22 2024 11 21 Zoning Board of Adjustment Resolution ZB 24 07

FINAL (Revised) — V1 —11.20.24 reasons" to permit "a use or principal structure in a district restricted against such use or principal structure." New Jersey Courts recognize three circumstances in which such "special reasons" may be found: (1) where the proposed use inherently serves the public good, such as a school, hospital or public housing facility; (2) where the property owner would suffer “undue hardship” if compelled to use the property in conformity with the permitted uses in the zone; and (3) where the use would serve the general welfare because "the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use." See, Saddle Brook Realty, LLC v. Twp. of Saddle Brook Zoning Bd. of Adj., 388 N.J. Super. 67, 76 (App. Div. 2006). 27. The Board also notes that the "negative criteria" for all forms of variance relief under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 is ordinarily satisfied by an applicant demonstrating that the proposed deviation(s) from the requirements of the Ordinance will neither pose a "substantial detriment" to the public good, nor "substantially impair" the intent and purpose of a municipality's master plan and zoning ordinance. 28. Here, the Board concurs with the unrefuted expert testimony offered by the Applicant's Professional Planner, Mr. McDonough, in finding that the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated the positive criteria required for the grant of its requested items of (d)(1) use variance relief. In this regard, the Board concurs with Mr. McDonough that the site serves the general welfare pursuant to purposes in subsections Kg? <p” , and “m’” of Section 2 of the Municipal Land Use Law and that the site, as a fully buffered 146.7 acre parcel, is particularly suitable for this 1,248 square foot modular home more than 400 feet away from the nearest residences on an small portion of a rarely used staff/overflow parking lot. 29. As it relates to the "negative" criteria for the Applicant's requested item of (d)(1) use variance relief, the Board again concurs with Mr. McDonough’s unrefuted expert opinion that