testing. It's way far behind. >> No. Correct. >> Everybody, good evening. C City Planning Board is now in session. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. Should any member of this board have reason to believe this
meeting is being held in violation of that act they shall so state at this time hearing none. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance >> 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. >> Before we do a roll call, everybody want please put your phones on vibrate or turn them off. Okay. Roll call. >> Yes. Mr. Bizair >> here. >> Mr. Jones. Mr. Riggs
>> here. >> Mr. Crowley >> here. >> Mr. Gorgone >> here. >> Mayor Marlik. >> Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Mrs. Reid >> here. >> Mr. Lhome >> here. >> Mr. Bedus >> here. >> Mr. Krippen. >> Okay, we're going to skip over those
resolutions and you'll find out later why. We're going to go to the minutes of July 22nd for approval. >> Yes, sir. >> Motion to approve July the minutes. >> Thanks, Gary. >> Second. >> We have a motion by Mr. Baduces,
seconded by Mr. Lholm. Mr. Gorgon, >> obtain. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed, >> yes. >> Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lunhomem, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Bedus, >> yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. We have an application 413415 Washington Street LLC. Application for reconsideration the prior release sought. I'm going to turn the microphone over to uh our solicitor to sort of
give a rundown of what >> if I could just uh I'll make a motion for the record to accept Mr. Baldini as our conflict solicitor for this meeting. For the record. >> Is there a second? Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay,
>> you're in. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mr. Amanheiser, let me start with you. You have an eight member board tonight. Mr. Gargon has viewed the tape, signed the appropriate certification. He will be permitted to participate. So, you do have an eight member board. It's your decision whether you want to proceed.
>> Yes, >> you'll proceed with an eight member board. You understand that? >> You understand that a tie means you lose. Just so I'm clear, a tie means you lose, >> correct? >> Right. >> Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure before I lead you down a path. >> If if the motion is made in the positive.
>> That's correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So this for the public and just to set the stage for the board, this is an application by the uh applicant to have
a rehearing on the prior application that was heard uh last month. And your obligations in that regard are as as follows. A board may by its rules provide that um you will grant reharings
or reopenings of hearings in cases where the board believes it will serve the needs of essential justice typically to allow for the consideration of new evidence but it's not limited to that fact. The law is clear that an administrative agency has inherent power to reconsider,
reopen, and rehear prior decisions in the absence of any legislative restriction. To the contrary, the exercise of this board in in allowing reconsideration is not confined to the exercise of the agency's inherent
power to a narrow set of circumstances involving fraud or material change of facts of law. It's much broader than that. Rather, the only limitations on your authority to consider is the reasonleness, fairness, and good cause
shown by the applicant for reconsideration. Good cause may be established by showing that reopening proceedings would, and it's a quote, serve the ends of essential justice and the policy of the
law. So you do not have a specific rule on uh reharings, but I will tell you this that the model um rules for uh planning boards do have a provision for allowing for
reharing. And uh those rules in pertinent part say any applicant may move to the board for a re-haring of the matter and they have to file their application with a brief statement of the grounds that they're relying upon for the reharing. What I'm suggesting is
that the board take this in two steps. The first step is listen to the applicant on the motion for the reharing. Then we'll call for a vote on the reharing. If you vote and decide to hear the uh reconsideration, then this next
phase will be listening to the applicant relative to what the reconsideration is that he's looking for. And um you'll then become a vote on that. So there'll be two votes. First, whether to allow the motion to reconsider. If you allow the motion to be reconsidered, there'll
be a hearing with um um all whatever witnesses the applicant chooses to bring in. He's he's entitled to rely upon the record that he established at the last meeting. So you don't have to sit through an entire preliminary and final site plan hearing again. Uh you've all were here for it or you listen to the
tape for it. So you you can rely upon that memory of that prior application and hearing the applicant tonight. Last thing before I turn it over to Mr. Ammonheiser is I'm going to ask the burrow the board secretary. Uh do you have the appropriate notices on file?
>> Yes, I do. received them. >> You received them. Okay. And they're sufficient under your review. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. So, we have the appropriate notices. One of the requirements for you to consider a reharing is that the applicant must notice to the same degree that he had the notice for the
application originally, which meant a new publication, a new notice within 200 ft, which board secretary has confirmed that the applicant has done. Mr. Ammonhauser, why don't you address the issue? >> Can I ask one of the is is there a public portion? Yeah. Oh, yes, sir. Okay. There's a full hearing. There'll
be a public portion. Okay. >> Yeah. Can I also ask Yes, sir. Question. Our consideration of the motion to reopen is is that restricted to listening to just the brief statement or
could portions of the original application be involved in that? >> I suppose portions of the original application could be involved in that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I don't see why not. It's part of the record now. >> Good. >> Yep. >> All right. Uh, thank you board members.
John Aeanhauser of the Dwiss Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicant 413 to 415 Washington Street LLC. Um, here next to me tonight I have Amanda Adams, Daniel Eelman, the two members of the applicant entity, as well as Mr. John Haler, the professional
engineer on this project. As Mr. Baldini indicated, I I have Mr. Halberun are here because we know this is a a public hearing and if any technical questions arose either by members of the public or the board I want him to be here for that but I don't want you to sit through another application so I don't intend to have him elicit the same testimony you
heard last month related to the site plan and variance relief we're seeking um as the board will recall and as mentioned earlier we were here uh on this application before you on July 22nd of this year just a month ago seeking preliminary and final site plan approval variance relief related to maximum
permitted lot coverage and minimum required off- streetet parking for the proposed mixeduse building at the same address 413 to 415 Washington Street. Tonight, uh we're back before you seeking an amendment to your prior determination of denial of that
application. As you'll recall, there was a uh vote of three in favor and six against the proposed uh application last time around in July. No resolution has been adopted by this body yet, which I know Mr. Ber indicated. You'll find out why soon. And the reason for that is as
soon as that were to happen, we would have been foreclosed from being able to attempt to do what we're doing right now and have you rehear this application. So, thank you for your indulgence in that to this point. Uh, specifically tonight, there's two reasons that we're asking to be reconsidered related to this application.
First, uh, as part of the original site plan application, you'll recall that the applicant was seeking to on the second floor of the building, uh, expand the approved retail space and remove a portion of what exists right now as the, uh, one residential unit and some of the
storage space for the existing business that's on that in that property. So, we did want some what we testified there was testimony provided by Mr. or how we're going to relate it to that expanded space. But for what I'll get into next, I think while there wasn't any explicit approval of that, there
also wasn't any real reluctance, it didn't sound like on the record, to the expansion of that space. But I think it kind of got lost in the weeds when we got into the proposed third floor residential unit. So, we'd like some clarity from the board as to whether or not that aspect of the site plan application is able to be approved. That
is the expanded retail space on the second floor. Secondarily, um while the applicant's proposed use of the third floor residential unit is allowable by city code, we understand that there was some hesitation related
to uh the potential transient nature of that thirdf flooror unit. Albeit whether it was permitted or not, there was some concern and I don't think anyone will deny deputy mayor McDade, you raised the concerns on the record during the application presentation. The reason that we're asking for reconsideration
related to that aspect of it is we believe that the majority of the other members that voted no, while they did do so, those concerns weren't raised by them until such time as we were foreclosed from responding. We had closed our case. The board was voting on the record. And while again, we knew
Deputy Mayor McDade's position, we weren't aware of that position from five of the other members that voted no. And by the time we became aware of that, it was too late for us to respond and allow any sort of limitation or condition on the approval of the thirdf flooror residence.
So what we would like to do if the board would indulge us in allowing reconsideration of this is to further discuss a limitation as to use of that thirdf flooror area. So it's two-pronged in what we're asking for. again uh an amendment of the approval related to the expansion of the third or the second
floor retail use and a limiting nature as to the occupancy and use of the third floor proposed residential unit. That's what we're asking for this evening. >> Mr. Baldini, is that what we will be asked to vote on those two? >> Well, what I would suggest No, not yet.
What I would suggest is that you first have to decide if the reasons the applicant has testifi or brought forward because he's not testifying, he's an attorney, but he's brought forward the reasons are sufficient to grant the rehering. So the motion this I would suggest we phrase it in the positive
nice clear record. The motion would be a motion to grant reconsideration of the applicant's application. >> And at that point, Mr. Dean, we then have to present a case as to whether or not the board would agree to reconsider and and I should say amend the prior decision. >> Correct. They've agreed to reconsider. So now you're going to have to present
to the board why they should amend to allow the two things you've just indicated you would like to present to the board. >> Yes. >> You have two shots. >> Agreeable. >> Yeah, I will approve that motion. >> Well, I haven't made the motion. >> Oh, okay. >> I just don't know what it's going to be. I I thought you did. I don't have authority to make a motion, but I think
first thing I just want to see if the board members have any questions of the applicant or any comment that you want to make before you entertain a motion. >> Question over here. >> Yes, sir. >> And if this has to wait until we do the presentation, I'm fine with that. But
when you talk about limitations, can you speak to what type of limitations before we >> We are absolutely going to discuss >> permission to do that. >> Yeah. What I don't want to do is confuse the record and get bogged down in discussing those issues which I suspect a lot of the board members are keen to
get involved in discussing. First want to make sure that you're willing to reconsider it. And I don't I want the record clear if you reconsider it, it's not because of what they're saying. You'll deal with that in the reconsideration as opposed to what they'll agree to. All right? But that you're granting the reconsideration
because you found sufficient reason to do so based on fairness and justice. It doesn't obligate us to any vote one way or the other >> on any of the conditions. That's correct. Or you don't might change might not change it at all. >> Right. Okay. >> Yep. >> Good question. Anybody else? Any
questions? >> I have a question. If um could you could you restate the reasoning for your two points why you want this open again? >> Yes. Spec I'll start with what I think is the the biggest point, right? Right.
