PB 25 03 Kantor 9 Schindler Terr Draft Resolution

allowing a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the benefits of any deviation will substantially outweigh any detriment. 4. The Applicant demonstrated that the proposed deck would provide a desirable visual environment by revising the old deck, and would provide more adequate light, air and open space for the unit owners. 5. These tests specifically enumerated above constitute the affirmative proofs necessary in order to obtain “bulk” variance relief, under Section c (2). 6. Also, an applicant for these variances must show that the proposed relief sought will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. The burden of proof is upon the Applicant to establish that these criteria have been met, and Applicant has demonstrated that no additional variance need was presented for parking, and in fact, the parking was being increased. 7. The Board finds that the benefits of the proposed project significantly outweigh the detriments as the project advances the purposes of the MLUL (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et. seq.) by the expansion of the deck. 8. With respect to the negative criteria under the MLUL, the Board accepts the testimony that the proposed changes will not have any negative effect on the zone plan. The Board finds that the detriments of the application are significantly outweighed by the many benefits.