2025 02 25 Township Resubmission Letter

Township of West Orange February 25, 2025 Page 2 of 11 • Five (5) signed and sealed copies of the Drainage Statement, prepared by our office, dated June 2024, last revised February 2025; • Five (5) signed and sealed copies of the Tree Removal Report, prepared by our office, dated February 2025; • Five (5) signed and sealed copies of the Boundary and Topographic Survey, prepared by Dynamic Survey, LLC, dated 5/13/2021; and • Five (5) signed and sealed copies of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan drawings, prepared by our office, dated 6/7/2024, last revised 2/24/2025. The enclosed documents have been provided to address the review comments provided in the following review letters: • Planning Review #1 Letter, prepared by Christopher N. Dochney, PP, AICP of CME Associates, dated 10/29/2024 • Engineer Review #1 Letter, prepared by John J. Hess, PE, PP, CME of CME Associates, dated 10/31/2024 In order to facilitate your review, below please find an itemized response to the aforementioned letters: Planning Review #1 Letter, prepared by Christopher N. Dochney, PP, AICP of CME Associates, dated 10/29/2024 Planning Comments a. The applicant should discuss the proposed project, addressing the general scale and scope of improvements proposed for the site. The plans indicate that the existing building is to remain, but the parking areas are to be removed and replaced. What are the extents of renovations of existing improvements and what is proposed to be entirely new construction? Testimony will be provided. b. We note that this is not the first application for a drive-thru facility on this property, and that earlier this year an application on this site was dismissed by the Board without prejudice. The applicant should provide testimony addressing any similarities and differences between the previous application before the Board, and the application that is now before the Board. Testimony will be provided. c. The application as proposed will require a d-3 conditional use variance for non-compliance with four of the conditional use requirements for a fast food restaurant in the B-2 business district. With any ‘d’ variance, the applicant has an enhanced burden of proof to demonstrate that both the positive and negative criteria can be satisfied before the Board can grant a ‘d’ variance: i) Positive Criteria: The applicant must show that the site remains suitable for

to demonstrate that both the positive and negative criteria can be satisfied before the Board can grant a ‘d’ variance: i) Positive Criteria: The applicant must show that the site remains suitable for the proposed use despite not satisfying the conditional use requirements.