And the real the reason that we really want this reconsidered is related to the thirdf flooror residential unit that was proposed and continues to be proposed through this application when we present it in July. Um city ordinance honestly as it still sits today, right? Sydney
ordinance allows a residential apartment use above a permitted commercial use. When we presented the application, we were not seeking to impose any sort of a restriction on the occupancy or type of use of that residential unit, albeit transient or non-transient.
There was a I won't call it an objection, but there was a discussion specifically with Deputy Mayor McDade during the presentation as to her hesitation to approve for that use. But it wasn't until we were foreclosed from further testimony and limitations on conditions of approval that we found out
from a number of other members that they were also opposed to that use and that was a basis for their decision in the denial. Had we known that before it was turned over to a vote, I'm just going to tell you I would have recommended that we walk out and consider that and come in to be able to tell you we'd agree to that before you started voting. We were
foreclosed on doing in doing so by the time that we learned of the objection from the majority of the board. That is why we believe now that we're able to come back in fairness and in equity to try to address that and hopefully have you amend your vote based on what we're agreeing to in terms of the uh the use
of that of that residential unit. But our minutes our minutes seem to indicate that there was a rather wholesome discussion of that issue prior to going to the public comment which would be when you would have been precluded for making a presentation.
>> Well, we would be preluded once you started voting, right? So, so we have the opportunity to respond to any comments even in deliberation and you're right, there was most certainly a a hearty discussion on it, but the discussion to my recollection and memory was mostly with Deputy Mayor McDade. And
while I love unanimous decisions, I I don't always get them. So, I knew if I we were losing a vote, it wasn't h you know, we you can lose one sometimes, but you can't lose five. And when we find out about the other five at the time that you're voting, we can't respond to it or otherwise limit our our approval.
>> Yeah, my memory and these minutes don't seem to support that. I think that there was quite a bit of discussion from other board members on that very issue. The second the actually the first point you raised was the expansion of the retail space and yes >> you're suggesting that it wasn't given
enough of a consideration. I don't re what I no what I considered it or indicated was we most certainly testified to it and there was a discussion related to it during our presentation but when it came time to make a decision on our formal application for site plan approval that
seemed to have gotten lost and not really indicated on the record by anyone making a decision that it it was really related appar apparently right to the third floor residential nature right and the denial seemed to be >> let me phrase it differently >> yeah go ahead >> it was one vote that encompassed both
variances. >> Yes. >> And what the applicant >> was we didn't bifurcate. >> Correct. And and I think what the applicant is is saying that hey in fairness I it looks to us like the weight was against this the the residential property and not the expansion of the commercial. So
essentially what I understand he's doing is asking for a separate vote on each variance >> which he would have been entitled to in the original hearing. And again, I'm the minutes and my recollection don't don't agree with you because in fact, one of the reasons I spoke up about this issue
was because of the impact on the parking requirements because you're doubling the size of your retail space. And that was a that was a significant part of my comments and and comments on the other board members. So I I don't think I don't think that the door was I don't
think that issue was ignored or downplayed in the in the discussion of the board. I I don't see it that way. >> Well, you you can you can vote not to rehear it then. >> I would vote not to rehear it. >> We need to have a a motion. >> So So then any other questions before we move on from board members? All right.
So let me also indicate all members of the board will vote. You have eight members for a nine member board. Um, you have not adopted Robert's rules, which Robert's rules would have indicated those members that were not on
the winning vote would not vote in this reharing vote. However, since you haven't adopted Robert's rules, you're under the more loose standard as I understand from the case law and that if you so desire, everybody votes. And that's the sense that I've gotten from
from the board here tonight. So everybody will vote one way or the other on whether the motion to reconsider should be granted. Okay. >> Is the motion have to be in the affirmative? >> I I suggested it be in the affirmative and if you if you are against it, just vote it down. Reason why I suggest that
is it's abundantly clear if you make it in the affirmative what you're voting on. You vote yes, you're voting to to allow the reharing. If you vote no, you're not allowing the reharing. And by the same token, if you make a a motion in the negative and it's a tie vote, it passes.
>> Right. >> That's true. That's true. But but I will tell you, I always recommend to boards that they vote in the in the um affirmative rather than the negative because it's a much cleaner record on appeal. >> Right.
>> That's all. No, no, no reason. Other >> you recommend that the resolution be in the affirmative, not that they necessarily would vote in the >> That's correct. Yes, sir. That's right. I I hate I take no position on how any board member should ever vote except except for hiring me maybe.
Okay. So, let me try. Here's a motion to grant reconsideration of the application heard by the board for the applicant on July 22, 2025. That's the motion. You're okay with the motion, Mr. >> I'm fine with that motion. Thank you. >> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second. >> Mr. Lhome motions Deputy Mayor McDade. seconds. Mr. Gorgon, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Mrs. Reid, >> yes. >> Mr. Crowley,
>> no. >> Mr. Lhome, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Padus, >> yes. >> Mr. Bizair, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so before I turn the floor back over to you, Mr. Amhouser. Uh, let me
indicate that I intend to swear the the um witnesses in that you may have and I intend to swear the board engineer in. Sir, please raise your right hand. You swear affirm to tell the truth before the board here tonight. >> I do. >> Thank you. Give us your pos your name and your position with the board. >> Craig R. Hurles. I am the board planner
and engineer. >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Hammond, do you have any witnesses that you would like sworn? >> I I know that I'm more than likely going to hear from at least two. Can I have all three that are sitting to my right? Sure. Just in the event. Yeah. So, uh, >> Adam, >> you never have to call a witch.
>> All right, all three of you, please raise your right hand one after another. Come to the podium and and state your name, spell your last name, and give us your address. Say yes when you come to the podium. Do you each swear affirm to tell the truth before the board here tonight? >> I do. >> I do. >> I do. >> All right. Give us your take right down
the line. Go ahead, Mr. >> Sure. John Halburner, hu project engineer and >> Thank you, sir. Danielleman, >> Amanda Adams, >> your floor. >> Good.
>> Thank you. If if I can, Mr. Baldini, I know you just referenced the the bifurcated nature of the vote that that we're seeking related to those two phases of the initial site plan application that we're seeking amendment on. Yes. >> Um, if I can, I'd like to start related to the third floor residential unit and
start with Mr. U just to provide his thoughts and testimony related to to the intended use of that area. >> Thanks, John. Okay. Again, I'm Daniel Eelman. I'm here tonight with my wife, Amanda, and actually all of our staff showed up,
which is really special. Um, and I wanted to say thanks for reconsidering our application for tonight. Um, I have some notes, so I'm going to read from them. Uh, I know the board's main concern from the last meeting was how we plan to use the thirdf flooror residents and I'd like to address that directly
tonight. Um, we do not plan to use it for any transient rentals or Airbnb or VBO rentals. Um, as you know, we operate a high-end jewelry store and our plan is to move our high-end jewelry store to this location. Um, given the security
nature of our business, it's very critical that we stay secure. Um, I think many of you guys know that we were actually robbed this last year uh by professional criminals. So, um, you know, having any transients or unknown individuals living in the same
building as our jewelry store is just it's a serious security risk. It's a big no no. It's it's really not what we plan on using the third floor for. Um, I'd also like to note that we designed the building with an elevator and I think someone brought it up, Marilyn brought
it up in the last meeting. Um, and it stops on all three floors. If I were to design this building and wanting it to have uh third floor Airbnbs or transient rentals, I wouldn't have an elevator that went to all three floors. Um, and I just wanted to point
that out. Um, moving on, I I recognize the city and the board are considering a new ordinance for the mall zone, the C1 mall zone regarding residential use above the mall. And in the spirit of cooperation, if need be, I am willing to accept a condition of approval that
requires us to comply with any new ordinance adopted in the future regarding the use of residential above the mall. Um, I really hope by agreeing to this condition that this would address the board's concerns and bring
us to an approval tonight. Um, and that that's really I I wanted to address that head on and just really articulate my thoughts there and uh I really thank you again for the reconsideration and I'm going to turn it back over to John. >> So, and I just want to follow up with a
with a couple of quick questions. So, >> yeah, absolutely. You you referenced the pending ordinance that you're aware of related to workforce and longerterm housing in the C1 district, right? Correct. C1 zone. Okay. You're aware that that's not yet adopted by city council, right? >> Absolutely. >> That said, you're willing to Is it your
testimony that you're willing to adhere to the terms of that adopted ordinance regardless of the fact that it's not even yet in effect? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. All right. >> Can Can I make a a suggestion? >> Yes. The way that that proposed ordinance is written is that any
existing uses are is grandfathered in. >> Exactly. >> So, the board may want to require them to >> choose what that use is going to be, the use of workforce housing as opposed
to apartment over a commercial use, so that the grandfather clause doesn't capture you. and and so the board gets what they what they want. >> So the and this is this is why I just asked Mr. regardless of the fact that
this isn't yet adopted, right? We're willing to accept the requirement. Now when it comes to the grandfathering, I understand that and we're not seeking to be grandfathered in. That's why we're trying to say that what you're going to adopt presumably. I'm assuming that this is going to be adopted. We will always adhere to. What I don't want to do and
the one issue and I think this is just a a fair statement to make but this could be adopted tomorrow and gone in five years. The last thing I want to do is restrict them in any way should this ever be revoked or otherwise gone away with to any sort of treatment that is
not unilaterally or or or not uniform with all those in the zone. So what I'm telling you and I think the testimony of Mr. is what this requires is what they're going to adhere to without any grandfathering. We won't we won't be seeking to be grandfathered in regardless of the fact that this isn't
yet adopted. >> I just want to make sure that the the grandfathering doesn't >> facilitate you getting something that the board's not intended. >> And and I guess as a question that would you be accepting to making sure that that is a part of any potential
resolution that this board would put forth >> is limiting that scope? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'm not clear what you're saying. Are you saying right from the get-go you are not renting that to anybody but work force workforce people? What are you saying exactly?
