to call to order City of K May Historic Preservation Commission. April 20th, 2026. It is now 6:01. In compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. If any member
has reason to believe that this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this time. Hearing none, every could join us in the pledge of allegiance. Please to the flag of the United States of
America to the stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all for all. Can we have a roll call vote, please? Lauren, >> Mr. Becker, >> here. >> Mr. Tessa, >> here. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes.
>> Miss Pagno. >> Miss Bilson. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> present. >> Mr. Miss Decker, >> present. Mr. Hammer, >> here. >> Mr. Curts, >> here. >> Okay. So with regard to the minutes, everybody I believe has received a copy
of the revised minutes from uh that Mr. Ta had edited. I would like to entertain a motion to approve those minutes for the February 9th, 2026 meeting. >> So move. >> I hear a second.
>> Second. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hammer, >> yes. Mr. Curts. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta. >> I'm sorry. Did you Did you call
>> Mr. Ta? >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. Same thing for the March 16th, 2026 meeting minutes. Anybody make a motion to approve those? >> Move approve. >> I'll second. >> So moved by Mr. Hammer and seconded by
Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carroll? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson? >> Yes. >> Miss Decker? >> Yes. Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. And lastly, the meeting minutes
from the April 2nd HPC special meeting. Those minutes have also been submitted to all of you. Like to entertain a motion to approve those as well, please. >> I'll make that. >> I'll second. >> Moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carroll? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stevenson?
>> Yes. >> Miss Decker? >> Yes. Mr. Hammer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Curts? recuse myself. >> Mr. Testo, >> yes, >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. Okay. We also have received a an invoice payment of our bills to Chris Gillan
Schwarz Law LLC. You've all reviewed to entertain a motion to approve the payment of that bill. >> First meeting. >> Sorry. Sorry. >> Motion. >> Motion. Sorry. >> Move. Seconded. Seconded over here. >> All right. Move. So move. >> Happy hour tonight.
>> So moved by Mr. Stevenson, seconded by Mr. Testa. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Testo, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes.
Go. So, there are on our agenda five resolutions to ratify 230 Grant Street. Kate May resolution 202609 Mazatelli 397 Congress Street resolution 202610
TS 105 beach LLC I'm sorry 1015 beach resolution 202611 Kevin Seance 722 Corgi Street LLC resolution 202612 and TS 1015 beach Avenue again for conceptual approval. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, in the package there
also was resolution 2026-13 relating to East Lynn. Is that intended to be on the agenda? >> I believe it is. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, that also would be number six for ratification is resolution 202613 for
Eastland Theater. Entertain a motion to approve and ratify these resolutions, please. >> So moved. >> So second. So moved by Mr. Tusta, seconded by Mr. Hammond. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> uh, yes. I restain from East Lynn.
>> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> Mr. Ta, >> uh, yes, but an obstruction uh on 26uh 13. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes.
>> So folks, we have uh on our agenda a very very long agenda tonight. However, I have some good news. There are two folks who agreed that they would postpone their application and push it off to May. So if you look at your agenda, the project Shell Cottage 908
LLC will be moved to May as well as Okconor 126 Lafayette Street. And lastly, applications approved and denied in review. Has everybody had an opportunity to look at that list? If so, entertain a motion to approve
applications approved and denied and review. >> I'll move that. >> Everybody seems very shy tonight. Second the motion. >> Moved by Mr. Hammer, seconded by Mr. Tessa. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carroll, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Tessa, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. So given that we have such a long agenda, the HPC by ordinance will not
start any new applications after 9:30 p.m. nor take any new testimony beyond 1000 p.m. However, this rule can be waved by an affirmative vote of the majority of the commission who are then present and qualified. And if we need to do that, we can see
what happens at 9:30. Hopefully, we can move forward pretty quickly. So I'd like to ask everybody to be as succinct as possible with their comments this evening. Okay. So what most of you may recall is a little bit over a year
ago we all had an alignment workshop with all of us as commissioners and what we came up with was a purpose statement for our work here at HPC. And in order to establish the energy in the room I'd like to read
that. So the purpose of HPC's work is to serve as a catalyst for guiding and valuing Kate May's historical, cultural, and natural resources in ways that inspire and unite our community to steward these resources for the benefit
of all so that present and future generations continue to express the unique quality of life we share in this place we love. Okay. So, on to new business. Our first
application this evening is by Joseph, I may mispronounce this, Hiligos. Joseph Hilligos and Mary Ellen Turner at 25 Gurnie Street. If you could please come up and state your name and your role in the project.
>> Good evening. >> You turn that. >> Make sure you turn that on. >> Good evening. My name is Lewis Daso. I'm the architect for the project. I believe Miss uh Turner uh sent an email authorizing me to discuss this project for you tonight for
her. >> Terrific. >> Do you want to swear me in or so? The floor is yours. >> Okay. I'll be as brief as possible. Basically, it's the property at 25 Gurnie Street. Um, we're looking at restoring the front
porch that has been enclosed with windows and engulfing the existing columns. We're looking at taking that all down and we're looking at replacing the windows on the outside uh on the entire structure. Uh the windows, I have two alternatives for the windows, but
they are look we're looking at either the the Marvin windows that are all wood or the Anderson is an alternate divided light windows 6 over6 to match what's there. Uh
the front landing and steps will be removed when we take down the chimney inside at the back rear of the house, the existing chimney. We're going to reuse those bricks uh to rebuild part of the fireplace and also build the rebuild the front steps
to what they are. If you look under if you ever get a chance to take a look at the front steps, you'll see remnants of the old brick steps underneath of it. We're looking at restoring those steps. Um, I might add as well, we've stripped
the entire inside of the house and it's a mess in terms of structural framing and that'll be corrected, but that I know has nothing to do with the HPC, but we will restore the house completely that way. That's it. Thank you. >> So, I just have one quick question to
kick us off here. The uh the cut sheet on the windows states that the 400 series windows you're proposing are vinyl exterior. >> Correct. To match the white that's there right now. We would just but wood on the inside. >> But would you be willing to use the uh
exterior primed wood windows as opposed to vinyl clad? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we could start over here with Mr. Curts. Any questions? >> No. I like that. >> Okay.
>> I um I I think the project looks wonderful, but I just have a question on the second floor um porch on the front of the property. um off of bedroom number five. I'm assuming that the porch is going to be in the front of that. >> Yes.
>> Which is not shown on here. Okay. So, the center center part of it um it looks like a wall, but it's it's actually going to be a door. Am I correct? >> There there is a door there that's about >> 14 in above the finished floor. You have to step up to it. >> Oh, okay. >> It's a kind of strange.
>> Okay. The existing door is going to remain. You're not >> Well, that's going to have to be replaced. the all of the wood all of the windows on the entire and doors are going to be replaced. They have to be >> Okay. >> Okay. I was just a little confused with the second floor plan. Um and Mr.
Chairman, that's all my questions at this point. Thank you. >> I'm aware of the condition of the house and I'm glad to see it's really happening and happening in a beautiful way. >> Thank you. Mhm. >> I I don't know that I can be that short, but um I will say this. Although we
didn't have a survey in here, this is listed as a non-contributing property. I >> We do have the survey. >> No, I'm sorry. I meant the the survey we make of it. It's not >> It's not on It's not on the register. I I asked uh about that and I checked with Lauren and uh we couldn't find any evidence of it.
>> It's not been surveyed. >> We don't have a survey. Yeah, it's listed as non- non-contributing and I'm going to go along with that as listed in our agenda. Um, your your materials check sheet is in complete compliance with everything that we need for a non-conforming excuse me, a
non-contributing structure. And I'll reiterate what people said. Um, the opening of the porch and the use of the brick is a definite improvement to the front the front of the house. It really greatly improves it and it's something I can support. >> Thank you. So, one clarification is it's
not non-contributing. We do not have a property report. So, it's neither. Yeah. >> Unrated. >> Unrated. >> Okay. I I agree with Mr. Ta that the there was no survey in there, so we didn't know whether it was contributing or non-contributing. >> Yes. >> But I mean, looking at it, it's a great
improvement. Opening up the that enclosed porch is a big deal for the streetscape. So, nice job. >> Thank you. >> I have nothing additional. I also think it's very appropriate to open the porch. Appreciate that.
>> Thank you. >> Sorry. What is the date of construction of the original house? Do you know? >> Approximately. >> It would have been after 1911 when the Stockton Hotel that occupied four blocks in that area uh was torn down. So
everything in that fourb block area is after that. So you're probably looking at uh like 1920 of the >> the porcelain posts would re reinforce that that are in there and and the old plumbing that's in there, but as I said they butchered some of the structural
members that they have to be repaired. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So then I I guess I would make the assumption it probably is contributing um and u you know it just doesn't happen to have a property report that's been done. >> So at some point we'll in the future we'll have one. >> If it is then the TX deck is not
appropriate. That's correct. That's what I was That's what I was trying to get to is in my own mind to figure out where when >> we're going to call it non-rated. So to me it's not contributing >> got plopped down. Yeah. >> I think there are two things that I I you know in the in the package that I hope we can just reach a quick agreement
on. One is one is as John mentioned the vi the vinyl outside windows. You know on a contributing property it would have to be all wood with a divided or a simulated uh divided light. I believe you've already said that's okay. Um, and
the TX decking, which is I I I don't know what TX decking is. Is that a >> That's the simulated wood. Uh, >> it's plastic >> plastic decking for lack. It's a vinyl, poly vinyl, whatever you want to call it, but it's it's all impregnated with
the uh the colors. The top deck is a a waterproof membrane. >> Okay. So, >> right now it's metal. you know, if you're not if you're not tearing that up, then that's that's what's there. There's no reason to change that at the moment. But the TX decking would not be appropriate for a contributing house.
So, you could go to, you know, any kind of a solid wood material that you choose that you know would would be compatible with that kind of an age of a house. >> Is there consideration? Do you think there would be consideration for it becoming contributing once this project is completed?
>> I think I I that's going to be an interesting question. I'm not sure that we have an answer for that one, but >> well, I wouldn't want to put tracks down and then have it become contributing. >> None of us have the expertise to rate this property until it's actually surveyed, but you wouldn't be hurting yourself by putting in an allwood deck.
I will discuss that just like you put in all wood windows that are primed on the outside. You would not hurt the rating. >> I would I will definitely discuss that with the owner. Conversely, if you put down tracks and it's and it is rated as a a contributing property and anything
happens that you have to replace that deck, then it would have to be pulled up in its entirety and replaced with wood. So, >> understood. >> I' I'd say you you couldn't as as it was just said, you couldn't hurt yourself by going to an allwood deck. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, given that the house is Oh, I'm
sorry. Are you done? >> I think so. That's it. Okay. So, given that the house on all sides is surrounded by contributing properties and the streetscape along Gurnie there, it would be highly appropriate for the wood windows to be exterior wood primed
and for the deck to be wood as opposed to tracks. Would you be willing to do that? >> I I would have to discuss that with the owner. I have no problem with it. I think think it's a good idea. >> Okay. But uh I will make the state you know I will definitely confer with her
and him and uh if they agree I will notify the board. >> What what's the approximate deck area that you'll be covering with that? Right now >> it's about 12 by the width of the house. I so maybe about three 250 square feet
plus or minus. >> Right. So we'd be talking about the difference of 250 ft between tres which is not particularly or >> and and wood. >> Yeah. Some kind of external wood. >> Agreed. >> So I would like to move that we approve
this application with two conditions. One is exterior wood prime windows and the second is wood decking. I agree. >> Second that motion. >> Moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Mr. Carroll. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Tessa, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Short and sweet. Have a short night. >> Thank you very much. Take care.
>> Thank you. >> Expensive. >> It's not really. Next on our agenda, please. Gift of the Thistle LLC, 325 Washington Street. >> Say that fast. >> Good evening. If you could please state your name and your role in the project.
>> Danny Elman. I'm one of the owners with uh my wife here, >> Amanda Adams. I'm one of the owners. >> Terrific. Floor is yours. >> Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Uh we are here to asking approval for the
installation of fabric awnings above ground level windows, replacement of current hanging window wood sign with new carved wood sign and replacement of current cast aluminum lettering with new cast aluminum lettering.
>> So this is a fairly straightforward submission. Rather than going around the room, I think I'd just like to ask if anybody has any questions or comments. >> Mr. Carol, >> I'm assuming that your your sign you're putting up is this sign here, not this
sign, Jackson and Perry. Is that another sign that's big? >> Correct. So, at our current building, we're replacing it with the same exact size or smaller. Um the lettering that is there currently it says Queen May across the front in the same exact
material. >> So that that will be what will go there to replace it. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Does that meet the sign standards for size and everything? >> Yes. I actually um spoke to Bruce prior to coming here and he said just make sure that it stays the same size or
smaller and everything's good. >> Okay. And this picture is the picture you want to show us of the awnings that you're putting on there. That is relatively exactly kind of what we're going for. Yes, it we're going to do as best as we can to make it look.
>> Yeah. I mean, you know how it is when you try and make it look perfect. That's that's a computer image. >> It did bring it a little bit towards the door and the back, but it's just on the the ground level windows. >> So, so you're representing that they're going to be substantially similar to what we're seeing. >> Exactly.
>> Okay. And you did provide cut sheets of both the materiality of the awnings as well as the aluminum letters as well as the two carved wooden signs. >> Correct. >> Great. Any other comments, questions? >> Just have one comment or question
actually. Where is this going to be placed? >> Right underneath the uh the red sign. You can barely see the little fish swimming there. >> Okay. I I missed that. >> It's just hidden because it's all white behind it. >> Oh, yeah. >> Which means the rain's not too big. >> Okay. I just had a comment. The the new uh
color scheme, >> I mean, it really brings the building alive. >> Oh, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah, that was my question. So, this is this is what the building is. You're hoping will look exactly like this, >> correct? >> Okay.
>> So, it's going from dark to light. >> And hi, Judy. >> You know how I feel about that. I think I think it looks appropriate and I like the awnings also. The striped awnings. >> I think they're appropriate for the time period of the building.
>> It's it's a key improvement to that corner. That's a very visible corner. This >> is Thank you. >> Yeah, >> we thought very coastal. >> Yeah. Very coastal. >> Thank you. >> So, like to entertain a motion to approve this project. >> This is an easy one. Move to approve the
application as submitted. >> I'll second. >> So, moved by Mr. Ta, seconded by Mr. Curts. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, yes. Mr. Hammer, >> kind of mostly like similar.
>> We can't hear you with the red light on. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Curts. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ta. >> Yes, >> Mr. Beggar. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Very nice submission. >> Thank you guys. >> Very much, guys. Next on our agenda is Yacht Harbor
Estates at 1505 Yacht Avenue. Um, worth mentioning here, folks, is that this submission is identical in all respects but one to the submission that these folks made and received a resolution of final approval
for on February 6, 2023. So, it is beyond the 2-year time frame. And what the project is proposing is, as I believe, one revision to the balconies facing the
water. Is that correct? Correct. So, if you could please state your name, your role in the project. Yes. So, I'm Joseph Scarpa, uh, architect for the Highland Group. I'm representing, um, Yacht Harbor Estates LLC. Uh, and this is
again the Yacht Harbor, um, Marine Project. This site actually has uh one existing two. >> One one quick question. You have the authorization of the owner to >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And and there's there was record of that via email. >> There's an email sent.
