March 19, 2026, Regular Meeting

e Chairperson Neuer asked if there is parking shown in the front yard? Mr. Bersch said yes, that the front yard along Eagle Rock Avenue is 10 spaces, the frontage along Rosney Terrace is 15 spaces, and on the east side of the property is eight (8) spaces. Chairperson and Mr. Bersch confirmed that the total in this regard is 33 spaces as opposed to the total number of parking spaces shown on the site being 48. Chairperson looped in Mr. Dochney, who stated that in reports issued by him, the variance is required for parking in the front yard. However, with this being a corner lot,it's effectively the front and the west side are both front yards, so both frontages of parking requires a variance. So two (2) out of four (4) sides of this property are where parking is not allowed. PUBLIC QUESTIONS ¢ Hussein Ismail (6 Rosney Terrace) asked about what will occur in case of overflow parking. Mr. Bersch said that they will comply with the Zoning Ordinance based on the proposed use. e Mr. Ismail asked if Mr. Bersch has experience with two (2) restaurants on one property. Mr. Bersch said that there is proof of the concept existing and working in other locations in the state. e Mr. Ismail asked for the address of the recently approved site. Mr. Bersch said that it is on Route 17 in Hasbrock Heights. Mr, Wine provided redirect with Mr. Bersch. Mr. Wine asked if even operating or fitting out this existing restaurant as a single restaurant would generate a similar or possibly greater demand. Mr. Bersch said yes because the parking calculation is based on the square footage of patron space or the number of seats. So it is possible that a single restaurant use would require more parking onsite, depending upon the general layout. Mr. Wine asked if the proposed THOP, which is the sit-down traditional permitted use restaurant that's part of this application, that has, based on seats and/or square footage, a significantly higher parking requirement than the 12 or 13 parking that spaces do not fall within a setback, is that correct’? Mr. Bersch said yes. PRESENTATION e Ms. Mallory Clark, Professional Planner was sworn under oath, credentials were accepted, confirmed of being present for all previous testimony, and that she has visited the site. e It was at this time, a discussion occurred on whether Ms. Clark’s writings should be considered reports or statements due to not

esent for all previous testimony, and that she has visited the site. e It was at this time, a discussion occurred on whether Ms. Clark’s writings should be considered reports or statements due to not having signatures or Planner’s Licenses. Ms. Clark confirmed that she did write all five versions of the Planner’s Report and that it is just common practice for her firm to not include licenses. e Ms. Clark submitted Exhibit A-6 (Dated - March 16, 2026) Planning Presentation, where the variances and justifications were explained. ¢ Starting with the D(3) variance, which is the variance for conditional use approval associated with the fast food operation. In terms of the DG) conditional use variance, the drive-through window was not associated with that specific variance relief It's just the fact that the Popeye's operation is defined within the ordinance as a fast food use. So with or without that drive-through operation, the D(3) would be necessary based on the way that the Popeye's falls within the fast food definition of the ordinance. There are 10 criteria within the zoning ordinance. There are four criteria with which

