26 03 04 Seton Hall Prep Fields Planning Review 1 rcd 3 5 2026

West Orange Zoning Board March 4, 2026 Re: Seton Hall Prep Health & Fitness Center Our File No. 115.WRZ0082.V03 CME Planning Review #1 Page 5 H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\West Orange\Zoning Board\115.WRZ0082.V03 - Seton Hall Preparatory School\26-02-09 Seton Hall Prep- CME Planning Review 1.docx c. The existing use on the site was established by the granting of a d-1 use variance, and subsequent approvals were indicated to be for d-2 variances. The application at this time is primarily for amendments to the conditions of approval that relate to the timing of use, number of events on the site, and the specific users of the site, and do not include any changes to the conditions of the site itself. However, with the proposal to add lighting to the football field and the parking lot near the baseball field, this can be then viewed as an expansion or intensification of the use on the site, and also triggers additional setback and buffering requirements. d. The application as proposed may require a d-3 conditional use variance, for each of the conditional use standards that are not met. The applicant must satisfy both the positive and negative criteria for each of these variances: i. Positive Criteria: The applicant must show that there are special reasons to grant the variance. Special reasons can come in one of three forms: 1) that there is a practical hardship or burden and economic inutility in using the site for one of the permitted uses; 2) that the proposed use is inherently beneficial; or 3) that the proposed use will promote the general welfare by advancing one of the purposes of zoning, and that the site is particularly suitable for the use. ii. Negative Criteria: The applicant must show that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan. e. For a d-3 conditional use variance, the focus of the Board’s consideration and the applicant’s testimony should be on those conditions that are not satisfied, and not on the overall use itself. The use itself is permitted to remain on the property and was approved (with conditions) previously by the Board. f. The applicant has indicated in the materials provided that they are seeking a d-3 conditional use variance as well as a d-2 expansion of a non-conforming use variance. We note that the case of Puleio v. North

icant has indicated in the materials provided that they are seeking a d-3 conditional use variance as well as a d-2 expansion of a non-conforming use variance. We note that the case of Puleio v. North Brunswick states that the d-2 variance is only to apply to non-conforming uses that pre-date the establishment of the zoning on the property, and not to uses that were previously permitted by a use variance. With this in mind, a d-2 variance may not technically be necessary for the expansion of a non- conforming use. However, since the application is to expand a use that is not consistent with the site’s zoning requirements, the general standard of review for a d-2 variance may be appropriate to be applied as it is similar in many ways to that of a d-3 variance, or for that of an amended d-1 use variance. g. For a d-2 variance, the applicant must show that the positive and negative criteria can be satisfied, with the focus of the criteria being on just the expansion rather than the overall use itself.