>> Great. Thank you. >> Oh, >> it it was on actually >> it just was speaking. It just seems like you hear me? Yeah. There it goes. I got to be closer. Yeah. All right. So, there's an existing two-story building on this site. Um, and
what's proposed is actually two three-story townhouse buildings. Um, there's one three-unit uh southern site on the southern site on Yah Harbor A and a 4unit on the northern site on the water. I believe that is uh Stinger
Creek that it looks at. Like I said, this is actually a non-contributing site um in the Kate May historic district. Again, as John mentioned, this his project was approved in February 6, 2023, followed by zoning and site plan
approvals. Permits were pulled in that year um and is currently under construction. Um and I'm aware of the 2-year um goal that we're setting aside. Um but as a request, again, the minor revision we're looking at is the decks. If you don't mind, I want to hand out
these. These will help illustrate Guess we don't count. Thanks, John. >> Mr. Garpa, just to confirm this additional exhibit that wasn't in the packet before, this is uh a rendering of the plans that you submitted just to show for comparison service.
>> Correct. Yes. So the the first one you see in the front is what is proposed as of right now with the rear deck revision. Uh the focus obviously on the building in the foreground um that represents that and the one behind it is
what was approved prior. So my goal is actually to focus on um this change. I what happens is actually on the third floor if you can see in the existing um building approved in uh February 6, 2023. You can
see the decks on the third floor are roughly 9 ft wide by 10t deep within that building footprint there. And the new one shows larger um approximately I the outside corners are a little over
20. The insides are a little under 20 feet wide by 10 foot deep. Um they have a like a five foot can lever that comes out uh for the and towards the rear. If you can see I have um we feel that this is more aesthetically pleasing than what
was presented prior. Uh if you can see the whole balconies I did break them up uh so that it's not just one continuous see like a like a hotel or or would would appear to try to stay within some respect of the individual um makeup of
the unit breaking it down. It's divided. There's brackets between the two. if if we need more clarity than what I provided. Um I know I submitted a lot because this was for a full approval. Uh
but if we want to look at the 4unit townhouse um submission A103 is actually focusing on that third floor and A201 focuses on the rear elevation.
Now, please keep in mind the three-unit building is completely as unchanged as previously submitted. Um, and with this one, all materials, cuts, sheets that were submitted are all still staying the same. Nothing's being
changed. It's merely these these decks have gotten larger and and broken up for appearance and aesthetic benefits. Okay. Shall we start over with you, Kevin, please? Sure. The the um first
just a question. The first floor level is different in the in the rendering of the prior approved and the uh proposed >> is that just a change in the rendering and there's >> Oh, yes. Corre. So, the rendering I I see what you're saying. So, the rendering because this was last minute.
I was trying to get this together. So it's just a depiction. Some of the things that may not appears and obviously between the two is uh the color of the doors they're they're they're as they should be which is the mahogany that we're looking for mahogany and glass doors that are in the cut
sheets. Um also the brick the brick is tends to be a little more brownish while we have the more orange reddish and white type of brick uh in the cut sheet as well. >> Okay. the windows too >> or is that ch is that >> if you look at the prior approved rear
deck that first floor above the garage >> looking doors >> the fenestration of the windows is >> so on the third floor you're saying >> no I'm saying on the first floor >> first >> if you look at the that first floor it looks like three windows and then deck three windows deck
three windows and if you look at the prior approved it's >> little window three windows three windows and then >> so yes we felt that that that arrangement of the three windows again is more aesthetically pleasing cuz when those decks grew in size, you know, it was they were they were really the
previous ones were relative to the smaller decks and its organization. This helps break it up and stacks the windows a little better to find some organization with the larger decks. So, yes, that did get modified as well. >> Also, I had a question regarding the windows. Um, on your original plan, they
were just one over one. Now, it looks like you're making them four over one. Yeah, four over one. Felt that that that again was a better a way better aesthetic presence. Even though it's on the rear, it's not seen by the road. It is seen as you come into Kate May. So, we felt that was more important.
>> You explain what the glass is on the larger deck, second floor deck. >> The glasses. Yeah. So, the the the larger doors there, those are just larger windows to gain more views obviously to the water. A nail doors are the on the windows.
>> They are they're full size. Well, there's basically doors that open up. Picture larger ones that go. So, two of the ones on the are on the ones that are on the corner where you see four panes. Those are two operable doors in the middle followed by two fixed panes on
the outside and in the center the one is operable. >> Mr. Scarpa, you have checked here conceptual. Do you have anticipate having to go back to the board, zoning board or planning board? >> We know part of this process involves
zoning. Um, and that has to take place. So, because these decks were enlarged, uh, they affect what would be like floor area ratio and such. So, they have to >> Yes. Because they got bigger. So, they're covering a little more ground space. So, they have to go back to get
some type of zoning board approval, whether it's I believe we're going for administrative approval. So once we get that, I realize that we have to come back to get final approval. >> Okay. So all your just to confirm, you you'd anticipate having to make a trip to the board one way or the other and
you're coming here, >> correct? >> Asking for conceptual approval for this modification. >> Correct. By by result of what the historic board requires. >> I have a quick quick question. Um and and you did kind of allude to it a little bit. As you're coming into Kate
May, you see the back side of that building from the dock area. >> Correct. >> Um just concerned. I mean, you have a garage door with, you know, no nothing. You know, you can't get a vehicle in there. Um just concerned with what, you
know, not so much concerned, but why do you why did you choose to put garage doors in there versus um other type of types of doors? Mhm. >> Well, that was well, first off, that was one of the approvals we got approved for when we first submitted. Secondly, I
think well, even though they are garage doors, the the aesthetic is made to look kind of like they're they're they're two separate doors in a way. So, we tried to give some respect rather than just being an overhead door that it has somewhat of a carriage type feel to it. But, we know that garage doors wouldn't be I mean,
it's not the front of the building where >> where where >> the other side has the garage doors as well. >> Yes. Mhm. >> Will those garage doors be opening out on the open space that looks like a nice
glass a grass front yard or are or is that grass part of the free uh wood return to the ground that is required in that area? >> Oh, you mean whether it's impervious coverage or such like that? Um,
so currently right now that rear of that yard all has a a lot of landscaping that's proposed in the rear yard and there's a walkway that follows the bulkhead in that space. The idea is that garage could open. There wouldn't be so much a patio out there. It'd be areas to
be able to move in and move out things whether or not you have kayaks and things like that that would be relative for use. It's more for storage purposes and be able to access quicker to the backyard. a convenience for the for the user of the home. >> Okay.
>> I I I like the design when it was first presented and we approved it. I like it even a little more now with the extended and expanded deck. So, the only thing is I'm getting a little confused as to how many changes have actually been made, windows, doors, and the deck. So, that's
if >> So, so the only changes have really been on that elevation, correct? >> On that rear elevation. That's the only thing that's been modified. >> I'm I'm fine. I think it looks I think I think it's a a small improvement. >> I agree that it's an improvement. It
reinforces the four units. Increase the fenestration window to wall ratio. It's very nice. Thank you. >> One quick question. The garage doors, they open out. They don't they don't >> No, it it is it is an over it is an overhead door in reality.
>> Yes. >> Cuz I'd like to look. Looks like a boat house look now. >> On that on that >> there's no boats in front of it. >> It's a nice point. >> But it's inside. >> On that note, um, you know, I did like the original plan they submitted maybe 5
years ago that had a cladden cedar shake and I mean I I like this design, but I just bemoan the fact that that disappeared because it really would have helped it blend in with the boat houses that you just mentioned. >> It's still it's we're still presenting it as Cedar Shake. Yeah.
>> On on the roof, metal roof seem the exterior walls on the sides where when you >> Oh, yeah. They're they're they're Yes. Right. They're collaborative. >> But I like this. >> I'm a little concerned with the big banks of sliders. Um
>> are you are you going for a variance for the zoning board? >> No, it's it's not really a variance per se. It's it's just we have to update it because there won't be any variances. It's just there's plenty of floor area ratio allowed on that and and actually impervious coverage allowed on that
site. It's just that we have to represent it because of that modification. >> I agree. It definitely looks nicer. Next, when you come back, please make sure you include these 3D renderings in your packet because we didn't have them. It's a little hard to to look at things. >> Look at them in last minute. I
understand. And in it would be helpful if you include the neighborhood buildings in them as well. What's around it because it doesn't exist in a void this way. >> John, can I make one more comment? The you know the the the comment was made the garage doors that are shown here
kind of give you the boat house look. And I I I agree with that. That's a actually a pretty good comment about it. Um and that was only that's what we approved. Um my only comment is we would have only approved what you submitted. So, you know, I I guess that's the way they were originally intended to look.
Um, the one caution I would just raise is I that that's a garage that basically runs from one end of the building to the other. So, I can see a situation where at some point in the future, one of the homeowners is going to want to change that and put in a room down there or
something like that. Now, you won't have that nice little row of garage doors anymore. You'll have, you know, sliders or windows or something else. So, that that is an area that could wind up changing. This is a condominium form of ownership. >> Correct. >> Good luck. >> I know.
>> Is there a reason for the metal roofs on the shed roof dormers? >> Um, well, I think the biggest thing is because there's such low slope, um, you know, metal really handles that the best, the the alternatives are less
aesthetically pleasing. Okay. Shall we entertain a motion for conceptual approval? >> I'll make that motion. >> Hear a second. >> So moved by Mr. Carroll, seconded by Mr.
Kurtz. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. Miss uh Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes.
>> Thank you. And we'll see you for final approval. >> Thank you everybody for your time. >> Welcome. Next on our agenda, please uh is the Shell Cottage, which has been moved to May. So, we'll skip that one and on to Bray Family Partnership, 720
Washington Street. I'm good. Yeah. Balance is more than >> Good evening, Mr. Chair. >> Good evening. If you could all please state your name and your role in the project, please. >> I will. Yes. John Aanhauser. I am an attorney with the Dwise Law Firm. On behalf of the applicants, Bright Family
Partnership, >> welcome. >> Barbara Wild, >> Hamilton Wild, >> Paul Kates with Kate Schneider Engineering, the uh project engineer. >> The floor is yours. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as the board will most likely recall, we were here
before this body guess a few months ago at this point in time related to a proposal for providing uh off- streetet parking uh within what was the front yard of the southern mansion property at 720 Washington Street. That is the property that's subject to this
application. At the time, there was parking proposed along the entire frontage of the yard and up onto the side through the use of grass pavers. Um, I believe the amount of parking that was proposed at the time was roughly around 55 spaces. Although I wasn't here at the meeting, I know that it met with
obviously a lot of a lot of backlash at that point. Uh, to the point where the applicants decided to table and go back to the drawing board to try to come up with something that was more in line with historic design standards and aesthetically pleasing to try to preserve the streetscape as much as possible. The plan that uh Paul has
shown on his board there and which was submitted through a revised application does in fact um downsize to a fairly large degree the amount of off- streetet parking spaces that are being proposed and the location of those off street parking spaces through the revised plan.
Um Paul, if if you wouldn't mind can go into a little detail as to how the plans have changed and what is being proposed now on this property. So essentially we've reduced um the proposed parking down to 10 parking spaces. Uh we pulled all 10 of those spaces back behind uh
the building line of the main portion in the oldest portion of the building. It's obviously still in front of the >> Paul. Sorry. Could you use your microphone? >> Sorry. So we we pulled all that parking back behind the main building line of the old part of the building. We removed
all the parking that was in front of the building. Um, and then to kind of delineate that parking because we're still proposing the grass block pavers, so it'll still appear as grass, um, we surrounded it with a two-foot red brick walkway, and we delineated the spaces
with, um, a slate, a gray slate or a proposed gray slate line that would break up that red brick paving. And then beyond that, we added boxwoods to kind of enclose the area and give it a more garden-like feel. Um, we also eliminated
all of the proposed um additional lighting standards and we're proposing uh which was also submitted um basically um inground lighting. So it'll be all up lighting from in the ground. And then we
did leave some additional space for some uh some annuals or or perennial flower plantings. >> So Paul, just just to touch on because you you touched on the plantings that are being provided. We're using grass pavers, right? We're still doing that. >> Grass block pavers. Yes. For the parking main parking area. >> So I mean we're calling this a parking
area because it is what it is, right? It's what we need it for. But when you're looking at what is being proposed from the streetscape, I mean is it to you going to look more like a garden area as opposed to cement concrete asphalt parking area? That was the goal was to make it more garden-like than than parking so that when there isn't
cars parked, obviously when there's cars parked there, it's going to look like parking. Uh but when the cars are not there, it will appear more as a garden uh area. >> And is it your your opinion that that's more in line with the design standards and what the HPC guidelines are looking for in terms of yards, right? And
gardens and yard areas. >> Um Mr. Chairman, I I also have if I can provide I I reached out to Mr. Mr. Gillan Schwarz today to to advise him I would be providing this to the board. Th this property and the approval process related to the existing configuration of the property goes back at least under
the current ownership to 1995 uh when there was site plan applications filed uh all the way up to 03 I believe was the last application that I saw and received a resolution for related to the property. But the site plan that I have that was on file with with the city back in 1995 in fact shows and I'll hand this
out to everyone so you can see mind if I mark this one >> what you'll see on the plan if you look on the Washington Street frontage is a parking
lot configuration. Um you'll see that there's 14 parking spaces that are situated there in that area. Those parking spaces are presently existing. Uh they are made up of grass pa parking. So you can't see them. So it doesn't appear to the naked eye as a parking lot
area, but in fact they are an approved overflow parking area for the current building in that location. >> You're talking about the southwest corner here. >> I I am. Yes. >> Thank you. So what we we would be proposing to do through this application is to take that ex if we were to utilize
that existing area. I think a lot of the concerns of the board that were expressed at the last meeting really come to light. Right. You you're talking about turning in off Washington and really parking vehicles in front of that building with in front of the front facade of that existing historic building. What we were proposing as an
alternate means of providing off- streetet parking as shown through Paul's current plan is 10 spaces which is four less than what's already there. all backed off behind the front facade of the historic structure. So I think it that also alleviates another design
concern on the historic design standards that was discussed at the last meeting which was proposing parking that exceeded or protruded beyond the front facade of the existing building. We'd be doing away with that through the current configuration that's being proposed as well.
>> Great. So it's I think it's important to mention that the applicant came before us in a review committee after our I think it was last meeting or two meetings ago I can't remember two meetings ago I believe and spent some time with us and what they
have come back with is almost exactly what we had discussed. So thank you. >> Thank you >> Mr. Hammer. I would say that, you know, they came to see us at the u at the Tuesday meeting and um you know, they they heard, you know, we're two votes
and you know, I don't know that um uh you know, I have to say for the record, I don't know that they sold either of us on it, but they at least, you know, came in with a proposal that scaled back some of the visibility of the parking as they had originally proposed. That's the way I think that it was left on that
Tuesday. Um here's my comments. I I you know I knew this would come back. Um you know I've had to think about this long and hard because um you know I certainly understand the business owners desires to have adequate parking for their facility. At the same token I also have
to look at the historic nature of that structure and just the you know the kind of the beauty that that brings to to Cape May. So here's here's what I came back with. First of all on page eight of our standards it says HPC is charged with reviewing on-site parking. So
clearly this is in our purview. Um page 40 of the standards say that the secretary of the interior standards preserve features of the building uh site that are important to the overall historic character of the setting. So
with that in mind um I think that brings us to visibility which is on page 12 able to be seen by any person standing in a public thoroughare. Surely all this area can be seen by anyone walking past the uh the site. And lastly, um locate
new off- streetet parking to be as unobtrusive as possible. Locating off- streetet parking in front yards and visible sideyards is not appropriate. So that's the standards in my mind that apply to this. And I just have to get that on the record.
