ZB 23 09 Seton Hall Preparatory Resolution submission

FINAL-—V1 —5.16.24 impact of the variance on nearby properties. The focus of the “substantial impairment” prong of the negative criteria is on whether the grant of the variance can be reconciled with the zoning restriction from which the applicant intends to deviate. 33. Here, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the "positive" criteria in a manner sufficient to establish an entitlement to the requested items of bulk variance relief, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2), by demonstrating that (i) the proposal promotes the purposes of the MLUL enumerated in subsections (a) and (i) of N.JS.A. 40:55D-2, (ii) the proposed use is inherently beneficial, and (iii) the benefits of approving the proposal will substantially outweigh any detriments associated therewith. Specifically, the Board finds that the proposal promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare, as the addition will provide for enhanced educational opportunity and quality in the Borough. Additionally, the Board finds that, because the proposed addition will have an appearance that will be aesthetically pleasing, the proposal would promote a desirable visual environment. The Board further finds that these benefits would substantially outweigh the relatively modest, if any, detriments, associated with permitting the proposed signage and parking nonconformities. 34. The Board further finds that the Applicant has satisfied both prongs of the "negative" criteria in a manner sufficient to establish an entitlement to the requested items of bulk variance relief, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2). In this regard, as to the signage variance, the Board finds that the sign will not pose a "substantial detriment" to surrounding properties, because the proposed sign adds to the aesthetic of the building and identify of the school; (ii) is remote from residential uses; and (iii) the sign will add to the ambience of the building and create a sense of space. As to the parking variance, there will be no “substantial detriment” to surrounding properties because (i) the condition currently exists; and (ii) there will be no increase