time since compiance with the the open um public meetings act of 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. And if any member here has reason to believe the meeting is being held in violation of the act, they should state so at this
time. >> Okay. Hearing none, uh, I'd ask you to all join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Our first order of business is to establish a roll call. So, if the secretary please read the role. >> Mr. Becker is excused tonight. Uh, Mr. Ta
>> here. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Miss Bilson Strick, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson, >> Miss Decker, >> here. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> And Mr. Curts is also excused tonight.
>> All right. So, roll call has been made. We've established that we have a quorum and we're open for business. Uh the first item on our agenda is the um approval of the minutes from the meeting of January 12th. And those were circulated uh prior to the meeting and I think everybody's had time to review
them. But um uh if there are any corrections, you should offer them, but I'd like to entertain a motion to accept the minutes of January 12th, please. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. Moved by Miss Pagno and seconded by Miss Carol. Roll call vote on the on the minutes,
please. Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Sturdik, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevenson. Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hamaran, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> All right. Uh the uh the minutes have
been dually adopted. Our next item of business on the agenda is the payment of bills. There is uh one item that was in your packet and that concerns the approval of the proposed payment of bill for legal services. Uh and so um I would
ask for a motion for the payment of that bill, please. >> So moved. >> Sounded like a tie to me, but we'll say we'll say be moving and and Kevin seconding the motion. Okay. Roll call vote on the payment of bills, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes.
>> Miss Pagno, >> yes. Miss Wilson Shurik, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. >> The next item is resolutions and these are the resolutions that result from our
actions at the prior meeting and I am going to read them uh individually, but we'll vote on them as a group. So the resolutions that are going to be up for adoption concern soal um that is block
1014 lot 1301 resolution 202602 Swain's hardware uh block 1040 lot 2.01 01 resolution 2026-3 SA Properties LLC at block 1026 lot 602
and 7 resolution 202604 CER uh block 1131 lot 1 resolution 202605 and Local Stockton LLC which is block 11 uh 1064 lot 17 and that being resolution
2026. So, a motion, please, for the adoption and voting on those resolutions. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. So, that's Miss Decker on the motion and Mr. Carol on the second. >> Can we have a uh a vote, please?
>> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagnum, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Shurik, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Ta, >> yes. Next item of business before we get on to the new applications are
the passing on the applications that are approved or denied in review by the review committee. And I'm not going to read all of them. You can see them all. You've all had a chance to look at them and look at the actions of the review committee. So, I'm going to simply um
ask for a um um a motion to approve or ratify the actions of the review committee with respect to those applications. >> So, moved >> and a second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Moved by um Janice and uh and
seconded by Tom. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. Mr. Mr. Hammer. >> Yes, >> Mr. Ta. >> Yes. That finishes up our summary material and we move into our
applications. So, new applications and uh on the docket. So, first up will be um an application submitted by city of Kate May and West Kate May. Uh, and this relates to um the First Avenue municipal
right of way, which is um uh the subject of a of a of a sought uh pedestrian and bicycle bridge. I' I'd note for the for for those here that um a local newspaper reported that we would get to this application on November 9th, but
we've managed to beat that deadline by nine months. >> Yes. >> So, I think we're I think we're ahead of the curve for that. Would the applicants please identify themselves? >> Uh Paul Dietrich, city manager and city engineer for Kate May city >> and Anthony Chadwolf from Remington and Vernick, Burough Engineer for West Kate
May. >> Thanks guys. Would you please present the application? Oh, I should say one more thing. Since this is a municipal application and you you know that we're normally here and we we pass on um applications for whether or not they get issued with a certificate of
appropriateness. Our ordinances specify that in the case of applications by the municipality, we are um doing this for purposes of rendering an advisory report on the application, but you know that. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Uh so what we're here this evening for
is a joint application obviously between Kate May City and West Kate May. Probably this is probably our first application at least that I've had to present to where we've had a joint municipality. Obviously don't really this isn't really having the jurisdiction for the the north side
of uh Cape Island Creek, but this is for a pedestrian bicycle bridge across Cape Island Creek um on uh 1 Avenue and as it would extend I guess into West and it would land over on West Grant side and um uh West Cape May. Uh this is to
improve bicycle and pedestrian safety as we would move back and forth on uh across that area. Uh this uh concept um has been reviewed both at the uh council uh here in KA city has been reviewed at
West Kate May at several public meetings of both municipalities as well as uh the city's bicycle and pedestrian uh advisory committee. Um and all have gotten favorable uh com uh comments from all those words. Obviously from the public there's been there's pros and
cons I think that you'll see on both sides from the public comment. Um what we're proposing is essentially it's a 10- foot wide uh single span bridge uh that will span and then there'll be approach spans uh on
the Kate May city side most likely. Initially, it was going to be a paved cartway up to the bridge. Uh, but it now is looking like just because of some of there's some unstable soils that there'll be paved for a small portion, but then have to be maybe a um a
boardwalk at grade. So, it's not really boardwalk, but it'll be a timber boardwalk grade similar to the boards that you would have saw around uh convention hall um that a you know, the tropical hardwood. um that tropical hardwood obviously will then continue as
a surface across the bridge. Um the bridge material itself um it's a arch bridge. Now the arch is more defining of the style of the construction of the superructure itself. Not in the extense that it's a you know what most people
can think of an arch bridge. It has a big swooping arch to it underneath of it. But the camber in the bridge really there's only going to be about eight to 10 inches of rise I'll say from where it leaves the ground reaches its highest point and
then comes back to ground. So from an arch standpoint it's really defining the type of the structure not that it's really creating that much of an arch so to speak in its form. You you'll see more of the arch of the form of the the actual structure. this the structure
itself. If you look at uh the one, two, three, the fourth page in the packet that was submitted, uh that's that's a typical rendering of what the uh um bridge will look like.
It's a weathering steel um type of a construction and like I said, it'll have a timber uh tropical hardwood uh decking. Uh, it's not to propose to have any amenities along the bridge. There's not going to
be benches or overlook areas or anything like that. It's a simple bridge to move people and bicycles from one side to the other. It's not meant to be a place to hang out, fish, or do those kinds of things. It's just just really for the
movement of people back and forth. Um, trying to hit. There will be two-way traffic on the bridge. It does meet the design standards under the DOT for two-way traffic and mixed traffic. So, bicycles and pedestrians to move in both
directions. Uh, this the width of this 10 foot wide does meet those requirements. Um, from a historical standpoint, you know, we're in an area city that I do not believe there's any key or
contributing structures on that block. Uh so it's all really in a non-contributing neighborhood so to speak and really we're here you know it's really the structure really is outside of the district to the extent that it's you know crossing from the one
side of the outside of the city. So it's it's not really within the district per se but because it's within the national historic district we're here. I think I hit all of the major points. I don't know. I think I hit everything
right. >> Anything else to add to that? >> Uh, no. Other than this is conceptual and we still need to go for NDP permitting. So, um, I don't believe the style will change, but it might get shifted by a couple degrees or feet. I >> I think we're probably just going to be
rendering an advisory report. So, we don't we're not going to distinguish between our normal conceptual final approval. So what what you get here tonight is it with respect to the advisory report. But any so nothing else from West Cape May that you need to or
want to add to the presentation from Kate May city? >> Nope. Uh Paul pretty much covered all the design elements and you know the width and length of the bridge and two-way traffic. Um >> yeah pretty much covered it. >> Two-way traffic to for bicycles bicycles and pedestrians. There will be
>> what's the stand with respect to other vehicles like >> low speed vehicles >> will not be allowed and we'll put um barriers to entry like a ballard removable ballards on either side to dissuade or disallow uh anybody from approaching the bridge. >> So I I'd like to open it up to the
commission and just go around um and and and have comments and questions from them uh before we take any further action. So Kevin, can we start with you? >> What's the lighting plan? So, at this point, we don't have a specific lighting plan. Uh, there I would
anticipate at the ends at the street ends, there could possibly be a street light at those locations. Um, there's no planned I'll say overhead lighting across the bridge. Um, I mean the towns could look in the future to maybe put
some LED lighting on the maybe the bottom cord of the, you know, just to maybe throw a little bit of light onto the deck surface so that, you know, you can see um as you might walk or bike across it. But there's no there's no intention for
overhead light um or a standard especially because along that viewshed, it's not something we want to put lighting up in the air. Well, it seems to me, you know, you'd want some kind of lighting at the ends just for directional purposes. If the objective is to get bicyclists and pedestrians off the street, you got to be able to find
it. So, you know, to me it would make some logical sense to have some kind of an entry and exit exiting lighting. And, you know, given the span from one end to the other, I probably would say it be makes some sense to put some lighting on the on the uh bridge facing downwards.
you know, not if if we're serious about the dark sky initiative. You don't want light going in all directions, you know, bothering the neighbors, you know, going up into the sky. It's just something to, you know, ensure their footing is okay. I think one of the problems we have here in Cape May as it is is, you know, pedestrians go down some pretty dark
streets at night. So, um, it'd be nice to have some kind of lighting that's just, you know, for their own safety, basically. >> Get your cell phone. >> Get your cell phone. >> I'm sorry. I just hear you say get yourself >> have that in mind. >> All right. Well, that's an interesting
observation. B, would you like to >> I have no no problems with it. My My concern is also safety. It's got to be well illuminated. >> And you want to press maybe your button on your mic. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> I have no problems with it other than
safety. It's got to be well illuminated for the safety of everyone and for consideration of the people around. >> It looks like a good plan and I agree the safety is probably the only real concern. >> Y and Lorraine, I'll start with you
coming in this way. >> I've seen this plan I think three times now and uh I think it's a great plan um great plan for safety to get people off the street. Um, but also as you were talking about and we discussed a little bit before about the um the lighting,
the down lights. So, >> I I knew your comments would be short. >> That's it. That's all I have. I would like to know a little bit more about signage on West Cape May and Cape May that would help bikes on any route
what they are to steer him into this to avoid the uh Sunset Boulevard and also Broad Street. So once this bridge is completed, obviously we'll be amending, you know, from the Kimmy City side our
bike our bike route >> uh mapping and different things to kind of encourage people to make sure that they're using these routes, especially when the county constructs their the new path along Sunset Boulevard. I think that's gonna really make this bridge
really important to have um because then you're gonna get a lot of visitors I think and and people from Kimmy City wanting to go over towards Kimmy Point towards uh you know that that area. Um so this is going to make it much more
easy to to to navigate that area instead of trying to go down Broadway. So, um, we'll probably have besides amending our overall plan, we'll have, uh, little the markings on the street for share of the road >> and stuff like that. You know, as you
would go from down First Avenue from the end all the way down to Beach to connect into the similar striping that you see along Beach Avenue. >> So, this is going to tie into a road improvement for Sunset Boulevard done by the county. >> Yes. So, the counties, if you haven't
heard, along, I guess it'd be the southerntherly side, um, essentially the Nature Conservancy side, they're building an off-road path. U, a lot of it's going to be a a walkway, an elevated walkway along the entire
stretch of Sunset Boulevard. >> Okay. So, this feeds into that. >> Yes. >> And that'll also be a two two lane to two-way thing. Yes. >> So, we really get everything off there. Yep. >> So, we're really keeping people away from the worst uh intersection in town,
Broad and Sunset Boulevard. >> Yes. That's where we that's where we really don't want them biking. Yes. >> Thanks, Paul. >> Yep. >> And I'll piggy back off Paul's comments uh on Westg Cape May side from East Grant all the way to Sunset along first.
