Planning Report 021726 resubmissionrcd 2 26 2026

8 location’s proximity to major highway corridors supports accessibility and regional demand. Negative Criteria The Board may not exercise its power to grant a variance unless the so called “negative criteria”, showing that such variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance, has been satisfied. The granting of the requested variances for the proposed automotive service facility will not result in a substantial detriment to the public good, nor will it impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance. The proposed use will provide an essential service by supporting the routine maintenance and upkeep of residents’ personal vehicles, thereby promoting public safety and vehicle reliability. As mentioned earlier, there is an inherent need for this type of use, as one in close proximity closed due to redevelopment of the shopping center it was located in. In addition, the facility may offer convenient repair services for travelers passing through the area, serving as a valuable resource in the event of unexpected vehicle issues. The proposed automotive use is both compatible with and complementary to the surrounding commercial context, aligning well with the character and function of the area. Additionally, the use aligns with many of the following goals, objectives, principles and recommendations as stated within the Townships Master Plan Reexamination Report adopted in December of 2019: • Provide sufficient space for balanced growth and development; • Encourage economic development and redevelopment that is compatible with the suburban character of the Township; • Maintain the appropriate scale of the community. C-2 Benefits vs. Detriments Variance Justification As the applicant proposes an impervious surface coverage of 63.3% (20,335 SF), where a maximum of 60% (19,270 SF) is permitted, the applicant seeks variance relief pursuant to N.J.S.A N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2). When considering the balance test, in Pullen v. Tp. Of South Plainfield Plan. Bd. 291 N.J. Super. 303 (Law Div. 1995) courts have determined that the board should consider the benefits of the entire application when weighing against the detriments. We find that the benefits of the project as a whole substantially outweigh any detriments for the following reasons: