testing. Testing. If any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this time. Seeing none, stand for the pledge 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. >> Everyone, please turn off their phones if they haven't done so already. >> That mean uh Karen, roll call, please. >> Yes. Mr. Bizair,
Mr. Jones, Mr. Riggs >> here. >> Mr. Crowley >> here. >> Mr. Gorgone >> here. >> Council member Bodner >> here. >> Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Mrs. Reid >> here. >> Mr. Lhome >> here. >> Mr. produces >> here, >> Mr. Krippen.
>> All right, we have five resolutions for approval. They're all dated 414 2026, all to Crown Castle Fiber LLC. First one is 315 Ocean Street, block 1059, lot 1. Uh, the second one is 707
Beach Avenue, block 1062, lot 7. The third is 6 Perry Street, block 1028, lot 1.02. 02. The fourth one is 2011 Beach Avenue, block 1019, lot 28. And the last
one is 104 North Street, block 1025, lot one. Anyone have any issues with those? Is there a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Lhome
seconds. Mr. Gorgon, >> abstain. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed, >> abstain. >> Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenholm, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Padus, >> abstain.
>> Mr. Jones, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> We have minutes for approval of March 10 2026. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Mr. Crowley motions. Deputy Mayor McDade seconds. Mr. Gorgone,
>> abstain. Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed, >> abstain. >> Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lenholm, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Paducus, >> abstain. >> Mr. Jones, >> yes. >> Thank you.
>> One application uh for this evening, Addis, Inc., 1317 Beach Avenue, block 1146, lots 6 through 24. It's amended site plan preliminary and final modification of condition variance
relief hardship and substantial benefits. Good evening chairman, deputy mayor, members of the board. Uh my name is Keith Davis. I'm an attorney at Nimad Davis and Goldstein and I'm here on behalf of Addis Inc. I'm joined by George Andy who is uh the president of
that uh corporate entity. They're the owner and operators of the existing La Mer uh beachfront resort. Um we are here uh for two reasons. One, we're seeking an extension of a site plan that you
approved back in 20 uh 23. Uh that approval allowed for uh the construction the demolition of the beach house. Um and in its place the construction of a new building for conferences, weddings, and special events uh limited to 202
seats. Um, additionally, a second aspect of the approval is the demolition of 51 existing hotel units um and replacing them with new modern uh hotel units uh on on site. There's 162
hotel rooms uh existing there. No increase. Um for three reasons, we're asking for the extension. First, uh, we had to negotiate a encroachment agreement with the county. Still has not been completed yet. We're getting close to doing so.
Uh, secondly, there's been some changed economic circumstances which uh, Mr. Andy will testify to um, since 2023 in terms of interest rates and and building costs. And third, this is probably the the primary driver as to why we haven't commenced construction. And there's an
existing light and air easement uh that we contest uh as to its validity, but arguably benefits a property owner on the other side of New Jersey Avenue. Uh we filed suit uh to extinguish that
easement. That litigation is ongoing. Um and we just had a trial. Um uh summations were just made to Judge Gibson um here in the county and we hopefully will have a decision soon and we hope there won't be an appeal beyond
that but there may be. So that has caused delays as well. So we're asking for three one-year extensions. The approval runs through July 9 of this year and we're asking that it be extended through July 9 of uh 20 uh 29.
Secondly, when we were here the last time, uh we necessitated a parking variance and we provided uh testimony from Mr. Andy, our traffic consultant, Mr. Shopire, and our planner, uh Tiffany Moresy, uh to
justify that. And uh one of the things that we offered as the applicant was to limit events uh so that they would not take place in season from June 15 to Labor Day. Um, I think for many of the same reasons, and Mr. Andy can testify
to this better than I can, because of increased building costs, because of interest rates, which are providing an impediment toward economically building this event structure, um, a revenue stream is needed and inseason events are
are needed in order to make this aspect of the project work. and we're thus asking for relief from that uh condition that was imposed in connection with uh the prior site plan approval uh from 2023. We think the parking supply that's
on site still works. We've updated our parking analysis from the report uh that was uh supplied in 2023 and per Mr. Hurles's request, I brought additional copies of that if any board members would like a copy. Um and we supplied a
new report. We think it's justified because it arguably impacts the parking variance. We requested a new parking variance as part of this application. Uh we've noticed for that uh we've supplied proof of that notice to uh Miss Keenan.
Uh so that's part of the record of the case. So that those are the two issues. There's no new development. We're not changing what you approved in 2023 in terms of building area number of hotel rooms. It's going to be the same lush landscaping plan that we presented uh
three years ago. The only two reasons we're here, we're asking that you extend the approval for three years and we're asking you to supply relief from the prior conditions so that the event space can be used year round and doesn't have to go dark in the summer. So I have three witnesses uh Mr. Andy, Mr.
Shopire, and Mrs. Moresy. And with your permission, I'd like to have those three witnesses sworn in. >> Sure. also swear in the board engineer. Do each of you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing to yourself beyond. >> You did. You did. >> Mr. Annie, I'd like to talk to you. Can
you just confirm for the record what your role is with Addis, Inc.? >> Uh managing partner, president of Addis, Inc. >> And that entity is the owner of uh the real estate where the La Mer uh beachfront resort is located. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And um first, let's talk about uh the
extension that we're requesting. Obviously, you haven't commenced construction of the project that was approved in 2023. Do you still have every intention of eventually doing so? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, first, I I know the county approval has not yet been granted for the encroachment agreement. Correct.
>> Your engineer has been diligently working at supplying the plans and other uh information that the county has been requesting and we're we're getting close to that being completed. Correct. >> It's been a slow go, but yes. Yeah. Secondly, um you are party to a lawsuit
concerning a light and air easement uh that arguably burdens the property where the event space is slated to be constructed. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And I know uh you spent a lot of time and energy in that litigation and my my partner Mr. Kaufman has been handling
that uh through trial before Judge Gibson. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And you you've been a witness. You've testified in that litigation, correct? >> Yes. Um and trial has just recently uh summed up and we're waiting for a decision from Judge Gibson as to the validity of that easement. Correct.
>> That's correct. >> Um because of the existence of that easement, has that given you pause in terms of proceeding with the development? Because if that easement is valid, it would have a negative impact on your ability uh to construct uh the building and if if it's enforced, you
may have to tear it down later, which you obviously don't want to do. Correct. >> Correct. Um, and has that caused delays in your ability to commence construction of the project? >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. >> Um, talk more so about what has happened since 2023 in terms of the economic
conditions that you're now facing that maybe weren't as uh present in 2023 when the approval was granted. What what's changed that has uh increase the cost of building the project? I mean, you look at any soft cost, you whether you're talking about architects, engineers,
attorneys, uh, you know, everything's gone up. Uh, hard cost, I mean, you look at everything from the furniture that we bring over to steel, concrete, all the inputs, they've gone way up. And you mentioned 23 is when we actually did the application. Well, the whole whole entire process starts way before that, too. So, when we pencil these numbers
in, >> that environment does not exist as it stands today. It's pretty much doubled up. Um and that's just on the on the actual physical hard cost and then you have interest rates obviously that was a different environment back then as well. Uh that compounds to the overall cost.
So you get basically a double hit. >> So the and I haven't been saying 2023. The approval was granted in 2024 um expires in July of this year if the board were inclined and we we've requested four years total. one for the delay in getting the county approval
which would be one year if if uh accommodated by the board and then three years. >> Um would that give you do you believe sufficient time to resolve the litigation get the county approval done >> and also hopefully uh enable you to uh
assemble your financing in order to construct the project? >> Yes, absolutely. Um, you're also seeking relief from a condition that we offered as part of the last uh site plan approval to limit uh event usage uh from
July June 15 to Labor Day. Correct. >> Yes. >> Um, what has changed? Why are you now asking the board to resin that condition to allow you to operate the event space year round? >> Sure. I mean we've had a lot of inbound since we announced we got the approvals
uh back in in 20 or 20 24 uh we had a lot of inbound uh requests from from guests and you know once we made the announcement a lot of guests come to us and say hey you know what about these dates and you know unfortunately uh with this condition that we that we uh put on ourselves we had to turn some business
down and and turn some requests. So basically there is demand from uh guests for those dates that that has generated this reason for us to come back >> and also um obviously if you're able to be open for events in season uh that would allow you to generate additional
revenue would that give uh further justification to building the structure even though you've got high interest rates and higher building and construction costs? >> Yes. Um, one of the variances we're seeking is for parking. >> Uh, because by eliminating this
condition, it arguably affects that parking variance that was previously uh, granted by the board. You're familiar with your parking operation in season, out of season. If you were to have seasonal events with the hotel continuing to operate, what would that
do to the existing parking supply? Would there be adequate parking provided on site? >> Yes. I mean the whole reason we put all these conditions are it one we want to make sure it's just for our guests. So the guest that's going to be attending the event is going to be a guest that's going to be at staying at the hotel so it doesn't really impact the neighbor
neighborhood. And the reason why let me maybe just back up a little bit. The reason why we put this self-imposed condition is we've been I mean Craig can probably uh correct me if I'm wrong. We've been one of the applications that been in front of the board many many many times over the years. We've heard uh numerous comments from from the from
the board from the community. We we understand the neighborhood. but we're a commercial property adjoining a neighborhood that's adjacent. So, we're very sensitive to all these things. So, we kind of did a uh a uh concerted effort to kind of, you know, get ahead of that and address it and that was the reason why we we came up with this
condition. Uh but for all those reasons that we're we're mentioning right now, we kind of had a had a had a reverse course, so to speak, and just say, you know what, maybe we need to come back and this would make this a little more viable of a of a uh op uh operation to
or option to make the operations go. >> Mr. Davis, your question that I wrote down was um he believes there would be adequate parking provided on site. >> Is that what you meant to ask him? >> Yeah, what did I say? You said on site, but I want to make sure his testimony is that there's sufficient parking with the
events in the summer on site. >> Did you? >> Including off-site onsite. >> Did you understand that to be the question? >> On onsite. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> No. Um, one of the other conditions you agreed to that we're not asking the board to disturb uh was an obligation that anytime you do an event, you're
going to obligate uh the booker, the person that's arranging for the event to reserve up to 25% of the event guests as hotel rooms. >> Yes. >> So that people, as you just said, people that are going to be using the event space are also going to be at least a
portion of them are going to be required to stay on site. You're not seeking to disrupt that in any way, correct? >> No. not modifying that at all. >> And we supplied with the application um an updated policy for La Mer internally to adhere to that 25%. Correct.
>> Yes. >> And also a template event contract >> which stipulates that there's an obligation to book up to 25% of the event guests um in hotel rooms. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that's going to remain undisturbed. And you you you understand that that's
going to remain a condition of approval. >> Understood. Yes. Um, and in addition, do you believe by having uh the space be utilized for events year round, will that help support um uh the tourist economy here in the city of Kate May?
>> No question. >> That's all I have for Mr. Andy. Any questions from the board? >> Yes, I have a couple of questions. You talked about um three one-year extensions, but then you said another year. So, is it 2030?
