[brief] Ibid.  Indeed, [...] learned the Borough failed to apply its own evaluation criteria and approved [...]’s application even though it failed to sign the required certification attesting to the veracity of the documents and information submitted within its application.  (303ca).  The Evaluation Sheets, which the Borough published as the criteria against which applications would be scored, were not used for that purpose.  (99a).  Although the Borough announced that the Evaluation Sheets with guide the Subcommittee’s work, the Subcommittee apparently did not use the Evaluation Sheet, with a lone exception.  Ibid.  One of the Subcommittee members completed the Evaluation Sheet but only with respect to [...]’s application.  (76a).  Notably, only one member of the Subcommittee used the Evaluation sheet and gave [...] a perfect score on its application (after excluding the one category that was not applicable and was later removed from the criteria).  (76a, 203a).  The notes from the executive session of the September 20, 2022 Council meeting show that the Borough, rather than relying on objective criteria applied evenly to all applications, subjectively considered the applications, applying personal viewpoints without any consistency to the process.  (110a-111a).  The subcommittee chairperson (who supported [...]’s application) applied arbitrary, subjective, and biased criteria to reach her conclusion.  For example, she noted that “[w]hile I am not ‘afraid’ of large companies or international investors[,] I lean toward more midsize organizations[.]” (80a).  Personal prejudices, including the size of the company, are not part of the criteria for scoring identified in the Evaluation Sheet.  (63a).  Moreover, the notes provided by another Subcommittee member (who supported [...]’s application) referenced the Council’s apparent unexplained and unjustified unease with working with international companies.  In particular, she stated: “I work with [i]nternational [c]ompanies now and through much of my career and do not feel this should negative impact our decision. ”  (77a).  She also noted that [...]’s proposed chief operating and chief strategy officers had significant experience and one of the proposed owners was a respected local businessperson who was an asset to the community.  Ibid.  The Subcommittee member further noted that [...]’s proposal “seems to be a perfect location for the highway district” with “[e]asy access coming off and going back on the parkway or one of the 2 highways (Rt. 35/36)” and “plenty of space for parking – they have proposed 50 spaces. ”  Ibid.  By contrast, the Subcommittee chairperson reached the opposite conclusion.  She noted that she was “[c]oncerned about the # of cars entering and leaving, visibility coming out into high speed [sic] travel lane. ” (79a-80a).  That member, however, has no expertise with traffic safety issues and merely offered her subjective, personal opinion.  The same member of the Subcommittee also positively commented on another applicant’s “safety of entry,” again without any expertise in this area, relying only on her personal, subjective opinion.  Ibid.  Notably, this member also wrote that both applicants “[...] and [...] would need to go before the Planning Board as they would be new construction. ”  Ibid.  As part of the Planning Board review, both applicants would have been required to submit a traffic study as that was the proper forum for such considerations, not the Cannabis Subcommittee.  Ibid.  In fact, “traffic safety” issues were not even included in the purported Guidelines to be used by the Council members in evaluating applicants.  Ibid.  **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**