administative agency or oie, and to reviow te vai of ty zlepromalestod By ach ageooy or ele shall not be mentlnebe so long as thee i available aight of low before any adnate agency o offer, nles th interest of justin requires ‘Geis, Challenges to administrative roles mst be sade by appeal othe Appelats Division ng Ce = lands Comin’, 187 NJ. 212 (2006), With the epeife exception of etins in condemnation o verse dademoaton, the Appllse Division nevertheless reins the discretion, nan ‘SDavopriste coe, to ein juredotion in an appeal frm the action of stato agny, bu ‘Peter the mata to the law vision tothe sgency for bush addtional fat-finding = Fe docs necesmary to just outcome [d, See Prov Stes, 1860 413 (NJ. 2008) [ONLI Cu 2:2-3(¢)0) vst the New Jersey Soperior Cour, Appellate Division hts Celuses jurisdiction overall ate arinistaive deisons or actions." “qttough motions to send ‘re ordinarily afforded itera treatment the facta sitation Sn each ease mast guide the cous dseeslon, partons where the motoa fe. add Ab claims or new partes late fn te Iijgatlon.” Vern, Hany M, Stevens Ine 387 NJ Super, 16, 198 (App. Div. 2006, Leave to amend sould not be rented “when the newly saeitd claim is not sosteinabe as matt ofa. Ia ole words, here is no polnt Page 20 of 25permining the fling of an ameaded pleading when a subsequent motion 10 dismiss must bo eesated" Iateshane State Bal v, Rial, 303 NJ. Supe. 259, 256-57 (App. Div. 1997), a this case rs clese that he Appellate Division has exclusive juradcton over lofendiant’ tid party claim. The rnin lous her is wheter te er share housing obligations TN, Such obligations ae exalted by regulation of COAH. NJAC. 5:97-22(0) Thus, ‘hallnges to sdministeative rules including NLA.C,597-2.2(a) ust be made by eppedl othe ‘nopellte Division under Rule 2:2-3()(2), Thee are few and narrow exceptions to this alo ‘pe Reng vue condemoation proceeding and Opon Public Record claims. Sex Infinity orlestlag Corp v. New Jersey Mesdowlnds Commission, 187 NJ.212 (2006) Bales, et SS NT 113; 421-422 (006) Cental BR, v.18. 26NVJ. 172, 185, con. die, 367 ‘Tee gbs (1958), The exceptions er inappleble in the instat case. Dsidtion is exctsively ‘Vine te Appellate Division Leave to mend should not be granted “when the newly asserted. ‘aim isnot susteinble apa mter of lw. Tntesohange State Bank v, Rinel, 303 NJ. Super. $59, 256-57 (App Div. 1997), Therefore, te motion to amend the complaist io asverta third ‘pny complaint eganst COAE is DENIED. Vi. Whether the expert testinony of Victor Farmance, .P, should be excluded at “Visto Furmaneo, PP, of Beacon Planning snd Consuling Services, LLC, subaated en eipert pon to Feailsy Assessment of Cranford Development Assocites, LLC's Peelcphon Proposl- (Fess Assessment”) dated Jane 11,2009, The Feasiiy ere eer a pln sivald wot eenve a ballers remedy beeaves the prope, {iaucent lan es aot provide a reasonable rear on investment tthe developer Coosidntng standard industry objective.” (ae Bx. A emmexed to Eiadoeter Ce, pp. 17-18). The ‘Spor deals wit costs asoeetd wht and wequsion infiastruture and eonsructon 3s ‘Pale detriment othe potential profitability ofthe propery. 1d, The court grated pais Prete for paral summary judgment detenniing thu defendants are in woltion of heir enatuosal far share obligations. Th Feasibility Assesment was submited to Speci ‘Master, Elizabeth MeKenaia, PP, AICP in opposition to the development pin proposed by Deis oto the emedil sage of the Mount Laure! esion, cranford Development ergues thatthe cout sould exclude the testimony etal of ‘Farmanse, Cranford Developzent ontotds that his expert report constitutes eolovant evidence TRIE NIRCE. 40 end well-esabished Mount Laarl case ew, Cranford Development argues Tet Japa tho ft that plains have alreody prevailed inthe compliance stage of Tilgation, ‘lalth should not be granada site-specific bulder's remedy simply becmsse defendants Palove subjectively tat the development pln proposed is nancial infeasible, Cranfod ‘ovelopment gues thet defeedant” postion is desl et ods with the wel-ctablished Foldings of ow Tercy cours, which havo expres] held thet the Sancta considerations of & vin proposed develope pln ar ielovant tte ete of wheter ts ened to 2 ‘aller’ vomedy. Rosonshin Assocnlsv. Borough of Palindes Patt, 309 8). Super. 438,444 tape Div: 1997), Ths, Cranford Developmen sxgues i cennot bo use to defeat he grant of @ bpulder’s remedy fete sibility standard are met age of 26{na supporting ble, Labigh argues that Famante testified thatthe primary soe of his work was to “prepare en analyse ofthe nantes, economic feasibly ofthe projects.” ea Furmanee Deposioa, 192:19-20) He elso looked at ancilny isu sich es parking end zoning, [Mat 1922495, Lehigh contend ha they so levant and must be barred. However, even If {hey eorelovent, he testimony shovld be bared because Furmance snot en expert in economic feast. Furmsee’s CV doesnot ndicate that be bas a specialty in prepsring economic {bani studies, He further conoades that he had never bec retained by e developer fo prepare Eneconotnie feasibly aly tat yas wed i conjunction with obtaining financing for a poe [dot 198'13-16, He teetifed that he had never been retained by a develope fo perform @ baal stady that was sed la conjunction with abmining fnmcing fora project. 1d ot 199. lao testified that he had never bexn retained by a muafipaity to perfor a Fesbilty sty {hat yas used in conjunction wih obtaiaing financing fora project. I, Finely he ested tat, brine nover bec retained by # ending nation to perfor a feasibility study that was sed in Conjunction with obtaining fnsaelag fora project. 1d He teste, however, hat he performed a ‘easily sty for an tnluslonary projet. 12. “Lehigh aio segues that Pormacce’s testimony mst be bared ss ane opinion, Furnes {asued two reports dated Tun 1, 2009 and October 14,2008. Cehigh argues thst weiter report nalyzed Lebigh’s proposal for the project. He describes the costs a “substance” wad cay that {Gis conclusion was based upon disussiona with the Township Enginoe, (Sea June 11,2009 Report p. 13) Fle quanfiesstoctized parking would constitute an increased cost of €%. Lt However, be didnot identify xy necessary improvement. He elo indieatod that is enti: TEnowiedge stout Increase cos for the sewage disposal system eame from e brief conversation Tis Toqnellp Engineer, He soneeded toate dt revinw amy documents or eleuaions ‘Dncerning his conclusion. Gee Farmanee Deposition, T105-106). He further confismes that his Stulyeis was bood upon te need for pakingstocrre. [dat TH07:12-21, Ho conceded tht his ‘Root hn lnalted oly beease te wong project was analyzed [0 et T108:14-17, Pummanec tiated tht he esumed a 20% et aide ther than o 15% oct aide for afordabie nits in reaching is conclusion. [dj ot7173:14, Then, be admited that 15% aside would have changed His analysis [dat 11141921, Halo tse thot hs analysis of cost ansociatd with sewer (aac didnot inoogperte theft tat Lchiph would only be responsible for pro rata ‘auuibdon. Id at T126. He sated that be had no data as to incensed costs when he performed ieumigete Yat 7126327. Agnin, bo stated that hls knowledge came from the Township ‘Baginer and he didnot have aay panieular knowledge and “as not entirely fiir with how {hats done” in tems of ovo wold be responsible for paying fr possible improvement. et {T1Z8, He sated dat a wae signal might be equied ba he dd got have knowledge ofthe ov, Thus, Lehigh argues that Furmanee’s coscusions are based upon a bref conversation with {he Townhip Engineer. Fumance alo edited that he did not review a single document in ‘Reching his conclusions coesming cet, His esi concluslon regarding the cost of parking “Graces ls inelovant as be bas never reviewed the curren plan whit doesnot regi ach Siiktcnne, Thu, Legh sngcs thet he has offre only bare concasion supported by no factual evidence, Therfore, Lehigh argues te nt opinion shoud be bared. tn opposition, dofeadans argue that Furmsnoe'setimony is rlevent because it willbe fred a othe dewity scope of ay bullder’s remedy thet ay be awarded. Tho Township doos otzeset Gt te esimony sores bar them fom any award Defendants argue that Cranford Page 22 0f 26Developments resding of Rosnshsin Astoclatesv, Baroush of Palisades Park, 304.1, Super. 4458, 444 (Apo. Div, 1997) is mispoeed, Tho cour in that ese found that ie credit worthines of ‘Movelope and th Gisela safausds to protect the inerests ofthe governing body may be {slovant but in the conte ofa Mowt Lael action, soc considertons are premature a bes ‘Roveashela, 304 NJ. Super. t 44, Defendants argue tht woke Roseushein where the ‘Stents wanted fo show that te bullderdia’t possess te financiel wherewlthalt complet he project, hor, the fostinony is offre ezply to robut lent’ bases forthe desires projeat Alenatdas aod oo show tha the frojes eeibilty would be more appropriate one far smaller seal, Defendant also arg tat Cranford Development's reference 1 Uiben Leas, Maiwab, 207 NJ. Supes 169,277 (Law Div, 1984) i also misplooed. The cout conchded in ‘Tat eat tat “throughout ete proceedings, evidence his been offered concerning ts exoaomic {bastblbty of each of the proposed developments.” Project esti, site suitability and the ‘llably of infeatrotare ae all considerations the court may look to i evaluating the sites ‘looted snd mecbanitns used by a municipality to achieve compliance. 