>> Um, we would like to have 2030. I feel uh a little hampered in pressing for the one-year mandatory extension for the county approval because it did take a while for our professionals to supply it, but if the board is so inclined, we do not have that county approval as of yet. Mr. Andy and I have certainly been
pressing for it. So, if the board is inclined, we would like to have it extended to July of 2030. >> So, and on the ROI, you talked about how this substantially changed. Um, is that from an ROI perspective financially in years or was it just this is a go no-go
if we don't have this 3 to four month period? >> Are you saying in terms of like a you know >> Yeah. I mean, when you're doing an investment, you're looking at your ROI and what is the period of time associated before you're going to see a break even? Sure. You know, is that, you know, has it gone from I'm just making numbers up, sir. Four years to seven
years and that's looking a little pal not palatable from a business model or is this a go no-go? >> Uh, no. No, it's definitely compressed. That's for sure. >> Okay. >> It's not If it was a no-go, we wouldn't be here. >> Okay. I just want to ask the question. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. And the 25% booked rooms, um,
this, you know, plays a factor in understanding the parking accommodation and what would be available? Um, are you going to restrict that it's only one car per room? >> As Mr. Straw can can attest, yes. I mean, we we are we don't want to take
outside events. We want to, you know, from the economic model, the rooms are where where the money's at. The vent center boosts the rooms. So, they go kind of hand in hand. So, we don't want to take outside. >> There are some, there are some um, you know, accommodations throughout the country where it tells you you have one parking space and that is all. Uh, I'm
just asking that question. You've already put a constriction on, you know, that they have to be book 25 rooms, uh, that, you know, in order to be able to have an event there, etc. I'm just asking is that another have you considered that as an option because you are you know your numbers are going to
play into that. So and I'm not putting you on the spot to answer me. I just think it's a consideration. >> So I think you know would I think the question is you don't have to answer this right now is would you consider updating your contract to limit uh those that are booking one hotel room to be limited to one vehicle so that there aren't two vehicles coming to the
>> Yeah. Sure. >> Can I understand you? >> That is correct, sir. >> Sure. Yeah. Yes. >> Thank you for clarify. >> So you are you willing to do that? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. and and yeah and that's 25% by the way not not 25 rooms cuz >> I'm sorry if I said I meant I understood percent so thank you which is about 40ome rooms
>> uh >> roughly >> we got 162 uh 25 yeah rough >> in in that ballpark >> in in the yes >> all right thank you >> I have a question about the answer you gave to Moren
it's a you're going to require them to have one car per per room. Uh, but there's no restriction on bringing more than one car for that room. >> We're only going to give them one space for the room. >> I think we just said that they're going to be restricted to one under in the
contract. We're willing to amend the >> book a room, you get a space, >> correct? >> Uh, so you book a room, you get a space, and then somebody else comes and stays with you in that room, they also bring their car. >> I think we're saying by contract, we're going to prevent that from happening.
We're going to say to the person that's reserving that hotel room, everybody that's staying in that hotel room is limited to one motor vehicle. Period. >> On site. >> On site. >> Okay. >> So, would you put like a placard in the car window that this so that if somebody
pulls in like Mr. Crowley's talking about, you wouldn't see a placard and then you'd have to have that car towed? >> Uh, yeah. If you go to the hotel, we've had this for for years and Craig can attest to that. There's >> you would get >> Yeah. Yeah. There there's plenty of signage that address there. There's a
placard. We have it color coded. There's green for green section so you go go to the main building. Blue for the wing building go is closer for there. So we we do have a way to to to know who's staying who's registered. It's basically part of the registration process. You get a placard that you hang in the car. >> So when the person comes with a second
car, they're on their own to find a spot somewhere. >> Uh correct. >> Yeah. Then sometimes we have we have plenty of parking and the reality is you know we still have to have four parking spots for the restaurant for the same guest that's staying at at the hotel. So it's a double dip. But the reality is everyone comes if they're coming in from New York or they're coming in from North
Jersey wherever they're all coming mostly together. And the reality is in the summertime it's mostly families. The kids aren't bringing their separate cards. They're all coming in one vehicle. Can can I just discuss a logistic issue with the board because they're asking us to do two separate distinct things here.
>> One is they have an approval in hand and they're asking us to grant an extension and we have certain criteria for evaluating that and we're we're sort of mixing what they're what they're asking for in the second part together with the first
part. Um would it make sense to deal with the extension first? >> Yes. Yes. >> And then talk about because I view what they're asking as essentially, you know, the modification of the site plan is changing the conditions and that's should be a separate consideration. >> Yes.
>> Does that make sense? >> Agreed. >> Yes. >> So I just we're getting testimony for both together and I just want to >> let's just make sure you're not going to have any other witnesses on the extension issue, are you? >> Just Mrs. Morris is going to say
>> Okay. Well, then it's warranted, but I think there's adequate proofs in the record now if you want to proceed with a vote or discussion on that issue. Now, >> I'm confident we're allowed to give all three one-year extensions at one time. I' I've considered this before and I really don't know the rule on it, but it
does say three one-year extension does, >> not one three-year extension. So, I've correct I've always thought that it should be you have to come back three times, but I think in the past we did it once before and I think we gave more than one year, but at the time I was like, I don't know if that was right. I have some board attorneys that take that
position and I've had others that have certainly granted all three at the same time. I I think it's you know you can request the extension before the approval lapses after the approval lapses. It doesn't provide a timing. So I think the board has the authority to do it.
>> Yeah. I I think it's just a matter of do you understand what I'm asking? It says three one-year extensions. So you can make the comeback you can make it come back three times and give one year each time. but also is an expense to them and it's an annoyance to us in some ways, right? So, you got to decide what you
really want to what you want to do. You can give them one, two, or three. >> Can we receive notification at a minimum um rather than having them come back just be >> you got to either >> Okay. One way. Okay. >> So, if I mean I'm not I'm not suggesting do any of the three any things you vote
how you want to vote. I'm just saying that I believe you can say we'll give you one year, we'll give you two years, we'll give you three years. I think you can do any of those three things. Um, if if it be in your discretion you think it's appropriate. It may be that in a year or two whatever factors they are
talking about may not be extent and you might not give the extension that time. So, you know, sometimes you want to bring them back each time, but I leave it up to you. You you make whatever motions have discussion. Um, council and I kind of see it the same way. There isn't a real clear rule on it. So, I'm going to leave it in your discussion.
What you >> did you say one in a fourth year though, too? >> So, there's one that's the mandatory extension that if you can demonstrate that you have not received a required governmental approval diligently applied for, uh, you're entitled to that as well. Um, we have been going back and
forth with Kate May County on an encroachment agreement and we we think we're at the finish line, but we don't have it in hand yet. So I think there is justification uh under that provision of the statute as well. >> Why don't you meet them halfway? Give them the mandatory one and then give them two more and then they have three.
If they want fourth they can but hopefully they won't need it because we like to keep the p when we give approval we like to see it done or not done. So >> I think that's a fair and appropriate compromise. The motion I'd recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you and how you move is up to you, is a
motion to grant a one-year required extension for the county approval and then two one-year extensions for a total of three. So that would be July 2029, I think we said, right? July, >> correct? >> So if anyone was inclined to make that motion, then that maybe that's a motion to be
>> that's taking it to July 9th, 2029. >> Um, uh, >> are we going to open to the public or Craig going to do a report? So you you certainly may chairman but I'm just noting that that aspect of the application is not does not require public notice. We obviously included it
because of the condition provision of it. So that's of up to you and your counselor of public comment are slightly different things. So I I guess I would out of prudence you can open the public but for the public's purpose this is just about whether they're going to extend their approvals. We don't have to
do it although it's very often done. This has nothing to do with whether or not they're going to approve the parking. So if that is what you're upset about, please don't speak now. You'll have another opportunity. Okay. >> All right. We are going to open it. Go ahead. >> Maybe I can add a little more clarity.
We're extending the application that permitted them for this use for and it it's only permitted to be used during the off season. Okay. The followup is for them to ask for the ability to use
it all year round. Okay. the public understand. Anybody from the public want to speak on that issue? I think we're pretty clear on what we want to do there. It has nothing to do with what the proposal is to change. >> I only want to speak about the prohibition.
>> Okay, that's fine. I close the open public. Is there a motion from the board? >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Deputy Mayor McDade. motioned. Mr. Gorgone seconded. Okay. Thank you. Mr.
Gorgon, >> yes. >> Council member Bner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid? >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lholm? >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs? >> Yes. >> Mr. Produces? >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones?
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any questions about for Mr. Andy about the now that the extension has been voted upon about the condition request that we've made. >> I have a couple questions. >> Yes.
>> Um the indoor outdoor outdoor area at the peer house. When was that area completed and opened up for your guests and for the public? >> Uh it'll be two years in this June. >> So summer June of 24.
>> Correct. Okay. And if um you know we need to consider obviously a a parking variance and the parking that you have is for your hotel guests. It's for guests that do come and use the use
the restaurant as well as and what you're also proposing is for um for the event center as well. Um, you know, I believe that in the prior hearing there was testimony about the, you know, the occupancy of
the the hotel in the summertime. So, is there any change has there been any change in your your um occupancy rate? I think that for instance, I think there's testimony that it was about 95% in the summer. discussion about there being a bell curve essentially as far as the
amount of of your occupancy with the summer months being your busier months and then there being perhaps a 60% or so 65% occupancy after Labor Day with it dropping say 5% or so in those following
weeks or following months. Um, one I guess I'd like to have some idea because for us to consider a variance need to have some idea as far as whether we're still talking about the same number of folks utilizing um your as far as your
with with your occupancy and I want to make sure that we're comparing if um we're looking at what the current circumstances are as far as with uh with you know with what the practices are and uh your your guest traffic at the at a location.
>> Sure. Sure. In ter in terms of occupancy is more or less, you know, we've been at this uh 50 plus years and the last 10 years, it more or less falls the same in terms of occupancy. The average daily rate, the actual dollar amount per uh that we charge that obviously, you know, is is different, but in terms of
occupancy, uh is falling pretty much in the same line as, you know, when we've done when we did the studies, uh the prior year. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Andy? >> I have a I have a question. Why would
this is I guess to the board. Why would we limit them to be able to only park one car on property if it's not capacity and they can hold more per room? >> The the minimum requirement by code is one car per room,
>> right? But if it's not offseason and they could absorb more of that parking on their property, they're not full. Why wouldn't technically they can't do that if they agree with it? >> I think the question was that they were going to do it as part of the booking for these block of rooms. Um and since the condition is being open to
potentially a June to Labor Day time frame, um you know, it would it would seem that you're going to be putting an additional burden. So, if you're having a contract that stipulates you must book 25% of the room, in my mind, if you're looking for a consideration to open up
during the summer when you know you're at a 95% occupancy and you have a demand for event space, that condition should be applied at that time. One could argue that if you don't have that condition after Labor Day that you would have more flexibility operationally to make that
as a discretionary judgment and they have a placard program that they probably would be able to, you know, do that. But I think as far as the the standard is concerned, I'd like to see that language in there and certainly for any consideration during the season. So that that would be my view.
>> But the rest of the year if they can absorb some of that off the street. >> Absolutely. I think that that's a discretionary thing operationally that you know the management team could determine. And also u when we discussed this the first time three years ago the unique
notion that u the uh the parking space could be have a double use in season and offseason different uses was something that swayed several members of the board including me. It it was a unique arrangement that we hadn't seen before.