Um the existing pavers that are in the lawn, would those be removed? The ones that are in front to get the the new >> We could do that. >> And what would the drive be like? You would be now utilizing this additional drive from Washington Street. What would
that consist of? >> So the plan would be in the area of the drive to leave those grass block pavers that are there and then utilize them to access. So we could remove the additional parking spaces, but we would leave the drive aisle as those existing
grass block pavers. So that area would remain unchanged. >> This is a key contributing building. It's a really important building. And the last point that Kevin brought up um is very important. The grounds are mentioned several times in the long
form. Uh how many parking spaces already exist on this site >> in total or >> right now? >> So in go ahead >> including the ones in the front is 38. >> So you currently have 38 parking spaces. >> Correct.
>> So we have we have 24 in the two parking areas and Jefferson and then we have that additional 14 uh of overflow. And what we'd be proposing is removing the 14 and reducing that to 10 pushed further back beyond the facade.
>> I understand. >> So you would have no driveway in front of the structure across the front of it. >> No parking across the front of the structure at all. No. >> And no driveway. Correct. >> Yes. >> The only driveway access would be that existing transplant paper pathway from
that secondary entrance for Washington. I just wanted to say we have to away weigh uh you know there's a cultural importance to this building besides architectural and we do have similar properties in town namely the physic estate the mainstay congress hall and
one of the things they do in an educational purpose is they allow the public access to it >> which currently it's I believe it's fairly limited >> so I mean I do think it's important to open it up to the public um I think it's good that what you pushed it back so
it's not immediately on the uh sidewalk. But I would also uh recommend that the existing parking on the Jefferson Street side would also have a landscape uh screening around it because right now it's only going to be in those 10 new
spots. I mean because it would add when you look at it that you're going to see the landscaping not cars on this side or that side. >> In addition to the hedges >> in addition to the hedges >> on the >> on the on the Jefferson Street side
>> Jefferson Street side you have 10 new ones and you're going to have boxwoods around that. Is there a plan that would also screen the parking on the other side of the building on the Jefferson Street side? I think there's a lot of existing mature landscaping there that we were
just proposing. >> There's a hedro there, isn't there? >> You can't see, >> but I mean, you know, it may be considered that, you know, you have matching hedros all around for balance as well as opposed to just woods boxwoods on one side. >> The hedros are japonica euanomous and
they're about 200 years old. Yeah. >> And they're I mean I could easily grow them to 8 feet, but you your rules are I think at four, >> so we keep them. They're 8 foot wide. That's for a fence. >> Buffer. >> That's for a fence. >> At some point, we were given a notice that to cut the
>> cut them lower in Cape May. Only only man-made objects count as fences. Natural growth does not >> specific amendment to the ordinances. >> Yeah. I don't think they'd be opposed to to growing those out as long as the city didn't. I'll tell you when I get there. >> Sure.
>> Is it Are you finished yet? >> Yes. Yeah. Um I I don't think there's any doubt that this is an improvement from what we saw before and and I want to be clear that what I'm what I'm seeing. So what we're saying is that it's viewing this from Washington Street
essentially on the right hand side of the main building. No parking comes forward of the of the front of that building. >> Correct. >> Okay. The front is entirely clear. And then we move off to the left side to the Jefferson Street side of which of which spaces still protrude beyond the facade
of the building. >> Correct. >> Right. That's what we that's what we have. That's what you proposed. Right. Right there at that corner. >> Yeah. We're not changing. >> And and and while before I was I was really concerned to see that um a forest of SUVs and other things, as I said,
would cover the entire facade as you walked along Washington Street and really obscure the building. Now, I'm less concerned about that, but I'm still concerned about it because I don't see why um we make an exception
here. I realize every lot and every set of configurations is unique because they just are the way the building was put. The lots are what they are. But we've had a policy of not allowing parking even even though there is this old city approval. We've had a policy um of not
allowing parking to protrude beyond the facade of the main building and you're still doing that here. And we all know why you're doing it. You're doing because you need spaces, >> right? >> Uh and I and and while I'm sympathetic to that, I just can't support parking here at the Washington and Jefferson
corner. If you were to pull it back, that would be a different story. So that's where I find myself, even though I find this better than when you first appeared. So is that but that you we're talking about existing conditions on that corner, right? Not nothing that's
proposed to be changed, right, Paul? Well, >> talking about this area, >> you're you're proposing to allow parking to the Jefferson and Washington Street corner, correct? >> That's been there. >> No, that's been there. >> We're not changing that at all. >> They're adding parking. >> All right. That I'm misunderstanding the application. I thought this was all new.
>> No, that's all parking they're adding. >> No, no, no. This is here. >> This one over here never really happened to plan. parking they're adding is that right there. >> Yep. >> There we go. >> Okay. >> Then then I I'll admit that the uh that the pre-existing parking is nothing that
you're asking for now because if you were asking for it, I wouldn't approve. >> No, we're not asking for that now. >> All right. So, I stand corrected as to as to interpreting and understanding what you're presenting. You've moved everything off to the side and pushed it behind the building. Then I can I can support
>> Yeah. All the newly proposed. >> Yeah. The newly proposed then I can support that. >> Thank you. I never want to be negative with people that are doing great things with our historic buildings. And when this building was taken over by Barbara, her
husband, uh it was standing out there on the ground with a wing behind it exactly the way uh uh Sloan designed it, one of the great architects of that period. It is labeled a key contributing building.
And to help these people to do the work they needed to do to make it a usable house, uh, the boards gave in a lot. They gave them a very large parking area on the Jefferson side and they did an addition off the back to give them many,
many more rooms at the same time. Uh, that was to give them the enough occupancy to sort of support this. They were taking on a building in the Italianate style. And as some of you know, we deal with everything from
cottages to mansions. But the old Italianate villa was designed to sit on the high ground of a piece of land with all the lands, probably the grape yards and the gardens and everything around it, which are slowly just getting taken
over by these additions. And now you're asking us to approve more parking in what I consider the front yard of the addition of the building. Not the backyard. You can't call that a backyard, sideyard, or rear yard. That's in the front yard, which was designed
very carefully to go along with the what would have been an attachment to that building. So now we if we fill that with cars, we're really closing up that much more land for that wonderful view of the
building. Uh and we're being asked to do this so you can get a variance to have a bar and restaurant which are uses that are not allowed without a variance in the R zone
or the RS zone. I mean there it's guest houses or tourist or guest houses are the one thing outside of churches and things like that. So you're asking us to give up the all the meanings of the things we've put together to allow that
building to do something and help support a variance that you want to get to do this uh uh bar and restaurant. Uh I'm not sure how many neighbors know on Corgi Street what you're planning to do. They'll probably find out when the
zoning board comes up, but literally uh the bars are not a great addition in the in right in the residential district. And believe me, we deal with endless deer about the bars going on,
>> bars, restaurants, whatever you want to call it. It's it's got a bar in and that's part of it. It's written in your application. >> It is. It is, but I'm just wonder is that a >> so >> didn't think that was a design standard for which this board had jurisdiction or was even considering when we present what we're presenting. >> But we could look into the future and
see where things are going and and we can also use our knowledge of where things are going to say we're sticking to our standards. I consider that a front yard and I think that should stay open to the public view to give that
last section of that house the villa standing that it should have. Remember, it's key contributing. It's done by a famous architect and it's we should do everything we can to help them but not overcrowd the property.
>> Thank you. >> Freshman, once again, number of new spaces >> 10. >> 10. technically negative -4. >> Oh, >> that's correct. >> Right. We have 14 that that we showed, we're trying to reduce we're reducing that in order to stay beyond the
building facade. >> And the 14 that we have could park in front that were already approved for. So, we could just use those. >> Not not approved by us in front. >> Yeah. >> But approved by the board, the planning board >> for 30 years. They've been approved. They're exist. >> Yeah. Understood.
>> Well, they were approved but never used. >> No, they've been used. they've been used. >> Well, hey, I've been living here a long time, too. Uh, and I walked through that yard today and I find absolutely no evidence of anything there like a paver. >> That's why we're trying to do here.
>> And it must be awful far under the dirt. But, you know, if it's not used, it's not grandfathered in. I mean, the Washington in is obviously grandfathered in for continuous use over that period. I would >> We're not dealing with something that's grandfathered in. I would agree to
disagree on that, but that's >> I would I don't think it's been abandoned in any way whatsoever. >> Can I Yeah. Can I ask the legal part of that as far as the abandonment of >> the 14 spots? >> That's not really something that's before us tonight. And I I would really
I I I understand what Mr. Aimanhauser and the applicant are trying to do. They're trying they're trying to make a presentation here of, hey, look, this is what we got. look and compare it with what we're proposing. But we're not here to determine whether this is a pre-existing non-conforming use or a
pre-existing permitted use or whatever. That's not what HPC is doing tonight. We're going we're really talking about the first thing that Kevin said, which is the standard and what they're proposing and whether that's a good arrangement or not. We're not going to get into it was approved, so we have
therefore we have to do that X or Y. It's just looking at their plan. Mr. Kiss's presentation and is that compatible with the standards? The rest of this stuff can go out come out in the wash, but I don't want to get I don't want the record or the resolution or the
decision-m to be muddied by a 1995 resolution that nobody's had a chance to review before this. So, I would suggest we stick to the standards and the presentation. A lot of this has been really relevant to our standards, but we're veering off into I'm not even
sure where where this came from. I got it before the meeting today. I don't blame them for bringing it. I'm not going to make a big stink about it. If they want to present it and provide testimony, that's fine. But I really think the most relevant thing for the board to consider. I know this is
important to the applicant as well is is this plan compatible with our standards which were adopted in 2023. That's what we're doing tonight. >> Okay. Um, and I guess it changes my concern
because I was, you know, thinking if they were going to abandon those 14 spots and put it behind the front facade, um, that would be a better situation as far as the, um, the argument and but without knowing if this
was actually approved in six of 95, I don't know that. >> I don't know. But I think if looking at the two plans, I would if we had to choose between one or the other, I would, you know, I think that one looks a lot better than >> oh than this one under the standards. I
don't think anybody would a disagree with that. But I I don't think we have to come to a conclusion as to what the zoning status of those spaces are tonight >> to weigh in on the appropriateness of this parking plan, which is all we're being tasked to do tonight. Well, can I
just back up a little bit because if we're looking at the 14 on the on the in the front yard, um, if this does go to a resolution, would you ask them to abandon that? >> Yeah. If you were going to if you were going to consider a motion to approve this, I think that's what they're
proposing. >> We propose, but that's what I'm saying. So, I if that's the case, I think that maybe it does come into some of the decision making. It's it certainly cleans it up and I think the applicant offered that up to say okay this is
whatever the status of is they're saying look we'd rather do this than >> that than this. >> Yes. >> That's I think that was what was stated. >> Are you Mr. Baldwin? >> Yes. >> Um please understand that it was Vince Orlando who got all these plans approved. I guess we can drag him in
here but >> but I'm just I'm saying this is all I have. I don't have anything more to go on as far as this. We would again make that representation. We would absolutely abandon those 14 spaces for the 10 new ones if approved. >> And Miss Wild, what I'm trying to do is avoid that exercise. You know, let's
just keep it simple and you know, >> apparently >> you're on deck. Yogi, >> sorry. >> That's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I wasn't here for the first week, but >> what I heard tonight was that This board
asked them to move them out of the front out of the out of the front of the building, which to me it looks like they've done that until Mr. Carol stated that this was part of the the front of the addition. Am I correct in saying that?
>> That's right. >> Then, but seems like they did what we recommended before by moving them to the rear like they our rear. We're calling this the rear on the side. >> I think I think many of us didn't think there were two front yards.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Well, that's and that's the other we have three front yards in a sense given we don't have a rear yard >> because I think this resolves the problem. I mean, I'd rather see it there than any other place on on the site if you're worried about the building.
That's my personal feeling. >> I I think I'd characterize it differently. Um, I think the way they came in first of all with a proposal that had essentially parking all the way across the front yard from the existing parking lot and then all the way around
to the to the to the addition on the back of the building. So, it was it was essentially covering the entire landscape of the property. What we said was I think >> um while we didn't take I don't remember us taking a vote. I think we basically said there was no possibility they were
going to be successful. tabled after discuss. >> It was tabled after discussion. There was no possibility of them achieving their their objective on that if they wanted to go to a to a vote. And and the suggestion was why don't you come in and if you have some alternatives, present
them to the small group and just get their feel, you know. So there was nothing recommended by us. Nothing whatsoever recommended by us to them. It was simply a you know the same vehicle we offered to everybody which is you can come to the small group and throw some
additional concepts on the table. I can say for the record at the small group they would not have had my vote period. I mean I'm I would not I don't I don't believe this is consistent with our standards. It's just that simple. And I think to agree to this is a is a
precedent setting agreement to to violate the standards basically. And so from my perspective, I I was I think you know tried to be >> Kevin. Doesn't that doesn't make some difference though as to whether you believe that parking is already extant
in the >> I'm not sure it is or it isn't. I don't know that I don't know that that is true or not. Um I don't know whether that parking can be allowed to to be used today. I really I I know I'm so I'm working off of an assumption that it cannot. Um, maybe that's, you know,
flawed, but that's the the assump the only assumption I could make at the moment. It hasn't been used in however many years. I've never seen a car park there except to unload something for a for a bridal uh venue or something. Um, so I guess I'm working on the assumption that it cannot be used, that it's been,
you know, abandoned in some fashion. And I think, you know, well, I don't I didn't really think about it as a front yard. I do see it as as as in the standards, a visible sideyard. And therefore I think it it violates the standards all the way around. So I I don't think Yogi I don't think we
offered them anything. We simply offered them an opportunity to come and and and test the waters for an alternative. >> I got out of the out of the question that the board asked them to relocate to the back and that's what they did. >> Right. We we didn't ask them anything
>> or or suggested was is that the correct No, I I wasn't here. >> I think we said what was presented was unacceptable. read the standards and had a extensive debate. They've come back with a changed proposal. >> So, they've done what they what what is logical for them. I I I mean, in fairness to the applicants, I think
they, you know, they they tested the waters. They they didn't feel like they were successful. They came to the small group. They came up with a couple of other ideas. I mean, I, you know, I would acknowledge that they were better than what they had originally come in with, but you know, I had I also had take had the time to think about this
even further. And that's, you know, that's that's where I've landed tonight, >> John. >> So, one of the things I love about a democracy is that we could disagree. And I respectfully disagree with Mr. Heammer. Um, the way I read our standards when it talks about a visible
sideyard, and I do believe that this qualifies as a sideyard because the original structure, it clearly was a sideyard. And it's more than 100 feet away from the street. It's also about three feet lower than the street. And
furthermore, it's not exactly a paved parking lot. It's a totally different material that our our standards are silent on. Our standards do not talk about grass pave. They do not talk about grass block. So to me,
the way this has been designed with a brick walkway around it and a hedge around it and with that pattern of green diamonds, one could easily see this as a garden.
Now the downside of that is if there are going to be cars parked there all night long and I believe that we had talked about some sort of provision. If you could speak to that, please. So Barbara, in terms of the use of this, we discussed and would agree, right, that
this is only to be used for patrons of the bar or restaurant. >> Yes. >> And in the event that the bar and restaurant is closed, we wouldn't allow any parking there. And you have a gate you could actually close to parking. Correct. >> And I will be very frank with you.
When you're looking at the Southern Mansion and you're going north, we don't have parking problems. When you go south, you do. You have them at the mall. You have them at the beach. I think that probably we could make a
lot of the people park at the school and some other areas. I understand what your concerns are and I hear them, Tom. I really truly care. I really do.