1. Thus, defendants ‘igus atthe ccomomis eaiblityof Leigh's proposed development is inked tits size and impact on Joel Inrastrocue. The ier te projet, the higher the developments cost a= hsocated witht, The coats axe dctly proportional ois seal, In loter tothe court dated March 3, 2010, Ma. MsKenale commented that se egress with be arguments made by plalntifs regeding te ielevanes on what wes comand in the {Rpt Tn she dd no actord mvch Welt to his reporson te two Builder's Remedy sites in Ee taparation a her epert bythe Spcil Master, Ths Asus befue the eour is notthe question Ure mist protable or even moet deszeale density. The lssue is wh, fan, environments! Cessna planning consequences might the proposed development werak on Cranford ors ‘eiphboring ebmmuniies. The isn elo ie heer these environmects or substan planning Consequences justify eeaidag st fom consideration fra bullers rome. Norwithstanding, Ms. MeKenale notes that its appropriate forthe Township to off any [vation ft might have regarding the reallac probably hat 2 development would proceed. Mi, heKensle sees thet she doesnot bliee soy harm would result fr Mr, Furanco's resigns Tne court may evluate the criiliy ond elvance of is testimony when tis offered. 1. Whether Furmace's opinion is x net opinion. [NLRLE, 703 requires tht en exper opinion bo supported by fet or dats citer in the record or af ype usualy relied on by expert inthe eld. An exper's conclusion is considered Tia "netopidion” end thereby inadmissible, when it is bre conciusion unsupported by fetus evidence, Buckelewy, Gossard, 87 NJ, 512 (1981; cited in Soulvw, Eizwesal, 179 M114 (2008), This net option” rle “reguilyfosuses on the fire of the exert Belin a causal connection between the act or incident complained of andthe injury or damage tMlogely resulting therefrom” Id. at 540. However, an expert opinion Is uot an indie net opinion merely “beomue it fis to sovount ivr sofms prtiular codon or fet which he adversity considers relevent.” Stale, age 23 of 26‘Breer, 223 NJ. Super, 92, 116 (App. Div. 1988). An expt opinion i nota net opinion iit [Eetied by “aofeences to defendants ofie records the hospital records and {the expert] fowm expenence:” Creanea, 185 NJ. af 36} (quoting Nawen., Tima 298 NJ. Sunes 1,49 (App Div. 1997). Alao, an expert opinion is nt net opinion when te expert bass is cere n on Mamong oer things, aa inerview with ze plantifTandareview of his medica conde i, (ling Cosansing v, Venta, 324 NJ, Supt, 437, 451 (App Div. 1999) For example, in Creag, 185 NJ st 362-63, the New Jersey Supreme Cour found that a doco pinion was ndmieile when twas suppored by reference to both his ecards and bospital meords prepared by oter doctors ho had examined plains s wel as his oe tial cxporenze, bis pst history of treating plat, and his intervow with plant .. “Ahthovgh the Cour found inconssteasies in the doctor's etioay, the Court opineé that “those fonasteacies go othe welt to be given tthe fact-indr... nd not to its assibty ‘ooo fuser noted thatthe context, its he role of the jury ~ and not ofthe court on ‘Rmnaty ferent to consdeteny inconsistencies when it decides how much Weight 0 assign ‘ois testimony” 1d ot 363. Sve OE GNL deed, the expat mst ema ome mort to support hispinfon: For exanpe, n Tavlos v, sas, 319 BLS Sues, 174 (App. vv. 19%), RQMRiitrsee defendant DoLats, who bed prepeed plain ste pla without using & ‘pete pmmsing i pp A Me ty op ey Huet damegee when it vas dcterminod atthe pla misloeeted to locaton of eo on Fie popery, Liat 18. Tosoabls he standard of care, plan's exper etd at Bete ie working in cma pking lot whore fe’ 30 ch lets he ‘nimi, T ould thnk ft wou be prdent wo determine the loeton of thst wee, fly ect. prodeatecitct would gto the site and make sur hat he knows where tat esis because al is work sgoig to revolve sound hate.” 1d. The Applsts Division Sl Se plain’ xpos eiony ws net pinion. The our wet thet he expe: ceed oo aod supporting hs opinion? and [preference was mde to any writen Feeea, Br oven umveen custom or practice lndlzating tht tho consents of he achecral seen recogalze duty o make nit inspection fr ‘small sie. I. at 180-81, -ayahsyeisey Cisiiford Development and Lehigh contend that Furman has. not relied on, recs However, nie Gober e200 leer rom Prmase See eee Parsee sy 0 deounant inovoving he ste developed a, a tae mvesiguon por pre bYE2A Land Del, LC, Pe eee Sie Aste, Wun ltation prs el sn) oct eT opred iy LIA Lan Design, LUC. Gabi med Fenn Ca) Se ence tn conse te ngs ad sone Be er them om ey award nor provide a sopbiscsted finance] axayss, eum Ss report stats: het bsed upon the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study end Existing Seniary Sewer Map the Towaship must adress downstream cepecityisuos, which at ily {foe to ascent pipe slop, Purmanec then explains thatthe ona ite aid nox aes the Page 24 0f 26samen hich ses ts However easly th lope wil a onl a0 th ae cn nt snmct Xo 13Spe eat ae come aay endpteave snabar he pistor ons qr aes roared se opoa ‘Also, eventhough Furmanee provided conaditing testimony tha his nthe know about ase Ces frtbesewage diposa ystima came fom bie conversation wih the pea his Bnginor and that he Gi not review eny documents or calculations concasing his Tow Ftd Funmanae Deposition, T1086) the cour i fee to pay no hed to he report Sear eededng is devision Thus the report wil nt be excloded as a net opinion +2, Whether Furmanee's opinion it relevant and shovld be barred, CGausaly,afhct-finder should note llowed to speculate without the aid of exert tesimony in any aren were lyperzns could not be expose to have euficint knowadge of nea Kaliya Bais 300 8 Super, 255268 (App. Div. 1997). Expert resin ie SeRSted went adbjoct mater so estre that juror of common judaent und eosin Fr aoe aid judgment. Philips. Celpks, 382 NJ Super. $05, $13 (App. Div. 2006) uit ‘j-Manuah,207.N- Supe. 168,277 (Lave Div. 1984), which 1s poste i », Moyer Cel leash outed he skvance of potbliy. The cot sed “lygtestse fr at Lane doesnt cone sel with se av Tinos uatoncon of aeslopers sre ob lowe income using, Let Reson poate! pods play mo role in making 2 decisions toa builders sooty.” Maha, 92N.. at 279-20. “The court then pointed out tha the Supreme Court bad definitively and special st orth the ones which are properly before the wal court in site-specific bilde's eed “othe frat xtra tobe applied is whether the developer has sucecoded in Moust ane inguin and proposes e peoject providing a abstansal amber of ower Rome hooring. Here, Heaver Creek he without question contributed ame ta ihe eseces of this tigation and cortiny propose to provide = ‘Sbvtunal amouat of subeidized housing. Te second cite, ns St fxth i ‘Mount Laurel 1, “A builders emedy should be granted unless the municipality (Atos tat because of envroumetal or oer substantial Sitaning concams, the plait proposed projects cleasiy onary to sound land io plasiag. We emphasize that tat Buller remedy should not be denied solely bocause he ‘rncipality prefered come ober location fr lower income acing, oven ili in dnt batter ite Nori ivessental that onside funds be invested or thatthe ligation be extensive" ‘Moot Laurel 1,92 NJ. 0279-280), age 25 of 26‘See Mahwah, 92.N.J. a 279-200, li Risin Asiorints v-Boroueh of Pllsdes Pat, S308 NJ. Super. 428,444 (App. Div. 1997), be cour fund tht “fowhere in a ME. Laurel “ae Leding fe thee the nett make an inquiry nto the fnsasal wheel the errant To allow such a inuiy, as wged by the Borough end interveuors ere, would shit {is foes to collard ravers and eve fom te eritieal ssn involved.” this ere, do isu of whether thee plains wil be able to bring the proposed evelopment fin financially iso the primary ose of he err. Se Rossin 202 Nir Gute ai Rather, th courts before tthe ame of whether ania basin ple oon i plomiag ecbeme dasigned to cxcue low and modeae income ouslng nd a pare e Rtjuionnty sobs fuilsto prove a realistic opportu fr consruction of och Treg seo nea! est be determined by the wal judge, I. Tsp Whether all auc sulioct money fom fs propose hues ema a ielevant As sted in ha os SOV NI, Super 69,277 (Lavr Div 1988, roan easly, st utebity, He oalebllty of nfisctuctre we ll nnsidertions te cour may Jook.t in evaluating tbe Fes elected and nechansmns used by « muniipality to dehlevo omlince Furmane's report ‘Ete to sow het he econone fant of Lehih’s proposed development snk ots Bey inpest on local infatvetae. The css ae drectlypropotou! wots, Therefore, ice trtmony maybe elvan and therefore not bared The out in this case, sit a ry abe te appropriate weight to testimony. The motion to bar the cepa Coslmony of Funmanee for purposes of a is DENEED. Zbl) F, Hotrgegoto & age 26 of 26Order 12-9-11“DEHIGH ACOUISHTON CORF, Plaintts, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendants; and CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited lability company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, SAMUEL HEXEMIAN, PETER HEKEMIAN, SEPFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN’ KGRIKORIAN as trustee for RICHARD HEKEMIAN and MARK HEKEMIAN, Plaintiff, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP ‘OF CRANFORD and the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendants. INION COUNTY - LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS, UNN-1-0140-08 UNN-1-003759-08 Ci Action ORDER GRANTING RELIEF 1 EXCLUSIONARY ZONING LITIGATION ‘This matter having come before the Court for decision on July 29, 2011, as to all remaining issues pertaining to the claims made by Cranford Development Associates et al and the defenses to those claims in the presence of Stephen Bisdorfer, Esq., counsel for plainti—is Cranford Development,Ascoolates etal, and Carl Woodward, Esq. and Brian Fenlon, Beq., counsel for defendants Township of Cranford etal; and ‘The Court having previously resolved certain issues by orders granting partial eusomary judgment entered on March 20, 2009, and June 28, 2011; aad Issues periaining to claims made by plaintiff Lehigh Acquisition Corp. having been resolved by negotiated settlement approved by the Court by order centered on January 28, 2011; and ‘The Court having considered the evidence presented at the plenary ‘bench trial conducted on August 2, August 3, August 5, August 9, August 10, ‘August 11, August 12, August 18, Auguat 18, and September 27, September 28, and September 29, 2100, inchuding the reports and testimony of the court: ‘appointed special mastor; a view of the property at 215-295 Birchwood Avenue taken by the Court in the presence of counsel and engineering experts for al ‘parties; pretrial briefs, post-trial written summations and proposed findings of het andanca neater ad ol pin ee. Br BOT AKL Aer on ‘The Court hawhng determined for ‘set forth in its oral ofinion of July 29, 2011, to grant a site-specific builder's remedy to plaintiffs Cranford Dears, ‘Development Associates ct al on specified terms and to award other relief, oe It ison this y of, 1, hereby DECLARED and ORDERED: 1. As of November 19, 2008, the date of the filing of the Cranford Development Associates litigation, the activities undertaken by Cranford‘Towaship to meet ite constitutional fair share housing obligation fll at least 54 ‘unite short of meeting its so-called prior round (1987-98) obligation and present indigenous need obligation. It fell short of meeting ita fair share housing obligation by atleast that margin regardless of what its prospective (post-1999) need obligation might be. 2. Upon defendants’ tial motion for reconsideration, based on the audaitional evidence adduced at trial of the Court's order of June 23, 2010, senting plaititl’ motion for partial summary judgment on the defense of good {aitn negotiations, the June 28, 2010, order is reafirmed and defendants’ sotion is denied 3. Because plaintifs have sais al of the criteria fora site-specific ‘builder's on their propesty located et 215-235 Birchwood Avenue, Cranford, NU, they are entitled to construct an inclusionary residential development on that property consisting of up to 360 multifamily residential units, of which 15 percent shall be reserved for, and affordable to, low and moderate income households 4, Plaitife are entitled to construct the inclusionary development ia accordance with the concept plan, entitled Concept Site Plan, prepared by the Lessard Group, July 30, 2010, offered in evidence as P.63 and P-63A, eubject + the following condition 4) ‘The development may include up to, but no more than, 360 multifamily residential units,> 8 by “The maximum height of Building A shall be three floors of residential unite above one level of parking. “The average setback of the buildings from Birchwood Avenue shall be 30 feet, witha minimum setback of 25 fet. ‘nilding A, the garage and the surface parkcing shall be redesigned to Incorporate an additional 10 feet of landecaped bulle? along the eastern lot ine 295 Birchwood Avenue. The landscaping shall consist of evergreen tees. ‘An additional row of evergreen trees shall be planted along the southern edge of parking lot Sulficient packing shell be provided on the property to maintain a ratio of 1.85 pericing spaces per residential unit. If provision of that number of parking spaces requires construction of an additional level of garage parking, plaintife shal ceastract that level as part ofthe initial construction ofthe garage ‘Total impervious eurface ofthe project, as defined in NLA.C. 7:8-1.2 (@efinition of “impervious surface’), oF such successor slarmwater management regulations ae may be promulgated by the Stats of New Jersey, shall not exceed the existing impervious eurface. ‘No buildings permits shall be iesued for this project unless plaintiffs have secured all necessary permits from the New Jersey Department of Epviroamental Protection§) The low and moderate income units shall conform to the terms of Uniform Housing Affordailty Controls promulgated by the New Jerecy Department of Community Affairs, N.J.A.C. 5:80-26.1, or such euccessor standards as may be promulgated by the State of New Jersey. J) Plaintiff may alter the layout of the project set forth in Exhibite P-63 and P-62A to bring the project into conformance with the foregoing ‘conditions and the terms of any permits issued by NJDEP. 5. Within 120 days after enby of this order, defendants, acting in consultation with plaintiffs and the Special Master, shall amend the master plan and zoning ordinance of Cranford Township so as to permit development of the property at 215-235 Birck mood Avemue in accordance with the paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Order as a matter of right and without the need for any variances, exceptions or waivers. 6. ‘The Court declares that, tpon adoption ofa revised housing element and fir share plan incorporating the following elements, provision of the necessary documentation to the Special Master, and adoption of the necessary implementing crdinances, Cranford Township will have satisfied its constitutional fair share housing obligation, including ite prior round need obligation, ite present indigenous need obligation, and its prospective (post- 1999) need obligation and will be eligible for entry of a judgment of compliance: Activity ‘Cranford Development Associates projet Tehigh Acquisition project Lincoln Apartments {age-restricted) 24 37“incon Apartments (eset over por rund op for agereatited mr) ‘Alternate Living Arrangements* Riverside Redevelopment Needlepoint Homes Substandard unite previously rehabilitated by Union County* Substandard unite fo be rehabilitated through program to be 270 (pins such dome credite may be suthorized by tas) 7, Within 120 days after entry of this order, defendants, acting in consultation with plaintiffs and the Special Master, shall amend the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan of Craniora Township to conform to the terms of paragraph 6 above, provide to the Special Master the documentation necessary to demonstrate that the starred items in paragraph 6 create realistic housing ‘opportunities, and adopt all necessary implementing ordinances. 8 BUsabeth McKensie shall continue to serve as Special Master. She shall consult with the parties te facilitate the implementation of this order. Within 180 days of the entzy of this order, the Special Master shall eubmit a written ‘report to this Court as to extent and adequacy of the actions taken by defendants in implementation of this order. 9, Commencing from the dave of entry of this order, the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master shall be solely the responsibility of the defendants and shall be paid on timely basis.10. The Court appoints Douglas Wolfson, Bsa. as Special Hearing Examiner fn this matter. The Special Hearing Examiner shall agoume the juriadiction of the Planning Board and conduct public hearings consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law on applications for preliminary and final site plan approval for the Cranford Developments Associates’ project consistent with terme ofthis Order. The Special Hearing Examiner shall thereafter make a recommendation o the Court concerning approval ofthe applications, The Court shall either grant or deny the applicants for preliminary and final ste plan approvalo as wel as any zelevant ancillary variances pursuant to NW1S.A. 40:55D-70(c), exceptions or waivers pursuant NJ.8.A. 40:S8D-51, and de minimus exceptions to the Residential Site 1-3.1. The Court also Improvement Standards pursuant to N.J.A.C. reserves the right to attach reasonable conditions to any approval. Gi, emg panty ct ping Ren a oN Ee TN Oy a aa ee ee ene cece abe _ oe prose pan earn pt pe at 6,330 cartier etreports, letters and mapa dated August 6, 2021, August 19, 2021, and September 2, 2011, is hereby denied, 14, Defendants’ trial motion to bar as “net opinion’ testimony by plaintiffs! planning expert David Kinsey concerning parking is hereby denied. 