June 4, 2026 Special Meeting

PUBLIC COMMENT e Andy Macleod (19 Fundis Road) was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application in regards to traffic and safety for the surrounding properties. e Sally Malanga (Ridge Road)was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application in regards to parking, excessive signage, encroachment on nearby homes, and lack of tree canopy. e Antonio Worrall (11 Blackburne Terrace) was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application due to traffic and the type of business this application is associated with. e Dante Spagnuolo (20 Blackburne Terrace) was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application due to traffic and the insects etc that this proposed business will bring. e Justin Goldman (Moran Road) was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application due to the tree canopy presence, safety, and traffic. e Susan Hammer (509 Eagle Rock Avenue) was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application due to the poor air quality that will come of it. e Christian Borges (Westminster Terrace) was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application due to the type of business this is. e Jen Jorio (Bellevue Terrace) was sworn under oath and spoke in opposition to the application due to traffic. 9:04 PM — 9:10 PM Break at request of Applicant’s Counsel upon return Ms. Kinback said that she didn’t plan on bringing any witnesses up to respond to any questions or comments from the public. She offered clarification confirmed of the proposed businesses not being operational 24/7 (IHOP 6:00 AM — 12:00 AM and Popeyes Sunday-Thursday 10:30AM — 11:00 PM, Friday and Saturday 6:00 AM — 11:30 PM); offered closing remarks with benefits because of current building being abandoned for over five (5) years and repurposing it, exceeding the number of trees required for tree replacement with healty vibrant plantings, including that no matter what kind of food being served is not the reason to deny an application, and approval would be needed either way. Chairperson Neuer announced the meeting being closed. Break 9:20 PM — 9:35 PM Upon return from the break, the Chairperson requested a roll call, and the presence of a quorum was confirmed PROFESSIONALS DISCUSSION e C. Dochney said since this is a D3 variance, as was mentioned several times previously, in previous hearings, as well as earlier that

the presence of a quorum was confirmed PROFESSIONALS DISCUSSION e C. Dochney said since this is a D3 variance, as was mentioned several times previously, in previous hearings, as well as earlier that the appropriate standard approved for the conditional use variances is not the same as for a D1 variance. They do still have to show the applicant's burden of proof is to show the positive and negative criteria have been satisfied, but it's not quite the same as the D1, where they don't have to show, quite the same special reasons. What they do need to show is that, despite the deviations from the code, which there are four (4) of of the 10 or 11 conditional use standards are not satisfied, that the site remains an appropriate location for a fast food restaurant and then with the negative criteria, they still have to satisfy the, both prongs of the negative criteria, which is no substantial detriment to the public good, meaning not gonna be a terrible detrimental impact to the quality of life for neighbors or to the character of the community, and then second, no substantial detrimental impact to the intent and purpose of the zone plan, and that means the deviations are not so severe, so as to essentially require a change in the zoning ordinance itself, which can only be done by the governing body, rather than a unique deviation where the code wasn't necessarily intended to apply to these specific circumstances, which is the authority of this 5