>> Yeah, we plan on using it for Queen May at first uh well forever really. We plan on using it to support Queen May and Queen May downstairs and Queen May employees. >> The other thing I'll note that you don't even own the building yet, right? >> I do not. >> No, I Yeah. So by the time this is
adopted, I don't know when you're going to close, but they might not even own it yet. So it may be a they may be required to there might not be any other opportunity for them to do anything but >> but are you are you talking about workforce housing that's not working at in the in the in the store
>> as defined by the ordinance? >> Yeah. >> So question that. So the property is currently for sale. >> They're under contract to purchase. >> You're under contract. We close next week >> uh on the property. But yeah, so I I
just want to articulate to Marilyn, we need the third floor really for our business to to run it. We need storage. Um we may need the residential use at some point for an employee or not. Um we we plan on using it to support Queen May
and Queen May's business. um you know we want to keep it as its uh current use obviously with the condition that we'll agree to tonight that we were speaking of but um because you know we never know one day my son gets older and he wants to run the store and live above it right
but you know he would be >> so just if I may um just to sort of state it in the the opposite not I don't want to put words in your m mouth but I just want to understand so you're basically saying that you agree to the conditions of not having it as a short-term transient rental based on the
conditions based on the current ordinance in draft form. >> Absolutely 100%. >> Rather than trying to you know Yeah. I mean your use of storage or your use of whatever as long as it is not being used for that purpose. I think that's what the board would want to hear and
understand. So that's what that is what your your testimony is. >> Yes. And thanks for for making it very clear. >> I I just think sometimes doing it the the other way Yeah. makes it a little bit clearer for for for us. So, okay. Thank you. >> I just have another follow-up question.
So, you you don't currently own the property, but it's currently under contract, >> correct? >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> So, if I could just ask Mr. Baldini, does do we need some sort of mechanism that the current property owner is agreeable to this or how does that
typically work? Because I'm not familiar with with that. >> Sure, that's a fair question. Uh he's a contract purchaser. He submitted the copy of the contract under the land use law. He has standing to come before this board and be heard with regard to the application. If you grant this
application and it doesn't consummate the sale, the owner, the the original owner is stuck with whatever the approvals that were granted to this gentleman. He stands in the shoes of the gentleman. Now, he might come back and ask for something entirely different,
which is his right. Um but but not only will this gentleman be bound by that resolution, so will the prior owner and so will future owners. >> And that's why we have um there's two certifications in this application. One of the applicant, one of the owner, both both of which were signed. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> So, can I just finish up? Without this new ordinance for workforce housing, we would be approving you for this based on no rental on that up third floor. >> That's no shortterm. No short-term rental, >> right? >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. What we were saying is, and what I was getting at earlier, if right now, and I'm not going to try to I'm not complicating or attempting to, right? Right now, there is a permitted apartment above a commercial use, right, with unfettered ability to use it as a residential apartment. Right now, as we
sit here, what's proposed is obviously going to limit that ability based on the workforce housing component and longerterm rentals. What my clients indicated is that as long as this ordinance, right, or any amendment there too remains on the books that restricts and limits the occupancy of that unit,
he's going to adhere to it. If this were to one day go away and everybody in the C1 zone could just have an apartment above a permitted res commercial use like they do now, then he just wants to be treated the same way that anybody else would there. But as long as this is on the books or or a form of it, he's going to adhere to it. That's the that's
the condition. >> Let's take it a step further. If this ordinance is not approved, they're agreeing to the fact that they will they will not do short-term rentals. >> No. If this ordinance were to go away, >> yes. >> So, and if if that were the case, then they would be be they would be treated
differently than everyone else in the C1 zone. Right. Because if this didn't exist, every other unit in the C1 zone that's got a third floor or second floor apartment over a ground floor commercial would be able to have unfettered residential use of that. Right now,
>> they're granting you a parking variance or proposing to grant you a parking variance. >> That's true. >> Tied to the specific use of that >> residential unit as well as the commercial unit. >> So, I don't know that what you just said is consistent with how the board's going to view that.
>> And if I could just elaborate on that and and I agree with Mr. Hurles. Um, with that I I I understand your position and kind of explaining, hey, there's this potential ordinance that the board
is going to review, make recommendations to council, potentially approve, but I think it's the job of this board to limit that scope of what's going to be on that third floor. That's the whole point of hearing a a reconsideration, at
least in my eyes. and understanding the direction of this property. >> I I I think I would agree with that position because if we're approving it, we're approving it based on the condition of the parking variance. And the other thing I mean, I think in the
spirit of this um you know, council and the mayor are very much um supportive of this workforce ordinance. So, you know, I I I hope that we can work through whatever modifications, edits, and and revisions that need to be occur, you know, at this table and also at the
council table. But I think in the spirit of making sure that we as a community are supporting our workforce um in any form or fashion is critically important at this point in time. Um so, I I do think we would just want to make sure uh Mr. Dreamman how it would be sort of
that language would be in the resolution so that we would you know feel confident uh since it is a parking variance approval. >> Understood. Mr. Alamman will respond. >> Yeah. And I I completely understand what uh Craig's saying and I'm amicable to that as well. Um
and I just wanted to make that clear. I know John jumped in and and spoke, but I amicable to that as well and and I understand what he's saying. He's saying, you know, we want to make sure I'm treated fairly, but I get it. I'm I'm asking for also the parking. So, you know, I'm also amicable to to that as well.
>> So, if I could just make clear that if the board, you know, moves forward that any resolution would limit the the scope of that third floor to the workforce housing. >> I think the alternative is that it's not going to be short-term, >> right? I think I think
>> language is much I I'd rather let go. Thank you. I think the the concept that um the deputy mayor is getting at is a condition of approval that would say no no short-term transient housing. >> Okay. >> Would be >> and that and that's kind of where I was trying to get to and and understand
>> the direction of where we're going. >> Yeah. I think that's the condition she's looking for. But I think that's what Mr. Effelman just said he's agreeable to. >> Correct. I think and the reason I say that is because we are in draft form. Um and the and sort of the definitions around workforce housing and sort of you know
the ability to have people moving back into this community is very much a balance between the two. So I I think that we're still flushing that out. But as long as this is not a short-term rental, a transient rental, then that would be, you know, my pos my position
and I would be comfortable with that as far as, you know, if that was a condition of this. When we say shortterm, what what's the time length on a short term? Two months, 3 months, what are we talking ordinances? Anything short 90 days? >> 90 days. When we say 90 days or less,
>> that doesn't preclude long-term rental like owner occupied doesn't that's exactly the point. yearly rental for anybody that's reason currently. Those are all of the the features that we're looking at within this. >> Yeah, I'd be nervous limiting it
strictly to uh workforce only, >> which is why I'm suggesting that we go with the short-term, not a short-term transient. Yeah. >> Transient. >> And that way we're providing as much flexibility, which is this, you know, we we'd like to see this geared towards
workforce. And I'm only speaking for myself here as a board member, not necessarily as a council member, but because I think it's important that we as a community invite people back in here to live, to be part of the community in a way that we don't have
right now, um that we're losing. Um so that's, you know, one of my driving um you know, interest in this. So >> and a mercantile license is required for workforce anything. In fact, I believe I think the criteria is 125 days.
Long-term rental is 125 days. Excuse me. Longer from a real estate perspective. >> Yeah. I The short-term rentals require a merkantile license, >> right? So, >> yeah. >> Right. >> Mhm. >> Pretty much any rental requires a merkantile. >> Okay. >> The merkantile license doesn't differentiate how you rent it.
>> You don't need a mercantile license for more than 90 days. >> I rent year round and I don't need a mercantile license. You don't for year round rentals. And we No. And we've we've already discussed potentially having something that identifies within
our software system if it's a workforce housing or long-term rental just so that we have it on the record so that we don't find someone who's and I'm not saying you but anyone who would meet the would adhere to these conditions anything turning back into a short-term
transient rental. Those are some of the mechanics that we're still working through and that's why it's still in draft ordinance. >> Understood. >> I have a question. The u the application is is looking for variances on a on a
property that's not owned by them. and uh this discussion with regard to the application the the agreements you verbally make here and also the fate of the the ordinance on on workforce housing
still remain open questions and I my in that context I would I want to ask whether or not the president owner was notified of this meeting >> he signed the application >> signed an affidav >> he did have no signed the application on what we're discussing Now, >> correct. I submitted a new application
for this motion to reconsider. >> Okay. All right. >> With new signatures. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. No, good. Okay. I'm just make sure that happened. >> Yeah, I know. I looked at it. >> Yeah. >> Anybody have any other comments? >> Then we could I guess move to a motion.
