[brief] (Pa035)  The Board found that the requested relief only intensified the non-conformity of the site with no benefit to the public.  (Pa041)  Further, the Board recognized that the proposed locations of the various improvements are unnecessary and would detrimentally impact how the Site and surrounding areas function as a whole.  The Board further recognized that the proposed development would not provide substantial benefits, including an aesthetically pleasing environment, and a suitable area to locate the Applicant's additional multifamily housing, all with a large detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood.  (Pa042)  The Board recognized that the Applicant's use exceeds the density allowed in the zone as it currently exists and the development proposal is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the EMF-18 and MF-8 Zones.  As such, the Board found that the proposal constituted a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Master Plan and the Township Ordinances.  (Pa039-Pa040)  On remand, the Board clarified and further explicated their findings, Board member [...] found that site is non-conforming as the density is already over the density for that zone.  He determined that the property manager presented no mention of a waiting list to get into the existing apartment complex.  He stated that he found the testimony of the applicant’s Planner, [...], to be not credible.  The Planner’s explanation as to the availability of other, suitable sites where apartments could be constructed in conformity with the zoning ordinances was insufficient and unsatisfactory.  His testimony regarding public transportation was unpersuasive as to the positive nature of the existence of a bus stop at Hooper Avenue.  His testimony that this project would improve the site was found not to be credible.  Proposals to improve solid waste removal should be remedied currently, with no need for additional improvements from this application.  (Pa031-Pa034)  Board Member Luthman also addressed findings as to “negative criteria. ”  He found that the property for the new proposed buildings would be coming from the open space already existing at the apartment complex and would diminish the open space of the persons that already live at the apartment complex.  This is in addition to the space that would be utilized for parking, which would diminish space even more on this non-conforming site.  He found that the parking at the site was already substandard and the Applicant’s Planner’s testimony in this area was not credible, as he stated that the Traffic Manual, which is the “bible to all traffic engineers” and did not apply.  The Planner also did not account for the parking for the apartment complex which occurs on Walnut Street.  (Pa032-Pa033)  Board Member Luthman stated that the additional 100 units proposed would require numerous bulk variances which would add to the non-conformity.  No proper setback for the parking lot and proposing that the buildings would be longer than they should be, is just to squeeze 100 units into a site already non-conformity.  He found that the project would impair the zoning plan, that the applicant failed to set forth sufficient proofs as to the uniqueness of the property, and that approval of the application would constitute spot zoning.  (Pa033)  The other voting board members echoed [...]’s cogent findings and the amended resolution was adopted.