[brief] [...], representing himself, filed an application for a front yard setback variance with the [...].  [...]’s application included plans to develop 3,600 square feet in two buildings, two driveways, a breezeway, a garage under the house, plus additional impervious coverage, all within the designated construction area.  The application was heard by the Board on January 27, 2021, and the variance request was denied in [...].  (Ja156-162).  A review of [...] reveals several material omissions and factual mistakes with respect to the subject lot.  Importantly, the Resolution fails to incorporate the material findings and conclusions reached by the [...] as expressed in its waiver, which permits development of the lot and instead found the applicant failed to satisfy the statutory “positive” criteria, despite the Pinelands waiver's findings and conclusions firmly establishing positive criteria have been met.  The Resolution ignored the impact of Ordinance 380-35D and erroneously states that “all neighboring properties have front-yard setbacks of 200 feet or greater,” a fact disproven by defendant’s City engineer’s aerial photo showing even the house immediately next door to the subject lot has its entire front area cleared and is approximately 120 feet from the road.  (Ja224-229, generally, and 231-232).  The Resolution also noted [...]’s “variance request will result in substantial development within too small an area. ”  [...] withdrew his proposal to purchase the subject lot.  Recognizing defendant’s review with respect to density and intensity, but also realizing defendant omitted consideration of the Pineland’s Commission waiver, she decided to propose a home, which substantially reduced the intensity of the development and assert the positive criteria permitting development were satisfied by the establishment of hardship, as adjudicated by the [...]’s controlling Findings of Fact, applicable to the subject lot.  (Ja231, par. 3, l. 8).  Defendant held a public hearing for plaintiff’s application on July 21, 2021.  Distinguishing her proposal from [...]’s  Plaintiff reduced the building coverage area conforming to that allowed by the Pinelands waiver from 14% to 5% and increased the side-yard buffer to 100 feet from the only adjacent neighboring house.  She agreed to and adopted all the recommendations of Defendant’s engineer.  (Ja238-243).  During the hearing, expert testimony was presented from two engineers advancing plaintiff’s proposal.  The public portion accepted statements from five lay witnesses.  In its resultant resolution, defendant mistakenly concluded plaintiff’s application was the same as [...]’s, failed to weigh the differences between the distinctly different applications, submitted by different parties, and barred her hardship variance for the front set back relying on res judicata (id.).  In the instant proceeding, initiated by plaintiff’s submittal of a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, the trial court reached its conclusion by relying on the testimony of five opposing lay witnesses, whose claims opposing the development, were unsupported net opinions, refuted by expert testimony of both plaintiff and defendant’s engineers.  Additionally, the court disregarded the [...] findings and conclusions, as well as the Estell Manor policy considerations set forth in the City’s ordinances.  (Ja13-20, esp. 19a, sect. II, unnumbered lines three and four).  The trial court further denied plaintiff’s a motion for reconsideration on July 7, 2023.  (See docket).  This timely appeal followed.