>> So, I I I go ahead, Mr. Early. >> I just have a couple of comments. >> You have to. >> So, I prepared an updated memo dated August 20th, 2025. I just wanted to confirm because I went through the whole application. I couldn't find any differences between what was originally
submitted in the plans, the original plans versus this version. Is that correct? There have been no changes. >> The only change that I'll indicate which was placed on the record at the first hearing was you recall that there was in the initial application there was only the relief was only solved under the C1 criteria. We made an amendment to say
C1. >> So the application itself has been but the site plan itself has not changed in any way. Now the site plan that was submitted as part of this rehering is exactly the same plan set that was submitted for the original hearing. >> So I I had gone through the my
recommended conditions at the last meeting. I'm not going to bore you with those again. I would just add one condition and that is the specific language that's chosen to limit this to uh not a short-term rental should be
added to the site plan as a note. Mhm. >> And I would request for clarity to define what the board considers to be a short-term rental. >> Well, that's what that's going to be. >> 90 days or less. >> That's what I asked. That's fine. I just >> So, that'll be in the resolution, but that resolution language should be
brought onto the site plan so that it's it runs with that site plan. >> And I I'm going to go a step further. The site plan will revisect rental of property for not less than a certain number of days. I prefer not to use the word transient lodging because that is different definitions than
building code versus zoning and that could be open for interpretation by someone later which is a mess. Let's pick the day and that's the number that'll be represented on the so >> that's that's the only additional condition that I would recommend. >> Okay. And and obviously I'll have an additional condition. Yes. That you
comply with the board engineer comments >> and we are fine with doing so. Absolutely. And then I just want to make a couple things clear before we open the hearing to the public or if board members have any more questions based on what I say. You understand the ordinance may change. The ordinance you see in
front of you may not be the end result of where council ends up. So you're you're committing to no short-term transient housing regardless of what that ordinance looks like at the end of the day. Right. >> I understand. >> Okay. The only thing Mr. First of all,
I'd ask is after the public's done, if I can just ask any board members if there's any concerns that we might be able to try to address before going to a vote. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Well, before we do that, did I miss your discussion of your point number one on the retail space impact?
>> So, Mr. Halurn, when you initially presented the site plan application on July 22nd, do you recall going over the proposed second floor use and the change in that use? >> I do. uh in its present condition. There's rough numbers 800 square f feet
of storage area and support of the shoe store on the first floor. The other 800 square f feet give or take is apartment use that when combined with the third floor constitutes in total a three-bedroom apartment. >> And what we're seeking to do, correct me if I'm wrong, is by changing that second
floor to a retail space, you're reducing the size of the residential use and eliminating the storage on that second floor. >> Correct. Second floor as proposed will be 100% retail except for the minor circulation necessary to get the third floor. The apartment that remains on the
building will exist solely on the third floor and will be a two-bedroom apartment. So there is a reduction in the number of bedrooms, there's a reduction in the parking demand associated with the retail space and the entirety of the second floor will be business related except for the stairs
giving us access to the third floor. >> Okay. Now, and I know Mr. Crowley had raised this concern last, but I so I just want to make clear, I know this is on the record from your prior testimony, which carried over to tonight, but in terms of the parking, what that does, how many parking spaces does this property currently have available?
>> Available? Zero. >> And how many are going to be available after if this is approved? >> Zero will remain available if this is approved. Now, for context, in the existing condition, we're required to have seven parking spaces based upon the existing configuration. Okay,
>> based upon the proposed configuration, which is much more retailheavy, less residential heavy, there's a total of 17 parking spaces required. >> Okay. >> And again, zero exist, zero proposed. >> Okay. But we what we were doing and what we're asking the board just for clarity
on tonight related to our site plan application is the change in use per se of that second floor from part residential, part storage to a commercial retail space. Correct. >> Correct. And what we're asking for whether or not that is approvable by this body. >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> I had a question for Craig too. Craig is u this retail space here is that subject to any code requirement for minimum parking per employee?
>> No, not in the mall. >> Okay. >> Anybody else questions? All right, we'll open up to the public. Anybody would like to speak if you do come up to the podium. >> Sir, please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm tell the truth before
the board here tonight? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Please give us your name, spell your last name, and your address, sir. >> Chris Rearen. R I O R D A N 8 Edgewater Road. >> Can you pick up the mic because I can't hear you? >> You can pick it up.
>> All right. How's that? >> Cool. All right. Hi, my name is Chris Rearden. Seven years ago, I moved down here for the opportunity that Dan and Amanda gave me with Queen May. Since then, my career has flourished. I bought a home in North Cape May, started a
family, and built a future. I can speak for the whole Queen May team here tonight when I say this expansion will benefit all of us. When Queen May grows and succeeds, Amanda and Dan always make sure that our team succeeds as well. Thank you. Just
cool. >> Any else care to speak? >> We will close the public portion. So, with that, we we have nothing more to add right now, but as I indicated, if there's any concerns that any board members had that we might be able to
address based on what's presently before you, if you could just please let us know, we'd be happy to try to respond to those at this time. I think if if I could just comment. I think you've heard the comments of the board and we can't stress enough at least from my perspective how important
council believes that workforce housing is an important element of the the future of this town. So, I would just take that into consideration as you move forward with the application, the development, or anything along those
lines of of the property. >> Absolutely. Okay. Anybody else have anybody care to make a motion? >> Yeah. Before we do that, let let me just make clear. Are you agreeing to one
motion and I'll I'll give it to you. >> Yes. The motion would be for this board to grant variances for parking requirements for both the expanded commercial use and the residential use with condition of no short-term transient housing
um and to grant preliminary and final site plan approval. >> Acceptable. Yes, that's acceptable. >> So that would be the motion, sir. Okay. >> Okay. To make that motion, >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Garone
seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Um so I would like to say um thank you for investing in the community. Um I think it's uh critically important both from the commercial side and your willingness to work with us on the workforce housing uh
or non short-term um transient rental on the mall. Um we I certainly appreciate it. I appreciate the spirit of coming back here and your willingness to make that concession given the fact that we are in um you know still in draft form. Um but I I think it's uh important for
the business community to work with the city and the residential community to try and promote and support um workforce housing in this in this city. Um it's much needed. Um and um I certainly appreciate your willingness to um meet those conditions.
>> Thank you, >> Mrs. Reed no >> Mr. Crowley >> comment briefly unfortunately because the um resolution has not been separated by the two issues I do recognize that
some changes have been made to the apartment situation on the top which resolves a lot of the concerns I had. However, the the the core concern I had is not been addressed to any great degree other than what it was last time. And I and I just can't bring myself to
just contribute to an already out of control exacerbated problem for the city. And until the city does something that's a that's forwardinking and progressive and tries to address this problem, I can't see dumping more load onto an already overloaded wagon. So, I
would have to vote no. Mr. Lenhomem. >> Yes, >> Mr. Riggs. >> I think I made my comments pretty clear on how I feel and and how I believe um the property should move forward and I
think you guys have heard me pretty loud and clear. So, I'll be voting yes. >> Mr. Padus, >> before I cast my vote, what does the city use to enforce our codes? Who enforces our codes?
>> Code enforcement, which reports to the chief of police. >> How often do they go around checking on rentals? Like >> they probably do it when there's a complaint. >> They and but they do also do it at the beginning of the year um through the
fire inspection. Um we now have the rental escape um program. Um, so they will they've been looking at that and that basically gives us an opportunity to have eyes on anything that's being rented through the Airbnb and Verbbo market um to confirm if they've had a
mercantile license, a fire inspection, things of that nature. So, they do get involved, but um Mr. Yeah. Yeah. Bill's right. It's also during times of complaint. So, >> my hindrance here is
and I'm really stuck, guys, because We were appointed, we weren't elected, but we were appointed to represent the citizens of this town. And on December 10th, 2024, you came before us
for property, what is it? 518 Washington Street, LLC, blocks 1051, lot 5C1 C2, that you were going to use these apartments. It's right here in the minutes
for housing employees and they're Airbnbs. You swore under oath that you were going to use these for housing employees. >> Gary, I uh I appreciate you bringing that up and I I feel bad that you feel
misled. Um and I do apologize for that. I I know that meeting there was a lot of talk of workforce housing and a lot was said. Um, you know, Amanda and I, we did have an idea of using maybe one of the
apartments for our manager, which we did speak of at at the meeting. Um, since then, some circumstances have changed. Um, she got a dog. she, you know, and you know, the other thing is we actually help her with her lease now and we're
co-signers on it and she couldn't break it anyway. But that's just a whole another story. Um, but again, I apologize um if you feel that we misled you. Um, and 100%, you know, we are agreeing to this condition tonight for
this new property and, uh, you know, we're we're going to stand by our word with that. I'm going to depend on the city of Cape May to enforce its code enforcement on these properties and I'll be watching.
So for that reason only I'm going to vote yes on this just because I want to advance the business community of Kate May and that's what we should be here for to create a good environment for business. So I'm again I'm going to vote yes on this but I'm going to be watching
I'll join you, >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Resolution. >> Yeah, I'll do a resolution for next month. We will not vote. I recommend the board not vote on the resolution that is
presently before the board since the motion to reconsider has been granted. The reconsideration has been granted and you now have a different relief than you had under that resolution that we will not vote on tonight. I will submit a resolution within the time frame for
adoption at your next regularly scheduled meeting. >> Mr. Baldini, I just want to make sure that the site plan um is revised to reflect uh >> that will be a condition of >> Okay. And that also it stipulates the days versus just the language of short term. >> Okay. All right. Yep.
>> Great. Thank you. >> See you, John. >> Thanks, guys. >> So, >> well, let's deal with workforce housing. >> Yes, please. >> Mr. Hower. Yes. >> Just so we're clear, the condition will be that you submit the site plan to the
board engineer for his review prior to um signatures. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. Great. Thank you. I just want to make sure we're all clear before you leave the room. >> Okay. Thank you, sir.
