June 4, 2026 Special Meeting

BOARD QUESTIONS Dr. Ben-Zvi asked for clarification referencing page three (3) in report and in the 14" page, it still says that the distance is on page three (3), 360 feet, and on the 14" page 320 feet. Ms. Clark responded that Appendix B which is entitled as the corrected distances would supercede the prior metrics in the report and for the purposes of the record that would be the matrics associated with the relief needed. B. D. Scott asked for confirmation that variances are still being sought. Ms. Clark said yes. M. Dannemiller asked for clarification and reference of what the minimum distance that is required for comparing against those two (2) measurements. Chairperson Neuer said that the Ordinance says the measurement is 500 feet. PUBLIC QUESTIONS Andy Macleod (19 Fundis Road) asked that even if we were to accept the corrected measurements that have been provided, just in terms of the other two (2) conditional use failures, the 1,000-foot setback from the residential zone and the Rosney Terrace frontage deficiency. Does resolving two (2) of the four (4) conditions meaningfully change the D3 variance analysis performed, or does the application still require the board to find special reasons and affirmative public benefit for those two (2) remaining uncured variances. Ms. Clark said that it doesn’t change her testimony or conclusions. She reiterated that this application does still require four (4) provisions from the conditional use conditions and doesn’t in her opinion think that case law has established for a D3 variance is that the applicant needs to prove that the: site can accommodate the impacts assodicated with thte provisions that cannot be complied with and substaintial traffic testimony regarding the frontage relief on Rosney Terrace as well as the distance of the driveway from the intersection at Rosney Terrace, and we also testified at the last hearing to the relationship of the property to the adjacent residential districts and that she doesn’t believe that there are any substantially negative impacts associated. There has been an extensive traffic study, and all necessary queuing with excess capacity associated with the fast food use. She opined that this application has demonstrated safe turn movements in and out of the site, and overall site design and circulation affirms that it can be accommodated with the required traffic

use. She opined that this application has demonstrated safe turn movements in and out of the site, and overall site design and circulation affirms that it can be accommodated with the required traffic intensity associated with both proposed uses without causing any kind of detriment to general welfare or safety within the public right of way. Mr. Macleod asked for a reminder in terms of the traffic study cited when that traffic study was performed and when the conclusion was reached that was suitably accounted for the level of traffic. Ms. Clark said that she would have to check with Ms. Kinback if the traffic expert is present because they did perform a few counts which were revised in December or January based on a request from the Board to do additional study of additional intersections and their findings were that the proposed traffic generation for the project did not reach the required threshold that under state requirements for impacts from a traffic perspective. Mr. Macleod asked if there's any sort of legal basis that she is aware of for collapsing those two (2) separate conditions into one (1), as the application kind of outlines. Ms. Clark disagreed that collapsing is occurring noting that relief from that individual requirement. She noted that as a corner property, there are two (2) frontages. The ordinance isn't written to contemplate a corner property, meaning it doesn't contemplate properties that there are two (2) frontages along two (2) rights-of-way, and with that, from a planning perspective, the 200-foot requirement in her opinion, would be to ensure that the property had sufficient frontage to accommodate ingress and egress to the site safely without, disrupting the larger traffic flow on the right-of-way. Because the frontage from which we are directing ingress