Um, we have approval from DOT, uh, as part of a municipal aid project to include some bicycle improvements and sherros and signage from Westgate May side of the bridge all the way to Sunset. So, we'll be way ahead of the game when Sunset is complete. We'll already have all of our bike path
established. >> Okay, >> Miss Decker. >> Um, I'd like to applaud both municipalities for cooperating. I'm a strong supporter of pedestrian um, trails. I worked on a big tri municipal
trail plan in the past as Paul knows. I think this is great um for safety. It's just going to be a wonderful thing. And I just have a question about the color of the bridge because you have three depictions here. >> So it'll be that that that top one that's a weathered it's a brown it's a
weathered steel. Um that's what the appearance will look. Um also if you look at the last the last page that's more like what it would look like today. Wonderful. Thank you very much. >> Well, it falls on
>> I'm sorry, >> one last question. Um, just have you have the two cities worked out a maintenance plan for upkeep and repair and for >> that would until we get to the final what the plan with the bridge is actually going to be and and finally be then we'll sit down and discuss those
issues. >> Okay. But you would you would have some sort of agreement between the two municipalities as to >> Yes. I you're not going to stop halfway across the bridge to do it. It's incumbent on me to put in my my few comments on it. Um I should say that the
municipalities brought this in front of the review committee um for discussion and uh and several other parameters were gone over and it's uh what to be said about it. It's a very thoughtful design. It's it's attractive. things that were made in terms of where the railings
would be located, how they would be shaped have all been taken into account. Uh so so this one really comes across very very well. Um I I will say that um if if we do have a favorable advisory report, um some of the things for
example uh such as the lighting we've talked about, such as talking about signage probably would be addressed in comments as part of the advisory report to you. So um would anybody care to make a motion with respect to this project? >> I'll make a motion.
>> So motion is made for the issuance of a favorable advisory opinion uh on this project. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Made by Miss Decker, seconded uh by Miss Wilson Strick. Roll call vote on the uh proposal, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes.
>> Miss Bagno, >> yes. >> Miss Wilson Strick, >> yes. >> Miss Decker, >> yes. >> Mr. Hammer, >> yes. >> Mr. Tessa. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> It's done. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Favorable but advisory opinion to be issued. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh let's move on to the next application if we could please. Uh that is Kramer of 1232 Lafayette Street and it it is a non-contributing property and it relates to the um installation of solar panels. So, could we have the
applicant here? >> I'm sorry. Are you going to present the application? authority to do this. >> Did we uh get an email from the property owner for this? >> I believe so. >> Okay. So, we did.
>> I believe so. Yes. >> I I think we understand that you've been authorized. So, would you come make presentation? Thank you. Whenever whenever um owners and others aren't present, we try to close the loop to be sure that the person sitting there making the application is authorized to
do it. And sounds like you are. So would you would you please go ahead? >> Can we get your name for the record? >> Kelly Wilson. >> Okay. >> Kelly Kelly Wilson. >> And you're from EMT Renewables. >> Okay.
>> Well, um, is is there anything you'd like to say other than the papers that were submitted? >> I've never done this before, so I don't. >> Oh, okay. So So the way this works is this is a full hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. And what what you're here for is the issuance of a
certificate of appropriateness, which is what entitles you to go ahead with project among any other city approvals. And you've submitted, you being you, I guess, and the owners have uh have submitted um a um an application and it
it it shows what you intend to do, what you intend to install, where you intend to install it. So that is what we're here to pass on. It may correct. You're absolutely right. >> Right. Well, well, the this is a this is a non-contributing property and and the
and the the the the view that is generally taken by by us is that uh there absolutely can't be a visible presence of the panels seen from the main streetscape and depending on the back of the block also from other public
rights of way. Uh, and I'm I guess I I should ask if anybody has further questions about this and looked at the looked at the presentation and I do >> start off with you. >> The the property uh the back of the house is a dormer, I believe, right? A
large dormer spans the width of the house. >> There's there are three dormers on the front of the house. >> That's the That's I believe that's the that's the Lafayette Street side. Yeah. Yeah. Uh yeah. On the on the other side of the house, the back side of the house where the panels would go, I believe
there's a dormer there, a wide dormer. And if you are on Washington Street between 1233 and 1237, there is essentially a lot. It's either split or it's owned by one of those two houses. I don't know which. Um but this is plainly
visible from Washington Street looking at the house. And that's that's a problem with our our standards. So I didn't know if you had any thoughts about that or had a a way of you know further concealing it. But it's it is it
is not just the street view of the property. It is all the surrounding public thorough affairs as well. >> Can you turn your mic on, please? >> Yeah, that would help. >> Kevin, do you have a microphone? >> I do and it's on. Oh, >> okay. It matches your shirt.
>> Yeah. So any anyway, I I I took the time to to look at if you um if you get on Google Maps and you pull up 1233 Washington or 1237 Washington, you'll see this lot that's kind of between the two properties and looking through
there, you're looking onto the back of this of the the house in question and it is it is plainly visible. So >> yeah, I I don't know if there are any other points to be to be made unless >> I think I think the point is that It would be understandable if you
thought it's not visible from Lafayette, which is the street it's facing, and it wouldn't be, but unfortunately, Washington Street is an important street as well. And I drove over there. It's it's very visible from Washington Street. So, our design guidelines talk
about the streetscape from both sides. And from Washington Street, you would be able to see the solar panels. They took a picture of it. Um, which would not really meet our
standards. >> Okay. So is there >> anybody else want to chime in here for for additional >> I would like to say we've had to turn an awful lot of these down but we also are following things going on in the solar panel industry and there's many attempts
to make things look like they an existing roof or just a new roof that can blend right in uh to get solar in without having the visual destruction. So, I think if we're not able to pass this tonight, if the homeowner waits a
little bit and keeps their eye on the market out there, I really think you're going to see things that we would be able to do that would blend in with a roofing surface and have the solar energy uh applied with it as well. Uh I'm very hopeful along that line from the things that I'm seeing and reading.
Unfortunately, there's nothing like that available right here now. >> Same thing. Yeah. I this this is one of those situations where had there been a large structure on Washington Street blocking the view over
to Lafayette, one might think that that back end is is appropriate for for a location of solar panels. A and you've and you've successfully shown that nothing can be seen from Lafayette.
Unfortunately, with that open lot, the streetscape view from Washington has a direct view of the back of the house. >> So, so that is that is something we just can't approve on under those circumstances. And and uh and while I'm
hopeful you'll have the opportunity to have a redesign, maybe somebody will build something there, but under these circumstances, those panels cannot be put on the on on the back side of the house simply because they would be visible clearly from Washington. And I don't know procedurally if you
would like to offer this for a a vote or whether the application might be withdrawn. >> Based on what I'm hearing and I just this is a kind of a general question for the board because in certain cases we've recognized that there is visibility from another vantage point public rightway
and maybe considered is it worth the applicant retooling the application maybe look at alternative places on a roof. Given this arrangement and the fact that there's a clear a clear shot pretty much from Washington, there's probably not going to be an opportunity
for retooling here unless something really substantially changes like material new materials come out or maybe there's some structure that comes up and blocks that that back portion. So, am I hearing that correctly? I think I think the physical nature of the way the
property is arranged is such that you either see it from Lafayette or you see it from Washington. That's right. >> With that open and there's nothing else that you can go left or right or sideways to put panels as as I understand it of any significance. >> So the reason I say that is for Mr.
Wilson, his client is not here, but he's been authorized to present this. The question you may get is, well, did you ask them this or this or that? They they thought about, is there another way to retool this now? And without any substantial changes to the vantage point from Washington Street, the answer to
that is probably no. So that and it might be cleaner for you rather than requesting to table this that you just ask the board to vote and then you get a clean decision from the board to take back to your client. >> Yeah, that that is okay. >> Okay. All right. Well, then let's go to
a motion on it >> uh to >> it'll be a motion motion and the affirmative and then you >> motion to approve >> and then a vote however you like. >> I will make a motion that the application be approved. I'll second it.
>> Motion made by Mr. Carol, second by Miss Wilson Strick. Straight Wilson. Um, okay. So, let's let's have a vote on the uh on the application's approval. >> Mr. Carol, >> no. >> Miss Vagnum, >> no. >> Miss Wilson, >> no. >> Mr. Stevenson,
>> Miss Decker, >> no. >> Mr. Hammer, >> no. >> Mr. Ta, >> no. So, one thing we should tell you, we have a review committee that meets on Tuesday mornings. It's very educational. So, if you're going to be doing a lot of business in Kate May, it would probably
be a great idea for you to come in and talk to our chair, John, and Jim, you're on it, too. >> And and Kevin sits on it. It it alternates. We have had other solar panel applicants come in, get the bad news that they can't put them on and
then work to find a way to, you know, fit them within the standards. >> Okay. >> Um, so >> so you have you have essentially a denial of your application. >> Yeah, I understand that. >> And and and not because it was
illprepared and not well presented um and and not because it has bad equipment or anything. It's just the position of the house >> and and its location so that it's visible from two major streets. >> That lot is one of the few left on Washington Street. I grew up like three
houses down from that and it has been empty for a long time. Um but I myself I'm waiting for what Mr. Carol says when the tiles look more like a roof >> and then I I may use them in my own home. But that lot has just always been
empty. I don't know that it's going to be sold or or filled very quickly at all. >> Okay, understand. >> Thank you for your for your attendance. >> Thank you for your time. >> I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All right, let's move on to the next
application which is the Bray family partnership with 720 Washington Street. This is a key contributing structure and the application relates to off- streetet parking. I'll I'll also mention that for the further applications here um we we are going to
before we go to votes on them open the applications for comments from the public should there be anybody here wishes to comment. >> So Mr. Chair can I just ask a question have these applicants been before the review committee for any discussion?
>> No >> no to the best of my knowledge no Kevin would know. >> Okay. So once you've uh got things set up and are seated, if you would please just turn on your mics and state your names and relationship to the project.
>> Green light. >> Green light. >> Green light. It's it's the better one. >> Um I'm Barbara Wild and this is my daughter Hamilton. >> Good evening. And actually I restored this southern
mansion when I was in my 20s and it was dilapitated and we and did everything from handm milling the siding and did everything. >> Excuse me. Before you do go into the presentation, could we have identification of the other people here too? >> Sure.
>> I'm Brian Newswanger with Atlantis Architects. Sorry. There we go. Brian Newswanger with Atlantis Architects >> and Paul Kates with Kate Schneider Engineering, the uh project engineer. >> Thank you. Please. >> I'm sorry.
>> You you were I I interrupted you as you were beginning to give us some background, I believe. >> Okay. Um basically, I am the steward of this property. And when you're dealing with a property that's this special, and I think Tom Carol is probably more
familiar with it than anybody here, you're a steward. You're passing it on to the next generation. And from the very beginning, our whole idea was to restore it impeccably, which we have done. and everything we're looking at.
And I I know there's some concern about parking there, but please understand that 14 of these grass pavers have been there for over 30 years. You cannot even see them. And I will make sure that you cannot see
that within six months. And I am very concerned. If you have a concern, I want to hear it. I want to address it. in that area for that period of time. >> I'm I'm sorry. So, you're pointing out that there are pavers on site now.
>> 14 of them have been the >> drivable grass area. >> Yeah, you can't see them. The grass grows in them. You cannot see. I can take you over there. We can show them. And actually, um I actually thought your engineer was somebody Craig Hurles. He
is the city engineer. >> He was the one who gave me the CO, >> excuse me. He's an engineer to to the board planning. >> He gave me my CO. He can verify that. And you cannot see them at all. The grass grows right over them. They look
great. I don't want to have that looking like, you know, a parking lot at all. But unfortunately, your laws are what your laws are, and we're trying to abide by them. >> So, >> right. Do do you want to pick up with the specific details in this?
>> I'll give you guys project overview, >> please. >> Um, yeah. So, this is a color rendering of the site plan. Um, as I'm sure you're all well well aware, here's the southern mansion fronts Washington Street, but it also has furnishes on Jefferson and
Corgi. Uh, the red brick is the current access with a loading zone. The gray is actually stone parking area. And then this green is what we're proposing. But um as was stated, there is some existing grass block parking area in in this area
currently, but it's overgrown and it's no longer visible. But what we're proposing is to delineate parking spaces um with uh parking blocks and then have that surface be grass block pavers um to meet the city's ordinance. We are also
adding some lighting that is consistent with what's currently on the site of just a little more updated um but to meet the city's parking lot requirements. And uh so we currently have 24 spaces.