So, I think we can work together. I really do. So in in following my my logic train here, given that our standards are written in a way that they are clearly
attempting to address all situations at all times in all places. That's an impossible task. This is absolutely an anomalous condition in my mind. This is a completely unique property. There's nothing else like it in Kate May. And
the way that this is designed to appear visually more as a garden than a parking area, I find mitigates that whole definition of visible, particularly given the permanence, if you will, of
the boxwoods. Now, our definition of visible does not allow for landscaping to be considered, I'll call it, a permanent visible obstruction. always get rid of it. Right. >> Correct. So, one of the things that I
would ask is if you would be able to write into your this application that those boxwoods would be at least. So, I did a little section drawing of eye height looking the entire 100 ft plus
the additional 100 ft for the or 80 feet for the 10 eight spaces on each side. And if those boxwoods were three feet high, you would not be able to see the parking except for in the aisle. And by the way, now the aisle isn't really off streetet parking. That's an aisle. So now we're getting into some semantic argument. So what I'm saying is there's
enough grayness or nuance I believe given the particulars of this unique situation that I would support this >> and that was a minimum of three foot in height for the box. >> Correct. Too >> based on the section I drew. >> Okay. >> So I I would like to ask our civil engineer whether he agrees with that or
not. I would totally agree with that >> as to the visibility. >> Correct. >> Height. >> So I I only have one problem with this whole thing really and that is the use of the inground uplights mainly because that would violate dark sky provisions.
So would you consider altering the lighting in the landscape so that they were lower down lights so that we weren't setting light? >> We had looked at and and kicked around like a a ballard light that would kind of be pulled back into um the boxwoods and then would direct
light down. We were concerned that they didn't meet with the you know the historic aesthetic, but if that's something the board prefers, I think we would be open to >> Yeah, I think we'd prefer some sort of fixture that was not in violation of well violation is a strong word, but
doesn't comply with dark side dark sky standards. >> Speaking as a lead person, >> correct? >> Um so and you and you'd be willing to covenant with respect to the boxwood maintenance? Yes. >> So, what I'm hearing is that you would
you are abandoning the existing 14 spaces that are in the front yard on the right side of the original mansion along Jefferson. You are agreeing >> Washington. >> I'm sorry. Washington. Sorry. I'm sorry. >> Thank you.
>> Number one, president number two. You know, >> one president. The second thing that I think you're agreeing to if we were to make a motion is that you would uh covenant in perpetuity the three- foot high boxwoods. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And the third thing is that you would
alter the lighting fixture so that they were down lights as opposed to they would comply with dark sky standards. >> Yes. >> Yep. Okay. >> John. Yes. >> Just bring out one point. Mhm. >> I would like more verification that this piece of paper we've been handed to
tonight was actually part of a uh pass agreement stamped properly ready to go. I mean, we go through many one, two, three worksheets before we're looking at the final thing. And there's nothing really on this. And I've been
here a long time and I have not seen anything ever going on uh to use that piece of land. Barbara, can you talk about how it I just feel like it's opened up here. I mean, just trying to refute. >> We can talk about it, but I honestly I think it's >> if you think it's my my thought on this
is we're not >> we're not going to get to the bottom of this tonight because we need like the whole I need we need to go look through a bunch of resolutions. And my point about this is I don't think we need to >> I would actually suggest it's irrelevant. >> Yeah. >> Because what we're what we're approving
is this site plan and this site plan only has those new 10 spots on it. All the others are not even depicted. >> And the applicant is saying I I think we for purposes of a motion whether they're approved or there or existing or pre-existing or non-existing, they're
abandoning that concept and doing this in lie of that. So to the extent it was approved or it wasn't approved, it's ancient history after this. >> So I think what the applicant's saying, >> right? Okay. >> Very clearly. >> Oh, and the uh and the with respect to
the conditions um non-permanence of the parking. >> Ah yes, thank you. Yes. >> Not non-overnight non-oververn parking in in the spaces that absolutely talked about. So you'll close those you'll close those down. >> Yes. >> So just to be clear
>> if someone would like to make a motion the conditions are that the of course you're abandoning existing or not 14 spaces. In other words, what what would be we would be approving is this site. >> Correct. Correct. That you would engage
in a in a covenant for permanent maintenance of a three- foot high boxwood surrounding the parking area, of course, using the grass pave, dark sky compliant lighting fixtures, and no overnight parking in that area. Is that
correct? >> Will those fixtures come back to the works work? >> Yeah, that's a condition of approval. So, they would need to bring those before the review committee. >> It has to come back for final anyway. >> Has to come back for final. They've got to get zoning approval. >> Yeah. So, it comes has come back anyway. >> It'll come back to us. >> I know we've talked in the past up at
the League of Municipalities in Atlantic City, they do have companies that sell very historic looking ballard lighting for parking areas that are down lit. >> Yeah. >> So, there's options out there that would blend in with any members members of the public.
>> So, before um we make a motion, I would like to open it up to the public. Is there anybody here this evening who would like to make a comment about this project? Okay. Do I hear a motion with those four conditions? I >> I'll make the motion with the conditions
that you've just stated so they can be read into that. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second that. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol. >> So now if we vote yes. >> Conceptual approval with those four conditions. >> If we vote no, is that a yes?
>> No. No. It it's in the affirmative. So if if you like the plan with the conditions, vote yes. If you don't, vote no. >> Okay. I vote no. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hammer? >> No. >> Mr. Curts?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Ta? >> Yes. >> Mr. Becker? >> Yes. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, gentlemen. Please. >> Okay. Okay, next on our agenda is
Reich at 1249 Washington Street. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> If you could please state your name and your role in the project. >> I'm Shannon Rich and we are both owners of the house. >> I'm Greg Rich. Excuse me for mispronouncing your name. I'm sorry. So,
it's pronounced Rich. Yeah. Very simp. Welcome. >> Thank you. >> The floor is yours. >> Thank you. >> Um, so our architect, Pam Fine, couldn't be here tonight. She had to she has some traveling. So So we're going to um ask
for final approval on 1249 Washington Street. Um I'm going to read what we've all discussed amongst our team. Um, we just want to let you know that we were granted the variances to build the
design that was presented and approved by the HPC for pro preliminary review with no major changes uh other than siding being changed from cedar shingles at the back to cedar clapboard. Uh, also we wanted to let you um give you a new
3D rendering of the proposed changes that should be in your packet >> at the back. At the back, it shows the new porch, the side editions, the rear attic edition. Uh, gives you a better idea what it looks like from the street. So, that's that's
all we have. >> So, excuse me, Mr. Rich. I I I did some research today. I was trying to find the conceptual approval that you received. Do you have the date of that approval? >> I don't know it off the top of my head. So, I looked at I looked in all of our files for the last four years and I
couldn't find any. But, it might be missing from my computer files. So, that's why I'm a little bit confused. >> So, I'm going to go with September of >> 24 >> 24 and then Pam came back
in September October of 25 and had a meeting and then here we are for final. >> Okay. All right. So, I believe what you're saying is the only thing that has changed from the preliminary con I'm sorry, let's use
proper terminology, the conceptual approval is that you change the siding on the back portion from shingles to clabard. Is that correct? >> That's accurate. >> Okay. And where that distinction occurs is,
>> well, I'll be quiet. So I can point it out to you. >> If you look at the picture, it's after the porches on the side. So it's in behind those side porches. It would start. >> Got it. Okay. So opening it up to uh
questions. Mr. Hammer, would you like to start, please? I >> I didn't I guess I didn't realize there was any previous approvals on this at all. I mean, all we were asking for was the >> the um approval for the siding. If that's if that's correct.
I can I you know you've caught me by the sneakers at the moment here. >> Can I can I uh just try and clarify that a second because I think I came on in 2024. I think we had some Judy and I had some conceptuals that we
were playing catchup with um when I came on. >> I mean I remember it. >> Yeah. So I certainly remember Pam talking about taking the skylights out of the tower. Yeah, >> I'm looking at it right now. So, let me let me just read it so we have it. So, >> I thought we were looking at an entire project here.
>> No. So, and and again, I came on in 20 January 2024. I remember Judy and I doing some catchup on some conceptual approvals before I came on. So, I was this is when Bob was on, but the date of the HBC was October 16th, 2023, which
sounds like like Septemberish. And the the conceptual approval condition says at the time of the hearing conceptual approval the applicant personally appeared and was represented by architect Pamela Fine and sought conceptual approval for an
addition roof deck, porch, screen porch, siding, windows, roof, railing and driveway. The enclosed one-story front porch will remain, but a new northeast side addition will replace exterior stairs and decks. The shed roof of the existing porch will extend around the
side and be sheathed in metal and cover an open porch leading to an enclosed entry foyer with a screened porch above. The existing rear edition will be reconstructed to be two stories with a new three-story stair tower on the southwest side leading to a roof deck
extending above the original gabled peak and beyond the existing embedded octagonal turret. Skylights will be removed from the turret roof. The applicant is proposing new two two over2 allwood windows, wood siding to replace asphalt, all wood doors, new wood
railings, and an asphalt roof. The HPC asked about retaining original windows. The applicant indicated that some will remain. The applicants agreed to re-evaluate them and present a window plan in connection with final review. HPC concurred that they preferred an
allbrick driveway. In response to board objections to the excessive height of the new tower, the applicant indicated that plans would be revised to lower it to existing gabled roof line. The HPC discussed the potential for removal of existing front parking space. The applicant to declined this proposal. The
HPC expresses preference to retain the original chimney and the HPC then voted for conceptual appro approval conditioned on the applicant modifying the design of the stair tower so it cannot be seen from the street, retaining the chimney, identify the existing original windows, and deleting
the concrete from the driveway. Sound familiar? >> Yes, >> it does sound familiar. Um, could you repeat the part about the driveway? >> Brick driveway. the it's >> toward the end.
>> Yeah. Yeah. The >> one on the left >> HPC concurred that they preferred an all brick driveway. >> Um and then the vote was >> Yeah. >> Delete deleting the concrete from the driveway, which I mean will be all brick then. >> I I heard it the first time you said it.
>> You should have just said it in the affirmative both times, but deleting >> deleting concrete means do the brick. Yeah. But that that tracks with your recolle I know Miss Fine was here before. We're putting on the spot reading it here. But that's what we have on in my file at
least. >> Okay. So we don't have that document which is unfortunate because it would be very helpful for this review to have it. It should be included in the packet when you have a conceptual should always be included in the packet so we have that information
especially if it's so long ago. So this turret is higher proposed to be higher than the existing one. No, it's the same. >> No, it's the little tower at the top of the steps on the third floor. >> Yes. >> Right. That's what So there's not a lot of um access way when you
>> without without a tower extension. A little tower extension, >> you basically have to bend way over to get into the attic space. >> This one. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's functional more than anything. >> Yeah. It's funny. That was the only
thing that I thought was just really kind of strange on your plan. It It's really nice. I think the house is going to look a lot nicer. >> Um I always love these renditions. They really help me a lot. Thank you. >> Um but I guess if that's the only solution
you could come up with, there it is. >> Yeah. It's not like we wanted to do it, but we felt like for functionality, um, for safety, um, you know, egress, >> you would literally bump your head. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Done it many times. >> So, the the conditions stated that the tower not be visible from the street. Is that correct? That new little >> That's what I heard. >> Yeah. And the there it's
>> questionable whether it is. >> Yeah, it's minimal. I mean, >> we tried to minimize it. >> Visible from the street. >> It's visible. >> I mean, so the difficulty I'm having a little difficulty because clearly I heard the conceptual stuff. I remembered we did this. I heard the run through, but I'm having trouble reconciling
what's submitted here now and what we were told were the only changes with coming through to follow up on the conceptual comments. That's my difficulty. I can't I can't connect the two things you mentioned with the seven things that Chris just read in terms of
what the submission here shows. If Pam were here, we might have that clarified. >> That's that's my difficulty here. and not not not questioning the the um the appropriateness of the design which which clearly got a conceptual approval in the first place.
>> It's the it's the coming to the end part that I'm having trouble with >> the just on the on page A2 um the drive aisle. It does say new brick um strips. So um that was one changed. I I wasn't
able to catch all the rest as as you were going through. >> Well, at least there's brick now. there is brick. But that's why I'm saying maybe all of these have been changed on the uh new submission. >> I don't know that. But one one item was changed.
>> Yeah. In in our our perspective, the really the only difference between the um the pre-approval and the final approval application is the uh the bump up and the the use of clap cedar clapboard on the back side of it versus
cedar shake. >> Yeah. So >> we actually found a really good place to differentiate it because what's existing and what's new is different on two of the three floors. So you actually ended or made the change of materials at an appropriate spot.
>> Yeah, >> I think. >> Yeah. So the only other thing was it a condition of the conceptual that they keep the chimney because that was something that I >> retaining the chimney is one of the conditions >> and it doesn't appear as if that happened. So, I'll just give you a little bit of background on the chimney
if I could. Um, so when we bought the house, the chimney was a a um it served a function and it was a seed a cinder block uh scrap um with plaster and screening sort of handmade. Um >> so it wasn't brick like it chose in the
elevation. So in 2005 we we actually add I had the chimney replaced in 2005 and I said to the mason at the time just give me a chimney for this amount of money and he gave me a wonderful chimney in 2005. So
>> which was a brick chimney. >> So he put brick on what was just a plaster chimney. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And that was just the flu from the furnace in the basement. Right. >> That's exactly correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. So, um, as far as the bump up and providing proper access and egress from
the attic space, the chimney sort of sits right in the middle of that access point. It totally blocks access to the stair on the first and second floor. That's it. Yeah, >> I know what it is to have an intrusive chimney.
>> Other comments and questions for these folks? >> Yes. I just had one. Um, it's not depicted on your 3D rendering, but on your elevations, it shows that on the front by the windows on the left hand side, you're actually going to have a real gas lamp fixtures.
>> Yes. >> When I think that's going to be a nice improvement at night, >> you know, for the streetscape, pedestrians walking down the street. >> Very nice. >> Thank you. So, the only question I have is um I'm just curious as to why you've chosen to
use a standing seam metal roof over the porch when all the rest of the visible roofs are a shingle. Is there a reason for that? >> You just like the look. >> You like the look? >> No reason. >> I agree with
other questions and comments for these folks. Um, do you need any zoning approvals for this at this point? >> No, >> it's all been received. >> So, they've checked they've checked final. >> Okay. >> Do I hear a motion?
>> Well, if we do need, we're going to have to reconcile the, for example, the chimney except if we if we approve. >> So, that can be part of the motion or not. I I'm I'm of a mind to if that chimney as a brick chimney would have been part
of the original structure, I I would have a problem with it going away. But you work on it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You made it look what had chosen the elevations which was only in what 2022 somewhere around there. >> Yeah.
>> I don't understand the question. Well, so the way I understood you explained the chimney was when you purchased the home, it was just a cement covered flu >> cinder block around the >> cinder block that that had been parched. >> And what you did is you made it actually
look appealing by putting brick on it. >> That's exactly it. >> Correct. So had that been part of the original house, I would have a problem with getting rid of it, but I don't now because of what you just said. It wasn't part of the original. I will make a motion for approval based
on the fact that we are uh saying the chimney is not original to the house. If that is in fact wrong, the chimney should stay. Great. Do I hear a second? >> Second.
