[brief] RESPONDENTS  MISREPRESENT THE TIMELINE AND UNDERLYING FACTS CONCERNING THE 2015 APPLICATION AND THE 2018 AMENDED APPLICATION.  Throughout the Respondents’ Opposition Brief, they “cherry pick” facts and dates in order to lead this Court to belief that the 2015 Application and the 2018 Amended Application were undertaken to further the Township’s compliance with its affordable housing obligations.  Specifically, the Respondents assert that the original 2015 Application was undertaken to further the Settlement Agreement, the Township’s Housing Element and Fair Share Plan (“HEFSP”) and the Judgment of Compliance and Repose.  Respondent Opposition Brief (“ROB”) page 10.  However, a simple review of the record demonstrates that the Settlement Agreement was entered into on March 28, 2016; the HEFHP was adopted in March 2016; and the Judgment of Compliance and Repose was entered by the Court on October 5, 2016 – all after the filing of the 2015 Application.  M107-137; M358-461.  In fact, the provision of affordable housing units by the Respondents was the result of the explicit requirements of the VC-2 Zone; which states:  Residential dwellings: townhouse and multifamily dwellings in individual complexes separate from nonresidential land uses that must be located at least 500 feet from Route 33; affordable housing units over nonresidential uses that are on the ground floor within mixed-use buildings located in the "downtown" area; and affordable housing units in 100% affordable housing buildings that must be located at least 500 feet from Route 33.  A [set-aside] of at least 20% of all residential dwellings shall be provided as affordable housing as defined by the State of New Jersey in order for residential dwellings to be part of any development.  Ba8.  Thus, the provision of the affordable units was a requirement of the VC-2 Zone; not the Settlement Agreement, the HEFSP or the Judgment of Compliance and Repose.  Similarly, the Respondents advise that a second application filed in November 2016.  ROB page 11.  However, the Respondents fail to note that this application sought to increase the number of residential units proposed for the Subject Property by 11 units; in excess of the permitted density in the VC-2 Zone.  Ba77-80.  The application also failed to supply any additional affordable units; and therefore, did not comply with the 20% set-aside in the VC-2 overlay zone.  Ba77-80.  This application was ultimately undermined by the discovery of the eagle’s nest in the spring of 2017.  Additionally, the Respondents assert that the 2015 Application sought approval for 215 residential units and 65,000 square feet of commercial/retail space; while the 2018 Amended Application sought less development in the form of 206 residential units and 43,568 square feet of commercial/retail space.  Respondent Brief 10-12.  However, the Respondents fail to note that 9 of the residential units in the 2015 Application were to be constructed on a separate property (not the Subject Property).  The reduction in the development in the 2018 Amended Application consisted of the elimination of 21,432 square feet of commercial/retail space; despite the fact that the eagle’s nest buffer prevented the development on over half the Subject Property.  In sum, the Respondents have clearly mischaracterized the relevant facts in an attempt to bolster their position before this Court and undermine decision rendered by the Board.  Such action cannot be given countenance by this Court; and should demonstrate the appropriateness of the actions taken by the Board.