We're adding 47 for a total of 71. Um and with the seating in the banquet area, we're required uh to have 69 with the B&B and the banquet. Um, and so we're exceeding that by two spaces, >> which I take it is the reason why you
have applications for variances up in front of boards. And which is why you've you've applied for conceptual approval here tonight because we we will only um grant approvals on a conceptual basis if there are other city approvals. Correct. >> Required after we pass on it.
>> Right. >> Sorry, I just came over this way. Yeah, no problem. >> Standing in the way for me to see it. >> So that's kind of an overview. So most of the construction is going to be limited to this this area the frontage along Washington. Um and again it will be those grass block pavers uh
supplemented with some additional landscaping and even some some storm water controls which won't be visible. >> Second drawing that you had there because I think there's a difference from what we have in our >> Yeah. So, we we originally proposed just kind of a standard light, but we have
since modified it to be one consistent with >> um what's currently on the site, >> but that's >> that's different than what we have in our >> Yeah. That's not in the application, correct? Yeah. >> So, so so you you were you're talking about a lighting aspect in addition to
the PA. >> Yeah. So there there should have been a lighting plan in the plan you received, but it was not a uh an appropriate it was obviously less appropriate light. So that was kind of our initial design. We had just tossed that in there to meet the city's lighting requirements, but
once we took a closer look at the plan, um we modified it to this one. And >> do you have cut sheets on that? >> Uh I only brought with me this. I didn't realize that our attorney hadn't submitted this plan. >> Okay. >> Mr. Kates. Yeah, just a question on the
parking and we don't deal with like parking variances here, but just the the orientation and location and amount of parking that you proposed. >> Is this code compliant in terms of parking for the proposed use of this site or are you
do you still need to get variance? >> We are looking for a parking variance for parking in the front yard as well as the front yard setback is 20 feet and we're proposing 10. number, but we are getting the current requirement for the use on the site,
including the width of the drive, etc. So, it is code compliant for operational purposes as a parking lot. >> That that's what I was just trying to get at was the purpose of your design of this was to get >> right >> as much parking as possible. >> Yeah. So, we do meet all of the city's
parking requirements with the exception of 20 foot step back from the street. We're only 10, which is consistent with the remainder of the parking and the surface because the city actually requires a paved lot and we're proposing grass block to minimize the the visual
aspect and make it more consistent with what's there >> and as you say storm water too. So it's a >> yeah and it's more perval or not introducing additional runoff to the rest of the town >> and we are as a part of that application with the city we are proposing a a significant amount of underground
storage as well to to collect that storm water so we're not creating storm water issues out on the street um even given the fact that the the grass block pavers absorb a significant amount of runoff. So, but as far as Yeah. And like I said, as
far as uh you know, changes to the building, there'll be no changes to the building. It's all sight sight specific. >> Well, that and again, it's it's a key contributing building. So, changes to that extremely sensitive in in our minds. Um I'm going to reverse the order of our comments. Instead of starting
from left field, I'm going to start from right field on this, assuming that there really will be um some comments to be made here. And I'm also going to say as I said before um we are going to ask anybody who's here from the public and who wants to comment on it to do so before we proceed any further. So
Lorraine sure your show. >> Okay. Um just a couple of clarification things. Uh because it's hard to see on this small site plan. Um so I'm wondering do we need to have like a minimum uh scale because it is difficult
to see. There is a uh a hedro on Washington Street. Is that going to remain? >> Yes, >> that's going to remain. Okay. Is um outside of the landscaping plan that I saw >> actually no that there wasn't one. It was only the brass paver detail. Um
>> I can answer that. I mean, we're not proposing a lot of landscaping as part of this because there's so much mature landscaping although already there that the the intent of this is to protect the mature landscaping um as opposed to trying you know removing it and supplementing it with additional. So,
we're really looking to minimize disturbance on the site, kind of keeping it to the grass area that you know, essentially in that between Washington and the building and not disturb the mature uh landscaping >> and and I would just mention this is a
conceptual application. So, so if there were a landscaping plan that were definitive, we would expect to see it in a final. >> Understood. Um, I think the only other question that I have is you have the um uh the the blocks for the for the cars.
I Is that the only thing you're looking at delineating each stall >> for the You mean with parking blocks? >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um that's all I have at this point. >> All right. I should I should mention if I have said this before that Lorraine Balo is our council liaison here to the
HPC. She's here as a representative um of of council and she sits with us to forward her expertise and to carry our messages back to council. Uh she doesn't vote as part of the body, but we we let we let uh we welcome the comments. Tom, you're next.
>> Okay. Uh, this business has been in business for quite some time, including the addition to the building that was approved a long time ago to give enough units to make the restoration of the main building and the whole thing worthwhile, which we all understand. Why
do we suddenly need so many more parking spots? >> It's honestly economically not viable. The amount of money that you have to spend to maintain a property like that, it doesn't work. And it's interesting because well this is kind of off off
pulp but if when I spoke to the New Jersey trust they were very very to the point I actually Darthothy Guzo was down and she said we want to make it as open as possible to the general public. We want them to be able to get
in there. We want them to be able to appreciate historic preservation and understand why our tax dollars go to it and why it's important. You and I both know that if people walked in that building, most of these people, have you ever been in here?
>> Most of you. >> It is stunning. >> It is what people want when they come to Cape May and they can't go in there unless they're renting a room. So the whole idea is we want to preserve this in perpetuity. We want people to be
like, "Wow, I want to be in there. I want to see it." And that's why we're trying to open it more to the public. This is, believe me, I could take you over there. I can show you the grass. You cannot see them. The grass grows in. They look great. I hate stuff that's
that's ugly. I hate it. I've worked really hard for the past 30 years to make this place gorgeous. And right now I'm looking at it. There's so much woodwork I have to redo. There's so much things I have to redo. This is a phenomenal plan that will open
it and make it gorgeous and available to people. And that's all we're trying to do. And as little impact as possible. I mean, personally, I'm great at landscaping. My landscape is beautiful and
it is gorgeous there. I have 10,000 tulips. I have, you know, crazy amounts of all kinds of stuff. I have original trees that were grown there. I I have no problem working with you if you have really good suggestions. No problem whatsoever. But this is going to
be an asset and showcase this building and make people understand. Why do you want historic preservation? You have people come in here and they're like, "Oh god, they're going to make me do this. They're going to make me spend this money." Here's a building and we're trying to keep it absolutely gorgeous
and available to the public. >> A long answer. >> Um, sorry. >> We're talking about the the beauty of the building and the grounds and everything. >> Uh, and that is what attracts people. Yes. And everybody at this table knows
what attracts people to Cape May. And it's not the parking lots. It's the open space, the sidewalks, the gas lighting, the beauty of the architecture. Uh you're acting as if it's going to look like this, but the it's going to be full of cars. Cars right up against the
building up in front. I mean, if you need that much parking, those parking spots are all going to be filled. And it's going to have none of the presentation you're talking about. It's going to be a parking lot that maybe is not paved, but is still a massive parking lot in the front, which is in
violation of everything that you find in our standards. No parking in the front yard, sideyard, screening things. Uh, you know, I know these buildings are expensive to maintain. You know, maybe I'm not maintaining the mainstay anymore, but I'm sure working hard to
maintain the physicate. I know the problems. But every BB in this town and every restaurant like the Washington across the street operate very successfully without putting cars in their front yard. This this is just if
we've if we approved this and it happened, I would say it would be one of the worst things that we've seen in Cape May since the Windsor Hotel burnt down and Congress and the Admiral Building got torn down. It it would be a
devastation to the downtown in violation of everything. It would probably even affect our uh his uh national historic standards uh and which we're always fighting to keep in and it would violate everybody that before you who has come
in and tried to sneak in, put in uh cars in the front anywhere that we've had to say you just can't do it. I I there's no way that you're going to convince me that this is an improvement to that property. One thing if I could address, we're kind
of caught between a a rock and a hard place in a sense is to be honest, we'd be happy and and I'm sure Miss Wild would be happy to not do the parking, >> but the issue is the way the city standards read is to increase the intensity of use to get more people, you know, on the property. We need to
increase the parking. And unfortunately with this site, we have three front yards and no backyard. Um, and so there's literally nowhere else for us to put it. And and again, we don't think that the parking is going to be an asset
to the building per se, but we see it as as a necessary evil in a sense uh to gain approval with the with the board. Um so while we don't disagree um you know we're trying to do it in a manner that will minimize the impact and
and you know continue with the good stewardship of a lot while also meeting the city's requirements. So again we're we're trying to balance that rock in a hard place. >> Well you're >> and we're open to suggestions. >> I think you're trying to minimize uh the expansion that you want to do by having
more parking in there and more activities. uh and you're surrounded by neighbors all the way around you, small businesses, neighbors that every time you've come in for something, there's been a lot of uh commotion about allowing it. And I bet there's some
people out there right now that are thinking, "Please do not let this happen." Uh I'm I'm st I'm holding to the fact that it is in violation of so many things in our standards including our overseeing the
streetscape and the appearance of the buildings not just your building but the whole streetscape. This would be but that's the whole whole front yard filled with with cars. I would be embarrassed to walk out of my house and say I was on the HBC. I think this is just absolutely
the worst request I've ever had to over >> I've ever had to. >> Tom, Tom Tom, well, may I ask you to conclude your remarks, please? >> I just recruit I might be back. >> Okay. Not that we want to prolong this. Um, and Judy, I'll ask you to go next. And I don't know whether you want to
cite anything because I do. I >> I would I would like to thank you very much for your stewardship of this cake contributing structure. I mean, this is a long form and you're you're you're mentioned on the form. Um, it's it's wonderful that you've taken such good
care of this of this property and I know everyone on this board appreciates that tremendously. It's a very important building for Cape May. The grounds are mentioned in the long form as as a critical part of this site. Apart from
everything Tom said that we do not allow parking in the front, you do have considerable parking on the site already. How many how many spaces? >> 24 existing. >> 24 existing. Um I just can't imagine the impact this is
going to have when this is filled with cars every weekend. I mean, if you >> I don't I don't recollect we've ever had a parking issue brought before us on an application by this applicant. So they they are what they are now. >> Oh, no. I think once before you had a a request for the brick parking lot. I
can't recall what it was, but I I again I I thank you for your stewardship of the property. I also could never vote for this. It's just clearly cited in our standards that it's not permitted in the historic district or anywhere to have front yard parking. Um there what I
would say is that there's going to be a new police building a block away and there will be extra public parking there. And also I would like to just um reiterate what Tom said that the Washington in has managed to to um operate all these years. They have
offsite wedding they have an off-site facility for for weddings and that's worked out really well for them. >> The Washington has plenty of weddings at their property too and they have zero parking and they have two bars and a restaurant and they have large amount of
tables in a very small building. Um, and they don't have 24 spaces. >> I would be love if you would say to me, Barbara, you don't have to put this parking in. >> We don't have the authority. We're not We're not We're not really here. We're
not We're not here to do that. We're here to pass on your application as it relates to our design standards. That's our That's our function. >> And um >> I I'd like to continue on, but if if nobody's going to read them, I'm going to read them first. Okay. Uh we our
design standards relatively new 2023 adopted. Um this is this is the manual and the Bible by which we work and try to interpret applications and pass on them. And and and I just want to read to you um page 44 the standards relating to
driveways and off- streetet parking. And you in fact I'm I'm kind of surprised that the application would come in if you had read these standards. They say that locating new driveways and off- streetet parking as unobtrusively as possible to preserve historic streetscape parking should always be
screened from the public thoroughare locating off-street parking in front yards and visible sideyards is not appropriate. Locating off- streetet parking closer to the street than the front facade of the main building is not appropriate. When
something's not appropriate and it's in the design standards, there's no way that we can vote to issue a certificate of appropriateness. It just doesn't happen. We we we can't make exceptions because um it's it's it's it improves
the business viability of the property uh because it you know, you feel that it it doesn't it doesn't um work in an obtrusive manner. This is a key contributing structure in the city of Kate May. I I I know because I have one
myself and and I understand how important it is and the efforts that are made to rehabilitate it, bring it back to where it is. It is a valued treasure. It will only be deprecated by putting cars between Washington Street and the facade of that building and and that's
the reason why we have standards. >> Understood. And again, I I do we we we did check the standards and we were sensitive to them, but again, we saw no alternative. So, we're here to discuss >> and and I and I will say and and and the rest of my commissioners can go on and and say what they want to say, but but
this this to me precludes us being able to grant this a certificate of appropriateness unless we change the standards. And and I'm not after all the time we spent working on them, I'm not about to do that. I'm sorry that that it doesn't work in the favor of the
configuration of your property or the uses that you intend to have. We always wish you success in that, but we simply can't pass this. >> Since we're just discussing this, we have a pre-existing curb cut. >> Yeah, we're not adding a driveway. There is a driveway.
