PB-22-01 Pleasantdale Chateau & Conference Resort

of N.J., Inc. v. Twp. of N. Brunswick Planning Bd., 193 N.J. Super. 513, 515 (App. Div. 1984). Conversely, if the application does not comply with all ordinance requirements, the Board must deny approval. Cortesini v. Hamilton Planning Board, 417 N.J. Super. 201, 215 (App. Div. 2010). However, there are two exceptions: (1) The first exception is where an application does not comply with all ordinance requirements but the Board grants relief in terms of variances or exceptions. In that case, the Board then must review the application against all remaining ordinance requirements and grant approval if the application complies with all such remaining requirements. 7. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-60 permits a planning board to grant variances from the bulk regulations of a zoning ordinance and other zoning deviations that do not require a “d” variance as part of site plan or subdivision review. The variance proofs are the same as for Blog variances as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70. A c (2) variance may be granted when the purposes of zoning are advanced and the benefits of deviating from the ordinance requirements outweigh any detriments. The benefits derived from granting a “c(2)” variance must include benefits to the community as a whole, not just the applicant or property owner. A “c” variance must address the “negative criteria,” and affirmatively demonstrate that the variance can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good” and “without substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance” of the municipality. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Board reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. This application requires the following variance relief, as well as site plan approval: Section | Required Existing Proposed 25-12.2.b.1 331 parking 174 spaces, plus | No change spaces, plus 58 14 tandem additional spaces | spaces and 14 (1 space per 45 “future” spaces sq. ft. of gross floor area) 2. Testimony established that new parking needs are not anticipated as the use of the facility ballroom or tent for an event would be shifted to the new conservatory area and will not create any foreseeable additional parking needs. 3. With respect to the negative criteria under the MLUL, the Board accepts the testimony that there is no detriment to the public good as the proposed conservatory will

able additional parking needs. 3. With respect to the negative criteria under the MLUL, the Board accepts the testimony that there is no detriment to the public good as the proposed conservatory will be roughly the same square footage as the tents that are used and taken down and will not create any more of an intense use of the property than what occurs now and what has taken place over many years with no negative effects.