Planning Report Seton Hall Preparatory School West Orange NJ8688981

Planning Report – Seton Hall Preparatory School, Health and Fitness Center December 23, 2022 700 Prospect Avenue, Township of West Orange, NJ John McDonough Associates, LLC Land Use Planning · Landscape Architecture 4 101 Gibraltar Drive, Suite 1A, Morris Plains, NJ 07950 · Phone: 973.222.6011 · Fax: 973.786.6537 1. Identify the public interest at stake. The public interest at stake is quality education and the necessary facilities to fulfill the academic mission of the school. Athletics and fitness are critical components of SHP’s mission to foster the spiritual, intellectual, social, and physical growth of its students. The school values the role of athletics in the formation of character in young people, the understanding of fair play and sportsmanship, and the acquisition of life-long interests, friendships, and skills. Athletics develop more complete, socially responsible individuals. The new health and fitness center will be a significant upgrade over the existing fitness center and better serve student athletes and the SHP community. The new building will be more centrally located and add to the aesthetic value of the KAC campus. 2. Identify the potential detrimental effects that could ensue from the grant of the variance. The proposed project will have minimal if any detrimental effects. The project has been designated to flow, function, and operate safely, comfortably, and efficiently. The new health and fitness center will serve the same basic population as the existing fitness center. The new health and fitness center will be located further away from residential neighbors than the existing fitness center. The existing fitness center has a nonconforming setback, whereas the new health and fitness center has a conforming setback. 3. Consider whether the imposition of reasonable conditions would ameliorate detrimental effects. The land use law allows boards to impose reasonable conditions on variance applications. The specifics of these conditions typically arise during the public hearing process. Our Supreme Court envisions and encourages an interactive process. Given the low impact cited above, mitigative measures will likely be minimal if any, since impact mitigation has already been built into the design. The nature of the use is not substantially different than other sports and recreation uses permitted in the zone. 4. Weigh the positive and

ce impact mitigation has already been built into the design. The nature of the use is not substantially different than other sports and recreation uses permitted in the zone. 4. Weigh the positive and negative criteria and determine whether, on balance, the grant of the variance would cause a substantial detriment to the public good. On balancing, the extremely positive weight of enhancing and improving an inherently beneficial use substantially outweighs mitigated impacts. The statutory requirement of the Sica v. Board of Adjustment of the Township of Wall balancing test is met.