6 Merrywood Dr Resolution rcd 5 19 2026

FINAL — V1 — 1.16.24 22. No member of the Public asked questions of the Applicant's witnesses. 23. Except for Mr. Perchikovsky, no member of the public commented on, or objected to, the Applicant's proposal. DECISION 24. After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board, by a vote of seven (7) to zero (0), finds that the Applicant has satisfied its burden of proving an entitlement to the requested items of bulk variance relief, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2). 25. The Board first notes that, to establish an entitlement to any variance relief under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70, an applicant must demonstrate the "positive" and "negative" criteria applicable to the type of relief requested. 26. The Board further recognizes that, to establish an entitlement to bulk relief pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2) (otherwise known as the "(c)(2)" or "flexible-c” variance), the “positive criteria" is satisfied by an applicant demonstrating that (i) their proposal advances one of the enumerated goals of the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (the "MLUL"), as set forth at N.JS.A. 40:55D-2, and (ii) that the zoning benefits to be derived therefrom substantially outweigh the detriments associated therewith. 27. Additionally, the Board notes that the "negative" criteria for bulk variance is satisfied by an applicant demonstrating that the sought variance relief (i) will not pose a “substantial detriment" to the public good and (ii) will not "substantially impair" the intent or purpose of the municipality’s zone plan or zoning ordinance. 28. Here, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the "positive" criteria to establish an entitlement to (c)(2) bulk variance relief by demonstrating that the proposal advances the purposes of the MLUL set forth at subsections "(a)" and"(i)" of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2. In this