Prior Resolutions of Approval submission

(1971), in reviewing an Application for the construction of a vocational school, the Court held that “Nor should the fact that a vocational school will serve a regional need rather than solely a municipal need, of itself, support a total or a limited zoning bar.” Id. at 150. 6. Athletic fields are permitted and expected conditional or accessory uses to a school. See Shim v. Washington Township Planning Board, 298 N.J. Super. 395 (App. Div. 1997), wherein the Court stated: We note, for example, that public playgrounds and public and parochial schools and colleges are permitted in the R-1.5 zone. We doubt that the municipality intended that lighting for playgrounds or athletic fields for the schools are prohibited because lighting and athletic fields are not among the twelve specified enumerated items as permitted accessory uses in the zone. Id. 401-402. 7. In order to grant a D variance, the Applicant must prove both the positive and negative criteria to obtain a use variance. Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Borough of Fairlawn Board of Adjustment, 152 N.J. 309, 323 (1988). “In general, the positive criteria require that an applicant establish ‘special reasons’ for granting the variance,” and “the negative criteria require proof that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance.” Id. at 323, citing Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall Township, 127 N.J. 152, 156 (1992). If the proposed use is inherently beneficial, an applicant’s burden is -38-