15, Plaintiffs claim for attorney fees and ligation expenses under the New ‘eceay Civil Rights Act, NWJ.S.A. 10:6-2 and R. 4:42 is hereby denied on the gvunds that plaintife have not made out a claim under the Civil Rights Act ‘that can be granted and plaintifis are not otherwise entitled to attorney fees or litigation expenses in connectior with an action in lieu ofOrder 12-17-12FLORIO PERRUCCI STEINHARDT & FADER, LLC, 218 Route 17 North, Suite 410 ‘Rochelle Park, NJ 07652 (Gon 843-5858 ‘Attomeys for Defendants ‘Township of Cranford et als, eee CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATES, LLG, a limited ability "LAW DIVISION: UNION COUN Conapany organized vader the laws of the State of New Jersey, etal, : DOCKETNO; UNN-L-3759.08 Plains, (Mit Laurel) ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD Civil Aetfan OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, ORDER OF DISQUALIFICATION Defendants, + OF SPECIAL MASTER AND FOR NEW TRIAL This matter having come before the Court by way of Noise of Motion fed with ‘he Cour our by Philp Morn I, eq, counsel o Defndants Toshi of Canerd Stale on nose o Stephen Fister, Bi, const fr plants Cranford Development Astocntes LLC tals. ("CDA") BzabethC. MoKence, PP, PA, Speci Maser and Ceol Woodward, Es, co-counse fr Defendants; snd te Court having costed the for good cause shown; cemcnen WOLTERS DineI A Fo reord. ison his [7 oy ot December, 2012, herby DECLARED and ORDERED as fellows omer.500ee oanon fe ason is Order shall be served upon all pes Within pom wb eogpe®> GON ESAR. CRYSTAL, xy Opposed £1 Unepposet woesr2000)Order January 2, 2013HILL WALLACK LLP Stephen lisdorfer, Bsq. 202-Carnegie Center 7 Princeton, Ny 08543. (€09),924;0808 (603}-482-1888 (fax) Selsdorfer@hillwallack.com ‘Atcomeys for Plaintitis ‘Cranford Development Associates, LLC, etal. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ‘UNION COUNTY - LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-1-0140-08 ‘UNN-£-008759-08 “LERIGH AGQUISTITON CORP, 7] Plaintiffs, Civil Action ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE, : ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS? Defendants; MOTION 70 VAC#TE DECISION AND = SCHEDULING FURTHER and PROCEEDINGS | CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited liability ‘company organized under the laws of the State of Now Jersey, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETOR HEKENIAN, JEFFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN’ KRIKORIAN as trustee for RICHARD ‘BEREDMAD and MARK HEREMIAN, Plaintiffs, ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP (OF CRANFORD and the PLANNING. BOARD [OF THE TOWNSHIP OFtia matter having come balore the Court onthe 170 day of December 012; the presence of Php J Morin #85, and Cal R, Woods saaq,atomeye fr Cranford Township andthe Planning Board of Cranford ‘ownsnip nd Stephen Bsdrtr, Bog, atiomey fo lalate Cranford evelopment Ascites LLC ea, onthe motion by defeadanteTowmahip of craniond and Panning Board of the Township of Crsnford fr an order vacating ane ceision of the Cont tendered on July 29,2011, andthe ordered entoeed cin December, 2011 aad ordering the appointment of new apc maser; = smhe Court having seiewed the papers Sed by the partes and hear the a reappearing othe Court thatthe forthe reasons se forth in the ra pinion rendered on Decor 17,4012, the requeted rl sould be dente, eis on thisgQ! Mary ot © 1G hereby ORDERED: 1. the defendants’ motion lesking an oxir vassting the decision ofthe cour rendered on Jy 29, 2010, an the ordered entered on December 9, 2011 and ordering the appointment of new opecilinastr and a new ile DENtED, 9, On or before December $1, 2012, defendante shal Sie with the Court and serve upon counsel for plaintiis Cranford Development Associates LLC et ‘als. any written objections to the Findings Of Feets, Conclusions And Recommended Conditions Of Approval By The Court Based Upon Hesrings Held On August 8,9,21,22 And 22, 2012, Before Douglas Wolfson, HearingOfficer, And a The Presence Of Blizabeth C. Melensie, AICP, PP, Special Master (Novernber 10, 2012) 3, On or before January 7, 2013, plaints Cranford Development ‘Associates LUC etal abell ile with the Court and serve upon all counsel any response tothe wrtien objections fled by defendante Cranford Toms ot al 44, The issue of what action the Court should take in Hight ofthe ‘recommendations of the Special Hearing Officer shall be heaivd on February 4, 2o1gat 10am. 5, On or before January 7, 2013, defendants shall file the Court and ‘serve upon all counsel a report setting forth the actions which defendant ‘nownehip of Cranford has talen to bring itself into-compliance with Court's order of December 9, 2011 and with ies constitutional fair share housing obligation as previously determined by the Court and its timetable for completing aay remaining steps. 6. ‘The issue of whether, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Court's Order cf Decomber 9, 2011, Granting Relief in Bxclusionary Zoning Litigation, @ Final “Judgment of Compliance as to the Township of Cranford can be entered shall also be heard on February 4, 2018, at 10 a.m. 7. A true but uncertified copy of this order shall be served upon all melt lacrpgla parties within 5 day ‘This motion was opposedOrder April 5, 2013HILL WALLACK LLP Stephen Biodorier, Bag. 202 Carnegie Center Princeton, NY 08543 (609) 9240808 (608)-452-1888 (ax) scisdorfen@hilwallack com Attorneys for Plaintis Cranford Development Associates, LLC, eta ‘SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY UNION COUNTY ; LAW DIVISION DOCKET NOS. UNN-1-0140-08 = ‘UNN--003759-08 Civil Action ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD and PLANNING BOARD OF THE ‘TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, ORDER GRANTING RELIEF IN THE Defendants; NATURE OF PRELIMINARY AND PINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND sant OTHER RELIEF (CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, a limited liability ‘company organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, SAMUEL HEKEMIAN, PETER HEKEMIAN, JEFFREY HEKEMIAN, and ANN’ KRIKORIAN as trustee for RICHARD HEKEMIAN and MARK HEXEMIAN, Plaintiffs, ‘TOWNSHILP OF CRANFORD, MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP, OF CRANFORD and the PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, Defendants“he mater having come befor the Goat o he Ath day of Pebrany, 2019 inthe presence of toon Hse, Eq rune! or pains Cranford Development Asscinen LUC etl and Pip, Morin i aan Ca Woodward, Es. counsel for defendants Toship of Cand andthe Manning Bos ofthe Township of Creford under the terns othe Orders isin Byte aaron December 8, 2011, and August 6,201, seterminaon a to whether to ace ret o asp in ps the "commendations of Special Hering amines Dooplas Walon, oq and “Court having ested the Report and Recommendations ofthe Spotl Heting Banner dated November 10,201, thera made before the Special rng Bam, the wien submisons by the prise he cra angers by counsel nt sme Unit hein dterinine, ote reson et rt nthe oral opinion rendered on hes ay of brary, 2013, accep the secmmendatons ofthe Special Henig amine with certain medications sped btw, wise tis Sayer A ped aos ney ORDERED that: 1, "The Court hereby adopts as its own the findings, conclusions, and recommended conditions set forth'in the Report and Recommendations of the Special Hearing Examiner dated November 10, 2012 (hereinafter “Report end Recommendations), which is attached as Exhibit A andl incorporated by reference herein, with the modifications (hereinafter “Court's Modifications’) setforth in Exhibit B. tn particular, the Court adopts the Sndings and conclusion ty the Special Hearing Rxaminer that, with tivo design exceptions noted below, tne plans submitted by Plaintifs Cranford Development Associates, LLC, Samuel Hekemian, Peter Hekemian, Jeftey Hekemian, and Ann Krikorian as taste for Richard Hekemian and Mark Hekerian (hereinafter "CDA et a") comply with th terms of this Court's Order of December 8, 2012, all relevant. provisions ofthe Cranford’s Land Development Ordinances including Cranford ndinance No, 2012-11, and the applicable provisions of the Residential Site Improvement Standards. 2, Subject to the conditions set forth in the Report and Recommendations ‘as modified by the Court's Modifientions, exceptions are hereby granted from Cranford Ordinances §§136-29(G)6) (bieycle rack) and 186-23 ((1}-(3) (tee replacement). 