>> It isn't It isn't the aspect of the driveway. It's it's the fact that the between Washington Street and the facade of this building, there will be vehicles, several rows of vehicles. >> What I was getting to was is there a compromise to be met here? We can't >> with that curb cut and where we have
existing car park to the far right of this site. If we were to reduce the parking that's immediately in front of the original building >> which is the primary facade of this building. >> I I don't know the answer to that but I would like my fellow commissioners just since we're having a discussion. >> Yeah. No, I will and we can disc we can
discuss it further but I'd like to have >> else I could not agree more with Mr. Carol. Um, you know, uh, even though it sounds nice with the grass parking spaces, all we're really going to see is
a sea of steel because these will be filled with cars. The whole aesthetic will be destroyed and it is we have sat here and I know this is disappointing to you, but keeping our designation is an
entire town project. There are many people who have come and wanted to park here or there or the other thing and they all have to sacrifice for our streetscape and so that we are able to always keep our designation. That is
very important. We just can't decide space by even though you might have need. We have to do this for the greater good and m the chairman is right. according to the laws, there is no way that we could pass this.
Thank you. >> Um, I feel very much the same way. In fact, you know, I took the time to go through and find the actual citations and our standards and so forth. I mean, it's clear HPC has the purview of reviewing streetscape, parking, landscaping, uh, both in our own
standards and in the Secretary of the Interior standards. Those are on page 13 in the book if you want to see it. Um, and the definition of streetscape does include both parking and landscaping. Um, I would point out that the property report I think speaks very eloquent
eloquently how how beautifully the the piece of property has been maintained. Um, and you know there actually is in there a section that says you know the grounds fell into into a state of neglect after World War II and about
until the year 2000. it um it is now covered by perennial beds, some original gardens, brick walkways, and um outdoor furniture. And actually, if you look at our standards on page 45, it says, "Historically, Victorian front yards featured manicured landscapes of grass,
meandering walkways, and flower bed borders, all enclosed by a low fence, in this case, a hedro." So, it is exactly what you know, what we would hope for as a streetscape. and and I think you know of course placing parking in that is just I I don't think consistent with
anything we would agree to. It's not consistent with our standards. Um I think the purpose of this if I'm not mistaken from the application you submitted is applicant seeks approval for a bar restaurant that is open to the public and which is proposed to be
located inside the southern mansion and existing tourist guest house located at the property. So, I'm assuming that's one of the drivers for the additional traffic and and vehicles and things like that. Um, I mean, I I have no no comments whatsoever about the restaurant
or or the bar, but the parking aspect of it I think is is with clearly within our purview and that I I don't find I don't find it consistent with our standards. >> Janice, your licks. Well, you all know me and autos. Um, but
I would like to also mention that in our design standards under yards, it says the front yard is an extension of the public realm. So, for this beautiful mansion, the front yard is part of that
invitation visually to imagine Kate May in its heyday of Victorian beauty. I do remember when it had the the >> horseshoe >> the horseshoe driveway. So that's a original curb cut
>> and there's a curb cup on corgi as well, >> right? And and then there wasn't this huge addition on the back which probably wouldn't have been approved. Well, it it would wouldn't have been approved under our design guidelines. So,
the efforts to make our historic buildings available to the public so that that wonderful memory device of being in an authentic historic building is available to as many people
as possible. That's an argument that I I agree with. We do want people in these buildings, and that's great that you're able to do that. But this building was built as a residence. It's in a primarily
residential street. It's not It wasn't built as a hotel. And the amount of parking and the use that you're saying is necessary is not what we would call an adaptive
reuse. It's it's an expansion. And there's nothing about our design guidelines that would encourage us to say this is this is valid or or supported. That's my comment.
>> Well, and I'm just going to just uh um finish by saying that this is um it's it's not the pavers, it's the parking. It's not the pavers. It's the parking. and and this is a property in which this
is an inappropriate parking plan for purposes of preserving a key historic structure. And that's my view. But since this is a conceptual application, um, we're we're certainly willing to talk about anything you may want to
>> Well, the dilemma we have is that to make this property viable, >> a certain amount of additional parking is advantageous obviously as opposed to dumping it onto the street because now all of a sudden all the neighbors have to suffer the consequences that we're
trying to be good neighbors as well as good stewards. So the question that I had was is there a compromise to be had since technically the front of the original building is truly the front facade as opposed to that addition which is kind of got a it's got a double-edged
sword to it the fact that it exists. Can we entertain the possibility of having parking just to that side and a higher hedro which I think the hedro originally was higher was more like six feet. >> You're speak you're speaking of the east side of the property. >> Yeah. Yeah. the the the property closest
to Franklin, >> closest to Franklin Street, >> closest to the post office, >> close to the post office, >> and that's where there's 14 >> spaces already there that are on this, but they're actually already in existence. So yeah, and I think that's what we we definitely value the board's opinion and that's what we're looking if
there is a way to gain some additional parking. Um, >> if we were able to concentrate it just to that side of the site and preserve that true vista of the original structure, >> which I understand is the primary focus of the of the building. >> Where would these spaces be?
>> So that would be in this area, which is where, like I said, there's existing grass block pavers here now. Um, so we would eliminate all the parking in front of the building, utilize this curb cut that's there now and driveway entrance, and then keep the parking to either one side or
potentially both sides if you're amendable. >> In other words, I I think the applicant is sort of hearing what the board is putting down. Um, but is there any scenario where they could gain some parking and putting aside the the
proposed use which will be dealt with by another board just focusing on the appearance of parking? Is there any iteration of this that might work? I don't know that everybody's ready to have that conversation tonight. Maybe it's a conversation for the review committee to to dive into too, but I
think that's what the applicant is proposing. asking, you know, we >> we do have >> parking in two other front yards, but it's not the technical front of the building front yards, you know, and so, you know, we were >> we we we have had some we have had some
issues of of of not even allowing parking forward of the facade of of a building, which would be a a matter we could discuss, but but but the the tide isn't with you. >> We understand in terms of I mean, that's what we're looking for. absolutely
against you with respect to the front facade of that building. U and and there may be some room for discussion >> with respect to the east side >> and taking this feedback with us back to the board you know obviously is it it
may increase our burden with them but I think absent of your comments I don't think we would be able to get a parking. >> Yeah. Yeah. Normally we would in in in the case of a conceptual application we would go through this and we would we would grant a conceptual approval and we would apply conditions but we aren't
even close >> understood >> to having that kind of a discussion at this point. Um I'm going to suggest that the best thing to do here is to table this if that's what uh what would necessess that that would bring upon a discussion at the review committee level
for possible alternatives. Is the applicant interested in having that conversation with the It sounds like that hasn't that didn't occur before tonight and that's fine, but you might might benefit from that. >> No, I considered it. >> I whether you considered it or not, Miss Wild, it's just we had the discussion we
had tonight and and you have the opportunity to request to table the application. you would wave the time for decision and that will give you the time to discuss this with the review committee and potentially come back to the board with >> uh you know >> thank you
>> revised concept is that something you're interested >> very much yes >> okay so so before we go there uh so the application essentially has been presented and we've had discussion here and I think we've said we're certainly not going to be granting conceptual approval it's on the cusp of being tabled for further discussion I I'd like
to invite any members of the public who are here and who want to make a comment about the application itself to present themselves, identify themselves and make the comment. >> So, >> you know how it works there, right?
>> Good evening, Kathy Healey. Um, I am a private business owner like Barbara and it is tough not to have private equity come in and take a beautiful uh property and try to commercialize it.
And I'm here to support Barbara not knowing I'm here to talk to you about a property I'm building for my daughters who were grew up with um Barbara's daughter. You know, we're we're a couple generations. I just like to make three
comments, very short and very sweet. Number one, we have to look at Congress Hall. They took over that whole parking lot that is in you can see it from Beach Drive and they have built that out to hold
like 80 to 90 cars. And you see it from the front of the facade. And we need to understand in these tough economic times to make
this town 12 months of the year open and viable. Parking is Kate Maine's number one problem. So please respect and review what is being done at Congress Hall. I
live five blocks from there and every morning the blowers are blowing to keep the area manicured, but it's overwhelming. There's almost 90 cars parked and you can see it from Beach
Drive, Beach Avenue. That's number one. Number two, the Washington Inn has the funeral homes, gigantic black top driveway that they use from 4 in the afternoon when there's
not a funeral to park 50 or 60 cars back to back. So, they are directly across the street from Barbara's facility. So you can talk about the neighborhood, but there's 50 cars parked behind the
funeral home almost 7 days a week. So I just want to make that clear. And lastly, as we are not allowed to use the more modern materials,
it makes her properties every year more expensive to maintain. And you have to come up with a viable alternative and expanding into the restaurant business is going to protect
and enable people. We have to work as a community well aware of the cost to maintain these beautiful buildings. And I applaud a dear friend who has given her whole life and now raised her
children in this town and her daughter is running her business with her. This is truly the the family generational reason I stand here as a seventh generation owner wanting my three
children to have their own individual homes on Grand Street. I thank you. I appreciate you. and Barbara and Hamilton, you've done a great job maintaining the historic beauty of Keat May. >> Thank Thank you for your comment.
>> Is there anybody else from the public who'd like to address this application? >> Okay, hearing none. I think we were on the road to a tableabling of the application. >> Can I add >> I'm sorry, Tom. You >> another comment, >> please.
>> Um the parking that you have along the fence along the post office. >> Yes, sir. Um, why is that not being used or has not been used for a long time? I go by that frequently and I never see cars there. >> Honestly, you never really need it. Even
when we're having a very large event, in my opinion, north when you go from Washington Street up, I mean, Washington has zero parking. We all know that. Okay. We have a 24-hour post office directly next door. We have a bank. We
have a real estate office across the street. We have a dentist office. None of them have parking at all. In fact, a lot of them use my parking. >> Well, you're getting away from my question. >> I'm sorry. >> Why? >> I don't I don't >> I mean, you're saying we really need
this to survive and pay the bills on all this. And yet, you haven't used it. And the entrance from the sideway. Yes, there is a curb cut there, but the only thing I've ever seen go in and out of there is grass cutting equipment. to to your point, it's not that she feels she
needs this for the proposed use. The city's requiring us to do this for the proposed use. So that's why we're here is we're here in an attempt to meet the city's requirements. And yeah, what's there is kind of an overflow that's hasn't been necessary. >> Okay. Now, you're bringing in a proposed
new use. Is that right? Is this going to be the bar and restaurant? >> That's part that's part of their application to the other board. >> Uhhuh. Uhhuh. >> Right. So as a as a component of that we're required to provide by the city to provide parking. So >> it's not that this is necessary now but
given the proposed use the city saying it's going to be necessary. >> Well maybe there shouldn't be a proposed use that makes you violate all the rules that we have on the table. >> Another board will decide right >> and and and there are matters of business judgment here and and and the
rights to use your own property. Um, but you must understand that we have standards and and I just point out that the literal standards that I read um are are are applicable now. They're what we use. They're not what we used 20 years
ago or 15 years ago or the last time Congress Hall made an application to this board. This is what we use now. Uh in any event, um I'm going to entertain a motion to table. Uh, and have we asked them if they're going to wave the >> Just to clarify, I think the applicant
would want to table indefinitely, waving the time for decision because if we made a decision tonight, we kind of know where that was going um on the application as submitted. But if you table indefinitely and wave the time for decision, it would allow you to take that time to discuss with the review
committee maybe another iteration of this and then return to the board later when you're ready. It essentially keeps you in quue and then not requiring you to resubmit at that time. You can modify it in >> it'll be considered the same application. >> Exactly.
