Letter Requesting Extension of Approval athletic center 10 16 2025

FINAL — V1 —SKW — 10.18.23 is shown by an applicant demonstrating that the proposed deviation(s) from the requirements of the Ordinance will neither pose a "substantial detriment" to the public good, nor "substantially impair" the intent and purpose of a municipality's master plan and zoning ordinance. However, within the context of a request for a (d)(2) expansion of use variance where the proposed use is an "inherently beneficial" one, New Jersey Courts have applied a different standard for evaluating the negative criteria. As per the Supreme Court in the Sica case, in evaluating the negative criteria for use variance relief within the context of a proposed "inherently beneficial" use, a board of adjustment must (i) "identify the public interest at stake;" (ii) "identify the detrimental effect that will ensue from the grant of the variance”; (iii) consider "reduc[ing] the detrimental effect by imposing reasonable conditions on the use;" and (iv) "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." Id. at 165-166. 42. Here, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the positive criteria required for the grant of its requested (d)(2) expansion of use variance, because it has demonstrated that the proposed-to-be expanded use is an inherently beneficial one. In this regard, the Board concurs with the unrefuted expert opinion of the Applicant’s Professional Planner, Mr. Dougherty, in that the existing, and to-be-expanded, athletic complex use constitutes an inherently beneficial use because the athletic complex is exclusively used to further the athletic program of Seton Hall, a school. As schools are specifically recognized by the MLUL as "inherently beneficial uses," and use of the to-be-expanded athletic complex is accessory to a school use, the Board thus concurs with Mr. Dougherty in finding that the athletic complex is also itself an "inherently beneficial use." 43. The Board also concurs with Mr. Dougherty's unrefuted expert testimony in finding that the Applicant has satisfied the negative criteria for (d)(2) expansion of use variance relief 16