3, Siabject to the conditions set forth in the Report and Recomunendations as modified by the Coutt’s Modifications, preliminary and final site plan approval is hereby granted for development of 960 multifamily residential units sn two biuldings, of which 15 percent shall be reserved for and affordable to ‘ety low, low, and moderate income households, end a garage structure on Block 291, Lot 16.01 and Block 292, Lot 2, as shown on the oficial tax map of tne Township of Cranford, in accordance with the plan entitled “Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Application for individual Flood Hazard Ares Permit” prepared by M.E. Dipple, PE and dated June 4, 2012, as revised in accordance with this Order.4. Plaintifls CDA et al are hereby authorized to take all steps necessary to regrade Birchwood Avenue at their own expense in accordance with the plan. entitled “Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Application for Individual Flood, Hazard Area Permit,” prepared by M.E. Dipple, PB. and dated June 4, 2012, as revised in accordance with this Order, following finsl, unappealable approval of ‘an individual Flood Hazard Arca and freehwater wetlands permits by thé New ‘Jeraey Department of Environmental Protection for the project, ifaeeded, and a final, unsppeslable judgment in this matter. Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to relieve Plainti_fis CDA et al from bearing all costs, assessments, and fees relating to the regrading of Birchwood Avenue required under state Jaw or current Cranford ordinances. 5. Plaintiffe CDA et al shall comply with and satisfy the following, seyuitements under Use Muisicipal Laual Use Law and cutrent Cranford ordinances for regrading of Birchwood Avenue: a, Plaintiffs CDA et al shall provide construction plans for approval by the ‘Township engineer in accordance with current Cranford Ordinance §204- 1044); Construction shall bé subject to inspection and approval by the ‘Township engineer in accordance with current Cranford Ordinance §204-10(4); & Plaintiffs CDA et al shall provide written notice to the Township engineer and Township Administrator at least thirty (90] days prior to commencement of any regrading or other improvements within the public right of way;4. Plaintiffs CDA et al are hereby authorized to take all steps necessary to regrade Birchwood Avenue at their own expense in accordance with the plan entitled “Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Application for Individual Flood Hazard Area Permit," prepared by M.E. Dipple, PAE, and dated June 4, 2012, as ‘revised in accordance with this Orde, following final, unappealable approve of sn individual Flood Hazard Aree and freshwater wetlands permits by the New “Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the project, ifneeded, and a final, tunappealable judgment in thie matter. Nothing inthis Order shall be interpreted to relieve Plaintiffs CDA etal from bearing all costs, assessments and fees relating to the regrading of Birchwood Avenue required under state law or current Cranford ordinances. 5. Plaintiffs CDA etal shall comply with and satisfy the following ‘requirements under the Municipal Land Use Law and current Cranford ordinances for regrading of Birchwood Avenue: ‘& Plaintifs CDA etal shall provide construction plans for approval bythe ‘Township engineer in accordance with current Cranford Ordinance §204 1044} Construction shall bé subject to inspection and approval by the ‘Township engineer in accordance with current Cranford Ordinance §204-10(4); © Plaintife CDA etal shall provide written notice to the Township engineer and Township Administrator at least thirty (90) days prior to commencement of any regrading or other improvements within the public right of way;4. Plaintiffs CDA et al shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the ‘Township engineer atleast fourteen (14) days prior to commencing any regrading or other improvements within the right of way and shall submit a written plan with an estimate of the time to complete all improvements; © The responsibility of Plaintiffe CDA et al for the cost of the regrading and other improvements shall include the cost of reasonable safety micasures, including reasonable signage required by the Township Engineer and/or Traifie Division of the Cranford Police Department and posting of a reasonable number of police officers or traffic contral flagmen to iheure the safety of the public comparable to the number required for other similar street improvement projects; 1. Cranford Township may require Plaintiffs CDA et al to provide reasonable performance and maintenance guarantocs and satisfy reasonable vouidilious for ‘acceptance of such improvements in accordance with NwJ.S.A. 40:5SD-53 and current Cranford Ordinance §§136-18 through 20; and & Plaintiffs CDA ct al shall maintain an escrow account in an appropriate amount to reimburse municipal review fees to the extent authorized by the ‘Municipal Land Use Law in accordance with current Cranford Ordinance §186- 42, 6, Plaintifis CDA et al shall submit to the municipal engineer of Cranford ‘Township a revised site plan conforming to the conditions of site plan approval set forth in the Report and Recommendations as modified by the Court's Modifications.4. In place of certification by the chairperson of the Cranford Township Piacning Board that the application is approved by the Cranford Township Planning Board as a major development, as provided by current Cranford Ordinances §136-21(B)(3), the plan shall include on its frst sheet the following, declaration: ‘his apliation bas boon approved as a major development by_ Order eptered by the Superior Court of New Jersey on. the day ofApal, 2013 in the matter captioned LEKIGH ACQUISITION CORP. vi TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD et al and CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, etal v. TOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD et al, Dit. Nos. UNN-1-0140-08 and UNN-L-003759- 08, Under the terms of that Order, this declaration serves in lieu of certification by the municipal clerk ofthe Township of Cranford or the chairperson of the Planning Board of Cranford Township for all purposes, including, but not limited to, compliance with N.J.S.A. 46:25B-1 et seq. and Cranford Ordinances §136-21(E)(9), , Within twenty (20) days of his receipt ofthe revised plan, the Township engineer shall determine whether the revised plan conforms with the conditions for site plan approval set forth in Paragraph 5 of this Order and conforms with the relevent requirements for the form of plans set forth in N.J.S.A. 46:26B-1 et seq. and current Cranford Ordinances §196-21(8}. Ifthe municipal engineer finds that the revised plan conforms with the conditions of site plan approval set forth in the Report and Recommendations as modified by the Court's Modifications and conforms with the relevant requirements for the {orm of plans set forth in NwJ.8.A. 46:26B-1 et seq, and current Cranford Ordinances §186-21(8), he shall certify the revised site plan in accordance with NJS.A, 46:26B-1 et seq, and current Cranford Ordinances §196-21(8). Ifhe Identifies deficiencies, he shall provide Plaintiffs CDA et al with a written teport‘pocipng those deficiencies, so that Plaintife CDA et al mey submita further ‘eviaed plan, Once certified by the Township engineer, the revised pian miay be ‘ezed for any purpose for which approved site plans may generally be used, including as a basis forthe issuance of building permits and certificates of cecupancy and as a basis for application fo, and issuance of, any relevant Hoenses, permits or approvals by any local, county or state agency. © Plalntfis CDA etal shall maintain an eserow account in an appropriate ‘amount to reimburse municipal review fees to the extent authorized by the Municipal Land Use Law in accordance with current Cranford Ordinance §136- 42, 7 Plaintifs CDA etal shall comply with and satisfy the fallowing ‘requirements under the MLUL and current Cranford ordinances for post- ‘esohution compliance for development projects 4% The Township of Cranford may require Plaintiffs CDA et alto provide ‘easonable performance and maintenance guarantees and satisfy conditions for ‘eceptance of such improvements in accordance with W.J.8.A. 40:5SD-58 and current Cranford Ordinance §§135-18 through 20 for of site improvements; >. Plantffs CDA etal shall comply with the Development Requirements and Standards applicable to all construction projects in the Township of Cranford ‘et forth in current Cranford Ordinance §136-21{@}(format for final pins) and 185-2714) (performance guarantees), except that reasonable performance {Guarantees shall be provided at the request of the Township prior to theissuance of any building permits and only for those onsite and offsite improvements that are required by this Order, ©. Plaintiffs CDA et ol shall maintain an escrow account in an appropriate mount to reimburse municipal review fees to the extent authorized by the ‘Municipal Land Use Law in accordance with current Cranford Ordinance §136- 42, 8, This Order shall have the same leg effect as a duly adopted resolution of memorialization of pretiminary and final site plan epproval by the Planning Board of the Craiford Township under the Municipal Land Use Law, Nsl.S.A, 40:55D-10(gh; 49, and -52. ‘This Order may be recorded in the same manner ard to the same extent as a resolution of memerialization. Once the municipal engineer has certified the revised plan, this Order shall also have the same legal effect na certification ofthe revised plan hy the nnnicipal clerk of the ‘Township of Cranford or the chairperson of the Planning Board of Cranford ‘Township forall purposes, including, but not limited to, compliance with NSA, 46:26B-1 et seq. and current Cranford Ordinances §136-22(0)() 9. This Order shall not in any way limit Defendants’ ability to appeal the decisions of this Coust pertaining to relief granted or any interlocutory orders of this Court pertaining to Plaintiffs CDA et al and to be heard in proceedings before other county or state permitting agencies involving the development by Plaintiffs CDA etal provided for in this Order. 