[brief] [...] presented insurmountable evidence to show that the application was inherently beneficial and that the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use.  On the other hand, the Zoning Board’s denial, particularly of the (d)(1) Use Variance, failed to make any findings of fact and conclusions of law supported by substantial evidence with respect to either the positive or negative criteria.  The trial court likewise failed to address the [...]’s (“Borough”) failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the Zoning Board’s denial of the (d)(1) use variance or that the Borough’s own conflicting ordinances improperly created the situation whereby [...] had to apply for a (d)1 use variance to build any type of residential development with affordable housing.  Specifically, in the B-3 zone (where the site is located), mixed uses are permitted provided the apartments are an undefined “efficiency apartment”.  A rudimentary review of the Borough’s Master Plan, Ordinance No. 19-05 and settlement agreement between the Borough and [...], which expressly mandates that all multifamily dwellings be constructed in the Borough contain a minimum 15% set aside of affordable housing units that comply with the bedroom distributions set forth within Section 5:80-26.3 of the New Jersey Uniform Housing Affordability Controls (“UHAC”), prove that a multitude of discrepancies exist within the Borough’s Code concerning any new development and the type of apartments contained therein.  Therefore, it is self-evident that nearly any proposed development would necessitate and require a d(1) use variance, as what occurred here.  Along the same vein, [...] presented substantial evidence concerning the positive criteria and overwhelming evidence that the application would not be a substantial detriment to the public good.  Indeed, it is uncontested that [...]’s experts offered testimony illustrating that the application is consistent with the permitted uses in the B-3 zone, as well as the Land Use Plan of the 2018 Master Plan and the Borough’s Affordable Housing Settlement Agreement.  Notably, no expert testimony exists to refute or rebut the credible testimony proffered by [...]’s experts.  Indeed, the Zoning Board’s denial merely rendered conclusions and ultimate findings with no correlation to supporting evidence other than the Zoning Board’s thoughts that the proposal was too large.  To substantiate this conclusion, the Zoning Board’s resolution proffers guidance that was never raised during the hearings.  Lastly, when ruling on the second application, the trial court incorrectly determined that [...] did not satisfy the positive criteria despite overwhelming testimony and evidence to the contrary.  In making this determination, the trial court ignored the testimony that it was impossible for any commercial or mixed-use development to comply with the Borough’s artificially low floor area ratio, as indicated in the Borough’s own Master Plan.  Taken together as a whole, the Second Application for the redevelopment of the proposed site must be granted and the trial court’s decision, which denied the application, must be reversed.