And uh uh the idea now that we're going to remove that and and make it a 12-month condition extends the problem through the the high season significantly, I would think,
because if you're using that hotel at 90 95% capacity and you bring in 220 people for a wedding, let's conceivably every week, it's going to be a permanent problem for >> Well, let's listen to all the testimony before we reach those conclusions. You
still have a traffic expert to speak and a professional planner. So, let's do that before >> traffic expert says about this. Yeah, I would. >> Yeah. So, let's hear what they have to say. >> And look, um this is our proposal, but we're not hard and fast to it. We appreciate the board's approval the last
time your flexibility in granting the parking variance. If you believe that the 25% threshold isn't appropriate and maybe it should be 30 or 35% uh booking in season to obligate an event to book a higher number of hotel
rooms to address the parking concerns, Mr. Andy's amendable to having those discussions with the board. >> And and like I mentioned before, the the hotel rooms and the event center go hand in hand. don't want an outside event conflicting with our in-house guest. It
just it didn't never jive. You had to have both both at the same time. You can't have, you know, olive oil and vinegar mix in there. It just doesn't work that way. >> And one of the reasons why you would want to have an event at your facility is because you've got hotel rooms on site that people are walking to. They
don't have to drive after maybe embibing at a wedding or another special event. >> 100%. >> I have a question. How how far in advance do people book weddings or or special events like that? Typically >> times are changing. Uh co after co the
window really compressed before you know you do a well in advance in in a year. Now you know we're getting some hey do you have June availability? Do you have July availability? >> Okay. >> So it's really it's compressed but it's still you know six and six to year six months till you're out. So, it's a
significant amount of time so that you could um or they could block x number of rooms well in advance and and you know you could guarantee that to them then. Correct. >> Correct. >> And and I know weddings or events I've been to that are
>> elsewhere, they usually identify here's the hotel you want to stay at and >> and and the people for the most part do that. Yeah, that would be pretty it's standard and we would follow follow suit with that too. Absolutely. >> So So it's an extended period of time.
So you would you would know what you've already booked for rooms for vacation versus an event um well in advance or you would not book the vacation times if you knew that you were having an event uh that that's already been been booked
like a wedding. >> Correct. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? >> Yeah, I have another question. So, >> um, you had said that 28 employees, you need to have a parking spot for each
employee, and I think it's at 28 now, >> but you that was determined when you stipulated that this would be utilized only when the um uh not during not during the peak
summer months. So, are there going to be more employees working in the summer as opposed to during those off times? I realize you always need to have somebody at the desk. So, whether whether it's a busy time of year, you know, it's October or it's July, you're going to have somebody there. But on the other hand, when you have a full house,
>> you know, aren't you gonna have more employees there than what you would have have working as far as a um at a are you going to have more employees there working during peak the peak season as opposed to the off season when you presently have permission to be able to
use the event center? >> So, and David can could attest the actual >> I was going to say, why don't we we could let him make that presentation and >> Okay. Well, that may be parking, but does he know operationally what I would think Mr. Andy would know how many employees he needs to be working there,
but that's if Mr. Sharpshshire can answer that question. That's fine. >> Sure. Sure. And and yeah, I don't want to >> I just I just I just want to know the answer. Yeah. So that's that's all at some point. >> What gen what generally happens is when you know if you look at it, you know, 24-hour period, first eight hours, you have one employee that's the overnight
person, right? At 8 n o'clock, that's when you start having checkouts. you know, you go from full capacity to, you know, 95. I'm saying if it's fully fully sold out, you go, you start diluting basically 5 10 15. It starts ramping up from the from the time uh checkout is to
about 11:00 when hard we have a hard stop where everyone has to be out. So basically the whole property is either checked out or in the process of checking out by 11:00 and then that's where the employees typically come in and that's where you have the highest uh peak employee count is when basically
everyone's all the guests are out. So, we have that 28 more or less and there different different shifts, different roles. You know, housekeeping comes during that time when they're out. Um, and then they're pretty much done by 3:00 when when everyone's due to be uh to check in. So, there's an eb and flow
of when guests are in the room to leaving to checking in. It just so happens when they're when they're out, that's when we have the the employees there at peak time. >> Yeah, I understand the eb and flow. Just trying to get a sense. Are there just going to be at that peak time? time. There'll be more people there in August
than there would be in October >> in terms of employees. No, I mean that would the peak would be in in August. >> Wait, what? What >> the the peak would be in August? >> I think the question is though, the testimony last time was that your peak
number of employees is 28. >> Yes. >> Any time of the year, any time of the day, the peak it ever gets to is 28. Mhm. >> What our member is asking is now that you're going to do this activity of an event in August when it would seem you
have the most employees, will that peak be more than 28 now since you're doing the event in August when otherwise it was being done in September or October? >> It would not be No, that number would not change. >> The code requires uh it doesn't allow for eb and flow. It simply requires a
number of spots for the peak shift, the largest shift. whether it's January or August. >> We're not revisiting the prior approval. The question is a legitimate one. What he's just asking and he's confirming is that now that you're doing
both the hotel operations and the events during your peak season, is there any possibility that number of your maximum employees will be more than 28? Testimony under the oath is no. And you can judge the credibility of the answer. That's your job. I'm not saying it's not credible. I'm just saying that he's
given his answer. Giving it more than once doesn't change the answer, >> right? That was your question. >> Yes, that was it. >> I I just want to piggyback on Mr. Garans. Let me give you a scenario.
It's August. You don't have a booking in the event center. You've booked a lot of rooms. Now, somebody comes to you and says, "I would like to do a wedding in August." you have the event center available, but you don't have the rooms available for that 25%. How would you handle that?
>> We wouldn't take them because you would upset all your guests that come in year in and year out. So, there's a conflict when you have an event and the hotel staff or the hotel guest >> if they're not the same group, there's always a friction and >> deny the booking. Then
>> you would deny the booking. Yeah. And it's pretty an industry norm. If you go to every property is different, but I'd be willing to bet most will say if you do a buyout for the event center, you have to have uh rooms associated with it. They won't they won't mix and match for that reason because there is uh an
inherent conflict when you have hotel guests with event. >> Any other questions? >> Very good. Thank you, Mr. Andy. Thank you. Um but you can stay right there. But you can use >> Okay, I didn't see it. Okay,
we can check. >> All right, Mr. Chopshshire, uh, what licenses do you hold in the state of New Jersey? >> Professional engineering and professional plan are both in good standing. >> And uh, >> all right. Excuse me. I'm I'm already sure I'm not going to be able to hear that. Thank you so much. There's another
microphone. Thank you. Oh, my lure of professional engineering and professional planning both in good standing. >> And what um what field in engineering have you developed an expertise? >> Traffic engineering and transportation planning. >> And um did you um you you actually
provide testimony before lane sports throughout the state in that field? >> That's correct. >> Okay. Any questions about his qualifications? >> No, we're good. >> Okay. And you were here in 2024 when the last site plan application for the project I described in my opening was approved. Is that right?
>> Correct. >> Um and you provided testimony as to uh the parking variance that was necessitated uh by the hotel, the restaurant, the event center operating on the same site. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Um and in that application,
you prepared an analysis. It's dated November >> 30th. >> 30th, 2023. Uh Mr. Hurles asked me to bring additional copies. I have them here. They're part of the prior submission. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Um first of all, is there a
parking variance required as a result of the elimination of the condition that we've been discussing tonight? >> Yes. >> It changes the nature of the variance, right? >> It does. Yes. >> Okay. um how many spaces um are literally required under the ordinance and what is the supply?
>> So that I would have to look at Mr. Hurles's review letter. Uh he came up with a total of 277 spaces required >> and our supply is 182.
>> Okay. Um All right. Now you can go back to your assessment. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to have you jumping around. So you prepared a new assessment, we submitted it with this application. Can you describe to the board uh what your findings were with respect to the elimination of the condition? >> Yes. Uh we relied on the data that we
collected in 2023 and uh I understand the question with regard to what might have transpired. So I'll try to touch on that with regard to the occupancy rates. Uh and we relied on that data. The data was collected uh on two July weekends
and one August weekend. Um, and we tried to do that comprehensively so we would eliminate any need for questioning about whether or not there was a a bad weekend with regard to weather or something like that. Um, >> sorry, excuse me. Was this in 2025 or >> 2023? Thank you.
>> Yeah, this data was 2023 and it was actually put into the November 30th, 2023 uh original parking assessment we did. Uh, the time period in which we collected that data was mid-afternoon on the Friday through late evening. uh
Saturday 7 am all the way through to late e evening on Saturday and then Sunday early morning again through midday and uh to try to synthesize what we have in that data we found that the peak parking uh time and uh demand on
site happened on Saturday August 5th and it was at 5:00 p.m. And of the 182 parking spaces, the parking demand was 166 parking spaces. The occupancy at the hotel at that time was 96%.
So we were a little under full occupancy. There was 16 spaces uh unoccupied during that peak time on site. And what we did in order to evaluate whether or not this
condition could be removed from a parking assessment uh is we started with the uh condition of 25% uh of the rooms being uh required and saw if 25% would work in terms of
matching that to the event space. Um and here's what we found. The 25% requirement was just a pure requirement of rooms for 162 rooms. That would be between 40 and 41 rooms that would be required uh to have u a event
attendee in that room. uh with that peak parking demand of 166 spaces or vehicles in the 182 spaces. If we moved that up to 100% occupancy under that same ratio, there would have been
173 parking spaces occupied during that time at 100% occupancy. That leaves us with nine empty spaces following those same ratios with uh 40 to 41 rooms. Uh if they're
mandated to be event attendees in those rooms that would leave uh in other words, the demand of spaces that would go away if those were required to be event attendees. The demand that would go away is between 43 and 44 spaces. In
other words, if they're required to be event attendees and they're no longer a hotel, it would remove those 43 to 44 spaces using the same ratio that we utilized uh the 173 of the 182 spaces.
It's uh that of the 162 rooms. That ratio would come out to be 43 to 44 rooms. When we looked at uh the 443 to 44 rooms with the nine surplus parking spaces that were part of the survey considering 100% occupancy that
means the event would have availability on the site for 52 to 53 parking spaces on site. We looked at your city parking requirement for events. The city parking requirement for event is one space per four seats. That would include attendees, that would include employees,
that would include any parking demand related to the event. Your requirement is one space per four seats. If we look at 202 seats uh in the event and we use that ratio, that's 51 parking spaces that would be required. And we just
demonstrated that there's going to be 52 to 53 spaces available if the mandated 25% rooms are occupied by event attendees. And as a result, we concluded that there was sufficient onsite parking to accommodate the 202 space or 202
seats uh an event if it happens during the summer and it's locked in to have at least 25% of those rooms required to be for event attendees. And that was simply the conclusion of our report. Let me ask you a question before you go
too much further. Go back to to the you you you just commented a minute ago that there was requirement was one space for four seats, but then you you said that included employees. >> Correct. In an event center,
>> the one one seat one car for four seats at the banquet can include the employees. They're not sitting at the tables. >> No, that's what your requirement is for parking. >> No, it's one for every se. But are you saying it includes employees or doesn't
include employees? >> Your requirement for an event center would be one space per four seats and that would include all parking demand associated with the event center. >> Your ordinance doesn't have a a separate standard for employees is what Mr. Tropshshire is saying. >> Yeah, but what about the ordinance that does say that?