10. The provisions of the Court's March 22, 2012 Order remain in fll force and effect.11, Plaintiffs CDA et al may, upon application by notice of motion tothe Court with notice to the deféndants and approval by the Court, amend the plans forthe development approved in this Order to bring the project into conformance with the terms of any permits or approvals issued by New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection or other state or county permitting than 28 days before agencies. Such papers shall be served and filed not I the time specied in the return date, and the Court, in its discretion, mey direct any affinta to submit to cross-examination, or hear the matter wholly or partly con oral testimony or depositions in accordance with R. 1:6-6, However, Plaintiffs CDA et al shall not be permitted to amend the plans for development to reduce or eliminate any restrictions or coneitions of approval, inchiding but rot imited to setback requirements, height and story limitations, impervious coverage ur other zoning requirements set forth in the current inclusionary Multifamily Zoning Ordinance (IMF Zoning Ordinance’, the municipal zoning, and site plan ordinances in effect atthe tmee of the August 2012 site plan hearings (othe extent not superceded by the IM Zoning Ordinancs) or the December 9, 2011 Order of the Court without an evidentiary hearing, This paragraph shall notin any way limit Defendants’ ability to appeal the December 9, 2011 Order of this Court pertaining the site plan procedures relating to the CDA Plaintiffs et ala, iciuding o the appointment of a Special Hearing Examines, the assumption by the Special Hearing Examiner of the jurisdiction ofthe Cranford Planning Board or the Court's zetention of Jjuriediction to enter preliminary and final site plan approval12, The rights and duties establitied by this Order shal be binding upon Defendants Township of Cranford etal Plantilis Cranford Development ‘Associates LLC and any successor in interest to Plaintiffs CDA etal 18, Bxcepi as otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Order shall be deemed to modify any previous order issued by this Court and the entry of this order granting preliminary and final site plan approval with conditions shall be considered an interlocutory order ofthe Court and the time to file an appeal of this Onder shall sun concurrently with the entry of @ Final Judgment of Compliance'and/or Repose or other similar final order. 14, Subject to the sights and powers reserved to Defendants in this Order, Defendants shal! net obstruct, impede, or delay Plaintiffs CDA etal in their efforts to construct the inclusionary development approved in this Order. 15, Abricf notice of the entry ofthis Order shall be published in the official newspaper of the Township of Cranford in accordance with N.JS.A, 40:55D- 10() by Plaintife CDA et al ut their sole cost and expense. 16, ‘The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order. Hliaabeth McKenzie hall continue to serve as Special Master forthe purpose of assisting the parties and the Court in the implementation of this Order 117, True but uncertified copies ofthis Order shall be served on all parties sti des. 10EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF ‘APPROVAL BY THE COURT BASED UPON HEARINGS HELD ON AUGUST 8, 9, 21, 22 ‘and 23, 2012, BEFORE DOUGLAS WOLFSON, HEARING OFFICER, AND IN THE PRESENCE OF ELIZABETH C, MCKENZIE, AICP, PP, SPECIAL MASTER November 10,2012 SUBMITTED TO THE HONORABLE LISA CHRYSTAL, JSC, ‘UNION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, {inthe matter of CRANFORD DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, eal vs, TOWNSHIP OF ID PLA Ds SHIP OF CR, DOCKET NO.: UNN-L-003759-08 \CKGROUND, (On July 29,201, the Law Division of the Superior Court (The Honorable Liss Chrystal, 4I8C siting) baving previously red that defendant Cranford Township iin voltion of its tow ‘81 moderate nome fair share housing obligations, determined tht lint, Canford Development Associates, LLC, eta. (herinafer collectively “CDA”? is eniled toa site specific Builders Remedy, narnely the ight to cont an inclusionary development consisting ‘0 360 otal housing units on its property located at 215-285 Birchwood Avenue and identified ‘on the Cranford Township Tax Map as Block 291, Lot 15.01, and Block 292, Lot 2 (hereinafter ide oflow and moderte income nits on “the Property”) that would inchude a 1 percent set ‘erms specified by the Court On December 9,201, the Court entered an Onder embodying this decison. 1m. itplementaton of ts Order granting the Builder's Remedy the Court dsignted and ‘ppointed Dougis Wolfson, a former Mount Laurel Sodge (Middlesex Vicinage, asthe Special Hearing Officer (the “Hearing Officer" in this mater to sssumse jurisdiction over the site planreview proces in lie ofthe Planning Board and to conduct publichearings consistent with the reuiremests of the Muincnal Land Use Law (he “MLUL") and Order granting he Builder's Remedy, and, thereafter, to make a recommendation to The Honorable Lisa Chystal, S.C. conceming the application. By Ordo dated August 6, 2012, the Cour alo directod the Hearing Offices to make a recomendation tthe Cout, based upon fats adduced attest plan hearng() on the isue of whether dofendans, Township of Cranford, et al, shouldbe required to take the necessary formal ations ha would pemit CDA, st CDA’s own expense, to regrade a sttch of Birchwood Avenue to elevate ito a level one fot shove the ood hazard eea design slevation {in acondance with plans propared by L2A Land Desiga, LLC, as part ofits contraction of the proposed inclusionary development ofthe Property inorder to obtsin NIDEP approval ofthe development. ‘A memorandum dated May 15,2012 was circulated by Elizabeth C. McKenzie, AICP, P, the Court-Appointed Special Master (the “Special Mastee) outlining the procedures to be followed by the parties in submitng, reviewing and approving CDA'S sit plan application, ‘THE APPLICATION, Consistent withthe above-cited Onders andthe procedural memorandum cireulated by the Special Master, CDA (the “Applicant) submitted an application for Preliminary and Pinal Site Plan Approval and requests for associted waivers and exceptions (the “Application”)together with supporting reports, plans and other mata by letter of transmittal dated June 6, 2012 (collectively, the “Application Materials), 1 permit dovetopment of the Propet. ‘The Applicaton Material inilly consisted ofthe following: Preliminary and Fina Sit Plan and Application fr Individual Flood Fiezard Area emit, ME. Dipl, June 4,2012 25 shets (Ex. A) . architectural Pan, Lessard Design, June 5, 2012 ~§ sheets (x. AS) © Engineering Report, M.E. Dipple, Rev. Joe 4,2012 (Ex. A-6) Subsequently, CDA also submited the following ational documents & TaffcImpect Assessment, E. Dolan, use 14,2012 (Ex. A-11) Letter Report, Lessard Desig, July 31, ev. August, 2012 (Ex A-8) © Code Analysis, Lessard Design, Aug. 12012 (Ex, A-9) 4. Fite Code Analysis, Lesard Design, Avg, 1.2012 (Bx. A-10) & Later Report, ME. Dipple July 3, 2012 (Ex. A-11) £ Letter Report, MB. Dippe and C. Emerson, Avg. 6, 2012 (Ex. A-12) Sanitary Sewee Capacity Sty, ME, Dipole, Jnuary 2009 (Es, A-17) 1, Supplemental Trafic Repo, E. Dolan, August 23,2012 (Ex. A-24) (CDA’s site plan showed the proposed regrading of Birchwood Avenue. ‘The application was reviewed by the Township prior tothe Herings. ‘The Township's review included not only reviews by the Township's own professionals but also by outside traffic snd engincering consultants retained by the Township in accordance with standard municipalland use practice and paid for out ofthe escrow account established by CDA in aceottance with the MLUL, the Township's Ordinance and the recommended procedures of the Specs] Master, In response tothe Application, the Township of Cranford submitted the following review reports: 4% ‘Memorandum fiom Code Offical R. Belluscio to P, Morin, 7-18-12 (Ex. D-1) 12 xs, D-2 and D-14) . Lette fom Traffic Consultan J, Staigr to P, Morin, 8 © Memorandum from Cranford Police Trafic Division to P, Morin, 