Prior Resolutions of Approval submission

FINAL — V1 — SKW — 10.18.23 athletic complex itself is an "inherently beneficial use." 23. Mr. Dougherty testified that, in his professional opinion, the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated the "negative criteria" for the grant of its requested (d)(2) expansion of a use variance, by satisfying the four (4) prong test set forth in Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Wall, 127 N.J. 152 (1992). In so doing, Mr. Dougherty opined that: (i) the public interest at stake is quality education, with fitness, athletics, and necessary facilities being critical components in providing same; (ii) the proposal poses minimal detrimental impacts as, with the exception of the proposed expansion of the non-conforming athletic complex use, the Applicant does not propose any other zoning deficiencies, and the proposed fitness center's activities would be located further from nearby residences than the existing field house which currently hosts such activities: (iii) the relatively minimal detriments wrought by the proposal can be effectively mitigated by way of the conditions stipulated-to by the Applicant, including the restrictions on outdoor activities and noise, the continued application of conditions that were part of prior approvals pertaining to the Property, and the inclusion of bird strike-resistant window features; and (iv) the public interest benefits yielded by the proposed expansion of use, particularly including the benefit wrought by promoting quality education, outweigh the relatively modest detriments associated with same. 24. On questioning by members of the Board and Board Professionals, Mr. Dougherty testified that: (i) the proposal represents a slight expansion of the existing storage building/ proposed fitness center on the Property; (ii) the proposal would not lead to any change to existing buffers on the Property; (iii) by way of enhancing existing landscaping and moving the activities that currently take place in the fieldhouse to the proposed fitness center, the proposal represents less of a detrimental impact to surrounding properties than current conditions on the Property; and (v) in his professional opinion, the proposal poses no substantial detriment to the public good. 10