ZB 23 09 Seton Hall Preparatory Resolution submission

FINAL — V1 —5.16.24 the positive and negative criteria and determine whether, on balance, the grant of the variance would cause a substantial detriment to the public good. Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Wall, 127 N.J. 152, 165-66 (1992); see also Homes of Hope, Inc. v, Eastampton Tp. Land Use Planning Bd., 409 N.J. Super. 330 (App. Div. 2009). 31. Ast relates to the "negative" criteria for the Applicant's requested items of (d)(2) and (d)(3) variance relief, the Board finds that the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated same, by way of satisfying the four (4) part balancing test set forth in the Sica case. In this regard, the Board finds that: (i) the public interest at stake is the provision of quality education and necessary facilities to fulfill the academic mission of the school; (ii) there are minimal or no detrimental effects as this is infill development which adds to the visual quality of the site and has no impact on surrounding land uses (iii) the Applicant is amenable to all reasonable conditions that the Board may seek to impose upon any ultimate approval; and (iv) on balance, the public interest benefits to be reaped from granting the requested items of (d)(2) expansion variance relief substantially outweigh the relatively modest, if any, detriments associated with the proposal. 32. The "positive" criteria for bulk variance relief sought under subsection (c)(2) of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 is established by a showing that (i) the granting of an application for variance relief would advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law (the "MLUL"), as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2, and (ii) the benefits to be reaped from the proposal will substantially outweigh any detriments associated therewith. The "negative" criteria for bulk variance relief sought under subsection (c)(2) of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 is established by the Applicant demonstrating that the proposed deviations (i) will not pose a "substantial detriment" to surrounding properties, and (ii) will not "substantially impair" the purpose and intent of a municipality’s zoning ordinance and master plan. The focus of the "substantial detriment" prong of the negative criteria is on the