>> Let's talk. >> All right. So, we are just the ordinance that's on here. We're just going to >> What's that? >> The
the resolution that we passed down from the last meeting. >> So, I wouldn't take I wouldn't touch any of the resolutions yet. Let's have the discussions first, >> okay? >> Because the discussions relate to the two resolutions that are still haven't been addressed. So, let's start off with
the one about the the uh city annex review. >> Okay, so an annex review. Hold on for a second. Have everything prepared but in different order here. Okay, so the annex review is a update to
our 2025 hazard mitigation plan. Um these hazard mitigation plans are done through the county. Um they're done approximately every 10 years just like a normal master plan is done. Um this is an update to
our existor. We every every uh municipality within Kate May County gets a chapter. Uh we're chapter 4. Um and this is an update to it. There was a hazard mitigation planning team that included various representatives of your
city and they're listed on the pa page one. Uh Justin was a member of that. So if he has a if you have specific questions, he was involved in all of this. But the OEM coordinator, city manager, public works supervisor, mayor, construction official, municipal clerk
were all on that uh all participated in this. And these things are in uh these hazard mitigation plans are already incorporated into our uh master plan, our last master plan re-examination. This just updates it. So, it is totally
consistent with our existing master plan. So, I I don't see any reason why we couldn't recommend this um that is consistent um and that we can endorse this and forward this to city council for adoption. >> Any questions from Craig? >> Anybody care to make a motion?
>> I'll make the motion >> on the on the on the consistency review. Correct, Craig? >> Yes, it's a consistency review and recommendation. >> Okay. That's fine. >> I'll make the recommend I'll make the
motion. >> Second. >> So, is this a motion for the mitigation plan? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Riggs seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Reid. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lhome. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Badus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bazair. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Now, you may want to just jump to the resolution and just take them >> okay consistent.
>> So, the the the resolution um that recommends that back to city council is 826 2025 semicolon 2. That was part of your package. >> Motion to approve the resolution. >> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second. Whoever >> Mr. Riggs motions, Mr. Produces second. >> Here, >> Mr. Mr. Gorggo. >> Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lhome. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bedus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Then the next item to discuss is the pool regulations and the amended ordinance. >> Okay. >> Which you did went through last time. So the pool so the rec the ordinance number
574 2025 was an ordinance amending the city code to confirm the intent and purpose of pool setback requirements. If you recall we had some discussion with regards to that. Uh Mr. King and I deal with many more pool applications at the zoning board level. Um and
justifications for those variances are often not quantified in our code. So therefore the board members have difficulty in establishing the basis for granting of variances. This ordinance is meant to
clarify that and language has been added um indicating what the purposes of those setbacks are and those are included in there. Uh, I did a master plan consistency review dated August 22nd, 2025, and there are specific
recommendations in our last master plan re-examination um that are completely consistent with this in my professional planning experience and opinion. So therefore, I believe we can make that recommendation
back to city council. When we deem something consistent with the master plan re-examination, we also are allowed to forward recommended comments. So if you have comments, want to tweak language or whatever, you're allowed to make recommendations back to them if you feel
inclined to do so. I would just uh suggest that um if we do move forward with recommending this back to city council, can a copy of that also be distributed to the zoning board as well for their information? >> Thank you.
>> Not limiting pools in any section of town as long as you meet the criteria. >> Correct. >> No, it's pools are not permitted in the R4. But this is not this is not >> I understand but I I just wanted to clarify the comment because you said anywhere in town >> this this does not create any further
restrictions requirements etc. It just clarifies hey we have these requirements we have a 10-ft setback requirement we have a landscape upper requirement we have a separation a distance separated from a principal structure.
This gives you why we did those things and the purposes are set forth in there. >> Safety. >> So you could meet those requirements and still not be able to have one in R4. >> R4. >> R4. Yeah. R4 has never been permitted. Swimming pools are not a permitted use in R4 ever.
>> They're the blocks that have the quads. Correct. >> All of those. >> Everything from Ohio to Massachusetts is R4. >> Twins, quads, >> twins, quads, singles. >> Yeah. Okay. So this is not creating any further bulker zoning requirements. >> Just clarification.
>> Craig, what effect will it have, if any, on the number and frequency of variances >> that board does that every year? They they compile >> Yeah. >> the embers. >> It's my opinion that the intent of this is to quantify and and specifically
state why we have those requirements. So, if an applicant comes in for variance with regards to a pool and they're not meeting one of those requirements, I would argue that the the board has basis for denying it. Okay. And it's stated in the ordinance.
>> Okay. You're clarifying the rules of the game. >> You got it. >> Motion to approve this. >> I'll make the motion to approve it with um a copy sent to the zoning board. >> I'll second. Mr. Riggs motions. Deputy Mayor McDade
seconds. Mr. Gorgon. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lholm. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Badus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And you you can take care of the the res
>> the resolution alongside. >> Resolution needs to be approved as well. >> Motion to approve that resolution. >> I'll make that reser. recommendation. I'll second. >> Okay. We have a motion by Mrs. Reid,
seconded by Deputy Mayor McDade. Mr. Gorgon, >> yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Mrs. Reid, >> yes. >> Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lhome, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> will a copy of the resolution be sent to the zoning board along with the
recommendations so it's all together? So, you want the uh Mr. Hurles's memorandum with it? Yes. >> Yes, please. >> Yes. >> I I'll be voting yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Paducus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> For the record, Mayor Mul just joined the meeting. >> M. I apolog Yeah. I apologize. I had an important meeting I couldn't miss, but uh I apologize, Mr. Chairman. >> No problem. >> Okay. So um
before we discuss the workforce housing ordinance, you want to say something about the R4? >> Sure. >> So if you recall um in our master plan recommendations,
we recommend that a comprehensive study be done of the R4 district. Um there during our master plan re-examination, we found numerous issues that need to be addressed. Um so this is the basis I
started the study. I inventoried all of the block and lots with their uses. Um I incorporated the language. So the first and I'll I'll take you through my memorandum dated August 19th, 2025. Um on page two is the first recommendation
um that uh deals with and is specifically says that we should comprehensively re-examine and address the standards in the R4 district. Additions and accessory structures and fences in this in this area have been problematic from an emergency access and
light air and open space standpoint and can disrupt the original campus design and open space. pedestrian access ways abudding the quads and two family structures not permitting fences or permitting fences but require an appropriate setback to facilitate public and emergency access while preserving
light air and open space should be considered. Standards for corner lot situations need to be developed and addressed. Due to the uniqueness and complexity of development of this area, further detailed study is required. Property survey evaluation may be
required. Um and so I I included so someone was asking about the R4. You can see the extent of the R4 district. Um and encompasses um parts of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
18 blocks I believe. Um so on page three of 13 there's an aerial view that shows kind of the density. on the second photo um is an illustration of a potential problem that was brought to light is the
proximity of fences being established in close proximity to common access ways. So, um and I'll explain I'll explain how the layout of those blocks works at the end of this. Um on page four of 13, there's another example of how close someone put a fence to a public access
way. Um number 14 is the next um recommendation was comprehensively re-examine and address the standards for R4 district. Um HVAC structures and condensers should not be permitted in the front of the building facade. We
have actually already started to address that because we had someone start to put AC units on top of the structures. Um so there's an ordinance that was crafted to address that. Uh we may want to take that a little bit further. 15.
Comprehensively re-examine and address the standards for R4 district. Uh a per unit requirement is necessary for four unit quads. So the way that our ordinance is written is that they treat these as one single lot even though
they're individ they're they have com the lot line falls on the common party wall. So there there's four lots for each quad. um our ordinance doesn't address it. It treats it as one big lot. So I recommended that we need to break
down the standards that we have in the code to address lot sizes for one quarter of what they're permitted to be. Um we kind of have been doing that on an administr an administrative level, but it really needs to happen and that
everything should be changed. So, um, I don't see that as being a huge endeavor. 16 is a next recommendation to comprehensively re-examine and address the standards for the R4 district with regards to quads located on corner lots. Rear yard setback should be measured
from the property line opposite the main entrance to the dwelling unit. Main entrance is not defined and should be or better methodology be developed and incorporated for establishment of setbacks. So, there's issues with regards to measuring setbacks on corner
lots for quads. Okay. 17. Um, this was more of a recommendation and is more of a policy decision, I believe, but it says due to the relatively high real
estate costs within the city, many full-time residents call this area home due to the lower average cost dwelling units that are that this area contains. These units are often small and do not contain the bedrooms necessary for families. Kate May should ensure that
this area is affordable to residents and possibly facilitate carefully planned zoning regulations that may allow additional bedrooms that support these families. Care should be taken so that redevelopment is not encouraged so that these that its family homes would not be
replaced with second homes. So, we want to allow potential I I think the nexus of this recommendation is we want to allow possible bedroom expansions, but we don't want to turn this into a redevelopment area where houses are being torn down and redeveloped and
driving the cost of living up for these units. So I think unfortunately even in six short years this is extremely dated um because the R4 has turned into um an area that is completely changed in the
last six years. Um in the last year alone 30 homes were sold. Um they're becoming more um not even >> that's not a lot. >> No it well it's a lot when you're you're talking historically >> right I understand. Um, but I'm just
saying the fabric of that community is changing. I live there. I know it. And so people who are still there are surrounded by, you know, it's becoming more commercialized. It's not even second homeowners anymore. These are developers coming in and purchasing these. So I think whatever we can do to
look at this, but again, try and keep with the integrity of what this area was meant to be and should be. Um, so there that >> there there was a group of recommendations made for the R4 district and that was the summary of all of
those. So it's a very sensitive area and any decisions that we make with regards to zoning changes there can have >> significant impacts to that neighborhood. Um, it's a quaint neighborhood. It's, you know, one of the lesser intensely developed
>> zoning districts within town. So, we just have to bear in mind that whatever whatever we propose there um should be done with the utmost thought um to how it's going to affect the community. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. So, that's a summary of the
recommendations. On page five of 13, I highlight the current zoning requirements just so everyone has those. And that's and I'm not going to go through those on an individual basis, but page five, six, seven, and eight all indicate um those zoning requirements.
