[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................i  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................ii  APPENDIX ..........................................................................................iii  TABLE OF DECISIONS, ORDERS, AND JUDGMENTS .......................vii  TABLE OF TRANSCRIPTS .................................................................viii  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..............................................................1  PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................................4  STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................8  LEGAL ARGUMENT ........................................................................24  POINT I .............................................................................................24  STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................24  POINT II ............................................................................................25  THE ZONING BOARD  UNLAWFULLY DENIED THE PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION, AND THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL (M822)  ........................................25  A.  The Trial Court properly found that the Zoning Board’s decision in this case was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable ..........................26  B.  The Trial Court properly found that the Zoning Board’s denial was improperly tainted by the Mayor’s conduct ........................................35  POINT III .......................................................................................42  THE TRIAL COURT’S APPOINTMENT OF THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER AND ADOPTION OF THE SPECIAL HEARING OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATIONS WAS PROPER (M65-66)  ...............................42  A.  The Trial Court’s appointment of the SHO was made in accordance with the relevant law and was proper given the facts of this case ..........42  B.  The SHO process was fair and impartial and the SHO’s decision was correct ..................................................................................................49  i.  Plaintiffs provided the requisite public notices and the public was afforded every opportunity to participate in the hearing ......................52  ii.  The SHO’s decision was made on the merits of the application and in accordance with the Trial Court’s directive and the relevant law.................................................................54  iii.  The SHO’s elimination of an obligation to install the Route 33 traffic signal was proper and based on substantial evidence in the record...........53  iv.  The SHO’s recommendation that the Township utilize eminent domain was lawful and proper..................................................55  C.  The Trial Court acted properly in adopting the SHO’s recommendations................................................................................61  POINT IV.......................................................................................................................63  THE TRIAL COURT’S DISMISSAL OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ DAMAGE CLAIMS MUST BE REVERSED(M718)......................................................63  A.  The Trial Court properly found that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights and damages are therefore warranted under the Federal and New Jersey Civil Rights Acts .............................................63  B.  The Defendants violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and damages are therefore warranted under that legislation as well ..........70  CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................75