2026 03 06 Justifications Memo_470 Eagle Rock AvenueWORev4

JUSTIFICATIONS OF VARIANCES DR Project no.:12210-001 PROPOSED MIXED COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT Rev. March 06, 2026 470 EAGLE ROCK AVENUE (BLOCK 153, LOT 38) TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Page 4 of 15 8. All fast-food restaurants shall provide suitable areas for storage of trash, designed and constructed to allow no view of the trash storage from the street, to prevent trash from blowing around the site onto adjacent properties or public rights-of-way and to permit safe removal of trash. • The proposed trash storage located toward the southeast corner of the property will consist of 3 angled 10 feet x 10 feet masonry enclosures and a board on board gate setback 33.4 feet from the rear property line. Project complies. 9. All fast-food restaurants shall provide parking in accordance with § 25-12.2b. • Both fast food restaurants and restaurants have the same parking standard of 1 space for each 3 seats or stools. The fast-food restaurant offers 18 seats and the restaurant offers 88 seats. Per the standard a minimum of 36 parking spaces are required. The project proposes 48 parking spaces. Project complies. 10. Any lot on which is located a fast-food restaurant must comply with the front yard, side yard, and rear yard requirements for the B-1 or B-2 District in which the lot is located • The proposed fast-food restaurant complies with the front, side, and rear yard requirements for the B-2 District. Project complies. IV. VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION AND PROOFS D(3) Conditional Use Variance: The proposed project does not meet several of the conditional use requirements as outlined above. Accordingly, the project necessitates a conditional use variance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D- 70.d(3). The Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction to grant such variance based on the proofs as established in Coventry Square vs. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment, 138NJ285 (1994). The New Jersey Supreme Court noted that conditional uses, even when they do not meet with all of the requisite conditions, are nonetheless compatible uses in the zone. The burden of proof is related to whether the site can accommodate the problems or impacts associated with the use even though the conditions and ordinances established to address said impacts are not satisfied. The majority of the conditions not satisfied under the proposed development are from a metric standpoint, wherein the

e conditions and ordinances established to address said impacts are not satisfied. The majority of the conditions not satisfied under the proposed development are from a metric standpoint, wherein the intent of the limitation or requirement are satisfied from an operational or site circulation standpoint despite a specific numerical threshold not being met. • Regarding Condition 2, the intent of the ordinance seems to be to prevent a given corridor from being dominated by the fast-food use wherein regular curb cuts and heavier/irregular traffic flows associated