There are three primary uses within that district. The quads, single family, detached, and semi- detached. So there there are separate standards for each type of dwelling unit. Um, and you'll note this is one of the more controlled
uh zoning districts. Um, at the bottom of page eight, you'll see table three. Um, you'll notice that there's building height is limited to 20 feet. That's the lowest in in town. Every other district, the building height is 35 ft.
The lot coverage requirements are pretty much 45% or 50%. In addition to our standard floor area ratio, and by the way, this floor area ratio supersedes the stuff that we have in town. These are far more restrictive.
If you notice, those floor area ratios are 28% or 36%. That is far less. That's what's what's permitted anywhere else in town. We also have a lot usage ratio. We don't have one of those anywhere else in town. that ratio is in addition to your
floor area, it controls the amount of accessory spaces that you have where a floor area ratio does not. So there there are significant controls in this district um that are that are not that are not implemented in any other
district is my point. Um on page nine of 13, I go through a blockby-block inventory. Um, so it it tells you what block it is, what street it fronts on, um, what streets they front on, um, with the side
streets, and then the the primary uses. So, for instance, um, on block 1159, it fronts on Wisconsin Avenue, the side streets are Pittsburgh. So, it's Wisconsin Avenue between Pittsburgh and Trenton. The uses in that block are
semi- detached, so they're twins, side by sides. Um, and then I note I make notes of it's a half block. So, in this case, it's not encompassing the whole block. Um, and I talk about the driveway, garage parking, on street parking, whether there's uh, and I'll
just show you a different one. Block 1140 or block 1158 below that is entirely quads. Um that's and that's I just described the parking banks of four on-site parking spaces along streets with on street parking in front of
homes. Sidewalks extend along the entire block length. Sidewalk connections between quads from parking banks to the center block green space. That's what's typically in exists in those blocks. So there's descriptions. Um, you'll notice
one, two, three, four, there's five blocks that contain entirely quads. The majority are semi- detached or mixed semi- detached and single families. Um, on page 11 of 13, it's an
illustration of our typical block layout showing typical lot sizes, lot frontages, and orientation. Um, if you look at block 1157 at the top of that illustration, and these are excerpts from the tax map, by the way. Um,
1157 is all uh semi- detached. Uh, block 1156 is a mix with single family dwellings and semi- detached. If you turn to the next page, at the top of page 12, um, the illustration shows
block 1155. They are all semi- detached. And then block 1154 is an illustration of what our typical block looks like that contains all the quads. And you can see on that tax map um how each one has
an individual lot and how the quad sits in the center of those four lots. Um it also shows um a little hatched area where the four onsite parking spaces exist. And it's weird because you have parking spaces for the rear unit that
are contained on another lot, the front lot. Um, weird circumstance. Um, and I know Mr. Bazer has stories about the history and legal issues that that has created. Um you also notice midblock along the
entire back or in between the quads of front on each street there is a green space with access easements and utility easements that are there. Um you'll also see running between the quads uh going from street to street uh from the bank
of four parking spaces. There is a sidewalk easement that goes in between the structures that goes back to the green space. So it's very complex. Um like I said, anything we do here has to accommodate the existing campus layout
that exists in these blocks. Craig, who owns that green is the >> Yeah, that I was just going to ask because that's become somewhat >> I can't tell you be the tax map says there's a declaration of covenants that covers that.
>> Um until that stuff was investigated, I can't really tell you who owns it. So, I think that it's it needs to be part of this review because it's um there's areas where there's been infringement um and it's sort of created more issues,
especially in those areas where um on the the quad blocks um especially in the older area, Illinois is the quad blocks. No, what I'm saying is it's it's not as predominant um bill in the when you get to like um Wisconsin and Missouri. It's
much more contained and confined and much more uh sort of infringement when you're in Ohio and they are the more >> Yeah, they have they have they have more space back there than they do in the other ones. So, I do think it needs to be defined in some way. It does create
some issues, especially on the zoning side as to what gets put back there um and what's permitted. So >> who's responsible for it? >> Right. >> Well, so I was hoping to get a in going through this exercise and looking at,
you know, at this study, I was hoping to get a consensus from the board into which direction they wanted to push me to start crafting zoning changes and recommendations um with regards to this. So what should
I focus on next is my question to the board. One I could tell you primarily is is to finding the quads and and getting the lot size okay set up. >> I would say the green space would be very beneficial. I think the other one
that you note um here which has been problematic is um emergency access because of that that infringement into that green space issue. There's things back there and in fact um Deputy Manager Riggs and I spent probably at least two or three afternoons walking through some
of those spaces to take a look at it and it's just sort of undefined at this point. So there's sheds in the middle of those areas, there's fire pits, there's gazeos, there's patio setups um where other neighbors are not clear what's
permitted and what isn't for them. So >> would that include the fencing? And the fencing should be included in these areas to be take a look at. It's been so undefined for so long, especially in the quads. And I would say in particular the the inner courtyards. That's where some of this is just sort of developed
organically. >> The fencing is all village green or just the quads. >> Well, there's fencing permitted in village green now in the back. Um, and but in the quads, there's always been this question as to what would be
>> the it's my opinion that the structures in the quads have created the most issues. >> Um, the accessory structures on the side by sides, the semi- detached >> don't seem to be problematic. Um there's a there seems to be a a method
methodology to that development pattern that is appealing to the eye and has creates a nice uh streetscape. Um so I I don't in my opinion I didn't see anything that was super problematic there. Um so I I think I
should focus on the quad stuff cleaning that up. >> I'll start with that >> and then we'll we'll talk after that. >> I I I agree with that. Like the deputy mayor said, we spent a few afternoons walking these areas and I just was like,
"Oh, well, that's quite interesting." So, I certainly think it's somewhere where we should start to focus and and uh study. >> Okay. I have a question to ask like for instance on the twins and things like you mentioned, you know, but it' be nice
to be able to like add a bedroom to some of the smaller units and things like that. And I know a lot of people have converted their garages, for instance, into a bedroom or another room or attic space into a loft or or things like that. What about twins? Someone buying both sides of a twin, breaking down the
wall in between and making it one unit. >> I did a windshield survey and I think there's a couple animals out there that exist. >> Yeah, I think it's already happened. >> But is that an allowable thing? >> Yeah, it's just it's no different than you buying two lots in town and building a bigger house. Okay, that's what I was
wondering. >> Um, so it's permitted. We can't stop it. >> I had a comment, Craig, actually based on what Moren was saying. >> Um, >> this section of our code is what, 30, 40 years old?
>> It's more than 30. >> So, >> yeah, I think that I think these things are 50 years old. >> Yeah, that's true. So I I do do we want to get into a discussion about what we think our force should be in 2029
2035 or should we just decide to go back in and and tinker with the elements of the of the 50 or 60 year old code and your your point is my think moren that that the village green is pretty much like
every other place in town. It's going through a a significant amount of transition into all kinds of markets that nobody envisioned 60 years ago. >> No, I don't I don't think anyone envisioned it probably. >> Start off when you say that though. >> It was it was age restricted when it first started.
>> When you say that though, what kind of changes is it going through? I'm curious. >> Yeah. Well, for one thing, there's an awful lot of rental rental units in there. >> Village Green has always been the prime spot to get an affordable rental. >> Yeah. >> It's no longer the case. A quad nail is
going for 665. Relative relatively speak. >> That's where most of the high year round rentals, the younger people lived in Village Green. I'm not sure about this room. >> And another example was just that people are are are breaking walls through duplexes and making one big house out of
it. Was that envisioned? Is that is that a good thing or a bad thing? >> The use the use what was envisioned when they were first built was it was it was for retirement people. >> Yeah. >> And and there was an age restriction. was 55 or older. This was back in the
60s and 70s. And it was they realized they weren't selling to retired people. There weren't that many people retiring here. So they they they took the age restriction off and then it just became, you know, real estate in general. First place I ever bought was was a twin on
Virginia Avenue. Paid $26,000 for >> Right. And I'm not I'm not making any point at all except the fact that it it's so different from what the way it used to be. Is our code caught up to that? Is it is it facilitating the new
uses of this facility? >> There are no new uses. They are residential uses. >> Right. Well, all of those >> residential uses. You keep saying commercialization. That is not the case. They're residential uses. Families live there. whether they're seasonal or year
round, it's still a residential use. >> Yeah. Form of ownership doesn't matter. >> Doesn't matter. >> So, I mean, I personally because I live there and I would like Yeah. No, I I know. I I would like to see, you know, I think the issue of the quads and the the green space, um, you know, I've heard
from the, you know, the homeowners and the property owners wanting to have clarity around that. And I think it would be extremely helpful. Um because what happens is people just you know wind up doing what they want and then others are looking at it saying wait I got told I couldn't do that and so you
have this you know um you know it creates a lot of confusion and a lot of >> so there's no association but there's some kind of a >> No there is an association president I'm the president so there's no >> it's not an HOI though Marilyn I I understand that but you don't have any
rules that say you can and can't do certain things >> no our rules are the zoning in fact uh You know, the former website listed the R4 zoning regulations for people to know. Um, and we try and put out information that comes to us from the zoning officer. Um, my most recent
newsletter went out with some information along those lines. Um, I have a community event once a year, uh, invite city administration to come. Um, and we talk about some of these issues. If questions come to me, I refer them to to Bruce or to Lo Veto um to make sure
that the homeowners are talking directly to, you know, the city um you know, experts on it. So, I try and facilitate I get a lot of sidewalk conversations, but I always pass along the comments or I I'll tell them to reach out to to the deputy manager um to get some answers or
information. That's how some of the most recent changes came about. The the three um ordinances that we proposed um were from feedback from um homeowners. So, um it's getting, you know, now it's we're, you know, uh a bit more energized around
looking at that and get a lot more feedback. People want to understand what they can and cannot do on their property. Uh and it's, you know, it's it can be confusing at times. >> What is the feedback as far as rentals go? And I'm specific. So, I think >> short-term rentals appear to be a problem to the city. So, I'm just
curious as to >> I think what people the people who are elderly who have lived there for a long time. Um, you know, they're concerned because now they have a house that gets sold next to them and it's a rental property so they've got people in and out who are down to enjoy their time.