>> I'm not we're not aware of it. Our parking ordinance says in a restaurant or >> it's not a restaurant. >> So you're saying one space, one seat, one table, four seats includes the employees as well. >> We're we're not saying it. Your
ordinance or >> Yeah. Okay. Well then, okay. That does that include the 28 you mentioned here or no. >> Is that is it on top? >> I believe the 28 is part of the peak employees. Can you break down that 28?
>> I mean, Mr. Shropshshire can. He's not in operations. Mr. Andy can. What do you want to know? Who's doing what? >> Yeah. >> I think he went over it. He said one employee was dedicated. >> No, this No, the 28th is for the busiest time. At the busiest time, which will be if
you're running this operation, it will be you're fully booked in the rooms plus there's a wedding going on. And how many employees are working at that moment? 28. >> Do you understand the question, Mr. Andy? >> Yes. >> Can you answer it?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Peak time for the employees for the events would be no more no more than 28. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. How many how many people are working the banquet? >> We had that on the the plan, huh? >> Off the top of my head, I don't know
what >> But operationally, you said 28 would be peak at the event space. How many will be working in an event? >> Not not more than 28. >> Not more than 28. You go to a restaurant. >> Okay. So, >> yeah. >> It's not more than 28. I mean, >> how many people are working in a
restaurant? >> Well, we're not proposing a restaurant. >> No, no, but the restaurant's going to be open. The >> whole place, I thought. >> So, the restaurant's operating while the event's operating. So, I think he's asking like there's 15 people in the restaurant, four people in hotels. >> Not a restaurant, the restaurant, the
beer house is what you're talking about. >> Yeah. Okay. Do you understand that question? How many employees are there? >> I mean, I would the count because well, you're asking for the peak time. You will have more more employees during the daytime, which would exceed the 28, which is housekeeping and all that, but
you wouldn't have more than 28 during >> it's 6:00 on Friday night, >> Saturday night, August the 10th, the restaurant's open. You have a banquet going on and you have pe every room filled with a guest. How many people are working in the
restaurant in that peak moment? I mean, I would if you don't know, you don't know. But if you could maybe give a range. You got six waiters, you know, six staff in the front of the house. Uh, you know,
two hostess. Um, you know, at the back of the house cooks, you know, you got four guys there. Uh, buser, dishwasher, >> you got probably bartender. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. About 15 or so.
>> And remember, we're work we're working inside the number 28. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> So, yeah. Call it call it 18. Round up for the for the restaurant at six o'clock. >> So the restaurant has how many? >> We'll we'll round up and say it's 18 for
the restaurant. >> 18 in the restaurant. And at the banquet is >> 10. >> 10. >> 10. Cuz all the >> servers, uh bartender. >> Yeah. Server, bartender, and everything's pretty much cooked ahead of time. So it just needs to be plated and
brought out. >> 10. >> 10. >> Okay. So, how many people at the front desk? >> Yeah, no more than one or two. >> One. How many people doing room service or >> services? >> Housekeeping. >> Housekeeping is done at that point. >> No housekeeping. >> No housekeeping. >> That's true. Okay. All right.
>> Okay. Can I ask a question? I'm I tried to write down those calculations and I couldn't do it. And I did read it, but here's here's where I just get a little lost and I want to make sure I get my notes exactly right. What you testified was that at 100% occupancy, there's 173 spaces occupied
and that leaves nine empty spaces. >> Correct. >> 25% of the people at the event, how many people are at the event? >> 202. >> 22. So 25% have to get rooms. That means 75% of them don't.
They're just there for the event. And those 70 though that's 75% park in nine empty spaces. >> Now the again tied it back to your parking requirement in terms of the number of spaces that would be available
for those other other attendees. So in other words >> I don't want to get I don't want about the ordinance. You're not testifying as to our ordinance testifying as to parking. >> Yeah. Well, >> so so we exist in a real world and the real world is as I understand your
testimony at the peak time there's 173 spaces occupied nine empty spaces 25% if you continue with the rule 25% 25% of those people that are at the event are also in hotels so they don't count that
means 75% of the people are potentially parking in that parking lot and 75% of 200 is 150 >> correct >> five. So those 150 people are parking in nine spaces.
That's why when Mr. Davis asked the question of his client, is it is it your belief that even during the peak all of the people that are there for this can park on site? His answer was yes. I want to make sure that's what he meant to ask because that ties to this thing that I'm
confused about. Your report seemed to also include off-site parking to try to get that to make some sense, but no one's that hasn't come up yet in the testimony. So, I'm I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time. I'm just trying to make my notes make sense. And at the moment, as I understand it, 75% of the event are parking in nine parking
spaces if it's on all on site. Is it 75% of the attendees or because you know there could be some presumption that 25% of the room books booked rather have two people occupying it at as a minimum. So it's not 75% of the people
>> 200 people in nine spaces. >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that the math was tracking. >> I'm not saying >> right. >> What's Sorry. >> 75. >> It's 200 people in 25 rooms. Two people is 50. >> 50. Well, we're saying if there's one room, >> well, it's 40 rooms, so it's actually
80. >> 25% of the rooms is 40 41 is what you testified, correct? Okay. So, that would be pres, you know, could be 80 people out of the 202. So, now you're talking
120 people are parking in those spots. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. the the whole I think the whole idea >> that's what your report the essence of his report I thought was that the combination of the offsite and the on-site make it okay but if your
testimony really is that >> that those 120 people can park in nine spaces that's okay I'm not being critical I want to I take notes and my notes presently say that there's nine empty spaces and 75 the other 75% are parking in those 79 nine spaces I
thought your report went into offsite parking and relied on that to some degree, but maybe I'm mistaken about what I read. >> Yeah, we were doing everything we could not to rely on the off-site parking just based on the concerns that were raised before. The reality is, you know, based on our surveys, there is off-see parking
available. So, uh, but we we're trying not to rely on that. I think the whole issue here is two things. One is as we already mentioned there could be more than I I I know the latest wedding that I went to we had three people in our room. Uh so that there could be higher
occupancy with regard to the event attendees within the room themselves. Uh there could also be offsite activity with regard to somebody staying at a joining hotel walking to the venue. So we have a whole lot of issues that go into like a shared parking situation here where in my opinion I believe that
it will work during the summer based on the conditions. And when we did that 25% threshold uh we kind of started there because that was what was in the resolution. However, you've heard some accommodation that might be made by the applicant not to go pretty close to the
numbers here. Uh, in other words, a higher percentage would give you more room and more comfort with regard to what's going to happen on site. >> Can I ask you another question about that peak time you mentioned? Was it August something or other? >> August 5th.
>> Yeah. Uh, were there how many employees of the uh of the hotel were staying or parking in that parking lot? >> We didn't Yeah, we don't know. He just looked at raw how how many stalls how many vehicles in each stall? That was his survey.
>> Do do your employees park there on the on the property? >> Those that have cars? Yes. We have a lot of J1s. We have a lot of, you know, some locals that ride bikes >> right on your on your on-site lot. >> Correct. Yes. >> Right. >> But not everybody drives. >> But not everybody drives. Correct. Yeah.
>> Where do they park? >> If they're bikes, we have bike racks. You know, some We have accommodations in town. >> Well, where do they park? If they park >> Oh, on with the motor vehicle, I think you mean. >> Oh. Oh, on on site. >> They all park on site. >> Mhm. >> Right.
>> Did you summarize your report in full? I know we got some questions. I just want to make sure you >> everything you wanted to say. >> I did. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for Mr. Shar? >> Yes, actually. Um I don't know if I missed it, but did you address off-site parking? I mean, what is the plan for
off-site parking? Is it street parking? Well, there is street parking, public parking available uh all around this property. Uh I think since I was last here, uh some of the metered spaces have been changed to a 7-hour time frame uh
directly adjacent to where uh along Beach, directly adjacent to the hotel and back on Trenton. Uh but beyond that, it's there's no restriction whatsoever on Beach as you go north. >> Okay. >> Can you put some testimony in the record? My recollection is that you had very favorable testimony about off-
streetet parking. Um, we're kind of like leaving that, but your report really had a lot of that in it. And your testimony last time, I thought, was that a lot of these activities we're talking about in terms of the events and the restaurant take place at a time when the parking demand in and around Beach Avenue is
reduced because it's not beach time. >> Yeah, I want Mr. infrastructure answer the question but I think we haven't done that because our obligation is to provide parking on site for all aspects of the use >> I I appreciate that but maybe it's not as okay I >> so that's why we that's why I think we
shied away from that but talk about the offsite part of help because >> in regards to ordinances your analysis says that at the peak there's nine spaces >> and in July and August and you want to do events at a time when your testimony is there's nine empty spaces and you
want to have an event with 200 people and the math is troublesome unless you talk about the fact I think that it's at nighttime and there's a bunch of parking around there that is on Beach Avenue because I have to tell you the board's going to look at and say there's nine spaces open for threequarters of an of
of your guests. So it doesn't >> well the uh in the report we do have we did quantify exactly what happens on street at that peak time uh on Saturday 5:00 p.m. uh which was there was 34 spaces available within the block on
street parking spaces and that doesn't go beyond uh beach uh as you head north and away from from the property. Um so you know there's obviously convenient parking uh on street available uh in close proximity that we didn't account
for. Uh as the time frame continues on beyond 5:00 the on street parking and the on-site parking actually open up even further. So depending on timing of of an event there could be more parking
spaces available. Um, so with regard to like a 5:00 p.m. event starting, that would be maybe a little bit unusual, uh, if it was an evening wedding, that would certainly have more parking on site and more parking on street available. your
your analysis um and correct me if I'm wrong here, but your analysis seems to assume that public parking becomes commonandeered for the purposes of this establishment
and so because you include it in the calculation of covering your parking requirement. uh if if your parking requirement can't be met on site and it can't obviously you're 100 spaces short, you you then take the next step of
assuming well they can park somewhere on the streets. >> I mean is that accurate? >> Well, I think we're trying to prove otherwise. However, the practical the practical situation is public parking. >> I understand that that's what's going to happen. You're go your your on-site
parking cannot accommodate a full load. >> That's not Mr. Shropshshire's testimony, I don't believe. But you can speak for yourself, Mr. Shropshshire. He testified to the contrary that he believes the parking supply for all the uses that have been approved by this board are
adequate in order to accommodate in-season events. Am I is that an accurateation of your testimony? The other thing that we you know we haven't discussed but is one of the conclusions of the study. It's very typical for the mixture of uses on the site to not
overdemand parking. Uh and it's also very typical for event guests to be arriving in some other mode than an automobile and trying to account for all of those things in our in our evaluation. There's a a reality with regard to how
people will arrive here. That's why I believe your parking ratio, your parking requirement for an event is one per four seats. I think that the for those that are questioning the parking, I think, you know, it comes with, you know, with
this. Right now, it's stipulated that it's going to be the event's going to center is going to be used in the fall, you know, when the hotel is not going to be used at its at its maximum. So clearly there's simply more parking spots available um at at that point in time. Now it's going to you're
requesting it be used when it's the most intense time when the you know when the hotel is going to be um be utilized and probably the most intense time when the restaurant's going to be utilized as well. So I I guess you know I'm looking
at the the um the parking survey that you did and it was done down in done in 2023. I take it this is what you submitted. This is so this is the latest parking survey that you have. So there is a question in here but you know I'm trying to
>> determine how much I can rely on that data um because it is from 2023. Um and I realize you you you did the analysis in the peak of the summer. appreciate that it was done
on, you know, on the weekend in July and August, but you know, some factors have doesn't necessarily reflect current conditions. It doesn't reflect how the beach uh how the pier house is being operated right now, which opened up
fully operational in 2024. Um, at the time that this survey was done, there was free parking on on Beach and there's no longer free parking on that block of of Beach, but the next block back, New Jersey, is where there is is free
parking. So, it leads to at least the question as far as whether somebody has an option of parking in a parking spot that's that is metered or free parking, which is a residential area. is that impacting those residents in that area.
