24 10 29 MPB Realty Planning Review 1

West Orange Zoning Board October 29, 2024 Re: MPB Realty (Popeyes & IHOP) Our File No. WRZ0153.V01 Planning Review #1 Page 8 S:\West Orange\Zoning Board\VWRZ0153.01 - MPB Realty, LLC\24-10-28 MPB Realty - Planning Review 1.docx d. With this being a ‘d-3’ conditional use variance, and not a traditional ‘d-1’ use variance, the applicant does not necessarily need to show special reasons to grant the variance, or that the site is suitable for a fast-food restaurant in general. In accordance with the standards set in the Coventry v. Westwood case, the focus of the Board in applying the positive and negative criteria should be on the deviations from the conditional use requirements rather than on the proposed use overall. As a conditionally permitted use a fast food restaurant is considered suitable for this site, if the conditions were met. The applicant must show that the site continues to be suitable for a fast food restaurant, and that the site can accommodate any problems associated with the use. e. It appears that the general intent of the conditional use requirements for fast food restaurants is to limit the impacts of driveways and drive-thru services on the circulation network of the Township for both vehicles and pedestrians, and to limit the impacts of these uses on existing residences. These types of uses tend to have higher traffic impacts during peak hours than other commercial uses, and a high turnover of vehicles entering and exiting the properties which can cause issues with traffic flow. f. Outside of the conditional use requirements, it appears that the proposed fast food restaurant satisfies all the standards for a drive-thru service, including signage and space for stacking of vehicles. g. The application as proposed will also require several bulk or ‘c’ variances. The applicant must satisfy both the positive and negative criteria for each of these variances as well: i. Positive Criteria: The applicant must show that either there is an undue hardship (practical difficulty) in conforming to the code, or that the proposed conditions represent a preferable alternative to conforming to the standards of the code, and that the benefits of the deviation would outweigh any detrimental impacts. ii. Negative Criteria: The applicant must show that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially

tion would outweigh any detrimental impacts. ii. Negative Criteria: The applicant must show that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan. h. The applicant should address the potential impacts specifically of the drive-thru use to the adjacent residences, in terms of both the visual and potential noise impacts of the use. i. We note that the acoustical report provided by the applicant indicates that the proposed uses will comply with state noise regulations, however the technical nature of the report may be difficult to understand. The applicant should discuss the anticipated sound impacts in as plain and practical terms as possible. ii. The acoustical report recommends that the fence between the restaurants and the residential uses be constructed of two layers of ¾” plywood, while the site plans