You know how small the spaces are down there. Um, and so people are right on top of each other. Um, and you know, there there are still a good number of seniors. you know, a lot of um people living on their own. Um and so when they have that situation, it's sort of like,
you know, what do I do? I can't I can't call the police, you know, every time something happens. They don't want to do that. Um so I think for them, it's it's a matter of the changes that they've been there. Some of them have been there from the 70s and 80s and now, you know,
it's it's changed tremendously from when they bought those homes and they came here to live. So it's hard. It's and it has a lot to do with the physical space, too. The limitations. >> So, you're implying to eliminate short-term rentals in Village Green. >> No, I didn't say that at all. All I said is is that people bring their concerns
forth. It's Look, you're not going to eliminate short-term rentals in Cape May. And at Village Green is no exception to that. It's just a recognition that the the actual geographic space when you look at a quad that's only 11,000 square feet, it's four units. Yeah. I mean, you know,
people are right on top of each other. So you can appreciate you're living here. You're in your 80s and you've got people coming in every other weekend and you know doing their thing. It's it's a change for people. So you know just an acknowledgement of the facts.
>> A piece of information that could inform this discussion might be for example how many people actually do live in the village green? >> I have that number Dennis. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What is it? Well, there I I I right now off the top of my head, I don't have it,
but I do have the the data that I actually get from the tax assessors and we do a yearly membership. Um, but probably somewhere in the ballpark. I'm just going to guess, but I'll confirm it. Let's just say 20 to 25% at most. >> Yeah, I'm surprised it's that much.
>> And it may not be. I mean, I may be overstating um to be honest with you. We the of the last year 30 homes that were bought and sold, only three people moved to Kate May full-time. So that's 10%. So that that may be more the reality of the number.
>> So Craig, do you have enough direction I guess from the >> I'm going to spearhead looking at the quads. I'll start there and see if we can get some traction going with with regards to making changes there. I think that's the biggest area of concern right now. Um and then we'll look,
you know, that'll evolve into I'm sure a discussion further along the line. >> Okay. >> So thank you. Okay, forward with that. We have one more item on the agenda which I'm sure isn't going to take us
short period of time. >> That's the workforce housing. Okay. So, I prepared a consistency review, but it might be a little bit premature. Um, I think I expected that this was going to be recommended to us
from the governing body. Um, however, I think a proper exercise at this point is to look at this draft ordinance because that's what it is, a draft ordinance. Um, and make recommendations um, is it acceptable the language? So, I
just briefly I'll take you through um what this new ordinance proposed to do was define workforce housing in our definition section 525-4. I'm on page 30 of five of my report, but you can be looking at the uh the uh
draft. Um so, it defines workforce housing. Uh we had a little bit of this this discussion before, but um as used in this section, workforce housing means apartments located above commercial uses
that are dedicated exclusively for owner occupancy. Workforce housing or long-term housing. In all cases, workforce housing shall I or one be rented or occupied for a term of not less than 90 consecutive days and two
serve as the primary place of residence for the tenants or owners. Um, for the avoidance of doubt, no developer, applicant, owner, or operator of workforce housing shall be permitted to use such units as a short-term rental or obtain a merkantile license for such
pursuant to chapter 310, article 4. Um, so >> can I go back there for a second? >> Yeah, we can we can chop this up. >> Okay. All right. I mean, I I didn't realize that the merkantile licenses were timespecific. I thought you you had you had a license
for a rental and it it wasn't didn't say whether it was short-term or long-term or >> it's just it's just >> for your you told me. >> Yeah. is >> but whether you do whether you do a >> I guess I guess I'm trying to I'm trying to figure out where where where it
specifies that mercantile license is is controlled by by the time frame whether it's >> I thought it was controlled by that short-term rentals are considered anything under six months and that that was the condition for the merkantile but we would have to go back to the city. Oh, it's it's 90 days.
>> 90 days. Okay. >> Yes. >> So, >> yeah, I seem to remember the city solicitor mentioning 90 days was chosen because that's what the different orientation between emergency defining a short-term rental
>> which is 90 days. >> So, you don't need a license if it's in excess of 90 days. >> You do because that involves my Sorry, I could go home and look at it. Quite a few years ago, the Supreme Court
had a case out by uh SU in New Jersey and I forget the exact story. This was brought to court and somebody who rents year round. For instance, I have a renter in there that's been there eight years. I do not need a mercantile license, but something I want to say 180
or around that number below that you need the mercantile license and that was by the Supreme Court in New Jersey decided. >> Well, that might be the 180 days might be where tenant landlord laws kick in. >> I don't know. >> You know, that's
>> that's another that's another factor. Yeah, I'm not an expert in the merkantile license part portion of this and I rely on the city solicitor. >> We shouldn't even be playing that. >> Yeah, but I mean if you if you recall during some of our discussions with
regards to workforce housing is we had we had a hard time quantifying the difference between short-term rental versus long. And this this definition tackles that. Um it may not be exactly
the way we want it right now, but this is a good um attempt at saying it's 90 days. You know, you can't we can't have short-term fli, you know, flipping over uh your your occupation has to be not less than 90 days. Um so
>> so I Yeah, this this is referenced in our current code, correct? This is a brand new definition. We have never had a definition of workforce health. >> You're correct in in linking it to the application for a merkante license because that's the only way you can get
into a short-term rental. So, yeah, that's >> so that makes sense, >> you know. So, I I think this is a great starting point and it may be the the final draft. I'm not sure. Um I I don't see any recommendations that I need to make, but it's quite clear at what this
definition is doing. It's establishing what workforce housing is. >> So you want comments or you want to wait? I >> I'm I'm just roll. I'll keep going if you want. >> I on that on that first paragraph there.
Um the uh the problem with workforce housing uh and we we had a meeting at the taxpayers association last week and Curtis Bachelo attended and made a very good point in terms of identifying
actually three tiers of of work for of housing that that are actually problematic for the city. One of them is the affordable housing which is not this. Uh the the other is seasonal housing for the folks who come in on on
the uh the visas and what have you >> and only going to be in here for two or three months maybe. And then the third tier is uh housing for the workforce who lives and works all year long in this city. and and I'm and I don't see that I
I think this this ordinance probably ought to address that delineation in a more clear way because uh it ought to say this is not not affordable housing. This is and in some way address the
seasonal impact of of uh the workforce and then the third layer. So if you see where I'm going here, it may be a little a little too broad in the in the first But I think that if you took the opposite approach, Dennis, if you're seasonal or you're living here year
round, you're still part of the workforce regardless of the duration. You're not So to me, being a little bit less prescriptive, not overlegislating that definition serves the purpose for both
the seasonal and, you know, individuals who are working here year round. in my opinion um I think that if you get too tight on those definitions then I think people become um feel that you know you're overregulating
that by definition if they don't meet the criteria then then what does that mean that's just my view that's why to me workforce housing >> enforced also right you know if you yeah if you you make are you seasonal are you out of here on day 91 versus somebody who's here who could be a J1 who comes
in May and doesn't leave till October >> you know so there's so I I wouldn't want to do they get put in the seasonal category or do they get put in the long >> I'm not suggesting any categories what I'm suggesting is does the language address the multiplicity of the >> I think you could have a definition of
it and and and be more inclusive in that >> does it does it capture our our threemonth I mean what's the shortest duration of our employees staying here >> I have no idea >> three months probably I I'm guessing >> so I think the 90 days captures that so
I I thought that was important. It made sense to me. >> Well, if if you're a college student, you're not here for 3 months. If you're coming to work, if you're coming to work out of school, you're getting you're getting here in June and leaving end of August.