>> So moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Mr. Stevenson. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker,
>> yes. And I'd also like to say that this is a beautiful improvement to this home. Thank you for that. >> Thank you. We appreciate that. It's been a lot of work. >> Long time coming. So, >> yes. >> Long. I keep looking at the house saying, "When are they going to start?" >> I know. >> We're getting there. >> I guess it's Thank you very much.
>> To the chimney. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> You say it's been a lot of work. It's just begun. It's >> been a long time. >> How true that is. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. >> Good night. >> Good night. >> Okay, so time >> the next
>> Okay, Johnny boy, >> we have five submissions regarding small wireless facilities. So let's start with the first one, but I would like to ask whether or not we can the questions that I think we'll be
asking would be applicable to all five. So we do need to review and make a motion on each of these. But can we ask questions about all five of them at during the first one or not? Are are are they these uh gentlemen and lady here
for the same for all five? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Then yes. >> Even though you have two different names. >> Yes. That should should have all appeared as >> Would you folks be willing to entertain questions about all five? Certainly the first one. That way we can move through the five motions as we get there. >> A lot of the questions be related. So
>> yeah, they are. >> Makes perfect sense. >> Okay. So if you could please introduce yourselves, tell us what your role in the project is. >> Sure. My name is Lisa Mosy. I'm the manager of permitting and utilities for Crown Castle. >> Good evening. Robert Gdioso with the law firm of Snyder and Snyder and I'm
outside council for Crown Castle. >> Great. The floor is yours. >> Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you. >> One thing just to clarify there there are five new small cell um facilities being proposed. Three are
taking existing wooden poles and replacing them and putting the equipment on those replaced poles. Two of them are brand new wooden poles. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Great. Floor is yours. >> Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. Um before we discuss the five specific locations, I thought it would
be appropriate to just take a moment to explain why this infrastructure matters. Um, Crown Castle is a national provider of commun wireless um communications infra infrastructure that supports the wireless technology that we use today.
Uh, Crown Castle um right now nationwide supports 40,000 cell towers, 90,000 route miles of fiber and uh over 115,000 small cell nodes, which is what we're talking about tonight. Um, here in the
state of New Jersey, Crown Castle has 6,500 miles of fiber, 655 towers, and over a thousand of these small cells that uh service your residents, businesses, and visitors across the state. Um, the in this particular
infrastructure is critical uh for a lot of reasons, but most importantly for public safety. Um, today over 80% of 911 calls originate from wireless devices and um, reliable coverage and capacity
is essential for emergency communications for first responders and um, real-time communication during weather events and um, public gatherings, large public gatherings.
Kate May presents a unique connectivity challenge. Um, as a obviously historic and very highly popular tourist destination, you see uh tremendous increase in population in the key months
and that presents a challenge. Um visitors and residents rely heavily on their mobile devices to um make reservations for their navigation, emergency calls, ride services, and as
we all know, sharing photos, videos, their vacation experience with friends, family, uh on social media posts, um videos, and sharing photos. So that all
that demand puts a real strain on the existing wireless networks that this is where this technology comes into play. Small cell technology is critical um for service servicing these additional
capacity needs for coverage and capacity. Um, small cells are compact, lowprofile facilities that are added to existing utility poles or wood poles um that improve that capacity where new
cell towers are not appropriate. Um, this allows cities like Kate May to be able to support the modern wireless needs of residents and visitors while still maintaining that look and of um
historic character of the streetscape. So, I wanted to just give that context with within that these five sites are critical to improving your wireless coverage and capacity within the city. um particularly these are areas that are
experiencing high demands and um I'm happy to go through the sites you know individually or answer any questions that you may have regarding them. >> So if you would indulge me a moment I'd like >> to open up this discussion. >> Yeah. Um, we're grateful to our planning
commission for asking you guys to come and see us as a full commission. Kate May is an extraordinarily unique place in that it is the what we refer to as the one and only. It's the only national historic landmark district in the United
States on the national level that the historic district is the entire municipal boundaries. Now, our zoning overlay is different than that quite obviously and it presents some really unique
challenges. Not just the ones you're talking about with regard to this fluctuation of population from 2600 people to 50,000 people in a matter of a couple of months. Um, it's a it's a whole aesthetic character and context
that we are charged with maintaining, preserving, literally preserving and evolving. So, of course, part of the evolving is that new technology is essential to our safety and our well-being. So the question we are
always asking and you may have heard some of these discussions this evening is when new things need to or want to happen the restraining forces against that activating force is how can we do that in a way that will still maintain the character and context of this place
which is why people come here. It's differentiated from any other shore town in New Jersey by virtue of its historic significance. So what we what we're constantly seeking is how can we reconcile those two forces which
ostensibly appear to create a conflict. So I tried to answer that question in this regard. Three of the polls that you are proposing to replace are in the central business district in very very significant places. two are outside of
it a little, not quite as important. But then I started to think, well, maybe all five of them should probably be as similar as possible. So I spent some time going to your company and I looked at installations that you have made in Baltimore, in West Palm Beach, in New
Orleans, in San Diego. Um, I could go on and on. I have found 17 pages of really beautiful stealth poles where in some cases the diameter of the pole is such that the the 22 in x 22 in
x 5 foot high box and the meter appears to be inside the pole. In other places, it appears as if all of that technical equipment, >> forgive me my lack of techn technical expertise here, can be installed in a base. And the bases range in size
depending upon which of these 17 polls show up. Now, granted, the date of this is 2017. That's the most recent one I could find. So my question before we go any further is given what is proposed in all five of
these um I would call it and I don't mean to in any way insult you but less than aesthetically pleasing it's a it's a it's a s >> you start out with the fact that poles themselves telephone poles >> well telephone poles themselves >> aesthetically pleasing
>> so the the it's a 22in square box if I understand it correctly by a 5 foot 5 in high box That's roughly seven, eight feet above the sidewalk. Is that accurate? And then out of that becomes a cable. It's kind of a loose cable that's
attached to an 18 inch by it looks like about 6 to 8 in deep um um >> that's probably the power disconnect you're referring to. So they to the meter. >> Yes, that the meter. >> There it is right there. That's it's almost the same drawing in all cases. So that's correct. My question is,
>> is there a way that we could rethink this so that all five of these or at least three of them were much more consistent with and conducive to preserving the architectural and historical character
of this place that we love? Well, I I would say that um Crown Castle, the majority of the the over 115,000 small cells throughout the country that I had uh previously
mentioned, they are and do exist on on wood utility poles. So, we are a public utility working in the public right of way. Our preference is always to go on existing poles rather than to proliferate additional poles. So, um, as
far as the wood versus what I'm assuming you're asking about metal, the potential for metal poles, it is, you are absolutely correct. We do have metal poles deployed throughout the country. Um, that is generally used in areas
where only metal poles exist today. Um, if we are in an area of the city that only has metal street lights or we're in a square that has metal gas lights, we will enter into agreements, attachment
agreements or right of use agreements with those jurisdictions to use their poles and maybe change those use that same aesthetic, but change those in order to add those our wireless facilities to that. But that is in areas
that only have metal poles existing. >> That would preclude us from being able to install or use a wood pole. >> Okay. So, question I have is the um the equipment that's mounted on the poles that you are depicting in your renderings. >> Is it possible that that can be placed
in the base of those poles as it appears to be depicted with these stealth poles? Is that accurate or not? >> No, not we wouldn't be able to. So, the the wood poles that we have, obviously, we're not going to put anything in a base of a wood pole, but um >> but these stealth poles, that equipment is in the base in many cases. Is that
right? >> It can go in a base. >> That's all I needed to. >> So, Lorraine, could you make a few comments here? Lorraine is on our city council. She's our liazison with city council. And one of the things you may not know is >> the prominade improvement that has been going on for several years and will
likely go on for a couple of more years. We are methodically removing those wooden poles to bury those electric lines so that we are trying to eliminate wooden poles over a period of time. So installing new facilities with wooden
poles again is sort of quite antithetical to the effort that we're making to get rid of them. So >> thank you Mr. Chairman. Um absolutely and that's what we are trying to do. And if you take a look around in the historic district and even outside of
the historic district, we do have the um the metal uh gas lamps um which would be fitting into exactly what um Mr. Becker is talking about. Um where we do, you know, and I did some research as well on my own to figure out that there are ways
that these can be encased within the base and within the poll. Um again, without being in this business, we don't know. and we were looking at you taking down polls and putting in higher polls than what you were what was there. So
again, that looks at streetscape. So, you know, we're really cognizant as far as what is this going to look like? You're looking at North Street. That's one area that's pretty, you know, um, you know, over on Washington Street. That's a, you know, highly, um,
historic, you know, district. So, you know, these areas that we think that, you know, okay, well, we only do it this way or this is the way we normally do it. I think we need to think a little bit more outside of the box. >> I have to ask you a preliminary question. your surveys that resulted in
these these boosters or repeaters, are are you certain that there were not alternative locations such as on buildings or other places where the reason I say that is because we've had situations in the past where enhancement equipment has been more stealthily
located on eaves and roofs and louvers and things that that are already in existing buildings. And and I think as as Miss Baldwin indicated, the number of wooden telephone poles in this town are going to go substantially down. So So
and I and I'm at the point where I don't really find that that that's no matter what you plug onto a wooden pole, I don't find that aesthetically consistent with our standards. So but but I wanted to know first, did you did you do surveys to to look at alternative locations rather than stick these on top
of existing poles? So um that type of a deployment like a rooftop deployment would be considered a macro which is similar to the towers and in the type of equipment that goes on those um this is >> macro meaning bigger >> correct
>> bigger more voltage more wattage >> small cell technology they are meant to go on the utility poles and and that's what these carriers are looking for right now. Are they meant to go on the utility poles or are they meant to be at the height of what what where they are on the utility poles?
>> They're placed on utility poles >> in the right of way. >> So I mean I'm sort of I understand the lower wattage and the lower power because your your profile I assume you do surveys with respect to the contours that these things provide. So, so they
would the contour change if you were to mount this for example on I don't know the roof of convention hall for example. Mhm. >> Well, an example might be actually there's there's one proposed for Washington Street just across from the mall >> um right by where the the other small
ones. You have a what is it a fivestory building to their Victoria Towers that parking on top of that would I would assume create a much >> they're not in the public right away. >> Yeah. >> I think that's the so the key issue really is the technology. So, you know,
Congress and the FCC work together to particularly make small cell technology available because it goes in the public right away. It densifies the network. It's where you have a situation where you have existing cell phone towers or rooftop installations whether they're stealth or not. And then to put a
smaller facility tied into the network right where the people are. So, it's very important to have these facilities close to where the usage is, particularly when the usage explodes for a few months. And in fact, I think Lisa might have a a photograph. Um, this is very similar to what I believe has been
previously approved here for AT&T, one of one of the competitors in the right of way. It's almost an identical facility if you want to maybe pass that around. Yeah, I was going to respectfully note that there is an existing operational small cell on Beach Avenue that is very much similar to >> and we're and we're also aware of our
obligation under subsection E to pass on the appropriateness with respect to the streetscape effect of these things. So, yes, there may be one, but there may not be six. >> Yeah. >> So, I I have a question. So, if AT&T is
putting these up and Crown Castle is putting them up, are we going to be faced with other people putting them up as well? >> The these these guys are active for a lot of other people. >> Well, the the great thing about Crown Castle is that we the way we do uh build these, they're meant to be colllocated.
So, uh Verizon is our customer, T-Mobile is our customer, AT&T is also our customer at times. In this case, they chose to what we call self-perform, which is to build for themselves alone. But Crown Castle's business model is to colllocate so that you don't have this
proliferation of everyone making their own individual >> and that's and that's a good idea because we'd rather deal with with one or two entities >> without expanding the uh form factor here. That's that's without expanding the the size of the equipment or the antenna. We're able to colllocate with
these facilities. this box. >> So, >> let me just refer to the plan so that I'm not >> giving you improper information on these deployments. >> The pole, if it's to scale, the poll is about 37 ft tall. >> Well, actually, our polls are a little
shorter. So, for example, um the new pole of 315 Washington is only 34. The other ones are actually a bit lower. Uh and the poles all meet all meet the height and setback requirements as proposed and and and as approved by the planning uh the planning board. Yeah. Um
so for instance you know 104 North Street's only 29 1/2 ft. So in you know consistent with the surrounding poles consistent with the poles in the area uh and consistent with what AT&T was approved for. And the bottom of that
shroud, it's called a shroud is is what we refer to that equipment cabinet is at 10 feet. >> So I tend to agree with John. I think we have a very unique town and I think we need we need a more unique solution than this for K city.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm I agree. I I think that the alternatives here really haven't been explored. I think that this is your usual standard approach. find the pole, put the right equipment on the pole, put the radome on top, um, and do the broadcasting. And, and I I don't find
that that that particular setup is consistent with our, uh, our obligation under subsection E with respect to the streetscape in this unique city. And I and I I think you can do better. >> I I guess the question would be,
you know, twofold. one, obviously there are existing wood poles and obviously there's an existing identical facility by a functionally equivalent competitor AT&T. Um, and number two, when you install a, you know, I I didn't see the
the handout, but I suspect I know what's in there. Usually, you're trying to match some type of metal pole that exists. Whereas here, the metal poles, for example, are big big street light poles. They're not these types of designs in these particular areas. And these particular areas we chose specifically to be in areas where
they're what wood poles. And the code of the city for small wireless facilities specifically talks about being a certain distance from existing poles and being a certain height and being a certain distance from uh the curb line. And I understand that that that the code for
the HPC is specifically says that you're not supposed to look at the zoning requirements and things of that nature, but but it is important to note that we do meet those requirements. >> No doubt that you've been careful and consistent in complying with the other aspects of the codes. I don't think
that's at least that's not my issue. My issue is the aesthetics. >> Understood. One of the most uh uh common new poles going up in town are reproduction and antique gas lines that are about 12 ft
high. Uh new ones cost about 9 to 12,000 each. And all of our projects at great expense are doing these. Uh if you start matching that with towers next to them, they're they're going to really lose
their appeal. One one question I have though is um when you decide to come to a city like ours, is this after we've been studied and compared to other cities and we're in a high need for this
because safety is out of control? Uh you know, things that would really say Cape May better get this soon because people are dying. >> Well, everyone's getting them. So, Kate May is not special. >> Everyone's dying. But we we are in the
sense that there's an ocean from the rest of us. There's no place else to >> No, I think the point is is that >> the carriers are the ones that determine the need because because the because of the usage, right? And you see AT&T already determined that and it's already been approved. But Kate May is not
unique in that this is happening as Lisa gave you some statistics not only in New Jersey but across the country up and down the Jersey shore. when you have uh this type of technology solving this type of problem. The problem is the need for densification of the network in high demand areas. So whether it's Kate May,
whether it's Princeton where we have similar facilities um you know it's happening throughout the areas because this is the technology uh particularly under the federal law but also this is this is usually considered the less intrusive alternative to the 100 foot or >> do you um did you re did you redesign
anything for Palmer Square in Princeton? We are not moving forward with anything within Palmer Square. >> So you're not placing the unit that you applied for in Palmer Square. >> No, we are not. >> So I'd just like to point out for um my fellow commissioners that
these what are called the stealth poles. Again, forgive my lack of >> technical expertise here. have been installed in San Diego, New Orleans, Baltimore, Miami, Nashville, Princeton, Pittsburgh, Houston, Ocean City, Boston, and Scottdale, just to mention a few.
