Prior Resolutions of Approval submission

significantly lessened because “an inherently beneficial use presumptively satisfies the positive criteria.” Smart SMR, 152 N.J. at 323. The Sica court explained that with an inherently beneficial use, satisfaction of the negative criteria does not depend upon an enhanced quality of proof, but rather upon balancing the positive and negative criteria. Sica, 127 N.J. at 160-63. 8. In this case, much has been made as to whether the proposed expansion of the athletic fields is an inherently beneficial use given its connection to Seton Hall, a non-profit parochial school. In looking at this, all of the parties have repeatedly cited the Zoning Board to the Appellate Division’s decision in Medical Center at Princeton v. The Township of Princeton Zoning Board of Adjustment, 343 N.J. Super. 177 (App. Div. 2001). What is fascinating is that the Medical Center decision at page 204 cites two very relevant decisions in connection with schools that have an impact on whether the proposed development to the Subject Property is in fact an inherently beneficial use. Cited in Medical Center is the Appellate Division’s decision in Scholastic Bus Co., Inc. v. Zoning Board of the Borough of Fairlawn, 326 N.J. Super. 49 (App. Div. 1999}. In Scholastic Bus Co., the applicant sought review of the zoning board’s denial of a use variance to locate a school bus parking lot and maintenance facility in an industrial zone. The school bus company provided school bus services to a number of school systems located in the regional area. The Appellate Division stated: -39-