>> Yes. Absolutely. >> Okay. So, you you agree to do that? So, um may I have a motion to table, please? >> Can I make one more comment? Um just the fact that there is the >> the pavers already in existence down there doesn't mean that the use of that for parking purposes today is is
approved. It's not at all. Um, and I would just point out that the pavers actually do serve one other purpose, and that's often times it's hard to hard to reach uh for fire trucks, fire vehicles, and things like that. Pavers are put into use for that purpose. They grow over so you don't see them, but they
actually provide support for the vehicle so that you don't wind up with a firetruck that's suddenly stuck in the mud if it's been, you know, raining for the last two weeks or something like that. So I >> I think I think the fact that they're applying that they're applying for parking that covers what we've seen in
the application acknowledges that they don't believe they have the right >> That's right. >> to use it now. >> I just want to be clear about but but in any event >> those 14s were were previously approved >> for parking. >> Certainly not here. >> Well, but but let's not get in let's not
get into that since we have a motion to table. I think we do on the on the floor. Does anybody move? I'll move we table it >> and a second please. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Moved and seconded by Mr. Hammer and M. Justin Stridic um to table with
uh with waiver by the applicant of the uh determination period. Can we have a roll call vote on that please? >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. >> Miss Vagnum? >> Yes. >> Miss Wilson Shik? >> Yes. >> Miss Decker? >> Yes. >> Mr. Hamaran? >> Yes. >> Mr. Ta? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, review committee meets on Tuesdays. Make an appointment if you'd like to come in and have a discussion >> every Tuesday. >> Every Tuesday that we can. >> All right. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Get a little settled here. We'll move on
to the next application. That's conceptual. And okay, while you're setting up, I'll I'll announce the the the next applicant here. uh TS 1015 beach LLC which is a contributing structure for which
renovation and an and additions are um proposed. Applicants have set up. Please turn on your mics. State who you are, your connection to the project and presented. Thank you. >> I am Deborah Sloanwite with Asher Slenwite and partners, the architect on
the project. Uh, my name is Bruce WHL and I'm authorized to speak on behalf of my family uh and their property. 1015 Beach Avenue. >> Thank you. >> Can I get the spelling of your last name? >> Wo R A L L >> WL. >> Yes.
>> Bruce Warl. >> Deborah We know >> you've I've been here before. An email was sent to you um giving Bruce permission to speak. >> Thank you. >> Or authorization. >> We we know you're fidious about that. >> Just wanted to make sure. Do you just want to introduce the the property and then we'll talk about
>> Yes. Um this is uh my family's property and um it's occupied by multiple generations of my family uh predominantly through the summer months. Um this serves as our family's private dwelling and is not rented to the public. Um I personally take pride in
the stewardship of this property throughout the year. Uh as I know this board takes pride in the stewardship of historical integrity of Kate May. Um, with that said, under the guidance of Deborah and her team at Asher Sloan White, we are seeking approvals to expand while preserving the
architectural character of the building. Um, the packets before you represent the project uh in its entirety. Um, starting with the existing historic home, um, we are proposing to remove some windows that were added at one point and
enclosed a porch. The goal is to reopen that porch as viewed from um Beach A. Moving to the center of the lot, we do include a site plan which is page A1.0. Um if you are familiar with this
property as seen from Stockton, there is an existing sunroom building is the word we're going to use. Um according to the property report, it is not a contributing structure. We are requesting permission to demolish said
sunroom building um thereby kind of reexposing the existing historic garage which will remain with new siding and potentially new windows. Um moving continuing towards Stockton, we
are proposing a new pool uh a low brick wall as the property meets Stockton and um reorganizing the parking. I should have started by saying it was brought to my attention by your zoning officer on Friday that this project will need a
variance. So we are here for conceptual not final as I had hoped. Um the variance will be related to the pool. So we will apply to the variance board but we were hoping to still um gain conceptual approval tonight. I did come
before the um board on Tuesday mornings twice. I believe I met with um the people present. Kevin included to present the project trying to be a good neighbor on Stockton A. And in light of the conversation we just had regarding parking, um there is
an existing curb cut. There is an existing driveway. We are looking to create a little bit more parking for the family that resides here. As again, you can see on our site plan, we did document the adjacent buildings. We are
proposing all new parking be located landward of the front facade of the adjacent homes. Again, in our rendering um which you can see in the bottom of the board that we put up and is also in your packets um page hold on let me find
it. Oh, actually no. I'm sorry. It did not make it into your packets. That's why I printed it on a larger board here. Let me walk here explain it to you. Um, as viewed from Stockton, this image here, we are planning to put a low brick
wall with a brick cap planted on both sides with um, landscaping pulling the parking back against a fence which then creates the border for the pool. Um, our landscape architect provided a landscape drawing. They'll be climbing roses on
the fence line. Um, again, three cypress trees as you meet Stockton. The historic garage will remain. Um but we are sensitive again. Parking behind the front facade of the adjacent buildings, curb cut on Stockton. Um the pool will
require a variance as we as we already mentioned. Um the historic home will get all new windows, siding, everything updated. There is a new paving pattern or paving plan indicated. The proposed addition is
um does eclipse an existing addition that is on the home already. Um it is still modest in scale, conforms with all zoning. Um the roof line will not be seen from Beach A. However, from
Stockton, you will be able to see this, but we think it's in keeping with the character of the home. The siding will match, the windows will match. Questions? I'm gonna I'm gonna let the the group go around the room and question you and make comments. >> I have a question. Of course, Katherine,
um, you say the addition is modest in scale and I was looking through all these papers trying to see what the actual square footage was and compare it to the original. And I I couldn't find
that anywhere. And one of our key design standards is the addition should be subordinate to the original and it shouldn't compromise the original. >> Yes. >> So from what I'm seeing it it looks
huge. >> So if you refer to page A3.0 zero, which I think you've already passed in your set. >> Um, the first floor plan at the bottom of the page, you can see a kind of a heavy dashed line that's on top of the
yellow hatch, >> right? >> That is existing. >> So, we are merely adding another 10 to 15 feet towards Stockton and about another five feet in width. So that is
it's all rendered yellow but the actual addition um is not sub substantially larger than what's there. So, some of the um proposals we've seen give a an existing square footage of the property and then an expanded and I
that's what I was looking for because that's I understand that >> yeah relative to the existing structure. What's the square footage of the addition? I think you're asking >> I think it is roughly 1,200 square feet on two floors although I don't >> 1200 each or no on
>> 1,200 compared to what as the existing Janet uh page one Z A10 Z uh shows a darken area that is actually the addition as compared to looking at 30
that makes all the yellow look like an addition. >> So in >> you can see that there's really not that much being built onto the back. >> Exactly. And to Mr. Carol's point the proposed addition is given in square footage there. It is 616 square ft on
the first floor and 646 on the second floor. So roughly 1,200 >> and compared to >> the existing home. >> Mhm. >> I don't have that information with me. >> That's the kind that's the basic
question. >> Okay. I thought it's a fair question. >> I mean because it's about the proportion of of the addition to the existing >> and I realized that this home already had an addition. that wasn't particularly important and then it had an additional
sun room >> uh which you're planning to take away. >> Exactly. >> So what you know it does complicate the question. >> So the existing home we believe is roughly 3100 ft. We are demolishing an
existing sun room building which is 400 square ft. And and in that regard, I just want to make sure that this is a it's a it's a freestanding sun, >> right, >> thing, sun structure thing. >> Can see it in saw it. Yeah.
>> On 2.0. >> Since it is small and subordinate, we don't need a demo permit for this, do we? Chris, >> is this the the structure that is next to the garage? >> Yes. >> Like a pool room? >> It it's it's freestanding, right?
>> It is freestanding. There are kind of an odd assortment of um wooden panels that touch both the sun room and the garage. There's storage of some sort, but the sun room itself is a freestanding non-contributing structure. I
>> I mean, I think I think we should for clarity purposes if it's coming down approve the demolition of it. But I think that yeah >> and well this is this is a conceptual >> um status but but if the ruling is going to be that you need a demolition permit
you know the >> the recitations you need to make for that >> as a non-contributing building. I don't believe that we >> it's not necessarily automatic that you get a demo permit just because it's non-contributing but just on the face of
it you're probably checking a lot of those boxes. Um, why don't we see how this discussion goes on the other portions of that? >> Yeah, that's I think we we'll have to do that one way or or the other. But, um, shall we shall we continue with
questions and comments? U >> Kevin, what about you? Aside from the alerts, >> the the u uh only things that I just wanted to ask questions about quickly are if you look at the rendering that's
on page, sorry, I put it down. I should have just kept my spacing in there. On the front porch, the to the uh the right side, that's the part that you're going to reopen. Is that >> correct? Okay. And we will re we will there will be new columns to match the
existing. Okay. When it was enclosed, it appears that some of the columns were sacrificed in the enclosure process, right? >> Um so new wood their tusk and order columns will be will replace. >> Are you are you able to determine when it was enclosed? >> Um we're not It is in the property
report. Um it says that it it they don't know exactly when, but there is a note in here that says that it was enclosed. um somewhere in the built the house was built in the 1910 to 1920, right?
>> It does not offer when exactly it was. >> Yeah. I mean, what I was just concerned about that because if it was closed during the period of significance, then we have to also consider >> whether it it's it it's it's something that ought to be preserved because it was actually
>> it was definitely not enclosed when it was built. >> Yeah. And I don't know that any of us would would object to bringing it to the point where it was originally designed, but just asking >> the um the fenestration pattern that was used would indicate to me that it was
not done historically accurately or important to be maintained. In fact, the doors that will be exposed when the enclosure is taken down are lovely original wooden doors that we plan to keep. >> Okay. Uh Kevin is absent. B you said you
had no comments further. Okay. So Janice, if you >> if you uh >> I I've asked your question. >> I've asked my question. >> Okay. And Lorraine. >> Okay. Um looking at the um the property report
and it there was mention in here about um historic 6 over1 double hungwood sash windows survive on the main uh main volume first floor but have been replaced on the second floor but you stated that you were looking at replacing all of the windows.
>> The homeowner has mentioned that this that all the windows have already been replaced. There are actually no existing original historic wood windows in the home. >> That's correct. >> On the first floor as well as So that either either the property report was
incorrect or it's been done subsequently >> since >> to the property to the property report. >> Also should be noted at least from my review of it is that you've got a lot of uh painted triple track storm windows. Yes. >> Surrounding all those windows that
aren't original in the first place. So the the replacements would not be covered by storm windows. They would be new wooden windows. >> Yes. >> As specified in your materials exactly sheet. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. I I preempted you. You >> That's okay.
Um just just one other thing maybe I I think some of the confusion as far as the um uh the pre the existing square footage and the proposed having a site or having a floor plan of the existing would be extremely helpful I think
>> sure >> to some of this >> Thomas >> a very interesting property there's a few of those up in that area that went ran street to street and even one down between Carpenters Lane and Hugh Street
where you know it went all the way through. Um I know you're going to go for a variance for a swimming pool which is almost going to be on Stockton rather than your property. uh you will find
that there might be some real real pullback on that. Uh pools uh particularly on houses with either a whole lot of relatives visiting or rentals. Uh the pool can become the entertainment place well into the wee
hours. And this one would be much more disturbing the neighbors on Stockton than it would be any grandparents that are trying to sleep in the house that you're building. I'm just wondering if you could pull that pool in and tuck it
in in your backyard feeling. Uh it's also 16 by 24 which is really quite a large pool for just family use. you know, you could cut down the size of that and make it a little little easier. I mean, 24 feet was, you know, like a
competitive pool for six swimmers, you know, that that that's a lot a lot of pool. And and and try to do more when you get to Stockton to make that feel a little bit more like the neighborhood, you know, a little bit more yard or
garden or something. um you know hide the cars as much as you can but you know really make that not take away from that street and also the enjoyment and privy uh the the enjoyment of the people that live on that street.