>> One one less in Princeton apparently. >> Well, no, that there there was one in it's just not on it's just on a >> Well, we also have wooden pole. We also have wooden poles in Princeton. And and again, it goes back to the point of, >> you know, putting the right design in the right spot based on what's existing. And in these areas is where the utility
poles. So, for example, three of them we're replacing a wooden pole >> and it's a slightly taller pole with a little additional equipment including the antenna on top and the shroud box on the side. But those are wooden poles. And the two other locations again meeting the code requirements for certain distances and setbacks. They're
in areas with, you know, similar types of installations. >> We have, I believe, about 80 small cells within the Princeton area. The vast majority of those are the wood poles exactly as I'm proposing tonight. Um we
have we do have a handful of metal poles but those are on streets where only metal poles exist and Palmer Square you know was proposed to be that as well because there are only metal poles within Palmer Square. Um, >> so what is the um what would be your
argument against trying to create something that is more contextual and consistent with the historic character of Cape May that we're requesting? >> Well, I mean, we believe that the wood
poles do fit with the streetscape as they are, you know. >> Well, I think you're going to get from all of us up here that no, we don't agree with that. Yeah, >> we're not in the direction of enhancing poles, making them look better or putting more of them in. That's the >> Well, I think I think it has to go back
though. I mean, there's there's three in particular that are being replaced a replacement with poles, so to say that it's not in >> Well, those poles are likely going to go away. >> So, by you guys putting in another pole, you're you're making them even more permanent than we want them to be. >> So, the the intention is the ACE pole
lines, the primary power, will be underground. Not in all cases. I'll let our city council member speak to this. >> You're correct. Not in all cases. >> Not in all cases. Yeah. >> But in the areas where we're talking
about I mean three of these are on on three of our most significant streets, Washington and Ocean, Jackson and and Beach Drive and Beach Drive right across from the convention hall. These are high
traffic pedestrian areas that are you know really really critical to I would say the viability and vitality of our economic life being a a historic attraction >> and we'd say the same thing right back to you like the need for the need for
critical infrastructure public utility infrastructure in the public utility right of way where where other public utilities >> correct so I don't think we're denying >> we're not denying that so what we're seeking is is like I'll go back to the framework work that I presented, >> you're activating needing an
infrastructure. We're restraining by saying, "Yeah, that infrastructure as it's currently presented is not consistent with the context of our historical wonderful place. How can we reconcile that?" So, I'm looking at you've
reconciled it at least 17 times in this document. So, why can't we do that here? Yeah, >> I guess the question would be to you was out of those 17, right? You know, we can go on the internet and we can find different stealth designs. We certainly wouldn't agree that a >> um
>> well, we have a we have a >> a cactus would be an appropriate stealth design. >> Clearly, we don't want a cactus. >> And I think that's one end of the spectrum, and I use that not as a joke, but as a but as an example, and um when you you know, if you if you flip through those, I've only seen the cover page. I probably haven't looked at the website in some time. um you know, you start
talking about a 30 or 35 foot pole that that is a oneoff in each of these particular five locations. >> So, this one actually looks very much like our our uh gas gas lamps in town. >> Just an extension from them. >> It just has two light fixtures instead of one.
>> I just don't think in these particular areas though. Is that correct? Am I wrong about that? >> Oh, no. Directly across the street of the one at Washington and Ocean, it's lined with these. We have three with us. There's the wood pole >> and the same and the same thing actually occurs >> um on Jackson Street and very close to
the one across from Convention Hall. >> Yeah. And I think occurs on Congress and North. >> Yeah. >> Congressman North, right? >> Yeah. That's that's four of the five. >> Right. And I mean and and just around the corner on on Franklin from from where the where the canoe construction
is. The city has not not been able to effect the project, but the project was intended to bury the wiring, remove the poles, and put up the metal. Um the metal uh >> That's true. If you've seen some of these are really lovely city,
>> I would argue that this is not aesthetically pleasing to anyone, even not in a historic district. There's been no attempt to make this aesthetically pleasing. I so with all due respect, I don't I I I I don't think that's the the streetscape standard. I think it's more
in line with with matching uh what's existing. And I think given the AT&T uh which is directly on point directly exactly the same design, exactly the same context, exactly the same location as well as all of the other public utility infrastructure in
the streetscape. So this is a new this is a new thing for everywhere in the country and because one has gone up we may have looked at that and said oh we really don't like this did we approve this but that doesn't mean we have to go forward with the same design
>> correct if we make a mistake once why would we want to make it five more times >> well I'm not aware that we made >> I guess our argument is not it's not even >> can I put can I put granted that it's proved I don't know how that happened >> one person at a time please go ahead finish up ahead >> I don't I don't know how that happened
or where it happened. Me neither. But I think that the objective here and and I just want to make make sure you're aware sitting down and having a hearing in front of us is not the only process we go through. If you're aware of our review committee and the way it
functions with respect to consultative meetings, um my suggestion would be uh to go back to the drawing board and and propose some alternative structures, alternative um means taken from your catalog or whatever and come and have a
meeting about that before you submit an application. >> I thought the review committee did originally approve it and it was my understanding. I could be wrong and I could be wrong about this so I do apologize if I am. I thought I thought that it was originally approved as a minor installation and the only reason it was sent back is because there was a determination that it wasn't technically
minor. It should have been classified as major and therefore the planning uh board should have should have referred it here. And I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding. >> I it sounds like that happened. But you know what? And you you brought up the AT&T thing and
look, I'll tell you that the city in 2021 went through a a review process to get an ordinance in place for this type of thing. Um, and I drafted that. That's when I came on as solicitor and that was
one of the first things we kind of confronted. We're the city's aware of the federal regulations promoting the use and deployment of these things. were aware of the timelines that you all operate under. But in response to that, we're able to
put some reasonable framework in place to not lose complete control over the aesthetics of the town. So that ordinance that was in place that led to your conditional use permit application was not an accident and it was well thought out and there was a lot of
review and thought that went into it and you know the wireless people didn't like it when it came out too and we didn't get in a lot of applications but now we're getting them. So, I would say this about the um you're here, thank you for
coming. But this this discussion that we're having now is not one that I recall us having for the last two years and I don't know that it's happened a lot in the past, but it should. And the reason for that is it's a condition of
your conditional use approval, which you guys didn't ask for a variance. You went to the planning board, not the zoning board. So you're going to comply with all these conditions. One of the conditions is for poles or small wireless facilities to be installed or placed within the historic preservation district. Planning board or zoning board
um may refer the proposed design for comment to the historic preservation unless and until the historic preservation promulgates uniform design standards for such facilities which shall be incorporated here and by reference once adopted. pursuant to that process.
Um, we if we had a uniform design standard page for this type of thing, we'd pluck it out. You guys probably wouldn't be here and that would have been a review committee go to the planning board. But what we do have is we have mechanical
systems are an intrusive feature. What do we do with that? So, we have to manage that. we have to manage that against your, you know, the the need and the federal regulations that say we should put these things everywhere. So, we're trying, like the chairman said, we're trying to marry the two right now.
Um, I don't think they're irresolvable and that's why we drafted the ordinance to force this conversation to have, you know, public volunteer citizens that are serving the town engaged in the process talk to folks like you and come up with
a solve that's specific to the town. And all I've heard is board members pointing to examples of you guys solving this problem elsewhere. And we're asking for that to happen here because we do care about the visual aesthetics of the town and matching to an existing pole. You
know, if we if we see cedar shakes on a building, let's stick with cedar shakes. But we don't want polls. We're trying to get rid of them. So, we're trying to solve that. And that's why you're not hearing no. We're not saying no. we're, you know, and but we want to hear, I
think, some problem solving on the design of it and we're we're recognize that there's a need out there, but that we, you know, some towns probably these things I I'm sure you pull a construction permit in other towns and you don't even have to go through this rigoral, but this is a special town that cares about the aesthetics, so we have
to go through it. So, that's what we're asking for. I think >> I have to speak for the board, but >> I think my comment was more along the lines that we, you know, we we did receive an HPC approval. I know it wasn't that we didn't come I just want I just want to make clear that and it wasn't that we didn't check your regulations. We did look for the for the
design standard which I believe hasn't been adopted yet and we we tried to follow >> there's no criticism of you guys. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that >> I'm explaining to you why why there's been some back and forth. >> We're trying to explain that we tried to follow you know we followed obviously the conditional permit requirements that
you said you drafted and put in place and we thought they were reasonable. We followed it. We met all the requirements with respect to height setback location all that. Um we tried to follow the design of you know the functionally equivalent competitor that had been approved with the identical design. We tried to follow the same streetscape
design particularly in three cases where we're you know like for like you know replacing a wood utility pole and adding some additional equipment no different than if you look at if you look at the electric company's transformers which you know are significantly more uh visible and aesthetic. We don't have any
external wires from pole to pole. uh our wiring is underground or on the pole. So, we tried to follow what we thought was the existing condition of the streetscape and that's what I I just was trying to respond to that that it wasn't that we didn't try and come to your committee. We actually did get a stamped
approval which sent us to the as part of our uh you know planning board process. >> Yeah, I think what Mr. Tessa was suggesting is we have this really wonderful thing that we do here in KMA. Every Tuesday morning, representatives of this commission meet with the public, anybody who wants to come and speak with
us. There are four appointments between 9:00 and 11:00. Folks come before us, bring their ideas. A couple of the applicants tonight had done that in the intervening period between last month and this month. and we hopefully create a design partnership
together so that you can accomplish what it is you're trying to accomplish and we can accomplish what it is we're trying to accomplish. In other words, reconcile these two ostensibly opposing forces. So, we would like to invite you to come and do that. I think that's what Mr. T. >> Yeah, of course. because because we
usually come up with I mean probably 75% of the time we come up with solutions that are acceptable and come in front of us in a really quick review which which we found it's a relatively new process and it is extremely helpful. I just don't think it's had the there hasn't
been benefit of doing that here. we've just been presented with. Um, >> yeah, unfortunately you're you're hearing it from us for the first time this evening because we didn't have these conversations and boy, I wish we would have. That way, we wouldn't be
kind of at loggerheads tonight. I don't know what we're going to do with these, but I would >> I know what I'm going to do with them. >> I'm going to vote to table them. >> Well, that's actually where I was headed. So, Mr. Solicitor, could you explain what tableabling means, please? Well, I I think their attorney
>> I think he's had a lot of experience with >> Yeah. I I think we we what we probably need to hear from the applicant, though, is what what would be the purpose? What what are we tableabling this for? Do they want to maybe propose something that is not before us tonight that's
alternative to this or do they want us to vote on this tonight? I mean, I I think what you're hearing is that we would like to have the HBC would like to have that conversation and not just go to a vote on this tonight. We'd rather have a discussion about what this could
look like, not what it looks like now in the plans. And that's nothing against you guys looked at the conditional use standards and went in there, but unfortunately there's no there hasn't been a standard promulgated. this is probably going to lead to what that will
be and these applications may be more streamlined in the future. Maybe, maybe not. But that that's the conversation the HBC wants to have. What does the applicants have to say? >> So, it's highly likely that our next version of the standards will address this directly. These were written and
approved in uh September of 2023. So, they're two and a half years old. >> Let me let me say something about that, though. Just because we don't have a specific page for this type of thing doesn't mean we're just like in the wild west. Correct. We have a bunch of things to draw from. Uh intrusive features,
mechanical equipment, we don't want to see this kind of stuff in the public way. That's the starting point. We don't have a specific page, but there's tons of resources in there already for the HPC to make a judgment call on what has been presented tonight. Or we could have
a problem-solving conversation with the applicant in review and try and come up with a collaborative solution to that which I think sounds like the HBC's preference. But again, what does the applicant like to do in response to that? >> And you can take a we have we have two minutes to speak outside.
>> Yes. >> So why don't guys why don't we take a a comfort >> how about a 10-minute break? Would that be good for you guys? >> Fine with us. And and >> is five okay or do you want 10? >> Five is fine. >> All right. So, why don't we reconvene at 8:15? So, we'll take a short break. >> Sounds good.
>> Okay. >> What's that? >> Um, yeah. Yeah, that's that's his homework. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That one right there. >> I know. That's Yeah, it really is. >> Mhm. Yeah. They're not taking us very seriously.
>> Yeah. We do this everywhere. Who are you? >> You know, >> yeah. >> I mean, it's different, but still, you know, you It hides a lot. >> Your eyes get hit on the lights up
there, which is nice. >> Uhhuh. >> Yeah. from a particular town. >> You send this to me, please. >> Yeah. >> I did not look like
They just come in and they go for the >> I'm just think we're going to make >> a difference. >> Oh, we're going to make it. She's already >> my niece was in that building. She said that
building. She said that she had people guest >> I think. I'm holding. >> No, thank you. >> I think that's the trend. It's just it's
like 30 years. >> Yeah. Back in the 70s everything in this country, but you're not What are we going to do with all this? >> It's a tough thing. They keep putting it up. Putting it up. So, we're not going to be here.
>> So, we need Thank you. Okay. >> All right. That's what I Yeah, it could be. >> Okay, calling the meeting back to order. It's 8:17 and we'll give you the floor.
>> Oh. Oh, Tom. Where's Tom? >> He's going he's going as fast as he can. >> Thank you. just test. >> We'll wait for another two minutes if you could please because I think he needs to hear what you have to say.
So, >> thanks. >> How's the game? >> I called Z. >> Penguins and Flyers. >> You know where I'm from, right? >> Yeah. I don't even care. >> Yeah. >> You don't Once Once you're from Pittsburgh, you're
always from Pittsburgh. You're always terrible. >> Steel steel man. Steel man. >> Oh, >> I I had to live there when I did the steel mill deal in the early 80s. Let me tell you, I could I could tell you where all the traffic lights were.
>> Oh, goodness. >> And when they changed them. >> I for for 20 years I thought I could save the US steel industry. What have I learned? Mr. Carol. >> Okay, we could proceed now, please. >> Great. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
members of the board. We we appreciate your time and consideration tonight. um you have perfectly capable counsel so I'm not going to get into a lot of legal details but there are certain federal shot clocks time frames that these applications have to be decided on the certain issues with respect to the
record so what what we would like to ask uh in conjunction with your request is to um adjourn this to a date certain to next month's meeting um with the understanding that we're extending the FCC shot clock until that date um and one of the other things that we would
like to request is a copy of any documentation regarding the locations of the areas where uh the utility poles are proposed to go underground because you asked us about alternatives and if we knew those locations. I don't think that information is on the record. So, we'd like to know it. So, as part of looking
at alternatives, we could understand where you're proposing to put the utilities on the ground. If you have that information, we would respectfully ask for that. Um and that would be it. and we would just like a date certain on next month's meeting. If we can muster up the opportunity to uh present some alternatives and and come and discuss it
with the committee, we'll avail ourselves of that as well in a collaborative effort. >> So, two comments on that. I I don't know, and Lorraine, correct me if I'm wrong, but I I I'm not going to be the source for this information, but I don't know if we have some like log of where this is going to be proposed. However,
what I would say is we we can certainly liazison ourselves to the city manager's office and you know encourage you and them to discuss that issue and if that information is available they might just have that in the form of an email to you
guys and I would encourage them to share that information with you because it'll be helpful for this discussion. The second thing is um I I appreciate your confirming uh waiver of the shot clock to get to next month's meeting and we
have just to confirm we have >> every Tuesday or >> yeah every Tuesday >> should certainly be within the >> every Tuesday between 9 and 11. >> So if you wanted to come in the interim >> Yeah. That's that's our, you know, if things work out, that's what we would
do. If for some reason um you know, we'd like to be on the next month, so I'd like to have that I'd like to know that date tonight so I could write it down. Um >> May 18th meeting schedule, Lauren, >> hold on. I have it right here. It >> would be May 18th.