Um, additionally, you know, parking in general is an issue in Kate May and you know, it's um what it doesn't perhaps take into consideration is overall intensity of
parking and the availability of parking in that area and if there's been a change between 2023 and now. Um, you know, a lot of residences are now being used for Airbnb that weren't used in the past. They are increasing the number of
on street parking spots that are being utilized for certain residents and may cut down on the availability for folks who may be um going to go to other areas and pushing further parking back into New York Avenue, Maryland Avenue, Idaho
Avenue. uh when you go back in those areas you can see it you know during uh during the summertime. So I think so I guess my so my question is and I think I is that your this analysis obviously does not take into consideration all those current conditions. Is that
correct? >> Anything that's happened over the last two years. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Thank you. Can you talk about how um increasing the occupation requirement to 35% would impact your parking analysis? I haven't done the math on that, but
obviously uh it's going to remove it's going to open up more spaces uh or or more sharing of the spaces. U I could I could try to calculate for you if we >> it was thrown out. So I just want to give the board a feel for how that might help and mitigate some of their
concerns. So >> we could take a at some point take a break and maybe provide I can bring forward Mrs. Moresy to talk about the variance proofs and then Well, 25% is 40. So, >> yeah. No, I I want to make sure my math
is correct. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for Mr. Trapshshire? >> Okay. Um, Mrs. Morsy. Have a seat. >> Okay.
>> Um, Mrs. Morsy, you're licensed as a professional planner in New Jersey, correct? >> I am. >> And, uh, you're also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. >> Yes, I am. >> And you provide testimony in that discipline throughout other land use boards in the state? >> Yes, I do. >> Um, any questions about her qualifications? Uh, you were here for
the 2023 24 application that we filed that we've been talking about at length. Is that right? >> Yes, I was. And there were certain variances that we requested at that time and you provided planning testimony in support of those variances. Is that right? >> Correct. >> All right. You've heard all the testimony from Mr. Andy and uh Mr. Shire
that's been presented to the board this evening. >> Yes, I have. >> All right. Um first of all, we got a height variance at the last hearing. >> Yes. >> Is that impacted in any way by eliminating the condition that we're requesting from the board? >> No, it does not change that. This condition does not impact the height at
all. So that variance would not be altered by this application. >> Okay. So the only variance you believe we do require is that for the uh parking requirements. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um so having heard all the testimony presented as a professional planner, do you have an opinion as to whether that C variance is warranted under the
circumstances? >> Yes, I do. Um and so the focus of this um the reason for the variances and the reason the board granted the variances in the past uh I gave specific positive and negative criteria that related to the entirety of the project which still
is a positive that relates to this um inseason type use of the parking. The variance itself now is just from that June 15 to to Labor Day time frame. Uh where there will be a an reduction in available parking because we would want
to utilize the banquet or event center facilities at that time. Now that's a 202 seat event center. When we provided the testimony in the prior application uh for the the site, it related to the overall improvements that were re that were being created because there are
considerable benefits associated to the overall site development. And it ties into the reason we're asking for this additional um change to the application because we want to make sure this application and this event center and these improvements can occur and provide
a positive back to the community. Um the improvements, just as a quick reminder, related into uh changing and improving the floor plans um and and aligning the floors in the buildings, creating a more efficient operation, upgrading the quality of stay, providing accessibility
to the units, weatherproofing piping, increasing the setback to New Jersey Avenue uh to 38 ft, reducing the driveways on New Jersey Avenue, um the new event center having a 100 foot setback with about 40 ft of landscaping
off of New New Jersey Avenue. Um, all of those things would continue to be promoted in advance and occur if we're able to extend the time frame from when the event center is utilized. Now, because we would extend the time frame, there would be an impact on the parking
demand in the summer months. And that is clearly a a sensitive concern in the city of Kate May because you are a seasonal community. But allowing for this to occur creates an overall improved development of this project. um
and and a benefit to the community relating to the improvements to an established commercial facility that provides services to the community, provides what ashore community needs in terms of having a place to not just have events but a place to stay, a
restaurant, um places for families to come, parking available on site for these facilities, but now extending that into the summer months. the purposes of zoning that we felt were advanced and I believe would continue to be advanced under this parking analysis or this
amended parking variance continues to promote that purpose of zoning to provide adequate light air and open space. Um because again all the improvements relate to the overall site development and the improvements that are being made on the property with the improved setbacks, the improved
landscaping, the reduced curb cuts and driveways. providing sufficient space in an appropriate location for a variety of uses. Recognizing that adding an event center that has year-round use is an appropriate use associated with a hotel
because the hotel can provide services to the people that are utilizing the event center. If you're going to have a wedding or an event, you're going to want to stay somewhere. And so by tying that to the room blocking of 25% or 35%
as we've uh discussed this evening, it improves not just the benefits to the hotel but also make sure that they are tied together so that the people that are utilizing the event center are utilizing the hotel space. promoting that desired visual environment through creative development techniques and good
civic design and arrangement. Allowing for the improvements on this property and and the changes that are an enhancement to the community and providing an additional opportunity for events in the community both uh in season and year round um is a benefit to everyone to have a successful business
in the community. and also to encourage coordination of various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land. Now this is something that the board is grappling with because it is in season
and we you do have parking concerns in season. When you look at a C2 variance you want to look at the overall benefits under Poland v South Planefield. We want to look at the entirety of the project, the overall benefits from everything that is occurring on this project and how they are those benefits offset the
potential impacts. We did have a a parking analysis done. We had the parking analysis um testified to by Mr. Shropshshire and in some and he's going to give you the the numbers at the 35%. I did do calculations, but I'm going to let him give you the
answers in case I didn't calculate the way he would just in case. But 35% of the rooms is 57 rooms. 25% of the rooms is about 41 rooms. So that's the differential. And he'll give you the parking analysis breakdown. But when you
break it down, if you have at the 25% number, 41 of the rooms occupied or 40 of the rooms occupied, that's 80 people potentially, but you could have more than two people in a room. And while there may be a hundred space, 100 people
that are attending the event that are not given specific parking, if you look at your ordinance requirements, if you have the event center space requires one space per four pe four seats. So if there's 120 people of the 202, I'm using
the 25% numbers. If there's 120 people that are not blocking rooms, if you're assuming two per room conservatively divided by four, that's a requirement of 30 parking spaces. 30 parking spaces can be handled between the overflow of
parking that the the surplus parking spaces that we have, the nine surplus spaces, available parking on street in the area, and taking into consideration that not everyone is coming uh alone in a vehicle or they're staying somewhere
else in the town at a different hotel. They're utilizing Uber, they're staying at an Airbnb somewhere, renting a building and walking to the facility. Many people who go to events do not come and leave in especially in a shore town. You use that as an a reason to have a
nice weekend to have an overnight stay. You're not necessarily just coming and leaving. There will be those that come and leave, but there will be those that come in more than two per car or those that are walking from a nearby hotel. So that net effect, that demand based on
your ordinance is 30 parking spaces. And I think it's reasonable to conclude that if you have an event for 202 that maximizes out at 202 persons and you have them booking up to 40 rooms
which accommodates about 80 of the people if not more that the balance of the people are also you might have some that are driving in and going home because they're local but generally speaking you're going to have people staying. You're going to have people Ubering. you're going to have people car
sharing car drives with a designated driver. You're not going to have the substantial number of vehicles um any more than you do from an impact of being within the shore season. Now, when we look at this and we take this back and understand what I mean in terms of
impacts and the balance that you have to do in the city, this is not something that you don't deal with on an everyday basis, but you have to balance the the benefits of having a successful business and what the business area means to
providing um what the impacts are to the surrounding area. And if you go to your 2019 master plan re-examination report, it speaks to these challenges and trying to find a good way to ensure that your businesses are successful and ensure
that your communities are protected. And that's why we're providing that blocking of rooms to offset those impacts and providing that analysis. Your 2019 re-exam report speaks under the land use element that the city continues seeks to continue to support its existing
commercial uses and expanding its commercial offerings to strengthen its ratable base and commercial amenities. As the city strives to transition from a seasonal community to a year-round destination, Kate May hopes to attract businesses that service both its year-round population and amenity
seeking seasonal population and visitors with the goal of a robust, stable, and job producing commercial sector in Cape May. This event center will not only provide a benefit to the business that is at the site, but you have your convention center that it could provide
an offset to. It can work in conjunction with other facilities. If there's an event here, other hotel rooms might get booked and have more of a positive economic development to the community and to the business community. The commercial land use goals in your master
plan in include maintaining Kate May's unique appeal by offering varied activities and services to encourage the continuation of a variety of types of commercial land uses within the city's exist existing commercial districts and to enhance the city's economy and
provide employment opportunities by encouraging a co commercial uses in commercial districts. While there will be a parking impact, because you can't deny that there'll be a parking impact, it's my professional opinion. This site and the way it's designed with the conditions that we're
proposing, it can be accommodated and managed in a way that creates a benefit in terms of enhancing an existing business and supporting the community in this area without substantially impairing or impacting the surrounding area or causing a detriment to the
public good. While not all spaces will be available on site, you can't take you can't not consider how people will utilize the facility and how they will stay and how they will arrive in groups or or walk from a different hotel. And if you
take that into consideration and the fact that there is off- streetet parking in the area, whether it's metered parking or free parking, um that it's still going to be able to uh offset the impacts of the parking because the times of the events are in the evening and not
during the peak beach hours when the parking in the area is being highly utilized for people on the beach. The events are at night. So that offsets that as well. I I know it's a difficult balance when we're looking at this demand and the impact on the community and it's something that you struggle
with, but I I hope that you can see that by allowing for this um expanded operation with the 25 or 35% restriction of room blockings that there's adequate parking that can be accommodated in a fashion that allows us to be successful
and and provide a positive contribution back to the city of Kate May, advance those purposes under the municipal land use law through the overall development that's proposed here without causing a substantial impairment of your zoning ordinance, your master plan or detriment to the public good.
