PB-19-02/Sonria Kitchen LLC

10. 11. 12. 13; 14. 15. 16. general welfare by providing a needed service for all those who suffer from food allergies and need to purchase specialty foods. He further opined that the addition would promote a desirable visual environment because it would clean up the existing hvac equipment on the ground. Regarding the negative criteria, he noted that there would be no detriment to the public good because the increase in lot coverage would be de minimus at 136.3 sq. ft. and the addition would not intrude further into the setback but would match the existing building setback. During Board questions Mr. Petry testified there are no changes proposed to 494 Prospect Avenue. The Board then engaged in extensive discussions about installing sidewalks in front of the premises. The Board noted that the Ordinance requires installation of sidewalks in conjunction with improvements to properties in nonresidential zones. Applicant argued that there are no sidewalks immediately adjacent to either side of the property and it could be potentially dangerous to have pedestrians start to walk down a sidewalk and then have to walk along Prospect Avenue when the sidewalk ended. The Board noted that sidewalks are an important element of the Township’s circulation and complete streets policies, and that they are currently being installed for the Goddard School project at the corner of Prospect Avenue and Mt. Pleasant Avenue. During public comment Robert Rashkes stated he supported installing sidewalks. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Premises are located in the B-2 business zone where the proposed use is permitted. Applicant seeks to construct a small addition at the rear of the existing structure at 492 Prospect Avenue. The addition would house a new walk in refrigerated box to support a proposed specialty food business at the site. The proposal requires the following variances: Proposed Requir ON §25-7.1 Maximum Lot 83.8% 60% Coverage 82.8% §25- Minimum Side Yard | 2.3° 2.3” intensified 10° Setback The variances can be justified pursuant to MLUL 70(c)(2) as the benefits outweigh the detriments and the proposal furthers purposes of zoning and offers a better alternative to development of the site than is allowed by Ordinance. The Board finds that the proposed use as a specialty food preparation and packaging store for 3