>> May 18th. Yep. >> May 18th. Okay, great. >> At 6 p.m. >> So we would table this until May 18th. We'd extend the FCC shot clock. we will attempt to gain information on where the undergrounding is proposed to help us in our alternative analysis. Um, and we'll be back in touch. >> Okay.
>> So, the only comment is if you would like to meet with us on Tuesday morning, all you need to do is contact our secretary and just make an appointment with >> who's great by the way. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So, we need a motion. So, I'll make a motion to table and that
will be until the next meeting and I assume that that does not involve our 45day waiver period because we're simply doing this within 30 days. >> This is under a different timeline anyway, these applications. So, he's he's waving the the federal shock clock >> which what is which is the time period for
>> which is 90 days. So, we're adjourning it till May 18th. >> That's terrific. I'll make make plane a make a plain motion to table until next meeting. >> Do I hear a second? I'll second. So moved by Mr. Tessa, seconded by Mr. Carol. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol,
>> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time and patience with us this evening. >> Thank you. >> And we hope to see you on a Tuesday
morning soon. >> Certainly within the next three Tuesdays. >> By the way, some great places for breakfast in KMA. Just saying. >> Find that out. Where you where you coming down from? >> Philadelphia. >> Ah, okay. Then you know Kate May already a lot. >> Yeah.
>> Hey, I've scrappled too. So you'll be >> Oh, I would say the lunchonet at Lobster House. >> Yeah. Lobster coffee shop. >> Yeah. It's going to be a little bit more. >> Yeah. >> Oh yeah. >> You'll be you'll meet a lot of interesting people there.
>> Or Ocean View or Blue Pig. Yeah. Yeah. >> George. >> Okay. So, next on our agenda, please. Um, Crown Castle Fiber LLC. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Nicholas Mitch, Art Zulich, 240
Windsor Avenue. >> So, did you enjoy those conversations? >> I did, actually. >> Yeah, that's great. >> Yeah. And so, could you please state your name and your role in the project? >> Sure. Um, Nicholas Mitch, owner 240
Winterf T or the floor is yours. >> Okay. Thank you uh for your time this evening. Uh, I'd like to put a spiral staircase in the rear of the property uh connecting the first floor deck to the
second floor deck. >> Pretty straightforward. Okay. Can I uh can I kick in here? >> Please kick it off. Mr. >> Hammer, this was um a project that was reviewed at our small group. Um he came to us. Um you know, we I think felt that it had to come up here uh to the full
commission. Um I I would just add that in the review we were talking about visibility. I mean, that was the key issue was this, you know, visible from the streetscape. Um it's not at all visible from the front of the of the house. It's it's entirely in the back of
it. However, it it sits at a corner of I think it's Congress and Park. Is that >> Park? You see it from >> parking grant. >> Parking Grant. Sorry. They the two streets kind of go like this. The house sits on on this one. >> So, if you turn the corner, there is a window between a couple a couple of
trees where you can actually see it. What I would say, I guess, having driven past it myself just in order to to see whether it was visible or not, it is it's a very narrow window and it's it is I guess the best way I could describe it is if you look if you look to it, it's
kind of a busy area. There's a bunch of shrubs, there's some porches, there's, you know, the two decks in the proposed place. I don't think you would argue that adding the staircase is very obtrusive um because there's so much going on in that window anyway and I
think that was kind of the the assumptions we had at the small group. >> Had this just been in the back we probably would not have brought it before but before the full commission but it is visible from both park and grant so that's why we recommended it come before us.
>> Judy have you any comments or questions? >> Um I don't object to it. Uh what color will it be? >> Uh I'm open to that. Uh black or silver. Uh so that that is a question. So in
your submission it says that it's galvanized. Yeah. >> But there are five places in our standards that say unpainted metal is not appropriate. So >> okay. >> Will you be painting it? >> I Yes. >> Yes. That's a good answer.
>> Well, that's okay because it's going to come. I think I remember when you came in for your decks, right? Did you did the decks a couple years ago? Are they stained? I mean, are they? >> No, >> they're not. They're just natural wood. >> Just natural. >> So, I mean, would you be amendable to painting it some kind of compatible
color that will >> So, you know, it's not red or black. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Jake, >> I agree with Miss Decker. Same thing. I'm concerned about the color.
Uh I think this has two features. Um one, it's necessary to get from one level to the other and the spiral staircase is the only way to do it. Uh and and and and recognizing that there is no place where this is probably not
able to be seen. It is minimally visible given all the other factors involved in it. So um I I think it's acceptable and and I think it ought to be painted. color choice being yours. >> Okay,
>> I'm all for it. Uh, as much as I don't like black on all exteriors, which is getting a little bit popular, uh, when you're putting it on a metal like that, uh, little a little bit of rust that slowly appears, can kind of blend in, uh, which it doesn't do very well with
any lighter color. >> Okay. Um, I agree. But as far as painting, I'm not I don't want you to get a brush out and paint it pow powder coat it. Yeah. Is >> powder coat it. Y that would be best. >> Yeah. Because otherwise you're going to
have scratches and um there are also some really nice surfaces. I just put a spiral staircase in and it actually has the wood uh on the treads >> which is really nice. Um but uh just some alternatives that you can possibly look at to make it more aesthetically
pleasing. Okay, >> that was my only question. The treads. I mean, you probably need a metal for >> No. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, do we want to entertain a motion for
Mr. Mitch? I'll make the motion that the application be approved with a painted a surface or powder coated and the option open to have wood treads. >> So moved by Mr. Carol, seconded by Mr.
Curts. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes.
Hey, you got out of here by 8:30. >> Impressive. >> Well, thanks for the entertainment. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it. >> That's the best free entertainment in town. >> Okay. >> So, we are um
>> at 58 >> at Pagno at 518 Bank Street. This is a demolition application and then a second one for new construction. >> So, we need to go through the demolition one first. >> Okay. >> Um, our solicitor is
recusing himself from these proceedings. >> Okay. Please state your name and your role in the project. >> Uh, Marcelo Mogo. I'm the contract purchaser. Uh, we're seek going to wind up seeking a use variance to for that
parcel. And in doing so, we are going to >> So, with regard to the demolition um which is the first application, >> yeah, >> Mr. Mava, we need we need your testimony that it the demolition complies with the
first seven of those conditions. >> Okay. And Okay. And I was just given the background of why I propose to demo it. So, >> interrupt you. >> Take it. >> Okay. It's not historic. Um, it's current potential use for the purpose current uh
its current potential use for the those purposes currently permitted by the chapter are these proposed. It's important to municipality. I can't speak to that. I mean, it's it's >> you you're going to have to speak to each of those. >> Okay. >> Pieces. Um the structural soundness I'm going to go
backwards what I know fastest if that's easy if that's okay with you. So the structural soundness and integrity of the building um and feasibility for rehab. I've never done a structural assessment but I've been in it and doesn't seem un unsound. So I don't think that's a
problem. uh the impact of its removal upon the historic district. Um I think what I'm proposing is going to be much more amanable to you than what is there now. Um I think the uh retention would not increase the property value. In fact, in
fact, I think it's detracting compared to what I'm going to propose. Um I think the craftsmanship, the extent the I don't think the building's uncommon. I I mean I mean I think it is uncommon in the design, but it's not uncommon in in the likes of the HBC because what I'm going to propose is
going to be pretty much exactly what the whole board wants. >> Yeah. This is a non-contributing building that you're talking about. >> Built in 1988, correct? >> Um it's important to municipality extinguish historical architecture I think is zero. >> I mean it's 88. It's commercial
building. Uh potential use currently permitted by this chapter. It's current potential use for the purpose currently permitted by this chapter. Uh, it's used for office space. Um, I'm not going to use it for office space. I'd like the streetscape of Bank Street and I've I've done a house on Bank Street for a
homeowner. Historical renovation came out beautiful. They obviously came before this board and you guys allowed me allowed them to let me do what I did there. And that's what I'm going to propose. So, in in speaking to the uh the current use, I think the use that
I'm going to propose will um it's I have to tear the building down to make this board more amunable to what I want. Um the cultural aesthetic significance historic I think it has none. I think it is I mean from my viewpoint built in 1988
that makes us all historic. I mean it's it's it's not a historic looking building. It's a commercial looking building. I don't think it has that value. I mean, you would say the the building speaks for itself, correct? It appears. >> Yeah. I don't think there's much
historic value in the appearance of it. Um, especially considering directly across the street, which is residential. Um, all those houses have historical significance and uh aesthetically uh on on and and especially the one I did and a couple of
the other ones I saw um that are closer down towards um um a lanes or I forget the crosssection. >> Get through all seven. >> That's all seven. >> Okay. So, I have a question. >> Okay. >> Do you currently own this property? >> No. >> Okay. So, if we were to approve this
demolition, it would only be under the condition that you gain title to the property as its owner. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Any questions, comments?
>> So, I mean, is this is this under contract for you at this point? So, you just haven't closed on it, >> correct? >> Has it been approved for residential? >> So, no. And that's they they they said that your you have giving your um
blessing would be a much more um suitable application for the >> that's >> well for the for the uh I'm going to need a use variance because it's it's um I think it's C5 going to an R3. >> Yeah. And I'd like to make it replicate
the R3 which is directly across the street. So his his application after the demolition is for conceptual. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And I was they they told me it would be it behooved me to come together, but I had done it I had applied I think a day uh staggered and
that's why it's under two not combined unless that's just how you do it. >> Okay. So do we have a motion for approving demolition under the condition that ownership be retained by >> obtained? Mr. McGo >> obtained >> obtained. Yes. Can't we can't give you
permission to demolish somebody else's property. Correct. Okay. Not yet. >> That's the real point. >> Yeah. >> Do I hear a second? >> I'll second the motion for >> So moved by Mr. Curts, seconded by >> Mr. Ta. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hammeran, >> yes. >> Mr. Curts, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> Mr. Becker, >> yes. >> Motion passes. Now we move on to also 518 Bank Street,
Mecca Investment LLC. >> Is Is that you too? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> The floor is remain. >> Okay. So, uh, as I've said before, uh, I'm I'm under contract to buy the the 518 Bank Street. I call it the Commons. No, haven't grown up here and seen it
that way. Um, I'd like to propose uh a residential use to R3 and to essentially replicate and conform to everything in the R3 zone. I've given some I've given three elevations as suggested by the board to at least get more than one last
time I was here. Um, and the floor plan essentially stays the same inside. Um I I we did I think we did 10 foot ceilings on the first floor and nine on the second which I think add to not that you can see them aesthetically which you folks really govern but I think it'll add to the historical nature of the
building when you do enter the building. Okay. Um I do u I do like the I prefer the ones if I'm going to conform with the ones with the shutters. Um and if if the elevations that don't have shutters uh will fit them, I'd prefer to do that just just to keep with us.
Yes. Yeah. >> A4-3 is slightly different. >> A4-2 is uh >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All three are different. >> Oh, good. All right. All right. They do. Yeah, they do. He did. >> Yeah. All three are different.
>> One, two, and three. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So, they do have they all do all have shutters on the phone. Okay. at least three different styles just so because we had spoken about, you know, I came with one and then we talked about the seven sisters because I'm going to
buy a parcel and probably do, you know, >> we're just we're just proposing to build one house at this time. >> Well, I'm I'm proposing the design of three different houses if if I do if I if I have the option to build one of the three different houses. >> But but you're not talking about picking
one of these and all three would look alike. Well, the floor plan will. >> Yeah, the floor plan. But the ex But the exterior correct treatment one of these. Is that >> Well, if it's going to because I'm as confused now as you >> All right. So, I'm going to clarify
this. >> You are subdividing this property into three separate lots. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, we're at a little we have a little bit of a technical problem here. Okay. >> Because for once it's subdivided, we need a separate application for each of the three lots. Correct.
>> So, what we could do this evening is we could slightly modify this and and approve conceptually for one lot. >> Okay. I understand >> that we can do. Okay. Unfortunately, we can't approve them from all three lots
because that technically that requires three separate applications. Okay. >> And the subdivision hasn't happened yet. >> Okay. >> Right. >> So, >> and I'm sorry to interrupt you, but and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm gonna have to come back here anyway for you. You'll be you'll be seeing us again. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, no question. >> Listen, I'm not a cell tower. I'm good.
>> Great. >> I I'm going to buy one and somebody else is going to buy two and I'm going to I'm going to subdivide it and I'm going to put I I think we're going to I'd like to move into one. The reason I'm buying an LLC is so I have the capability of selling the other one in an entity. >> Okay. So, which of these lots would you like to >> uh
>> 20.02.03 or 004? Uh all the uh probably clo Well, unless you want me to look up the exact one, unless you have it, it's closest to uh the building on the left uh facing Bank Street to Dagmmer's building uh Homestead. Yeah, I can look it up if you want.
>> I don't have the site plan. >> You understand what we're saying, right? >> I do. >> Each one of these a whole separate application. >> Understood. >> Yep. So, so we're going to deal with your choice of buildings on a lot that you choose and talk about it for
conceptual approval. >> Okay. Am I allowed to speak about a specific lot since it's not torn down yet, though? I can't. I'm just asking. >> Yes. Yes, you may. >> Okay. >> So, so here's the issue. Y >> it's not legally defined as a lot yet because you have to subdivide it. But
pick one. >> Okay. Right. >> Fair enough. Yeah. Because I think they have legal descriptions and a lot. I guess it doesn't until the building comes down. It's not defined defined. I'm going to go with um a um sorry, I got my glasses on. >> A2 A42. Sorry.
>> A42. Okay. >> Okay. I'm looking for a site plan that depicts which lot this is. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Oh, no. But that only has two lots instead of three. Okay.
>> So, I'm looking for >> So, which one of these do you So, >> I don't have it in front of me. I'm sorry. I thought it Let me see if I have it in this packet. The >> So, the is that the one to the most easily? >> Yeah, I think they are. >> Yes.
>> Yeah, but this this one is >> Oh, there we go. >> This was in the previous application. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uhhuh. >> So, I think it's this one that you're looking at 2.04. And yes, >> so that would be that would be the >> that would be the southernmost slot. >> The left one. >> The southernmost slot.
>> Yep. >> Great. 041. It looks like 2.04. Okay, great. >> It's like playing Monopolit 2.04. So just to clarify, which I think I do
understand, I can't have conceptual um for the zone. It has to be specific to the lot that house >> specific to the lot. >> Understood. Okay. >> And and the reason for that is because >> each one of these lots will require a specific application because it's tied
to >> That's what Judy said. Okay. Understood. >> I just wanted to point out too. 041 and then 2.042 042 as on these two. >> Got it. So 2.041. Thank you. >> One would be the southernmost. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
>> Get the actual lot numbers from the county >> from the tax assessor. You did. >> That's what whatever's on there was given to me. I think his name's Pat. Is it Patrick? What's his name? The the the gentleman up in He's here. >> I he emailed me >> downstairs.
>> Uh Bruce. >> No. No. No. No. The gentleman in there, >> the tax officer. >> Tax assessor. >> So that tax assessor. That would be >> He's the one who has to give it to me, right? >> Right. >> Generally. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, you're just looking at for feedback on these one of these
>> conceptual approval. >> Well, he's chosen 4.2. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Understood. >> All right. Well, >> comments on >> I'll go first if you don't mind, >> please. >> I I like the simple design of of your houses. I went to look at the one across
the street. This is my least favorite one. >> I know. My Is that the one I chose? >> These are both pretty on the way home. >> Simple Gothic. These are both very simple Gothic Victorian designs. You've
got the little Gothic window and the gable. This is my favorite one because this is the one we have all over Cape May. >> I can't see that one. You're talking about single gable >> with the simple C. It has the cross gable. >> 4.2.