>> Thank you, Mrs. Morsy. >> I have a question. >> Your remarks u seem to suggest that the load on the the project will be in the evening rather than in the uh daytime. Would you recommend that we restrict the
use of that facility to evening hours so that we don't impact the beach and the and the public streets? >> I find it very >> because if >> it's such a difficult challenge, I understand what you're grappling with, but I I find it hard when we want to have when a business is investing a
significant amount into a project that can provide something that is a benefit to the community. every time we put a restriction on it, it takes away from the ability to provide those benefits. And I can't speak to how um maybe we can
get some testimony on operations, but I try to steer away from those types of restrictions because the market's going to control itself. They are when you have a wedding, it's generally an evening wedding. Um and maybe there's something more you want to offer to that. >> The I had a second question about your
remarks, too. You you you you didn't mention specifically there would be a wedding venue. You talked about conventions or or event spaces. >> It can be. >> Is this going to be I guess this is an operational question. Is this going to be used let's say as for a trade show or
for a a meeting of optometrists or u lawyers? God forbid they all we don't have enough room. There's only 220 spaces. We don't have enough spaces for all the lawyers we have. Uh, is the use of the facility >> that was a shot rest
>> going to be limited to >> he's worn out that pin. >> Would would the use of the just for weddings or is it going to be that larger quote unquote mini convention hall kind of environment? >> It would be events for our guests. So, if you're booking with us, you know, it
could be for weddings, it could be for, you know, we get uh different corporate uh clientele, but it they would have to be staying with us. It wouldn't be open to the public. Well, 25% of them have to be staying with you. >> That's that's the number that we we >> or 35% are you staying with you. But it
let's say for example uh something that's happening I think uh in town right now is the uh gold auction. Uh there's somebody one of the hotels has booked a uh a buyback of gold and jewelry and things like that. That
happens a lot in hotels. That doesn't require anybody to stay there. That requires somebody driving to the facility, bringing their gold, walking in, selling it, and walking out. There's a much more traffic intensive usage of the facility. >> No, any event is going to require a
hotel booking. Period. >> Right. You right. So whether it's selling gold or somebody says I do, it's going to be a requirement of the booking that what the approval says right now is
that 25% of the attendees must have hotels. Now that's part of the booking requirement. So that's going to go to whoever's booking the event and they may occupy uh all those spaces uh in in the hotel. Um and that's what's in the
contract. That's what's in our policy and we've submitted that to you. What we've offered today since we know we're we're asking for events to take place in the peak season. That's, you know, we're building an event space, a great cost and expense. I'm not. Mr. Andy is,
family is, and he wants to see a certain uh return on that uh investment. And of course, you want to take advantage of July, August, uh June, July, and August in in the city of Cape May. It's beautiful here at that time. It's a beautiful time to have a wedding. We think we can accommodate it and we've
said if you have a concern about it, we're flexible on the percentage of hotel bookings. We can go up to 35%. But whether it's a wedding or whether it's selling gold, that's a requirement. >> So we can anticipate events as early as 10:00 in the morning, >> you can't anticipate it, but it may
happen. It's a free country. If you want to book an event, >> then you should anticipate. If it's a free country, it's going to happen. You should anticipate it. >> Well, it may happen. I don't know that that's the prime target. >> I didn't say it was. I said, can we anticip it could happen
>> a a fairly regular usage of the facility from noon on? >> Let's say >> we're not stipulating to any hours of operation. I mean, other than what your ordinance may require. >> Can I try to summarize this because we're making it just far too complicated. I mean, does this say what
it is? >> 25% is 41 rooms. I think someone testified to I'm not a math genius, but I think you do a little crisscross thing, it comes to 57 rooms if it's 35%. Right. Uh that the the the engineer is nodding at me, so I did it right. Okay,
so that's 57 rooms. So if it's two people, then that's 114 of your guests have a room. If it's three people, it's I don't know 161 or something like that. 171. Okay. So there's just some there's some leftover. There's 220 people. Sounds like 170 of them might be in
rooms. So then there's 30 or 40 or 50 people that have to find spots. Most of the year there's not going to be a problem. The report says, you know, during the summertime there's some peaks and sometimes there's only nine spaces. Sometimes there's 16 spaces. On those
occasions it might spill over into the parking out in the street somewhere. That's not a crime. It happens sometimes in the best of businesses. Sometimes the parking spills out out of their lot. It happens. So you have to think about that. You have to weigh that against the
benefits of this of the benefits of the that M. Morrisy just outlined for you at length before and again tonight of the benefits of having this project. And you have to weigh all that in your mind and then do the balancing that's required under the law and decide if it's worth
it. It's not that it's not that complicated. That's it. The ordinance is all interesting, but you don't even need to consider the ordinance all that much because you have actual data, actual real life data. If we go by the ordinance, they should get nothing.
They're required to have 277 spaces. They're nowhere near that. We're floating around this 182 number like it means something. That's not the ordinance. The ordinance requires, correct me if I'm wrong, Craig, 277 spaces. But you have data, and I just
explained the data to you. Okay? So, it's there's times when there's only nine or 16 spaces that will accommodate somewhere between 50 and 70 people. Okay, that's all this talk has just been about. So, do your balancing and decide if you think this project is worth that
or not. That's just that that's my summary of the analysis. But you guys do whatever whatever whatever else you think you need. >> I have a question for Mr. Andy. Sure. um in your projections in the summer months. Now I'm talking about
>> what size are you looking at? Did you think how many how many first how many do you think you could book in the summertime? >> Well, ideally you want to have one at least one per weekend for sure. >> One per weekend. >> Yeah. At a minimum. At a minimum. >> And how big a how big u >> So that's rough to say, but your max is
200, but you want to ideal is 150 to 180 for for this size. >> Okay. And we're all going through, you know, we're talking extremes here, but you know, again, we're not trying to double, we're not trying to double dip on the count having uh, you know, our guests. >> Watch the cross talk, guys.
>> You got to keep a record. >> Could I ask a question of the board? There are a couple other facilities in town that do banquetss and events. Do are there rules for them not to have it during season as well? >> No. >> It depends. >> I don't think the town is full of
anomalies. It depends when you were built. I mean, there's there's places that have events that have zero parking. >> I mean, >> but but I think the question Marilyn was currently, are we aware of any other event space in the city that has a restriction for when they can offer events?
>> And I'm not aware of any ones that that that is >> restricted to not having an event during the summertime. Any other questions for this witness? >> If not, chairman, that concludes our affirmative proofs. >> Okay, you're right. No, you're right.
You're right. You're right. Sorry about that. >> Okay, Craig, you're up. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, there is no point in me going through this entire review because >> I can waste I can waste all night. I don't care.
>> Oh, go ahead. >> Um, but >> I'm going to I'm going to stick to the the focal point of this this discussion tonight and the importance of the parking variance. Um, and just in general,
this report is a rehash of the prior approval. um shows the waiverss that were granted. They would all be conditions of approval should this new new approval be granted. Um so um without beating a dead horse like we did last time um that they should all be
conditions of approval. Specifically talking talking about the variances. I agree with Miss Morsy. I I said it right this time. Usually I say you made me weird. Um but anyway, um the building height is unimpacted by this
proposal. Um there were two um conditions that were affixed to that approval that really relate to the parking variance and we've talked to them talked about them. Um one is the one that they are asking to be extinguished which is no events being
hosted from June 15th through Labor Day. They would like um to be able to use it during peak times. Understood. Um, the other important one, and we talked about it, and I I believe there's even been talk about modifying it, and I I haven't heard that per se or specifics as as to
what has been offered, but condition 21 was stated that at the applicant shall create and enforce a formal written policy requiring event participants to book at least the number of rooms equal to 25% of the total number of event participants. The extension that you
granted contains that condition. Okay. So um it was important consideration. It ended up as a condition. All right. Now I'm going to talk about the parking. So when we initially the last time uh approved this parking
variance um there was a lot more discussion about on street parking. I think I I seem to remember that. And this this is a very specific location within the city where this particular
business occupies 3/4 of the block. It also there were available on street parkings particularly in beach. I can't remember a time where I didn't pull up in front of the hotel or restaurant on beach avenue and couldn't find an on
street parking space. So that was an important conversation as part and and it was included in Mr. Shropshshire's report. But once again, we have a lot of things at play here. You have multiple uses. Um the shared parking concept
where some of the uses peak at certain times when others don't. You also have the beach parking and the usage of the beach which typically peaks at a time where the hotel and event center would
not peak. Um so there's a lot of moving parts here with regards to this and you have to remember that these numbers are estimates. Um so um in trying to pick apart Mr. Shropshshire's, you know, rationale, I had a hard time doing it. Um but I understand there were some
other elements at play. Um, so the on street changes to the meters, is that a good is that a good thing or a bad thing? Um, before there was adequate free parking, now you have pay for pay parking. Does that free up meter spaces
in that neighborhood? Um, I couldn't drive that out of find that in the data. Um, I I'm not I'm unsure about that. Um, I I mentioned the shared parking, the peak times. Um but at the end of the day this they're asking for this variance
under the C2 criteria which is the balancing test. So um Miss Miss Morsy gave you some positive benefits um indicated you know consistency with the master plan. Um but you have to
determine the do those positives outweigh the potential detriments. Um, and are there potential detriments? And I think the the potential detriment I think everyone should be worried about is is this going
to push parking into the adjoining streets where this is located in the C3 district, but the abuing residential properties are located in residential districts. And we've typically heard about those conflicts with regards to
other businesses um intermixing with the residential uses across the street on New Jersey Avenue um as well as Pittsburgh. Um so those are should be your concerns. I'm not going to tell you how to vote, but it's a weigh. You're weighing. So positives versus negatives.
You've heard testimony um from the applicants. You may hear more testim or more concerns from the neighbors when we hear from the public. Um, but I think that's what you should be framing as part of your decision. >> Do you want to hear the public or you
want to let these break? Want to let them? >> All right, we'll open up the public now. Um, anybody within 200 feet of the project like to be like to be heard? >> Way it's going to work is when you get up there, I'm going to swear you in. You're going to spell your name. You're going to say your name, spell your last
name, and then slowly say your address. >> Ma'am, do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Okay. >> Push the green button. Can you push the green button? >> I do. >> There you go. >> My name is Paula Smith. My husband and
I, Ted, Smi T is my last name. My husband and I, Ted, we own an apartment at the Morning Star Villa at 1307 Beach Avenue, which is right next door to Leur, and we have owned that for six
years. Um, we are concerned about the events being held during the summer months. Um, we have uh 14 apartments at the Morning Star Villa. Many of us have balconies overlooking the hotel as far as and
overlooking New Jersey Avenue. Our property goes from Beach Avenue all the way to New Jersey. We have a parking lot on New Jersey Avenue and spots for 14 owners and seven guests. Um, I wanted to give some perspective
about the parking um because we actually see what goes on with the parking um on a day-to-day basis in the summer. um the public starts parking on New Jersey Avenue and surrounding um at least 9:10 in the morning to go to the
beach. Um as a result, there's very little if any parking spots available on New Jersey Avenue. We've often had public trying to park in our reserved spots and we have to enact some kind of
um policy for towing or whatever. So, we're concerned about events being held during the summer and as we've been discussing here, um, parking on the street, which I know there was a parking survey done in 2023,
but if anyone at all looks at Instagram, they know that Kate May has just exploded as far as a destination. Everyone comes here. It's very difficult to park. And I know the parking has been an issue as far as the board is
concerned. I know Mr. Crowley is is one of the people that often say that the parking is a big issue in this town. Um our other concern is noise. We are concerned being right next door to um
the location the Lur that there will be deliveries at different parts of the evening in the morning and delivery trucks will be an issue as far as noise. We love our Morning Star Villa. We
bought there because it's quiet and it's a beach community and we feel like having events during the summer months when we want peace and quiet and you why we we live there to begin with that it's going to be impacted and we just feel
it's a negative impact to uh the surrounding houses on New Jersey Avenue as well as um the Morning Star Villa owners. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you're
about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but truth. So be God. >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name, spell it, and then give your address. >> My name is Teresa Stanton. S t the owner of the angel of the sea. I guess I can give you the address of the
57. >> You say 57 Trenton Avenue. >> It's 5-7. >> Oh, gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. >> Okay. >> I purchased the angel of the city in 2015 along with my family.
shareholder along with my three sons. We've owned the property since 2015 and I'm here to strongly protest the change which is being requested here. You know, now we're going to have weddings from June to Labor Day. I feel
very strongly that this is a bait and switch kind of situation. As a neighbor, I really don't get involved. I want to see all my neighbors successful. Um I was very improvements that Peter Shield has made. Um, and I'm very happy that
Lane is a successful venue. However, um, I'm quite quite concerned. People have been coming to the Angel of the Sea, some of them for decades, and they come there for quiet enjoyment, and they come there to celebrate very important things
in their life. The Angel of the Sea is one of few bed and breakfast left in town. Um, year after year, people get out of the They sell to realtors and they turn themselves into condos. That is not something I want for the angel of the sea. And I try very hard to keep our
business viable for that very reason. The reason that they may giving that they want to change what they originally requested is because of unforeseen costs. I find that a little difficult to believe because we all know that costs
go up year after year and they're really you don't need to see PA tell you that. So, um I know we want to extend for another three years. Um I'm pretty sure costs are going to rise again in the next three years. So, expect that.