7-15-12 (Bx, D-3) 4. Memorandum from Municipal Engineer R. Marsden to P. Morin, 7-20-12 (Bx. D-4) © Memorandum ftom Zoning Officer R. Hudak to P. Moris, 7-18+12 (oot in evidence) {Memorandum fiom Fire Chief L. Dotan to P. Morin, 7-18-12 (Ex. D-17) On Angas 1,2012, representatives of CDA, including its professional consultants, met ‘with representatives of Cranford Township, including is Municipal Atomey, Municipal ‘Engineer, Construction Code Offical, Zoning Office, and a representative of the Township Police Department, to jointy eview the Application, ‘THE HEARINGS PPorsuant to an Ondec entered by the Honorable Lisa Chrystal on August 62012, Open Public Hearings were held st the Union County Court House in Elizabeth, New Jersey, during regular Court House hours. The Hearings took place on August 8, 2012, August 9, 2012, August21,2012, August 22,2012, and August 23, 2012, before the Hearing Officer and inthe presence ofthe Special Master Although the Township of Cranford objected to the seope and sufficiency ofthe Notice ‘rovided bythe Applicant ina etr dated August 3,202, which ete is part ofthe record before the Cour the Heating Officer determined that the Applicant had provided adequate Notice via proof of publication of be Notice in th Official Newspaper for Cranford Township, el x proof of service of Notice tall property owners within 200 fee of the Property as shown on the cei lst of property owners ted June 1,012, provided by Peter Bamet, Tax Assesior fr the Township of Cranford, onl lites adele eevsion operators servicing the Property orhaving facies located within 20 fet ofthe Property on ny military facility commande egsered with the municipality, on the Union County Planing Boar end on James Simpson, New Jersey Department of Tansprtaton Commissions al as provided by NSA, 40:5SD-1, e509. (Bx. A-1). ‘Atthe Heaings, te Applicant, represented by Stephen M. Bisdorfr, Esquire, ofthe firm ofl, Wallac LLP, presented several witnesses, each of whom was then questioned by counsel fr the Township, Philip J. Moria, I, Eaquie, ofthe frm of Florio, Peru, Steinhardt and Fader, LLC, aswell as by member ofthe publi, chang one attorney, Maria Anderson, ‘0 62 Trenton Avent, Kenworth, epresestng hers, The Applicant was pemited to conduet eect examination, andthe Township end members ofthe public were permite to ask questions limite to topics addresod inthe ednet examination. Speci Master Elizabeth ‘MeKenzie and the Hearing Officer then asked question, Finally, counsel forthe Applicant andthe Township and members of the public were permite to ask questions on topics addressed in ‘he responses to the questions ofthe Special Master and the Hearing Officer, ‘Tho Township then presented its own witneses, following the same procedure. Finally members ofthe public were permitted to present testimony underoath ‘The Applicant, the Township, and members of the public were penmited to offer documents into evidence, which were marked, and by stipulation were all moved into evidence. A list ofthe exhibits received into evidenos i attached hereto as Appendix A. CDA presented the testimony ofthe following witnesses: 8 Chistian Lesard~ Architect (88 T. 31-160) 1b. Fliaheth Don, P.. Taf Boginening (87. 161-230) © Michael Dipple, PE, ~Enginering and Hydcology (8/9 T, 5153 , 8/21 7-173, 822 75.129, 823 7, 101-103) 4. Pater Hokemian — Applicant (Q9'T. 154-160) © Clay Emerson, PhD. ~ Engineering and Water Resource Engineering (8/23°T 144195) ‘The Township presented the tetany ofthe following witnesses: Richard Marsden ~opinesring (8/2 T. 129-200, 8723 7. $87) b. Joseph Stagar— ‘Trafic Bnginesng (/22T. 105-129) © Leona Dolan ~ fire chief (823 7103-143)4. Thomas Creelman ~ engineering and hydrology (823 7. 87-100) The fllowing members of the pubic tested Laura Tarai (823.7. 197.98) b. Ris LaBrato (82377 198214) © Maria Anderson (823 1.214.232) d.—_ Lie Sweeney (823°7. 232.238) B IN THE PROP! ‘The Application proposes the redevelopment oft 15.8-aer site consisting of wo sepatate but adjoining lots designated onthe Cranford Township Tax Map as Block 291, Lot 1501, and Block 292, Lot 2. The ots ae located at 215 and 235 Birchwood Avenue in Cranford ‘Township. Site Plan (Ex. A-4), 1 associated paved ‘The Property is curently developed with two ofc buitngs Diking ares, Th remainder of the Property includes mitre woods, a mixture of evetrcen and eciduous vegetation, an awn, Casio Brook, a narow steam tha sa ibuay ofthe Rahway ‘River (also known as Rahway River Branch 10-24) foms the western ee ofthe sit, The southeast comer ofthe site has nother man-made ditch, Dipple, 9/8, 12-15; Site Plan, sht. C- 02 (Ex. A-d); Acta! Photo (Ex. A-8), ‘The Property contains regulated freshwater wellands and wetlands transition ateat, which hhave been delineated by the NIDEP ina formal Let of Interpretation. Letter fom A. Clerk,"Northeast Region Supervisor, Bureau of Inland Regulation, NIDEP, to Michael Rehman, July 20, 2009 (Ex. AB); Site Plan sht. C-02 (Bxs, Ac, A-14); Dipple 8/9°T 13, 42-44. Italso contains areas within the regulated floodway and flood finge area of Casino Brook. Site Plan sit, C-02 (Exs. A); Dipple Engineering Report, Sheet FS-01, Dipple, 8/97 13-14. “The surounding ses include health care facility tothe ens ofthe Property, an office building to tho west ofthe Property, sad an office building owned by Verizon, Inc, and @ ‘uniipal comporting and eyeing center to the noth of the Property onthe other side of Birchwood Avenue, The nearest existing residential uses are single family houses on Wadsworth Terrace tothe south ofthe Propet, which homes have rear yards tht back upto the Property. Lesa, 887, 3435; Dipl, 8/97, 1011; Aesal photo (Ee. A) ‘As amended by Ordinance No, 2012-11, Cranford Township's Land Development Ontinanee locates the Property in ths Trelnsionary Multi-Family Residential (MR) 2one. ‘This zone was created by the Township in response tothe Courts December 9, 2011, Order. The lands to the west, north and east are located in the Low Density Office District (LO) zone. ‘The ots to the south, slong Wadsworth Terrace, are located in the R-4 Single Family Detached ‘Residential zone, Site Plan shis, C-O1,C-04 (Ex. A-4), ‘THE BROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT ‘As set forth inthe Application, the Applicant proposes to redevelop the site with two residential buildings, a garage structure, surface parking, walkways, lawns, open spaces, preserved woods, welands, wetlands buffers, end recreational amenities, In accordance with theCoust’s Order of December 9, 2011, CDA proposes to construct afta of 360 dvelling units, including 54 low and moderate income rental units, Site Pan, sh, CO4 (Bx. A-4,A-14); Lessard 818 T. 35-36; Dipple, 89, 16417 Proposed Building A fons on Birchwood Avenue. it consists of «58 space parking level parking podium") with three stoves of esidenial units above it. Includes 60 residential ‘mits, Proposed Building B fronts on Birchwood Aveme and wraps around Proposed Building C ‘he parkingstuctre). Building Bis proposed to const of for stories containing 300 residential units. Building C fronts on the iaternal driveway proposed slong the eas side of the ‘Property. It «four-level parking structure containing S20 parking spaces. There area ditional 89 surice parking spaces proposed along the internal drive, Lessard, 8/8 T, 36-37; Site Plan, sht, 0-04 (Ex. A+, A-I4); Architectural Plan, sh. 5 (Bx. A-S); Dipple, 897: 17-19, 22.23, ‘At its nearest point, Building A willbe approximately 545 fet fom the our property lines ofthe los onting on Wadsworth Tenace. Lessard, 8/87. 95. Atit nearest point, Building B willbe approximately 205 fet fom the rar property Hines ofthe ts fronting on ‘Wadsworth Terie and 70 fee from the side lt Hine ofthe helt ere facility othe es. Lessard, 88 T. 50. ‘Building A will have a height of SS feet above grade, measured tothe midpoint ofthe s0of s mandated by Ordinance 2012-1142(EV(6)- Lessard, 8/8. 43; Architectural Plan, sh. 9 (Ex. A'S), Building B will have aheight of 518 feet above grade, again measured to the ‘midpoint ofthe roof in accordance with the Township's Ordinance, Lessard, 8/8. 4Architectural Pla, st 9(Ex, 5), The top level residential uns in each building will each include af level which wil be open fo the main level ofthe unit. These lots will be within the level ofthe roo and will nota to the height ofthe building. Architectural Plan, she. 9 (Ex ‘5; Lessard, 8/8 41-4245-46, The parking stuctore (Building C) will have fourlovels, of Which the top evel wil be open and unroofed, Lessard 8/8 93, "The Noor level of the Fourth Parking level willbe 38 fet above grade, Architetal Plan, st. 9 (Ex. AS). The building eights are in conformance withthe requirements of Cranfont's Ordinance. ‘A two-way internal driveway will form a lop though the projet, providing ineress and uress onto Birchwood Avenue al two separate points, Site Plan sht,C-Of, Dippl, 849. 16, In Site Improvement Standards, the width ofthe cartway ofthe conformity with the Residents