the application is not compliant. This is all also detailed in the report, but to summarize: The first component is the distance to other fast food uses, which is a minimum 500 feet within the ordinance. The application site is about 320 feet from businesses that are on the side of Eagle Rock Avenue that do qualify as fast food uses under the ordinances (Jersey Mike’s and Chipotle) which meet the fast food ordinance definition as well. The next aspect of the D(3) Variance is the distance to the residential district boundary, which is a minimum of 1,000 feet. The application site is 170 feet on the west, which is really crossing over Rosney Terrace to those nearest residences, as well as in the rear there are about 140 to 120 feet to a residential district boundary. In terms of minimum lot area and minimum lot frontage, any frontage is required 200 feet. This application site has two (2) frontages where the application site is compliant on the Eagle Rock Avenue frontage but deficient on the Rosney Terrace frontage 182.4 feet. The last component of this criteria that not in compliance with is the distance between the driveway and the intersection, where one 100 feet is required from the radius and the existing driveway that is proposed to be used under this application is 13.2 from the intersection. In looking wholistically from a planning perspective at all of the criteria, really all ten of criteria for this conditional use, the conditions are really aimed at mitigating traffic and circulation impacts that are typically associated with a fast food use, both within internal site circulation and on adjacent roadways and the adjacent properties. In Ms. Clark’s opinion there's a substantial detriment, as previously stated, given that it's not a direct neighbor of fast service restaurants, and are not creating cumulative queuing challenges from people coming on the side of Eagle Rock Avenue, with the curb cuts being substantially distanced from one other, so access to the site has a safe enough distance that it won’t cause any kind of immediate backup of one related to the other. Additionally, in terms of the distance to the residential property lines that on one side there is a right-of-way between our property and the residential properties, I don't think that there's a substantial detriment most significantly. And this kind of works in tandem with the

n one side there is a right-of-way between our property and the residential properties, I don't think that there's a substantial detriment most significantly. And this kind of works in tandem with the deficit in the frontage length on Rosney Terrace, where the applicant isn't proposing any egress along that frontage. Ms. Clark referenced Coventry Square v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment in 1994 in which the Supreme Court noted that conditional uses, even when they do not meet all the conditions required in the ordinance, are nonetheless compatible uses within the zone. So the burden of proof isn't the same as considering a D-1 use variance but considering these accomodations/impacts associated with the components of a project that are noncompliant. 9

e Ms. Clark said that the associated impacts with the fast food use, which in her opinion works in tandem with how they play out in the built environment and in the everyday operation with the drive- thru window. ¢ In referencing the bulk variances, Ms. Clark said that in summation of them that: © the minimum lot area for a drive-up window, which that was a variance that has been discussed on the record previously. The code for it requires five (5) acres for a drive up window and not exclusive to a fast food use, pharmacy, or bank. In terms of maximum impervious coverage, the zone allows for 60 percent. As was just addressed by our civil engineer, the existing site is a nonconforming 80.9 percent, which will be reduced to 75 percent, still nonconforming but an improvement from existing conditions. As also was just discussed, there is a front yard parking variance where it's not prohibited as there are 10 spaces that are within the true front yard. © maximum facade signage. So there are two (2) signage variances with this application. The code allows for one ql) per use. There are two (2) uses onsite, so that would allow two (2) signs permitted. There are four (4) signs proposed associated with the fast food use, and then three (3) with the standard restaurant use. Maximum facade signage is the next signage relief. The code allows a maximum of 120 square feet, and cumulative between those the seven (7) signs there are 229 square feet. 9° curbing within 5 feet of a structure is prohibited. Where the applicant proposes a curb along the entirety of the drive-thru lane next to the structure. And then the dedication of one dd) loading space is required, where there are zero (0) striped dedicated loading spaces proposed. © The two design waivers that are required are covered under the tree canopy preservation, the parking lot shade ordinance has a requirement which is really like a future projection where within 25 years you're supposed to have 50 percent of parking area shaded by trees. That's really looking at the long-term mature growth of the tree canopy. And in Ms. Clark’s opinion, she doesn’t anticipate that the application site will meet that given the current planting configuration onsite. It was at this time prior to Ms. Clark continuing her testimony that Chairperson Neuer announced this application ZB-22-13 MPB Realty (470 Eagle Rock Avenue) is carried

planting configuration onsite. It was at this time prior to Ms. Clark continuing her testimony that Chairperson Neuer announced this application ZB-22-13 MPB Realty (470 Eagle Rock Avenue) is carried with Preservation of notice to the April 16, 2026, Regular Meeting via the Zoom platform. Mr. Wine waived the statutory time period for this application. Chairperson Neuer adjourned the meeting at 11:00 PM. Adopted: ph, fo Lo HY WEA Likbj, Diana L. Chédler, Secretary 10