So basically what I am concerned about most is that my business will be harmed by keeping this open from June to Labor Day. We are going to have parters. We're going to have revelers. We're going to have music. We're going to have congestion. We're going to have people
circling the lots perhaps while my guests are sleeping looking for parking spaces looking to party being loud. maybe, you know, wedding. So, you know, I'm not sure what
to expect and I'm really concerned that this can harm my business. That is the reason I'm here today. So, I would say that I was okay with the original plan where there wasn't going to be any partying in the middle of the summertime
right next to my hotel where my guests are sleeping where we even have quiet hours from 10 on because A lot of people come, let's face it, for a little romance. They don't want to be hearing a whole bunch of, you know, party next
door. So, um, yeah, I guess that basically sums it up. So, I would also ask this question. They're saying it's not viable. We're not open here. Well, we might even proceed. I mean, we have plenty of venues in town for a wedding.
And, um, I'm not sure how the community is going to be positively impacted if you're um not enough partying loud possibly um wedding revelers and um I think I would like to see traditional
Victorian bed and breakfast such as myself protected and I try very hard to keep my expenses within check so that I can have business and I'm afraid this All right, sir. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the
testimony you're about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Name And the city has allig for allowing the what the parking needs
are going to be when you have a code says 277 spaces and I think that code I don't know much about code and law and so I think that code says 277 onsite spaces because it's
anticipating the worst outcome and what is that well it's that in the high months the 100% and the hotel 200 I'm going to grant you the luxury of
saying two people per car will come to that 100 vehicles but it doesn't stop there you've got entertainment you've got weight you've got bartenders you've got
wedding planners and any any number of other people So what is it? I don't know. Maybe it's 125 now cars looking for space. And it doesn't stop
there because the hotel is in operation and then the hotel and restaurant in operation and we need space for the the restaurants waiters and bartenders and kitchen staff and so on and so
now we're up 150 spaces. But where are they going to go? They're going to go out and they're going to flood the neighborhood. They're going to impinge on driveways. They're going to edit
somebody. They're going to go. You all know that. Now, I heard the contractual requirement of having the event
40 or 40 rooms. So does that mean that and I don't know how that works. Does that mean that while the hotel is right now booking June, July, August vacations, when they get to 122 rooms booked? Are they going
to stop taking reservations? That's only a 75% occupancy rate. And in the high season, that hotel isn't going to make it 75%. And we have a standard that says 277 spaces. Stick to the standard. You know
that's going to be you can't concentrate this economic activity in a small space without creating additional. So that's an observation and a question.
Anybody else wish to speak and we'll close the to the public. >> Do you guys want to break the meet or do you want to >> Yeah. Could we? >> Yeah, sure. >> Thank you. >> F 10 minutes. 10 minutes max. >> Microphones off, please.
be be trying to talk too much about the >> team. Please do not discuss the application while we are on break. You are together as a board and you're not supposed to speak unless you're on the record. And some of your microphones were on. So there you go.
Thank you, chairman. uh appreciate everybody's time tonight and your sensitivities to important issues in a tourism uh economy where uh parking is obviously um an issue. I want to address one issue that came up during the public comment which is uh noise. I don't know
that that person was at the last meeting, but we talked about noise extensively in the 2024 approval process. No outdoor music, no outdoor ceremonies. Everything's going to be contained inside the building which is going to be a modern state-of-the-art
building. Um and and we stipulated then and it remains the same uh that uh there won't be any outdoor uh events. It will all be inside uh the proposed building. Um secondly, in season um you know I I suggested in in talking to Mr. Andy
increasing the required hotel count to 30 35%. Um he's willing to go to 50%. It's up to the board in terms of what you think the appropriate percentage of room block is. The goal here is to have
new quality event space for the city of Kate May and to have that support those events support the hotel aspect so that people can have quality events in the town and in the community. So if in
season we would like to keep it at 25% out of season, but in season we're willing to go to 50% for a required room booking, which would um we think alleviate any uh conception that there would be uh uh too much activity uh for
the parking supply that is there. But at the end of the day, we are requesting a variance. That's why boards like this exist to under certain circumstances grant relief from your ordinance requirements when certain proofs are advanced and certain standards are met.
Um and we think we have done that here with the testimony of Mr. Shropshshire, Mr. Andy and uh principally from a planning perspective through Mrs. Moresy's testimony. Um this is a balancing test. That's why you're here. you have as residents of the community,
as elected officials in the community, a local knowledge and judgment about your town and where you want to see your town grow in the future. And you have to decide, does it include um uh this particular facility with uh in season uh
or not? Certain purposes of zoning have been advanced. this type of a use is squarely uh a a goal of yours in your master plan to encourage your your tourism economy. But you do have to balance that. You have to balance that against the negative impact to the zone
plan. We think it's advanced because of what your master plan has to say, but the public good, the neighborhood. Um and by agreeing to a heightened hotel booking requirement in season we think we are mitigating against the negative
impacts associated with the grant of the variance uh in this instance. So formally we are amending the application to require from June 15 to Labor Day uh an obligation on any event bookings uh
that 25% of the 50% uh of the attendees uh reserve uh hotel space um um uh during the season uh and maintain it at uh 25%. We agree to each and every one of the other conditions that were
imposed by the board in the approval of 2024. Um, and we thank you again for your time tonight and hope for a favorable result. >> Mr. King, may I just ask one follow-up question? >> Um, so there was just testimony from uh one of the neighbors with regard to
delivery times. Mhm. >> Um, do you have certain stipulations on when you take deliveries? And um, not knowing enough about your property and the location of driveways and deliveries. Can you just maybe briefly describe does does this this space in
any way? Um, >> yeah, our deliveries I don't know what you know I'm sensitive to neighbors. I sure >> there's any issues. I welcome any, you know, feedback, but all our deliveries come from Pittsburgh Avenue. >> Yeah, the exit to from New Jersey Avenue. Well, well, far. So, I don't
know what that what there's noise. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. I I I just I wanted that clarification. I thought that was important. Okay. Thank you. >> And even after tonight, there's an open line of communication to any of your neighbors to address any issues that may arise in the future.
>> Yes. >> I have a quick question. The percent the 50% of rooms is that based on the attendance at the wedding or if you hold a wedding there you need to rent half the rooms in the motel. >> That that would be the intent. Yeah. You would have the 50% of the the of let's
say there's 100 folks attending 50% of that would have to be >> would have to stay at the motel or would have to rent a room. >> Have to stay at the motel. >> Okay. I was being critical of the offer. I was having problem with that too. 50%
let's say there's 120 people how many rooms left off >> you would you would roughly do 50% of uh I'm sorry 50% of the of of the folks that of the 162 correct so you would do half that so 81
>> yeah me too that's my question do you is it do do 50% of the people do 101 people need to stay at the motel hotel or do 101 people need to book rooms or or you have to book half the rooms in the motel if only 100 people at the wedding there's no parking issue because
everybody's got a spot. >> Right. Our our intention really is it's you know we want to accommodate everyone from the hotel. We want everyone to stay at the hotel that's going to be at the at the Ben Center. We don't we have no interest in anyone outside. >> Let me read what M Mr. King wrote in the
resolution that you've already approved. Okay. Which which which resolution do you have there? So I know >> July 9, 2024 colon one resolution. >> Thank you. >> And it's comment it's uh on page 11. It's condition number 21. Applicant
shall create and enforce a formal written policy requiring event participants to book at least the number of rooms equal to 25% of the number of event participants. So
as I understand that if it's a 100 event participants attendees it's a 25 room hotel booking requirement >> and what we're in offseason well that currently because that that's the other restriction what we're suggesting is
that in season only June 15 to Labor Day that 25% be replaced with 50%. >> Want to make sure I understand because it matters. >> It's a good question. Can I can I get my math right on this?
So, if it's a 100 person event, >> Yep. >> and it's 25% that would be 12.5 rooms because there's two people in a room or am I wrong? >> It's not what the That's not the way the condition is worded. >> I just want to make sure that >> understanding is.
>> So, it's got to be 25%. >> Correct. >> Okay. Not in individuals, but 25%. Okay. How many rooms for 100 people? How many rooms? >> Is that what you understand, Mr. Andy? >> Yes. >> In season. >> In season. In season.
>> How many rooms for 100 people? >> How many? >> What's the math? When 100 people, what's the math at 25%. How many rooms? >> Like practically, you mean? What do you see? >> Yeah.
I think where people are getting a little confused is we're talking number of rooms versus occupants and then the number of people. So if you have a 25% condition that says every event requires
25% of the rooms to be booked. Is it the number of total rooms in the in at your property or is it 25% of the people who will be attending the event? When you book an event, your contract will stipulate this is an event for 100
people. >> 25% of that >> would be 12 and a half and a half room. >> 25 rooms. Let's just use use rooms because occupancy can vary. So 25 rooms versus 25% of your full occupancy, your
full room complement is 162. Is it 25% of 162? Is there a 25% of the number of attendees to the event? That is a huge distinction. >> We wrote this down three years ago. >> I think everyone's confused. >> And what it says number 21, this is what
we passed. This is what it costs. Applicants should create and enforce a formal written polic. requiring event participants to book at least the number of rooms equal to 25% of the number of event participants.
>> So, >> and that's what it says in your maximum 202. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Correct. >> 50 rooms. >> So, all the math from earlier was not the same as that. It was all based on the 162 because I was very confused.
That's why >> so my question is has nothing to do with that two people are considered considered occupying one room >> right that is >> okay just want to clarify that okay >> and in the event guest room policy it this is your document it says a minimum
of 25% of the total number of guests attending the event >> it it's guest that's >> 100 people that >> so so what what is the formula for how many people to a room. >> The formula I mean like they say four
people in a dining room to a parking spot. What is it for? >> Well, it says occupancy is based on two guests according to their contract document that that I'm looking at. This is your document >> two at a minimum but generally speaking you are going to go up to yeah three four%
a challenge for you to achieve. I mean if you have 25% is doable. So 100 people 25 rooms for 100 people that is reasonably doable. Okay. But if you have 100 people and 50 rooms,
that means if there's a family of four, by definition, >> that also solves your parking problem, >> right? I'm just trying to >> No, no, no. You want to make sure we understand the imposition of the condition. 100 people are attending the event schedule of 50 rooms that mean you
have to every person if it's a couple it's two people rooms every one of them has to book every every every attend >> 50 rooms >> that was part of my point that it's got to be based on individuals not on rooms >> 100% >> 50% of the occupants of the wedding have
to stay at the motel >> that's different than 50 people renting rooms >> I mean look I think it is simple person booking the event has to guarantee 50 rooms. >> Correct. >> That is right.