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5820)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1093)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (845)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1717)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (898)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (349)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1867)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4771)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (808)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4208)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1903)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3973)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (105)
• Westfield Leader 1-18-18 Redevelopment Study

  

  Document2 pages

  Westfield Leader 1-18-18 Redevelopment Study

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• O-2018-07 Birchwood PILOT (FINAL - Revised) PDF

  

  Document4 pages

  O-2018-07 Birchwood PILOT (FINAL - Revised) PDF

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• Frank Capece, Local Source

  

  Document1 page

  Frank Capece, Local Source

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• Permit Actions by Timeframe 2-8-14

  

  Document2 pages

  Permit Actions by Timeframe 2-8-14

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• Rahway River Watershed Association Opposes UCC Sports Field

  

  Document2 pages

  Rahway River Watershed Association Opposes UCC Sports Field

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• 2014 05 20 Cranford Appeal CDA Response Brief

  

  Document97 pages

  2014 05 20 Cranford Appeal CDA Response Brief

  mariner12

  No ratings yet
• Cranford Appeal Brief Filed 2-24-14

  

  Document110 pages

  Cranford Appeal Brief Filed 2-24-14

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• 1-16-14 Meeting Public Notice

  

  Document1 page

  1-16-14 Meeting Public Notice

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• DEP-Pending Permit Progress Report 10-11-13

  

  Document2 pages

  DEP-Pending Permit Progress Report 10-11-13

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• Commission Opposes Study To Change Cranford, Cranford Patch, 7-18-13

  

  Document2 pages

  Commission Opposes Study To Change Cranford, Cranford Patch, 7-18-13

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet
• Ordinance Rescinded For Voters To Establish Charter Study Commission, Cranford Chronicle, 7-17-13

  

  Document3 pages

  Ordinance Rescinded For Voters To Establish Charter Study Commission, Cranford Chronicle, 7-17-13

  Cranford1

  No ratings yet