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 6 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 h. We note that the previous approval for the application found the use to be inherently beneficial as a school facility. We have no objection to the Board continuing to treat the school’s athletic fields as an inherently beneficial use for the purpose of this application. i. Accordingly, the statutory standard applicable to inherently beneficial uses is less stringent than that applied to other categories of uses. The four-prong balancing test governing inherently beneficial uses is set forth and applied below. i. Identify the public interest at stake; ii. Identify the potential detrimental effects that could ensue from the grant of the variance; iii. Consider whether the imposition of reasonable conditions would mitigate the detrimental impacts; and iv. Weigh the positive and negative criteria and determine whether, on balance, the benefits outweigh the detrimental impacts. j. A bulk variance is also required to permit lighting at a height of 90 feet. The applicant must address the positive and negative criteria for a ‘c’ variance: i. Positive Criteria: The applicant must show that either there is a practical hardship (c-1 undue burden) in conforming to the requirements of the code, or that the proposed conditions will advance the purposes of zoning and that the benefits will outweigh any negative impacts (c-2 flexible variance) 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 zoning plan. k. The applicant should address any anticipated changes in traffic impacts and parking demand that may result from the expansion of permissible users and events on the site. Based on the conditions of the previous approval, it appears that one of the primary concerns of the Board at the time was limiting the traffic impacts on the neighborhood. l. The applicant should address potential impacts of the proposed lighting on adjacent properties. While the lighting plans show minimal spillover into adjacent properties in terms of footcandles,

od. l. The applicant should address potential impacts of the proposed lighting on adjacent properties. While the lighting plans show minimal spillover into adjacent properties in terms of footcandles, with sports lighting at 90 feet there may be significant glare and light pollution that can impact the area. m. We defer any comment on grading, drainage, utilities, and stormwater management to the Board Engineer.