>> Understood. Unfortunately, we wanted the pool closer to the house. Unfortunately, given the 10- foot required setback around all sides of the pool, I can't pull it closer to the house because the historic garage is there, and I absolutely can't move the If I could
push the historic garage closer to Stockton and put the pool closer to the house, I would, but I don't think that that is a feasible plan. >> A lot of historic properties have been moved in this town. I I don't think moving a garage a little bit closer and having the parking and also kind of
block the view of a pool uh rather than facing the street uh I mean whole houses have been moved around in this town. A garage would we would never have a problem with a garage. Uh the the the one of the buildings on
the back of the Emlin Physic Estate was behind Elaine's restaurant and they wouldn't let it tear down, but they said you have to move it somewhere in Cape May to save it because it's historic. So we moved it all the way down to the physics, made offices out of it. I don't think you'd have problems saying we
could move that garage up, maybe turn the to the pool around rectangularly that direction and then, you know, have the backyard for other things like the parking that you want. >> Understood. Definitely something to
consider. Again, I know the homeowner wanted the pool because it's honestly kind of far from the home. We wanted the pool closer, but we >> Well, it is and it may be able to reconfigure. I mean, again, since this is a hearing involving now a conceptual
application, it means you're going to be returning to us. >> Um, and and if you want to return to us with a different thought about that. Um, and if we give if we give conceptual approval, it might be included in the in the in the comments or recommendations. Anyway,
>> and you're going to the zoning board already, it sounds like. Anyway, one of the things I'll point out, the criteria for demolition also pertain to relocations, too. So, you know, there could be a combination of a demo of the sun room thing >> and relocation of the garage.
>> The garage could be, you know, there's there's criteria for both of those things in there. >> Okay, >> Judy. >> Um, yeah, I would also like to see the existing square footage and the square footage of the addition. I mean it does
really look very large on these drawings. Um you're not going to demolish the ex the existing addition that will be incorporated. >> It will be it will be encapsulated on two sides by the new edition. Um
>> because we're going to take it down. That means that that's going to be included in the new edition. >> Yeah. We weren't planning to honestly take it down. Um that's why it's rendered the way it is. We did leave the existing wall in place.
>> It's an encapsulation with addition with the internal >> Exactly. >> changes. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. I mean, you always do a beautiful job. I mean, the renderings are really helpful. Uh for me, um the only two design elements I would point out is um
the patterning on the chimney is is not consistent with a craftsman style. Um, we're seeing that a lot in Cape May. I I think it's a um it's a pattern we should probably not keep >> repeating all over town. Um, I also
think the white paneling um on the side elevation is also not consistent with Craftsman in any way. The recessed paneling here. >> Yes. On A3.4. Understood. Okay. It's
actually on both sides of the house. >> Right here. This paneling is has nothing to do with cross and sound. I mean, it is a cottage. Um I like I said, I think the renderings really help me in support of this addition because I think they
look it looks quite nice. We also have a key contributing house on on one side, >> right? Yes, >> that's a key contributing house. This is going to affect the streetscape somewhat. Um, but I think it's sensitively rendered. I like the opening of the front porch.
>> Um, so next time you come back, just let's confirm that the addition isn't larger than the original structure. >> Yes, understood. Thank you. >> Okay. Um my my comments first of all um on a
technical sense um I I want to thank you for a very very complete material sheet. You always do a good job of specifying exactly what you're going to do, how it's going to be built, and then showing us the the cut sheets and pictures of it. Um there some of the some of these
are so many you want to say exhibit A, B, C, D, and they're all in the drawings. Thank you for for a very very complete material sheet. I I think that um while this addition is is not small
um it is not overwhelming the um the overall status of the property this the size of the structure and it is in the back it is differentiated I'm also helped by by the fact that this
is a narrow lot so so when you consider what's seen from the from the streetscape, the narrowness of the spaces between the buildings makes it far harder to see
in addition. So I I give I give points for for for for that versus the versus the the size which I think is on the large side, but it's still subordinate enough. So I I could support the idea of putting an addition on as you as you as
you've done so. I think that the movement back to expose the front with the symmetrical columns is the way the house was built and ought to be brought back >> to to that status. It will it will
benefit by that instead of looking a little cockeyed off off to the side. It's it's a it's a little eclectic, but but not particularly pleasing from the symmetrical standpoint. I not much to say about the windows
other than if they're all replaced and they're all covered with storms, it's nothing better than doing um an allwood replacement of modern efficient windows which are going to look presumably like cut sheet. >> Yes. Says >> the mullion pattern will be what it was
six over once. Yeah. So, so replicate. So, that's good. And, and then with with all the all the girrations in in the back, it seems to me that it's really a good suggestion to have a look at that garage and what might be done to to to
to move it, relocate or reconfigure or reduce the size of the pool. and um and that would I think improve the backside of of this uh and and
whether whether there is or is not a need for a demolition permit, it's probably a good idea to be prepared to come and support that. I I don't think there's anybody who's going to deny you that permit and I know you'll make the case
>> for it. So having said all that um with you know with the points that were made here um about the about the the various aspects of things that could be added and panels and and and the um um the
rest of the matters I I I would say we could entertain a a motion for conceptual approval. >> Can I can I just make one quick sorry I had to step out with the fire department call. Um the the uh the the the uh the group did come and see us on the Tuesday
meeting and just a couple of things that we noted. One was the restoration of the porch to its original historic accuracy. We thought that should be applauded. Uh it's a sensitive addition using similar materials and you know tucked behind the house. So that all seemed to meet you
know our our standards and requirements. Um we we did not consider moving the garage. So, I have to say that. So, >> yeah, that's I mean that's that's in the the context of our conceptual discussion. >> Goes to show you that, you know, there's always good things to come out of groups and uh um but we we did think that the
way they handled the parking in the back was pretty sensitive as well that it tucks back in there. There's plant things around it. I mean, it's very similar to in a sense what La Mer did, you know, if you will, concealing the parking. So, there was there was a lot of good things in this project that we
saw. and uh the replacement of the windows made sense to us. So all those kinds of things we I just wanted to point out those were all talked about at the uh >> yeah I mean the application has a lot of a lot of merit to it and before we proceed to do any any actual motions or voting I'm going to ask once again is
there anybody here from the public who would like to speak to address this application okay hearing none um Mr. Chairman, can I just add something here? Uh >> I I did hear some comments about the pool and the garage and things like that. I just want to,
>> you know, I think the time to address that or suggest retooling of that is now and not at a final because what they're going to want to do is get a conceptual and the concept would be the front of the house, the pool goes
here, the garage goes here, the parking goes here. That's what they're going to present to the zoning board. and the arrangement of that is really key to that application. And I I don't think it benefits anybody to be pingponging back and forth from those boards. So before
this proceeds out of conceptual, the concept of where this pool is, where that parking is, where that garage is to remain should be at least a majority should be on the same page about that. If if we don't have a majority, we should have that discussion now and give
the applicant an opportunity to kind of address that further if it needs to be addressed. >> And and that's and that's fine. I mean, my my approach to this would have been to to write you a conceptual approval with the various conditions and locations and suggestions that go into
into conceptual. But if it's necessary to poll the board, >> that could be flushed out in a motion, too. But I just wanted to put that out there that, you know, it's not it's conceptual, but they're going to be taking that conceptual and making a presentation to the zoning board, too.
So, I just want to make sure that we, >> you know, have that have >> Do we have any do we have any members here who who object to an attempt to reconfigure the back um by turning the pool and moving the garage? >> Is that I guess the question is it's
obviously a fair amount of additional expense. Is that something you find acceptable? I'd have to discuss. >> Yeah, we would have >> internally we found we found it acceptable as it is as proposed. So I just want to point out that you know we would certainly find it acceptable to move
>> and and some of us and some of us would also but but if it's >> that's the question we feel so strongly that it has to be >> and and look the point the the discussion could be it's tabled for a month for them to evaluate the
practicality or the design of that and they may come back and say you know what we thought about it slicing the onion this way and it didn't work and at least the question was asked and the discussion and the HPC heard the analysis of that. >> What is your time frame with respect to the you just you just just advised you
need a >> we were just advised on Friday that we need to go before the variance board. So I still came here because we come to you before we go there certainly. >> So to your point the variance the nothing has been submitted >> but we were intending to move forward
with the plan as presented tonight pending your comments. I would like to take another look at it frankly >> and and if they can't in other words if if we did do what I just suggested which is just tableabling it for a month give the applicant an opportunity to think about these questions and the answer may
be from their standpoint we're good with what we submitted and here's why we thought about it and the board can hear that too. It doesn't sound like it's going to slow them down one bit because they're not waiting to be heard next month and waiting for the HPC's feedback. It's only going to take a month.
It would it would probably be better then for you to table this with us and have the further thoughts about where you want to go. I think that would be preferable to table it because I don't know that we are able to make that final decision >> and you may for example because of the
cost situation you may say look even if you told me I could do this >> I I I don't want to take the expense of moving the historic garage and all the other things that are going although you are doing substantial >> we are planning to restore the exterior
of it and replace the um four windows that are in it but the interior of the garage was going to remain as is um but yes we were planning to all >> new you could I mean under those circumstances the time is the time isn't
>> such that you would be prejudiced with respect to your application of the zoning board if you had another month or so >> to that would be fine to this over >> to regroup I would also um confer with the idea that moving it might make our variance application go better
>> if I'm not in fact putting a pool street word of a building. Um, so I could definitely hear that argument, but we'd need to draw it and take a look at it. So, we would appreciate the ability to table the conversation. >> Let's let's do that, right? >> I would agree that it could really help you before the zoning board, but some of
their biggest headaches and pains have been neighbors swimming pools and uh, you know, noise. So maybe if that got tucked in a little bit more and their sideyards are going to be more of the garage and the parking, I think you
would find the zoning board would probably have fewer people and be more apt to go along with exactly what you're looking at. A >> and I think I think you know that when you come in front of us and get a conceptual approval, that approval is taken to the other board. Yes, I have
been to your zoning board for a swimming pool before. >> And and I also I also don't know if a proposal to demolish the sun room, relocate the garage if if approved the I
think the garage is related to the historic district. The sun room is not correct. If the HPC were to approve that and you were to have a plan for a pool in between those two relocate relocated garage and and the addition to the
house, maybe there's a way that you don't need to ask for relief. I don't know the answer to that, but it's worth exploring is the reason. >> I asked the zoning officer that very question and he said no, you still need a variance. >> Got it. Okay. Well, there there's
someone someone with authority has spoken on this. That that's that's why I always say ask the zoning officer. >> I asked the very question if I put a building between the pool and the street and he said nope you still need a variance. >> Okay. >> So that's fine. >> I guess that's pretty tough. >> Still worth exploring though. Um and and
just for clarity of the record, the applicant would be requesting to table indefinitely waving the time for decision. So we wouldn't make a decision on this tonight, but what that would allow you to do is stay in queue, retool it, come back with some more information, and we can consider it whenever you're ready. and you can say,
"Hey, can we put be put back on the agenda?" >> Yeah. And and and while this may say that it's tabled indefinitely, we really know the time frame you're talking about. >> You plan to be back next month, but we would let Lauren know and get back on your agenda. >> I just want to point out to the board, I
was a little concerned about relocating a historic garage that's mentioned in the property report, but we do have a page on relocation. It says that it can be considered um >> and we would relocate it within the same property. We certainly didn't think you were going to take it across the property.
>> And there there are standards here. It just says, you know, select a site with similar characteristics and it'll be in the rear. So >> I think my fears have been allayed by that. >> Does your garage have the typical foundation of a garage like cement and
then just walls around? >> Yes. Yeah. And it's a tapered with a French like a green in the middle. >> Yeah. >> There's no basement underneath. There is no basement or bomb shelter or anything. >> No, it's on flat. You never know, but it's to be on flat. >> I think it would be Kate May's only garage with a bomb shelter. But okay.