>> No, 4.3. >> Y >> 4.3 is a real typical simple gothic. >> It has the cross. >> Yeah. >> So the only real difference is the d. You don't like the double gable? >> No. No. The double g these are okay, too. This is seen more sort of in
colonial houses. >> Oh, I see. >> You know what she means by crossable? >> Yep. It means that what's facing the street >> actually has both a Gothic gable but the roof is actually sloping towards the main roof actually sloping towards the
street. So it has running parallel to the side g. >> So the ridge runs the ridge runs parallel to the street is what you're like that's that's true. >> This is a very typical design for Cape May. We have >> then I'm going to change my vote to 4.1. >> Yeah, I think that's a good move. Well,
>> I got you a solid a solid move. And can I phone a friend? >> I'm going to call Judy. >> Just call Judy. >> I mean, 4.1's okay. >> I do like that. I see what you're saying with the par the ridge parallel to the street. It makes sense. >> It's a nice simple house. I really like it. We see so many complex designs here.
And >> the vast majority of of our our houses, not our spectacular houses, but simple houses are look like this. >> Yeah. >> But we'd like to see some variety. >> Yeah. little variety, >> you know, just because one seems to be
Judy's favorite. >> Yeah. I don't want to do the seven sisters. I don't Yeah, they don't all have to be a little goddish. There could be some Italianade or a little bit of mission. And you know, >> well, what I I'm sorry to interrupt you, Tom, but what I planned on doing, and I don't know if we going hypotheticals
here, I had met with with Kevin and John preliminarily a while back, and >> I'm not really going to ask you for anything more than your input. Like, you know, like what I mean by that is a heavy lift. I'm not here to to to be obtrusive. Like I live here. I grew up here. I want to build what I what I what
I'm going to build that meets the what you want. I'm probably I I'm going to give you the materials. I'm going to give you you know if the design to me >> Yeah. >> it doesn't matter which way the ridge goes. Like you know my wife might have a say in it, but right now she doesn't. So with that said, when if if when I build
another one, I want to build what you guys want. I'm not I'm not here to ask for anything that you're not going to like. So many >> and I think the advice we gave him at um at the small group is really just try to tie it in with the other other houses that are on Bank Street. That's your
streetscape. You want to try to, you know, make it look like >> I had done an AI representation of what that streetscape looks like with the houses on the left and house. It's it's it's unbelievable. You wouldn't even know it was Bank Street. >> Are they going to be in color or they
just ced? Um, well, I mean, we can get cedar in color, so I think that's I think that's I don't think it matters. Uh, as far when I say it doesn't matter. >> If you have three or four new and you're all
>> I personally don't I know I know, like I said, having grown up here, I've seen and you're I'm glad you brought that up, Yogi, because I don't like when I do a house for a homeowner because I own a construction company. When I put the cedar on and it's nice and like yellow cedar, it's beautiful. I don't really like when it gets brown. I know that's
part of Kate May, >> but I don't like it. I did a house a while back on Kierney Street. It was like a It was like a a greenish. Not that I need that color, but all I'm saying is the color really brought out the Kate May in the house. So, I'm absolutely fine with putting color on.
That's a great idea. >> Think >> I have no It's a great idea. I mean, >> it's just to make the neighborhood. I mean, you're making your own little neighborhood. >> Yeah. Yeah. No. >> No. That's a good idea. I because I wouldn't want seven brown house or six, five, two, three, whatever brown houses.
That's a good idea. >> There are some uh historic houses in town like the seven sisters and gurnie gurnie street that are unique because they're identical in Victorian and they've stayed that way. >> But down near the the fisherman's
memorial, a whole new row of houses have gone in re recently that are all lookalike, same plan. It just looks like a cheap development. I see. You couldn't even you couldn't even vary anything to >> So you're saying if you're if you're not going to make them identical, make give it
>> make it different at the same >> which only benefits me to do anyway. So I wouldn't want to buy a house with one right next to it that's identical. >> Then you don't have your own cave house. You have next door's house. I agree with you Tom. those houses. >> It's a shame because they're beautiful
inside, but when you ride, >> it's to total cookie cutter blocks. >> They army barracks. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Historic district, so we didn't have any say. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, >> we're out there for Yeah, it wasn't me for for purposes. >> I'm not mentioning any addresses here.
>> For purposes of of of what you what you're moving ahead with, um, I just wanted to comment on your material sheet. you you have a lot of good stuff that's going in and this is of course is new construction. You're not constrained to the contributing list we have, but a
lot of the things you're using here are great. >> What I wanted to ask you, I'm glad you brought that up and I apologize for interrupting. Can >> can I just finish for a second though? >> You can. I have a >> So, so as you get to the bottom of your materials list, you keep making references over to things that we would approve and I would just say finish the
bottom of your material sheet the way you start at the top, which is which is tell us exactly what it is you propose to use and when you get around to it, give us a cut sheet that references from the material sheet to the cut sheet. Yeah. Okay. And because the sort of per site plan approval doesn't do anything
for us, right? It's got to it's got to say what it is you're you're attemp material you're attempting to use, >> which comes full circle to you anyway. You have to you I have to give you what you want. >> No, no, no. But don't don't tell us you're going to give us what we want. Give us something and let us >> Well, for the final submission.
>> Oh, for the Absolutely. 100%. Yeah. Yeah. No. So, that's that's one point. And the other the other thing I wanted to say is having chosen >> I won't call it Judy's house, but having chosen a a house, >> I might name it Judy. Having chosen a house wants >> to buy one.
>> I I I I agree that this is the best of your three >> designs. It also >> I didn't have my glasses on when I picked it. >> It also looks like something that wasn't done in on a CAD cam exercise because it's simple enough. >> Yeah. >> And and so I I would I would not change
um in terms of commenting the on the facade and the look of the house. I I think it has it has good proportions. It it looks like a a really fine approach for a modern smaller house. >> Thank you. >> And we also love to see these kind of rendition.
>> I can Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. >> Yeah. I just want to spend that much money and maybe get an O. >> I'm just kidding. I'll get it for you. >> So, I agree. The um the the modest cottage >> Yeah. >> that Judy has selected. Oh, 4.1's close second with >> Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um,
>> even the third one, we have a model, >> right? >> It's right over there. >> Yeah. Yep. >> So, um, I am not hearing any objections. So, I would love to entertain a motion to approve this conceptually for the southernmost lot using the elevation on
drawing A4.3. >> Yes, I need to make that motion. >> Do I have a question first? >> 4.3 or four? >> You are I know you pro >> 4.3 this one. >> Oh, okay. Um, I you I think you answered this twice already, but you can't
approve HPC for the area for the whole what I'm going to do because you you I'd have to bring seven applications, correct? So, when I go before the board for the zoning, >> my lawyer's going to have to explain that obviously. Well, I don't know who the lawyer is going to be, but whoever it's going to be is going to understand that we're going to have to come before
you at least twice after that anyway. >> For all three lots. Yes. >> For your final. >> Correct. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. >> Right. Yep. So I I would I would suggest that it's highly likely that since this particular conceptual approval applies
to 4 >> three >> 041 that doing a similar home on 2.0 42 and 2.043 would also likely be >> approved. Understood. All right. Thank
you. where where there is an alternative and that is >> get your conceptual approval. >> You can do that. >> Get your planning board approval, subdivide, delineate your lots, come to us for final with the first one we've given you conceptual on and provided
that you haven't deviated a great deal, you might try for final on all three. >> Yeah, perfect. Great idea. >> Okay, that would probably be your best >> expeditious. Okay. And originally you said you were going going to ultimately go for five. >> Well, so what what's there? What I
>> want to make God laugh? Tell me your plans, right? That's so so my plan is I'm going to buy one, subdivide it. I'd like to move into one and sell one. I am I'm a real estate developer and a builder. The other two are going to be purchased by someone else and do the same thing. But >> so I don't know if he's three lots developed out of that. >> Correct.
>> Yeah. And and and what I said to you probably makes sense if you're doing them in close order of time. Obviously, it's it's stretched out. No, it makes sense. >> You're not going to have that advantage. Like would it make more like would it make sense to have each three all three of them the same design or the
>> vary them? It was saying that we want to be different. >> Yes, exactly. Okay. >> So, I'm going to get seven full construction sets of drawings with very different but equally as amanable to what you want houses. >> Well, no, you're going to get three. >> I said seven. I don't know why I said seven. Cuz you stuck on the seven
sisters. >> Yeah. So, three. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So I will move >> throwing it in there >> for conceptual approval of this project on the southernmost lot with um that would be 2.041 using the elevation depicted on drawing
4.3. Do I hear a second? >> Was it three or two? >> 4.3. >> Okay. >> So moved by Mr. Becker, seconded by Miss Decker. Roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker,
>> yes. Mr. Hamaran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curts. >> Double. >> Mr. Ta. >> Yes. No. It was >> Mr. Becker. >> Yes. >> 4.1. Not 4.3. >> Thank you. >> No. 4.3. >> 4.3 is the conceptual approval. I thought she wanted I thought it was 4.1. >> 4.3. >> Fair enough. >> Yep.
>> Okay. So, folks, if you could please >> before you leave, >> not me. >> No, you're everybody else. So guys, before you leave, if you could take your u uh application for the Shell Cottage and for Okconor and put them up here
someplace. >> Oh, here are the steps. That way we can reuse them for next month. >> What about all these these cell tower things? Do you think those are going to come back? >> Uh I suspect I would hold on to them, but I suspect that they're going to change.
>> Yeah, they're going to change. significant amount. Yes. >> On the cell tower. >> Yeah. >> Those different poles, lights, whatever that you have. >> Are they standing up? Are they totally against that? I mean,
>> they didn't say one way or the other >> because that's the only thing that's actually I don't know. >> Well, that was the point of that whole discussion. We'll see what they come back to us. >> Wait for them to say, "Well, this is what we're going to do. We have to say we don't want to poll. We want we want
to look like >> Well, you you've seen the standards. We have the ability to judge it relative to our standards. It will require a vote, rational vote by us, but Yogi, I don't think that they would be coming back if they proposed to stick where they were.
>> Right. >> Okay. So folks, um, seeing that there's nobody in the audience for public comment, it appears as if we have none, I only have one item for discussion, and it really is an item that I'm asking both Judy and Lorraine about. If you
could just give us a brief update on the historic preservation awards. >> Well, it would be Jake because I wasn't I wasn't at the last meeting. >> Great. Please. Um so the one thing that we uh we decided on
um to call it uh as far as the leadership uh awards um Carolyn Pittz was just such an instrumental part of the um the national historic landmark. Um she did so much research and what we wanted to do is call it the Carolyn
Pitts Leadership Award. That was one thing. Um hopefully nobody has any objections. That was what we came up with at the committee. Uh we're okay with that. >> Could you be pretty pretty hard to get a more significant name to
>> I can't I I I think it's wonderful. No, >> the name >> Carolyn Pitts. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> the Yogi Curts. >> No, sorry. Yeah. >> Um Jake, are we even mentioning who
receives leadership? And I think we don't. I think >> No. >> Yeah. Yeah. No. >> Great. >> Right. >> And we have a an amazing event scheduled for >> the 13th. It's Wednesday, not a Tuesday
>> of May. >> Yes. >> And um we uh Jake and I already spent time over at the shelf. We have the you know all of the banners uh an idea exactly where they're going to be within the um within the Magnolia room. Um,
we're going to go and meet with uh Ella again, you know, in another week or two and go over the AC, you know, the the different accommodations and and what what they're going to have there. Um, we have a violinist that's going to be playing.
>> Yay. >> Um, for the reception to follow. I've spoken to all of the presenters and thank you John for your suggestion because she has agreed >> Janice. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. >> So, >> yeah. >> Yes. >> I I Yeah. I I honestly think and and I heard only back from a few um I think we
might have upwards of 100 to 150. Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Beautiful. This is fabulous. Yes. >> Oh, yeah. >> The press. Uh >> the other thing I was thinking of is
having um the uh there there's a there's a book that comes out every uh month for um elected officials and I'm thinking of getting them possibly to come down and do a feature. >> Be great. So, uh, yeah, exit zero. But
that's going to be the that's going to be the crux of our next meeting is the outreach. >> What's the entire business event? >> You're ready for >> business. >> Business casual, right? >> It's kind of a business casual. >> I think a dinner jacket would be great.
>> Bring your bathing suit. Yeah. >> So, um, just a reminder that we'll be having a >> getting an award. That'd be great. skipped off that. >> And guys, just a reminder that we're going to be having a pregame at my house >> from 5:30 to 6:30. Most of you have responded. I'll I'll contact you each
individually who has not yet. But >> and I are looking forward to having you, >> huh? >> 120. I told everyone. >> Yogi, >> first come first served. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other comments or questions, folks? >> Yeah. think perhaps it' be a good idea
for the chairman to update us on some timing with respect to the Jacob Jones. Um >> Oh yes. So I wanted to present that to all of you this evening. Now all of you have seen it I believe. >> Yes. >> Um I wanted to present it this evening
but realizing that we actually before earlier this week we had 17 applications. So, I volunteered to remove Jacob Jones to shorten this. Then we had three others that dropped off after that. Correct. >> At least two
>> or two. >> Right. >> So, um I will be presenting that hopefully at our next meeting >> and we'll also be presenting it to city council on um at the city council meeting on May 20. >> May 19th. May 19th. Yeah. Yeah. Yep.
because next this next city council meeting they're going to be wrapped up with the annual budget and the one after that something else of great important. >> So it's it's HPC on the 18th, city council on the 19th. >> Did I get that right? >> That sense >> HPC. Yes. >> Yes, that's okay. Just wanted to get the
two dates. >> Thank you. Good. >> Any other comments or questions, folks? >> Just about the annual conference. >> Oh yes. Um annual conference folks um is June 17th and 18th in Morristown, the New Jersey Historic Preservation
Conference, you know, the annual one that they have every year. And u uh we will be presenting so Stephen Smolen, myself, and one other person, we'll be presenting two different
um new historic preservation design standards. Mhm. >> So that other folks through this throughout the state can ask questions about how did you go what was the process you used and Stephen will be moderating that. Judy decided she didn't want to
>> moderator but I agreed to participate. >> Okay. >> He's going to municipality. So >> he is >> correct. So we'll be presenting at 2:30 I believe on uh June 18th. So, by the way, it's a really great conference and there's going to be there's going to be
one session on uh the morning of the 18th that I think would be really valuable and that's a flood mitigation session. >> Have you seen? >> Yeah, it's on they're now on the website. >> Remember that the HPC budget covers this if anyone wants to go not overnight but definitely
>> you mean you mean the entrance fee and some mileage thing, right? I mean, >> yeah. >> A mileage allowance. You submit your mileage on Google. >> And you did say Morris Town in Morris County. >> Morris town. Yes. >> Morristown, New Jersey. >> Morristown, New Jersey. Yep.
>> By then, mileage would be $5 a month. it will help learn tremendously if you let her know who's going every >> So I'll send out a a reminder about this and give you guys a deadline by which
you should register so that Lauren can make the >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Any other questions or comments before we um move to adjourn? I >> think we're good for adjournment. >> So penguins
I didn't hear I didn't hear I hear a motion to adjurnn. >> I didn't hear a journment yet public hearing on the Jacob Jones. >> I'm sorry. >> You did a really good job at the on the public. >> Thank you. >> Meeting adjourned. How you doing?