In Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Twp. of Wall, 127 N.J. 152, 160-61, 163, 603 A.2d 30 (1992) the Court recognized that both the statutory standard for the negative criteria and the nature of an inherently beneficial use implied the need for a balancing test. First, the legislatively established negative criteria explicitly required the determination of whether the variance would cause "substantial detriment to the public good," such that not every detriment would suffice to deny the variance. Ibid. Second, in the absence of balancing, "a local board's finding that an applicant has not satisfied the negative criteria would always defeat an inherently beneficial use, no matter how compelling the need for that use." Ibid. Consequently, the Court suggested that with an inherently beneficial use, a board should balance the positive and negative criteria by identifying the public interest at stake; identifying the detrimental effect that would ensue from granting the variance; determining if the detrimental effect could be reduced by the imposition of reasonable conditions on the use; weighing the positive and negative criteria to determine if, on balance, granting the variance would cause substantial harm to the public good. Id. at 165-66, 603 A.2d 30.