May I have a motion to table this application, please? I'll make that. >> All right. Made by Mr. Carol, second by Miss Padro. >> Um, roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Carol, >> yes. >> Miss Pagno, >> yes. >> Miss Bilson, >> yes. >> Miss Decker,
>> yes. >> Mr. Hamron, >> yes. >> Mr. Testo, >> yes. Thank you. We look forward to the further progress of this project. >> We'll be back. >> Okay, that concludes our applications
and um there were no people commenting from the public on the specific applications, but are there anyone from the public here who would like to make public comment on any other issue, whether it be business of the commission or anything else? I
>> wanted to talk about the pedestrian bridge. >> You just put your name and address on the record, please. >> Sure. It's >> You turn on the Is it green? >> It's green. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you hear me now? >> It's Wilma Balant uh 113 First Avenue.
And we also own the home on 111 First Avenue, so next door. Um first, I just want to thank you guys. I've never been to one of these. I've been doing a lot of research on everything you do and it's amazing the time and attention. So,
thank you for all of that. Um, also I'm representing a lot of our neighbors, so we're all thanking you and thank you for having the heat on tonight. Um, just wanted to point out a couple things. I know everyone was concerned about lighting. Um, and I did have a chance to look at your historical designs. I was
just putting out there that there is a gas line right in front of our house. Perhaps a gas lamp similar to some of the standards that you guys have mentioned on page 41 could be considered. I don't know about LED lighting. Um
just light pollution and noise pollution. I wanted to call to your attention. Um there's three gas lamps already on the street, so it would be consistent. Um noise pollution. Just listening to you speak about the pools
um and neighbors. I mean, our home is obviously the first one. The bridge is basically letting out in front of our house. Um, so I'm just I know we're hoping to not have electric bikes on on it. I don't know how that will be
policed, but bikes going over bridge uh slats, no matter how exotic the wood is, is going to be quite noisy. So, I'm wondering, is there a chance for some other type of material to be considered versus wood slats and
bike tires? You can imagine, especially once the next bike path gets built, the constant noise. Um, so further amplified by the fact that it's overwater and open. So, I just, you know, playing devil's advocate and putting some ideas
out there, things for you guys to think about. Um, and then maintenance. Um, we have an empty lot next to us that my husband is constantly working on the Fragmighty. So, I just wanted to make
sure that it's everyone's aware of just how intense the landscape maintenance would have to be. And I know we have two amazing groups working on it, but I don't know. Um, there's constantly vines growing. There's there's a wooden fence
that basically says um like no outlet and we're constantly cutting back the vines on it. So, I don't know how that's going to work when it's weaving in between a steel structure. So, I know a lot of I mean it's the greater good and
we want everyone to be safe, but I just want to bring out some ideas, things for you guys to think about or consider. Um, so that's all I have to say. >> Well, thank thank you for that. Um, and I think you were not here when the
presentation was made by >> I was, but I there was no offer to speak, so I thought maybe it would be at the end. >> Did I not ask people to to No, >> not for the whole then you have >> the whole thing was very informative. >> I have my sincere apologies for that. >> That's okay. I learned a lot
>> and and I I'm sorry you didn't raise your arm and wave it around. But I I will say that you know that we're going to be doing an advisory report to the city and we we we could mention and will mention some of the things that were u
done tonight with respect to the lighting for example and and so >> electric bikes >> and and yeah >> electric bikes right >> so so some of those things that you mentioned would be included in the advisory report >> I don't know if there's any other
bridges that have been built. I mean, we've obviously been on the walkways. We use the Mount Vernon entrance, which is phenomenal. Um, but it's different when a bike's going over wooden slats versus pedestrian. So, if it was just pedestrian traffic, >> it would be different. But I think be
quite noisy. And it could be and I and I would I would also say that uh since since there is a Cape May portion of this project and Kate May is doing it cooperatively, Westgate May, nothing precludes you from contacting our city manager and making your point. >> They've been extremely responsive and we
have talked to them and we're meeting again this week, but this this wasn't anything that like we could have voted on or you know >> it it's the greater good. Um, so I feel like it's the project's been moving along and we're kind of, you know,
grabbing an ear at the at the 11th hour. We've been trying to Paul's been awesome. So, we're going to have some time with them this week, but I saw this on the agenda and I was like, I'm driving down after work. >> Well, no, we we certainly appreciate it. And again, I apologize for not uh
soliciting public comment when we actually had the opinion the advisory opinion in front of us. No, no, it was it was fabulous being here and and we truly appreciate all you do. So, thank you. It was very informative. So, >> certainly my my part-time job, our chairman will be back for next next meeting.
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, >> you need to go somewhere warm. >> I wrote down notes as well, so I'll be taking that back and you're going to be meeting with Paul >> and the group. Um, but we'll we'll um doubly uh mention this to them. And since this gets followed up by an advisory opinion advisory report,
they'll be included in the report. >> In the report as well. >> Yeah. I think some of the >> Excuse me. I'm sorry. Are there any existing bridges, anything that would have a, you know, a solid surface that they >> The only thing I if you go um on the back of convention hall, it's the same
wood that's going to be used on this bridge. Uh there that's actually bolted down. Um >> I haven't >> It's a dense wood. Did they go for the >> And it's beautiful and it's quite expensive. Yeah. >> But >> I'm not sure about the noise of that. Um
>> I I I know what you're thinking of cuz I'm thinking of the same thing like on >> for having a bike on the Ocean City Boardwalk D like that feeling. I think the goal is to to make it more of a smoother, heavier wood surface like the
one that's up at Convention Hall. But I I think two things based on your comments and uh in addition to being the HPC solicitor, I'm also the city solicitor. So I'm hearing this from both sides of my head, but I think the material is something that is a
concern and they want to make sure that it's, you know, going to be able to accommodate the type of uses that are present there. But they're really not looking to invite a range of, you know, bring they're you heard Ballards, they want to keep uh EV vehicles off these
things. And the city already has a a set of robust regulations for electric scooters and and EV uh bicycles and things like that to really keep it low impact for those types of
areas. We, believe it or not, I mean, we have, you're not supposed to have electric bikes up on the prominade right now. That's already on the books. So, I think we're going to it's going to be a little bit of let's see how it goes up there. But, there's also, I think, an opportunity to collaborate with West
Cape May on the rules of the road for this new project so that people have good expectations as that how it's supposed to be used. And you heard the city manager. I don't think they're putting benches or lookout towers or anything out there. It's to get from A
to B safely. That's the goal. Um, and to the extent that can be as quietly as possible, I think the city has every interest in promoting that as well. >> I agree. I just think we've all seen the increase in electric bikes. I mean, whether or not it's prohibited and how
it's managed remains to be seen. Um, a ballard's not going to stop that. it will stop a golf cart. And I think that was the purpose of it. But again, just some of the existing neighbors were concerned mostly with noise pollution, light pollution, and maintenance
because, you know, there's going to be if especially if it connects, we're going to be seeing a pretty big volume. Um, so just wanted to speak for the masses and thank you for your time. Well, well, we will we will write our uh our advisory report, but there's, as I
said, nothing that precludes you from staying in touch with the city administration as the project proceeds in order to make your views known. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments, >> Mr. Chair. >> Can I just add to that? When you meet with uh the city management and things,
they'll probably guarantee you that there'll be signs at either end that say bicyclers dismount and walk your bike, which would be right for two ways and only 10 feet and pedestrians, baby carriages,
all kinds of things. So, I would just say uh you know from experience that bikes don't pay attention to all the rules. So, we really have to make sure that that's a solid base on there to hold the noise down. >> I didn't think that they were going to
have folks dismount when I watched the video from the last >> Uhhuh. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's why I'm saying the writers will not do it. >> No, I I didn't even think it was going to be requested. I think they're assuming, >> you know, it's it's 10 foot wide, which
adheres to all of the regulations where you you can have uh foot, you know, foot passengers as well as bikes. uh riding across, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And you know, we all know what it's like when you're going to the beach and you're on bikes if you have the trailer and your beach chairs and things like
that. >> So, I mean, the noise is going to be, >> you know, definitely enhanced. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> So, there is I take it no further public comment to open to the public.
>> Anybody else want to speak? >> You please can you please step out the microphone? Thank you. Name and address for the record again, please. >> Cath Katherine Healey, uh, owner of 230
Grant Street, 236 Grant Street, and 248 Grant Street. Lauren, I'm I was to be on the schedule to speak, uh, regarding uh, siding. John, I called you on December 7th after I met with him at at he met with us at
11:00 or 10:00 in the morning and then I called you to be put on the schedule and I couldn't get on the June uh we I couldn't get on the January 12th because it was past the deadline and we have a question regarding the
siding and John couldn't did John discuss this with you? because John couldn't make a comment. It had to go through the whole board. >> Okay, Lauren, do you remember us having
that conversation? >> So, I I do vaguely remember that um anything that's going to come to the full commission and I did follow up with an email. It would we always require an application to be submitted. Yeah. >> We can't just hear >> with copies, many copies >> because all the the full commission
needs to be able to see. So, so, so excuse me. >> I I flew I just flew up from Florida just for this meeting and I'm very unaware and I apologize because John said to me, "Get in touch with Lauren.
Have her put you on the February 9th meeting because January sec this this meeting happened January 7th." So, I apologize because I I'm typically a very good
you know, follow through. I just I did not know it had to be in writing. >> Well, I mean, you've been before us before and I mean, this is I take it if I understand what you're saying is you spoke with the chair and he said this needed to be a presentation in front of the full commission,
>> correct? >> A hearing in front of >> and and it wasn't it's a it's a issue regarding the siding for 230 Grant Street. I I think I understand what you're saying. You had a you probably an application that usually
would be approved in review, but if the review committee or the chairman has any doubts and it's not approved or denied, it's just, hey, look, I want another set of eyes on this in the code, it can be referred to the full board. So what would the the thing that you would have
to do is make sure that you submitted an application for approved in review and if it can't be approved there it's routed here. Did you already submit an application a formal application? >> Yeah. Well I I also have compliances and
I I asked for this meeting on site for him to see because we put the piece on the building so he came to look at. Is it an amendment to to an approved? Did we approve? >> Yes, we have two approvals. We have an
approval. Yes, we have resolutions. We have approval that goes back to July 15th of 24. That's the notice of conceptional approval. We also have certificate of appropriateness and we
gave cut sheets and all the information regarding this siding. >> Right. So, but but I mean it sounds to me like what you're talking about is a change or an amendment to an existing resolution that differs from the resolution. You're trying to get
something additional. >> No. Well, well, here's the situation. Could Could I just have a sample of the material? We met we we had the cut sheets. We've done everything by the book. >> No, I understand. And you have a resolution and a certificate.
>> Yes. And actually at your meeting on January 12th, you approved this material to be used on St. James Place. >> Well, not not on some other application, but what do we what do we approve in this case? And then you're saying you
want to do something different. >> This is a material >> you came in for. You you came in for a vi there was some sort of vinyl thing, right? >> Well, it's it's the siding. It has a wood grain to it.
