[brief] POINT I THE BOARD PROPERLY TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FACTS NECESSARY TO DENY THE APPLICATION.  The October 15, 2020 Trial Court Opinion (the “2020 Opinion”), as well as the Respondents’ Opposition Brief continuously assert that the only evidence proffered during the hearing on the 2018 Amended Application was the evidence supplied by the Respondents and their professionals.  However, this position disregards the well-established fact that: a board of adjustment may take "judicial notice" of such matters as are so notorious as not to be the subject of reasonable dispute.  * * *  In addition to matters which are common knowledge, the board of adjustment may also take judicial notice of the public laws of the State of New Jersey dealing with the subject of planning and zoning, and the ordinances of the municipality in which the board is located.  Cox & Koenig, New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration, (GANN, 2023) § 18.4(d) (citing Reinauer Realty Corp. v. Nucera, 59 N.J. Super. 189, 201-203 (App. Div.) certf. den. 32 N.J. 347 (1960)).  The 2019 Board Resolution denying the 2018 Amended Application clearly demonstrates the Board’s reliance upon the Purpose and General Goals of the VC-2 Village Center Overlay Zone (the “VC-2 Zone”); as outlined at length in the Board’s Brief in Support of Cross-Appeal.  Ba6-7.  Despite the position taken by the Trial Court in the 2020 Opinion, the Board is not obligated to accept the inconsistent documentary evidence and professional testimony proffered by the Respondents.  Further, the Site Concept Plan for the initial, approved 2015 Application and the Site Concept Plan for the 2018 Amended Application, proffered by the Respondents at the March 26, 2019 hearing as Exhibits A-3 and A-4, supply additional support for the Board’s decision.  See M103-104.  Exhibit A-3 clearly demonstrates a plan which encompasses a development which meets the Purpose and General Goals of the VC-2 Zone; while Exhibit A-4 shows a compressed development shoved toward the front of the Property adjacent to Route 33.  M103-104.  The Purpose of the VC-2 Zone states, in part, that:  In order to create a neo-traditional downtown, less-intensive commercial and office uses mixed with residential uses on upper floors should be oriented toward the interior of the area along a primary access road that extends in a general north to northeast direction from Route 33 to Applegarth Road.  The bulk of the residential uses should be developed in areas that are in the vicinity of the less intensive "downtown" and extend north from Route 33 toward the edge of woods along the Millstone River.  Ba6.  Exhibit A-3 clearly fosters the desired separation of the commercial and residential uses; while Exhibit A-4 shows a singular project with commercial and residential uses compacted together and separated by common parking areas.  M103-104.  As more specifically identified in the Board’s Brief in Support of Cross-Appeal (incorporated herein by reference in lieu of repetition), the 2019 Board Resolution exhaustively recited the deficiencies in the Respondents’ 2018 Amended Application clearly undermining rationale underlying the 2020 Opinion of the Trial Court.  POINT II