2 ZBA Application

Orange zone plan and ordinances, Master Plan and Re-Examination report and its classification of the Subject Property, the permitted uses on the Subject Property as per the zoning ordinance, the history of the Applicant’s first application to the Planning Board and the determination of the Planning Director, as affirmed by the Zoning Board that the Applicant needs a D-1 variance for the use and is properly before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the other variances sought, his opinion that the use of the Subject Property as school athletic fields is an inherently beneficial use, despite not being on the same property where the academic building sits, that the inherently beneficial use would satisfy the positive criteria, that the Applicant also satisfies the four prong negative criteria analysis, as set forth in Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall Township, 127 N.d. 152, 156 (1992), that the use is a high priority use in that education is important to society, that any detriments have been identified and ameliorated with conditions that the Board is considering, and that it would be appropriate for the Board to find, as he opines, that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the detriments, and that it would be poor planning to build permanent parking capacity for football games that are estimated to encompass about 20 hours over a year, and that all of the bulk variances could be granted because their benefits outweigh any perceived detriments; and WHEREAS the Applicant offered the testimony of Richard E. Poltan, Real Estate Appraiser, who was accepted as the Board as such, Mr. Poltan testified that that impact of the proposed co