>> Kevin, can you put on your microphone, please? >> So, this is for one of your properties on Grant Street, right? >> The home under construction. We really need to get the siding up. >> So, it's a non it's a new structure, non-contributing. >> Correct. >> Okay. And now, and now
>> we met with John on on the Tuesday meeting. It was done on a Wednesday morning because that was what was appropriate for John. So that was a private meeting with him. Yep. Okay. >> Right. >> John's individual. >> John John would have met with you on Tuesday. On Wednesday, he would have taken his
>> Yeah. He had family in town. So it was pushed to Wednesday. Okay. And Lauren was aware of that. >> Okay. So now what you're asking is to substitute this material for whatever was originally approved or this is what you're proposing to use for the >> This was originally approved. The
problem is it has a wood grain and we have an argument why we want to use this because we can't get the same material flat. >> That's that's usually it. Normally when we do a vinyl siding, it has to be a
flat surface. It's not a >> because because the grains are awful. >> That's right. They don't look real. >> Right. But there's a whole reason for this material and I have the experts with me to explain it. And what John
explained to me was that I needed to come to the full committee that we couldn't do it in a subcommittee. >> And the reason for that is simply we would not have approved that based on it being an exception which would have then set a precedent for the for the full
commission. So, we would have said to you and I wasn't I don't remember this. So, I >> Right. And I that um but but the idea would be if we're going to put in a different material, the whole commission should see that, not just the review. >> Look, I mean, this is I this is public
comment and I'm I'm glad you're making those comments, but you have something you want us to decide and and to decide. You need to put it in writing and it needs to go through the process of either being done by our review committee and if it can't be done by the review committee, it'll be done by all
of us together. >> We can't make a decision from a public comment period. I I understand that and I have to apologize because John did not say to me, Kathy, I
called Lauren on the phone and said, "Could we get on the meeting docket for we couldn't get on for the 12th of January?" >> So, so >> it was the 7th of January. This is now meeting
>> and Lauren said, "Yes, I've put you on the committee for this meeting >> and I apologize >> that." >> Respectfully, Mrs. Healey, you know, I was the secretary for years on behalf of
Lauren. Unless you submit a packet for a full commission meeting with the fee, you can't be heard by this board. We can't make a decision. >> But, but it was already approved. Like I'm just >> Missy, Miss Hilly, I I'll give you an example and and I don't know what
confusion led us to tonight, but I I will tell you that routinely we have people that get final approval for new construction and things like that and they decide midway. They say, "Oh, you know, I'd really like to do this or I this came up and I want to do that." >> Right? This >> it's it's a they come in and they say,
"Hey, you approve this and we want to review this component." And it we review a packet. It's a It's an application, >> okay, >> material. And >> however, we didn't get that tonight. It can be fixed, but it's not going to be fixed tonight. We just need to >> Yeah. >> need to submit it and present it.
>> So, what I what I would suggest is >> my house is like the wood's been up for a long time and I'm like dying all the moisture that's getting in. So, I'll be back and hopefully I can be back next month. Uh the date of next month's meeting is
>> I think we can tell you that if you submit the right packet with the supporting materials, you'll be on the docket, but not for February 9th, but for the March meeting. >> And what is the date of the next meeting? Please >> look at our schedule. It's it's the
>> always the third Monday of the >> Okay, great. >> Except for >> President's Day weekend, Christmas, >> March 16th. So I'll see you on March 16. plenty of time to get your written package together and and come to us just like you've done before,
>> right? No problem. I I apologize. I >> There's nothing to apologize for. >> I like to do things and do them right and that's why I'm here doing it this way. But thank you. I I appreciate Kate May very much. >> We will hear you in March and I I imagine that this is a pretty narrow
thing that we can decide pretty quickly. >> Yeah. And I hope John will be here so that will help. >> So do I. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks. >> Hi, just a quick question. Um, regarding the application, it goes through >> Sorry, you are. >> Um, so my name is Matteas Maderos. I'm
uh the contractor. Um, regarding the application, you say it goes through a review stage and can a decision be made in that review stage or does it come directly to a full board? >> If if the material is is acceptable strictly under the standards without any interpretation?
Yes. So, you may be able to present some in the next Tuesdays between now and the formal meeting of the board. If you present a material that just strictly meets the standards >> well that's the issue that's really get
>> it can if it can be done in a weekly review committee meeting because it conforms right with the standards. It goes like that. >> If you have another idea how to solve this problem between now and March, by all means bring it to the review committee. >> Oh, perfect. >> You know what I mean? like supporting documents and stuff as I
>> Well, I'm I'm saying if if if it's not that material or something else and something clicks, you know what I mean? Like >> try something else. But if it you want to stick with that and come to the board, it sounds like that initial review's already been done. So, it requires the full board. >> I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
>> See you in March. >> See you in March. >> Okay. Um I there seems to be no more public here to make further public comments but shall we let's let's open and close public comment period. So it's closed
now. Um remaining for discussion um are are a couple of items but particularly the most recent being the progress on the historic preservation awards. And I'd like Janice to bring us up to date on the past weekend and the progress and
the and the upcoming >> Well, I just want to say thanks to the committee and our jurors. We despite the terrible weather, um we had our site visit. It was it was very successful. I'm compiling the juror comments and uh
tomorrow we'll have our committee meeting and talk about their decisions. Uh we had made it clear to the jurors that we would abide by their decisions and we asked them for comments on every property and we asked them to
award a winner in each category if there was an appropriate one. Um and also to note any that were would warrant commendation. So, I can tell you that out of the 16 properties, there are four winners and
six commendations. And then, and there's lots of good material in the comments. The comments, the jurors included Dorothy Guzo, who's a longtime historic trust and head and has been doing this forever and making
decisions about funding for historic preservation, especially commercial and tax credit. um Joan Berky who had written many of the early surveys and then Stephen Smallen who's done our design. So they combined um a breadth of
understanding of New Jersey architecture with a very good intimate understanding of Kate May and our history from the time really when we started doing surveys. So, in some ways, this is like
free uh survey review because I found it educational. When when they called me back to tell me what their decisions were, they said, "What do you think?" And I said, "Well, I'm surprised. I can't wait to read your comments."
Um, we also have gotten the applications for the stewardship and leadership awards up on this the website and in the office and that's a call for public nominations
and the committee is real hands off on this. We're not going to encourage people to, you know, we want to keep it blind and we want to keep it fair. And also, we would love to have people
really embrace this idea and and either nominate themselves or nominate a property or a organization that they believe in. And there was one other thing on my list. you had you had mentioned that you got some useful comments with respect to preventive
actions that might need to be taken in order to maintain contributing status and something some >> I think when we when we read their comments I think everyone on the commission will understand because these are properties we've approved over the
last three three or four years and of all the approved properties these were the 16 we felt were the most likely to get an award. So if they had reservations about something that caused
them like in some cases I put this was a great contender but and I am trying to edit it to be as diplomatic as possible. Um and they are diplomatic because there was good things about every property that was nominated.
Um, also Casey has put together the calendar which I believe will be available digitally and also printed and it has a a good write up about the awards and it has the May 13th event
listed on the calendar. So that's that's out there. >> Keep updates. So what we're looking at now at the meeting is just um pro progressing with the stewardship leadership
process. Uh they will be dropping off their packets to Lauren. Lauren will keep us a breast and by April well they're due by March 31st. So, if you as commissioners who aren't on the
committee can nominate people and you can tell friends to nominate people and we encourage you to do that, but the committee will be the jurors and and we want to keep our hands off of it and we want to look at these nominations
without looking at who made the nomination. So, did I Judy? >> Yeah. And just one more thing just to encourage the public to um whoever's listening to encourage the public to uh submit go online uh you can download the
application online and then submit anybody for the stewardship or leadership awards. >> Yes, it's on the banner. Lorraine caught that to put it on the banner. So you can just click on the banner and get the information about the awards and how to submit. And we tried to make the
submission as simple as possible. you go on. >> It's not like applying for a commission review. >> No. Which which as we know can be pretty difficult overall or fast depending whether you're on the document. >> And I think Lorraine's ordered the plaques. >> They're ordered
>> and the jurors had um they had some good suggestions. They said the process was really well done. Uh we did not have a recap after they were done this time, but they thought that would be we John thought it would take them longer. I I thought it would take him a couple
hours, but and that's right. They they really were very efficient about it. So, >> well, I mean, these these are people who have vast >> they have a lot of experience and we also gave them great packets. >> They did their research ahead of time. You could tell when we met with them,
right, >> uh first thing in the morning before they went out, they knew uh what they were looking at, what they were looking for. No, you ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch ch one, >> but I think in the if we did this exactly this way and I don't know if we'll decide that we're going to do the
building awards every year, I I think it might be a stretch. It's probably two or three. They did suggest that there were so many contenders in the first category which was preservation, restoration, rehabilitation and reconstruction to
separate that into two categories because preservation and restoration are kind of related and then rehabilitation or reconstruction are are kind of related and >> so because there aren't going to be a lot of adaptive reuse in Kate May and we
really were very scant in that category, >> but getting together at the end as a group of committee members to have feedback with them. They they thought that would be good and I and they will they're all looking forward to uh John
mentioned a a gathering before the um event on the 13th. So, they're looking >> Well, as you know, this commission is a good party commission. So, so there well well known for showing our appreciation that way. And and I just want to say on behalf of the rest of us um who who
haven't participated directly in this that this is this has really been a fine project and it I think it it's a significant and and it it justifies having an awards committee um to to go on with this. I'm I'm someone who was skeptical at first and I've come around
to believe that this is a really important way of integrating us into the community in a in a in a kinder and gentler and and much more We do have one under 50 member and I think it's a great way to bring community members in and
get them involved to be future commissioners. >> Yeah, it's a good way good. It's it's really got a good path to it. Um so that that concludes right your remarks on this. >> That's it. >> Heaven, do you have something to add to about the signage um situation? >> There is we were asked uh by the city to
see if we had a the interest of a couple of members to participate in a look at the public signage in town. Um, and you the way this got started was we were asked to take a look at the signage on the mall, specifically at the ends of the mall. And you'll see all kinds of
different signage. There's metal signage, there's signage, there's raised letters, there's not raised letters. It's just, it's all over the board. And then you have, you know, the public signage as well as you drive around. Everything from, I guess, speed signs to, you know, whatever. And so the question was asked of us, you know, it
seems logical we want to standardize the signage in some way um and make it historically significant and appropriate as well so that you know it kind of is consistent with the character of Kate May. Um and you know I so anyway John
asked if I would sit on that with him and I think there was someone else that he asked to sit on. I don't remember who that was now but uh um we have not had a meeting yet. The first meeting is scheduled in kind of like the towards the end of March I think it is and uh
you know we'll I'll certainly or John I assume will let you you provide updates. >> I I'm I'm sure he'll he'll he'll come up with an an update on it as as we you know as we progress through and it's always good to have Lorraine sitting on something because then it gets a second
shot at the city council level. There is I'm gonna I'm just going to do my own little piece here and that's you know I'd love to see a similar level of interest in the street lights in town. I just think that you know we really don't think about those much and you know we
have the historic street light that you know I think all of us know some are gas some have been electrified. Um and it kind of goes back to even the discussion we had about the bridge. You know there it's hard to see in this town like like if you go to as we as my wife and I do we go to uh sh you know, for the
Thursday night of, you know, music. And um coming back, we walk and you know, we go through a lot of dark areas that you really can't see, which in turn makes us decide we're going to walk in the street because the condition of the sidewalks, you know, is a tripping hazard sometimes. And and I would just say I I
just I cannot think of a town that has a historic character like Cape May that does not have a signature light post. And we don't. And I just I hope at some point the city takes an interest in developing something like that.
>> Okay. I I think it's probably only left for me to remind everybody that we're getting ready to align and uh that's coming up on the 26th if I recollect properly. So hopefully everybody will be there. um management will have to see to
the food and drink um to be sure that we're all well enough fed, but everybody's hopefully going to be there on the 26th. >> Does this need the alignment need to be advertised? >> Yeah. Yes. Is it just housekeeping? I want to make sure that that's
>> it's a special meeting. >> Yep. Okay. >> I told John I would uh go to go together with him on the food and drink for the meeting. So, you'll probably be getting something from me asking for what kind of sandwiches you want and what's your favorite drink? Non-alcoholic
>> always as as as um was said in Dickens Christmas Carol, one can always attend if a lunchon is provided. So, all right. So, I think that really concludes unless anybody's got anything else to bring up for the night in that
alignment. we have time to talk about standards that should really be modified um >> because and I I'll use the example of tonight the the one with the um um solar panels you know it's almost imp at some level it's almost impossible to get a solar panel
approved in this town simply because the streets are so you know tight that you really can see something almost >> yeah I mean largely we've seen things on large public buildings and they're well hidden because they're tall and But but it is difficult to not see something
>> compromise might be that it's on the street facing you know front of the house face of the house >> and and and we have and we have questions about the standards and visibility for example in in other in other ways. Okay. But may I may I call us for a motion for adjournment so we
can >> So second. >> All right.