24 03 17 MPB Realty Planning Review 2

West Orange Zoning Board March 17, 2025 Re: MPB Realty (Popeyes & IHOP) Our File No. WRZ0153.V01 Planning Review #2 Page 8 S:\West Orange\Zoning Board\VWRZ0153.01 - MPB Realty, LLC\24-03-17 MPB Realty - Planning Review 2.docx 6. 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? b. We note that this is not the first application for a drive-thru facility on this property, and that earlier this year last 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. 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 the proposed use despite not satisfying the conditional use requirements. ii. Negative Criteria: The applicant must show that the proposed use will not have a substantial detrimental impact on the public good, and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. 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

irements 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.