In East Mill Assocs. v. Township Council of Tp. of East Brunswick, 241 N.J.Super. 403, 575 A.2d 61 (App.Div.1990), the Court held that a "reasons" resolution adopted thirty-six days after enactment of an admittedly inconsistent zoning amendment did not satisfy section 62a. The Court ruled that section 62a requires the reasons resolution to be adopted contemporaneously with the inconsistent amendment. Id. at 407, 575 A.2d 61. The Court observed: By requiring contemporaneous passage, the law not only provides an avenue for public scrutiny of the action (including a record for judicial review) but, perhaps more importantly, ensures that the inconsistency is clearly recognized and rationalized when the action is taken. There is a significant difference between contemporaneous debate and post hoc rationalization. Ibid.