Prior Resolutions of Approval submission

extensive historic evidence of the site in connection with the Board's decision to grant a variance. In order for the Board to determine if there was any detriment to the public good, the Board heard testimony on the record about the historic nature of the property in question. Thus, the Board was not required to seek referral or an opinion from the Historic Preservation Commission, or have a member of the Historic Preservation Commission give testimony, although this was permitted in this case. Neshanic Coalition for Historic Preservation v. Hillsborough Township Planning Board, unpublished opinion dated July 19, 2010 in the Law Division, Somerset County, Docket No. SOM-L-1437-08, at page 8. Thus, the Board's decision not to permit the Historic Preservation Commission to weigh in on this matter is clearly appropriate. Most importantly, when the Historic Preservation Commission submitted its August 18, 2010 letter to the Board attaching its resolution passed on August 4, 2010, it is clear that the Historic Preservation Commission did not take testimony, but simply made certain net conclusions which were not based upon the historical record provided during the public hearings before the Zoning Board. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the decision of the Board not to formally permit the Historic Preservation Commission to reach a decision for the Zoning Board was clearly not erroneous as a matter of law and as the facts of this case demonstrate. 15. Based on the foregoing, and in conclusion, Seton Hall is entitled to the D and C variances sought in its Application as amended during the course of the hearings. While the Board -44-