>> But that that's you know >> we're confident we won't have to eat it. But that is the >> that narrows that parking requirement way down then >> it does solve your parking >> problem. It does >> and it's the and it's the condition if it's only during the season and off
season then it goes back to >> to 25%. >> Yes. And by the way, if we can't find somebody to book a 100 person event and 50 hotel rooms, then the business is not going to come in the door. We're just not going to that that's not going to be a booked event. But we understand that
that's the requirement. 20 50% of event attendees. Same language you wrote and approved two years ago. Carry it forward, but in season, change it to 50%. That's that's what we're asking for. >> Can I comment on this, >> sir? I just think that it's too 50% is
too much. >> It's it's too much. It's almost impossible for them to do this. I could see 30% 35% but 50 50% that's that's 100 people if you have two 50% is going to
be 50 50 rooms, right? >> That's 100 people. That's everyone attending the event >> unless >> it makes no sense. person in renting facility is going to eat some of that. Simple as that. They really want to have
the wedding and or whatever the event is in Cape May, they're going to do it and they're going to pay people. They're going to pay out of their own pocket to have it with there. >> That's that's what they're saying. I think correct. >> Yes. >> Do you understand?
>> Look in in in many ways this this >> I can see a 30 35%. I I don't understand the 50% but >> what it it it is what it is. >> At the end of the day, this is a board decision. We heard from members of the public. We heard from some members of
the board. We're trying to uh strike an appropriate compromise to allow this event facility to be built and also accommodate any concerns you may have about parking. >> Okay. >> We're trying to be generous and increase it to 50%. If the board feels as if
that's too much, we're it's it's it's your decision. >> Like 40% everyone. >> Yeah, I also agree. I think 50% is is too ownorous. I really do. Um and I was
actually okay with 25% but 30% maybe or something like that. But I I think 50% is is too ownorous because I 40% >> I just believe we're putting too much on them at 50%. We have a suggestion at 40 >> by the solicitor that >> there's a suggestion by the solicitor
that it's a 40%. >> The applicant suggested 50%. You feel you can live with 50%. >> I will amend the application to 40%. In light of what I'm hearing from board members. >> Oh yeah, but here's here's the risk you're running. These gentlemen don't like that. You're going to make a motion
at 50%. They're going to vote no. Then they're going to make a motion at 40%. Or or 25%. You're going to vote no. And we're all going to be sitting here looking at each other. So create a consensus. I mean obviously operationally it's very hard. Most of the people are going to be two people usually couples and you're going to be
you're going to have to have every one of them say yes. At 40% you might have one that says no. You might have another one that's a single and one that's four people and it might work out. So I think everyone there's no point in doing it for the business to not work. But so >> I think a 10% increase would be viable
to both a business person and the community at 35%. I can't see 50%. Maybe. >> Yeah, I'd go along with 35% also. >> 35%. >> Well, anyone else? >> All right, here's how it works. Listen, here's how it works. You make a motion
and then you vote on it and then you make another motion and you vote on it. So, if someone wants to make a motion at 35%, see if it carries. If it doesn't, then do it at 40%. >> 40% is is 80 rooms. >> That's that's 50% of the rooms that are
available at the property. That's a lot. I >> Well, if you're attending a destination wedding, it's it's really quite frankly not >> I'm going to personal experience. No. Um I'm have a niece and a nephew getting
married next year in the Chesapeake. Everybody's booking, you know what, the block of rooms because >> Well, I I just think realistically, Marine, I mean, La Mer is a high-scale, very high brand resort and maybe some people just can't afford their prices
and may have to stay at other hotels during the season. Offseason, yeah, you'll give a room away for 150 bucks, 200 bucks to fill it up, but in season, you're going to be paying 350, four, $500. What What's an inseason room at La Mer >> rate? But rate wise, uh, 650 average.
>> You're gonna ask a young couple two nights to spend $1,200 instead of staying somewhere else because they got to fill 50%. >> Going to be staying many places in Cape May unless you're hitting in the 4 to450 range. I mean, for accommodations, >> I I think we're I think we're getting
involved. >> I think we are getting sort of >> construction of a business plan for the the applicant. >> The applicant offered 50. Some of your board members like 35. Why is 40 a hard thing? I mean the applicant said >> I think 40 is a very appropriate
compromise given everybody's commentary and discussion. >> I'll make a motion at 40. >> Second. >> I'm sorry. Second rigs. >> Uh Mr. Riggs motion. Are there any conditions? Just the conditions in the
uh memo. >> The application jib. The motion I recommend be you uh phrased is a motion to grant Hold on a second. I'd like to look at Craig's report when I do this. >> I'll do it. Hold on. I just got your
report. The uh motion is um for amended site plan preliminary and final modification of condition and a C I don't see C1 C2 uh variance uh with the condition that the applicant will um
require in the booking contract that um for every 100 people well let me phrase that 40% of the number of people there must be a room booked. So it's for 100 people there
would need to be 40 rooms booked. For 200 people there would need to be 80 rooms booked. >> It's 40% the number of people have to have that number of book rooms booked >> as well as the other conditions outlined uh by the uh board engineer in his
report. Um I just want to see if there's another condition. Oh, we did the extension. Okay, that's the motion I'd recommend be made. I think that motion has been made and has been seconded. >> Yes. >> So now we call the Mr. Keenan.
>> Okay. May I ask who seconded, please? Is that Mr. Lhol? >> Okay. I just want to make sure I have it right. >> Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Just want to comment. I just want to thank council for the presentation. Um as well as the concession. I believe
it's a very meaningful concession. Um, also the fact that where you're located, um, on the edge of the hotel district, right, on a residential and with the the residential district being there as well, um, it it really requires you to
be good neighbors as as a commercial entity and a large commercial entity. To me, this is the type of a demonstration of being that type of good commercial neighbor. So, I vote yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. Um, I also vote yes
and I would like to say thank you. I think it's important that um there's an understanding and appreciation of the concession that you made. Um, you know, this is you're you're trying to make a viable, you know, opportunity for your business. So, I appreciate that. I hope
that the the neighbors um take you up on your offer. So, if there are issues or problems between now and when the event space is developed, um, reach out, have a conversation with um, Mr. Andy. seems to be very open to, you know, hearing from you. But I think that um, you know,
this we only have a couple of other event spaces like this in the city and I think it's important that, you know, we're able to offer this. So, best luck on your the development of the property and the site. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mrs. Reid.
>> I I just want to be clear, we're voting on everything. >> Well, we already did the extension. are now regretting the virus. >> I'm going to vote yes and I understand the community is going to be impacted
but I think you very nice. >> Thank you >> Mr. Crowley. Just a few comments. U the last time this applicant was before us, they proposed a novel uh
method for addressing the impact on parking. Uh we I voted for that and u it was a reasonable attempt to strike a balance between the needs of the applicant and the and the needs of the community as as we all suggest. We have to do a
balancing act. the um the planner that testified earlier uh emphasized that there was a a balance in favor of the applicant and cited the master plan as a reason for a lot of that balance.
She didn't and and I'm sure she didn't want to and didn't need to. But the master plan also calls into clear focus the fact that Kate May is literally strangling with parking. This this committee uh several months ago put
together a subcommittee to look at the issue of parking, made a recommendation unanimously to the city council that the city council begin to seriously study the issue of parking and how it impacts the town and and if there is such an
impact, what we can do about it in reasonable terms in the near future. Uh the council hasn't acted on that yet, but we're hoping they do as soon as possible. That that's the context in which we need to consider this application.
The there is a serious parking problem in this city. And every time a board like this agrees to wave any consideration of the impact of that parking makes the park makes the problem worse. And as we get popular, it's going
to be even worse. Uh so we need to to consider that this kind of an application is really contributing not to the solution but to the problem and in that context I would vote
seriously against this for that reason except for the fact that the applicant has made a good faith attempt to ameliate some of that impact and I think this proposal 50% would have been better and if 50% % fit his business plan, then
that's that's on him. Uh 40% is still good because it does reduce the impact of parking and parking is going to impact that neighborhood significantly every weekend of the summer because that's what they want to do. They want to have a wedding there every weekend.
It's going to be a big impact. it's going to be lessened by the fact that they're going to require 40% of their attendees to book a room with them. So, in that context, it's a reasonable compromise. I'm I still would like to
urge this council, this this committee to think seriously every time an applicant comes before us that with a proposal that makes the the the already unbearable problem even more unbearable. The longer we avoid it, the worse it
gets. And we either have to have the council do something about it or the council has to say once and for all, let's get rid of these parking requirements. Parking is not an issue anymore. It is until they get rid of it. So, in that context, I'm going to vote
for this because the applicant has made the effort to come to the middle of the table and I appreciate that. But this problem is not going to go away. It's going to happen next time we get an application. Is >> that a yes vote? >> Is that a yes vote? >> Well, I'm getting to that. Yes. So, so
ultimately there will be a yes vote for me and I'm giving it right now, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Lanholm. >> Uh, I vote yes. I appreciate your compromise to work with it. Everybody here involved. >> That's it. >> That's it. You said it all.
>> Mr. Riggs >> voting yes. Um, I really appreciate the applicant's presentation. Appreciate obviously working with this board and and uh understanding what the limitations are within the neighborhood. So, I'm a Yes. >> Bless you,
>> Mr. Padus. >> Yes. I just wanted to comment on Dennis's uh remarks in that area. There there there is no other business besides La Mer, a bed and breakfast. Uh maybe the peer house is closed. If you go
during the day during the summer months, it's beach people. People going to the beach. One reason they go down there is because except for Beach Avenue, there's no meter of parking. I can park there all day on New Jersey Avenue or any other side streets and stay there all
day. But starting around 4:00, there's a transition. People are leaving the beach. And I've gone to the beer house many times, La Mer. And if you go there during the evening, there's there's abundant parking available. We do have a parking problem in this
city and I do charge the council to either let's get rid of it, discuss it or or whatever. Uh table it uh for future meetings such as this. Uh but great presentation. Um and my vote is yes.
>> Mr. Jones, >> also going to vote yes. I do appreciate the compromise, but this is a good project for the city overall and I agree with that. We thank you very much and uh we look forward to seeing this project built.
>> Thank you for your time tonight. >> Thank you. >> All right, we have a few more things to discuss here. Uh >> number one, uh well discussion well payment of bills, please. >> I'll second all in favor to pay the
bills. >> I thank you everyone. >> People we have in May the city has this open forum which involves all the boards and planning board also. We're we need we're probably going to have to have it manned. I'm not sure how we're going to
do it. Maybe combine it with the zoning. Not sure. We'll have a meeting before then. >> I think to think about how we're going to address that. Okay. It's pretty important. I think it's a great idea. >> Motion to adjurnn to >> motion. Motion. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Thank you everyone. Good night.