March 19, 2026, Regular Meeting

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