>> Could be 45 days as little as 45, you know, some are >> like 75 like 60 to 75. >> Well, it's still still not 90. >> No, it's not 90. And and so this is these are the conversations we need to have and and we can define things as being seasonal that may be no less than
to put some parameters around it. No less than X but no greater than Y. >> Yeah. I I I guess I'm trying to figure out why we're making the distinction. I mean either >> Well, I mean just think about this. You can you can turn over this property four
times a year. any property 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days >> is there >> yeah well that's >> is there a need to do more than that >> so so what happens when the business owner doesn't own the building >> that was
>> the building owner is has to rent to his has to take a hit to house his business people's employees when he could be maximizing his investment by short-term railing >> this so this is
this is oriented to only this use is permitted in the C1 district. >> Oh, I understand that. >> And it grandfathers in all existing apartments over commercial uses. So, >> I get it. But what if you buy a building
on the mall and you rent the business separate the apartment and you're not the business owner is not the building owner. >> He's required to rent to work for his housing. Yeah. When he Why can't he short-term rental it? The business is not related to him. >> Under that ordinance, he can rent to any
any workforce person. Doesn't >> Yeah, but he's limited to 90-day rentals. >> Yeah. But I'm just saying it doesn't have to be business. >> No, I He's not limited to 90 days. It's 90 days if it's workforce, but they could have long-term rentals. >> Yes. Absolutely. >> Okay. What the the exclusion the
exclusion is the uh >> the short-term transient specifically because this that's not what we consider to be a conducive rental environment on the C1 having people transient in and out coming in you know rolling their luggage down the Washington Street Mall
cleaners coming in and out with you know laundry trash etc. it to me it's more and and this was I mean this came up during the master plan. This was ratified as part of the master plan in 2019. The language that Craig put in here is was from there. So we recognized
it as an issue then and and so now we're acting upon it which you know I'm I'm glad to see. This is not this in no way impinges upon the ability to have short-term rentals through any other area in the city. It's just saying in this environment, this just does not fit
with that streetscape. >> No, I think Rick's point, if I can make your point for you, >> I think Rick's point is that on business A, there's an apartment upstairs. That's apartment A. Can that only be used by people who work in business A or
>> No, that's that's the question you had, right? No, I'm Why should that guy be limited to I if the business owner owns a building, that's one thing, but >> he's he's only limited to the term of his rental. >> Oh, your your point is your point is does he have to rent it to somebody from
the workforce? >> Yes. >> No, he his your point is he you should be allowed to do short-term rentals above properties on the mall. >> If you business owner does not own the building, yes, >> business owner does not own the
building. So you're saying basically there's two >> doesn't matter when we're talking about these uses. >> So the use but permitted use or not a permitted use. >> So I don't I don't care who owns it. >> Let me go back to the point I made probably that well. Let me try and make
it again. The thing that is not in here is a definition of workforce. >> We Yeah, we agreed. >> Yeah. What what's that? We're we're not we're not limiting workforce to someone that has to work in the city or in that building. >> Why not?
>> It's because we want it overall encompassing. It's not a bad thing. >> How you going to police that anyway? >> Exactly. >> What What about What about a lifeguard who works for the city? Can he have one of these apartments? >> So long as it's so long as he's it the term is 90 days right now. So long as he
rents it for 90 days, he's permitted to stay there for >> whether they're a worker or not. >> Right. It could be someone here for the summer visiting >> theoretically. Yes. >> Short-term rental. Then theoretically >> someone could, you know, do that and rent the whole thing out for the whole 90 days.
>> Maybe the term workforce housing is a little confusing. >> Short short uh midterm. >> Well, the intent the intent is to encourage workers. Exactly. the tenants are encourage workers or or these units to be
available for workers. >> Yes. >> Or if they are a member working in the community, it could be a teacher. It could be Yeah. We're trying to create zoning opportunities. We're making zoning changes that create opportunities
that are more prevalent to be used by >> employees or someone that's going to work in this area or small family. >> Hard to have one. >> It could be a small family. >> Yeah, it could be a small family. >> And none of those things I believe >> I think we have too many converations going on at the same time. >> Vicki,
>> Zach, we got too many conversations going here. >> So now I have a question. Are you limiting this just to the Washington Street Mall? because C1 goes outside. C1 is across the street here because you have >> you have units you have um uh places on
east of Victorian Towers that are part of that are in the C1 district. And I don't know how what you know what can how they're used today, but I know a number of years ago I know someone who owned a condo above one of the retail stores. It was a condo and some of those
areas do have adequate parking behind them for whatever whatever exists. So, would this apply to to those areas too? >> They're grandfathered in. >> It's existing. It's permitted. It it's already permitted and and legalized. It will be permitted to stay. It's
grandfathered in. >> Okay. And and I guess the question is how do you how do you how does somebody prove five years from now that is that what was there? If they didn't rent it out or they didn't have mercante license >> this person who had >> well if they don't have an active
>> merkant live there >> wouldn't they have a copy of a lease or something that they could they could always provide. So the land use law provides a mechanism for somebody to come in and prove it goes to the zoning board for their review >> after you pass this assume you pass this
ordinance. >> Anybody can come into the zoning official within one year and obtain a certificate of nonconformity. >> Yeah. >> Which will verify to any purchaser that that use is pre-existing to the ordinance. Good forever.
If he doesn't come in within one year, any time after that, he has to go to the zoning board and he has to prove to the zoning board satisfaction that the use did exist prior to the ordinance. That's how your land use law handles. >> And we did talk about that with Mr. >> Gillan. Are those are those uh owners
going to be notified of that because I'm not sure they would know that they >> have a time limit, >> right? Where are you guys going with it? I don't know. I just wanted to tell you. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I just wanted to let you know that's the standard under the MLUL. You know >> why why doesn't this draft mention C1?
>> I'm getting there. We're only talking about the definition so far. >> So the definition is the first part of that ordinance. So So we're and I I'll just go let me just go through this in broad strokes. So we ch we're we're proposing a workforce housing
definition. On page four or five of my report, um we are eliminating apartments above commercial uses as a permitted use in the C1 district and replacing it with apartments above commercial uses limited
to workforce housing as defined in section 525-4, which is the definition. Okay. Section three on page five of five of my report has an effect on existing uses and that details the grandfather
clause. Okay, that's the broad strokes that those are the only changes being proposed. >> Uh could we suggest that it be used in all commercial districts? We in the in the master plan
re-examination, this recommendation was made for the C1, >> right, >> and the C2, >> right? >> I think this is being done in the C1 as more of a test case because it's where it's most honorous, you know, where the parking issue is and if we have it's not
really conducive to short-term rentals. >> Yeah, >> you may want to make the recommendation that they allow it in the C2. It's it's certainly a recommendation in our in our re-examination. So, >> to tell you the truth, it's probably a good recommendation for all commercial
districts since since the concept here is living spaces above commercial operations should be available to workforce housing. That's the theory. If that's the case, there's commercial properties in all three districts. That's why we have three commercial
districts. So, why not? I think the idea of limiting it to the C1, like we just said, is more or less to look at it as a ta um um a case a case um study, you know, and then we can have
something to reflect upon for data purposes. >> Dennis, I can't believe you didn't pick up on this part. >> Workforce housing is exempt from parking requirements. >> I was just going to say that >> under this >> under this. Yeah, that I'm getting to that. >> So,
>> I haven't even >> You want to You want to expand that into the C2 and C3 districts? No. >> I'm surprised. >> No, I want to have I want to remove it from the ordinance. That's that's that's my suggestion. >> Okay. >> Yeah, because you that that's peacemailing the parking problem. It's
it's peacemealing the parking problem. I think it's recognizing a certain circumstance and development pattern exists in the C1 that's different from the C2 and C3. >> I think also we want to encourage
this and a way to encourage this is to uh take that uh limitation away. >> I agree. >> Um and I think that the other thing is the C1 as as Craig has said this was you know within the master plan. Let's let's beat up the language in
here. Let's do the definitions. Let's send it back to council for consideration and then we see how it it develops. This is new territory for the city. Um rather than trying to do a very broad brush on this uh and have a lot of, you know, probably, you know, people
unhappy or unclear on what we're trying to accomplish, let's keep it f focused um and make a step forward. Finally, >> I'd like to throw another wrench into this. Uh, can you do an overlay and just apply that to the mall? And the reason I say that is you've got Washington
Commons, which is the elephant in the room, all one-story buildings. There is a lot of potential there >> for family housing. They've got for for >> for so to limit that to limit that to just workforce housing is is I think
over overkill especially for that block. So, what I would ask >> I don't I don't understand your concern there because this would promote long-term housing. I don't think you want to see short-term housing in >> not you're not but but then the workforce housing is confusing. What
about if what about if if they wanted to do do some things where they were you gave them a density variance where they could build more units so that so that so that the cost was down and families wanted to buy young families wanted to buy in there and and live and >> I I think what Craig is saying is that
this wouldn't necessarily preclude that and I think based on the discussions we've had having a definition around what workforce housing means you know I think might clarify that point for people on the board and
outside of this room. Um, >> but if these are the comments, then I I think maybe we need to get them to Craig. He can review them with Mr. Gillan Schwarz. >> Yeah. I mean, >> and then, you know, bring it back to the next meeting and sort of take a look at it then and say, "Okay, this is ready to
send to council." >> I mean, >> well, there's there's there's other possibilities, too. You could do maybe a pilot program with one of these with with with with the property. And >> well, I think this is I I would argue that this seems to be a pilot program to incentivize
>> house apartment rental types that are conducive to workforce >> instead of punishing people for doing like you you you >> they've incentivized it. Exactly. >> Well, now would be if you're going to like you said build something on Washington Commons, now would be the place because she wouldn't have to meet the parking requirement.
>> Yeah. But there's there's also there's other there's there there's other there's other carrots out there. >> Yeah. Right. There's other considerations for that in other ways. >> The thing is I think workforce housing that term sort of kind of pigeon holes it and makes it sound like it wouldn't be available to young families or can
>> single individuals, >> right? Can we work on that lang that definition to get more comfort around that? >> Sure. >> Okay. Because workforce housing to me means both people coming here for, as we've discussed, seasonal as well as encouraging, you know, people coming into the community for longer term
people who are becoming part of the fabric of the community. >> Police, firemen, >> police, firemen, teachers, you know, um, nurses, any anything you can imagine. We need to re >> this is why I said a minute ago, why not just put a definition of what we think
workforce workforce is? >> That's part of what this discussion is. we can get language and do that um and incorporate it in here and circulate it back around for the next meeting discussion. One of the one of the discussions was about, you know, do you do you make
workforce housing having to work in the city of Kate May, which is an obvious question, but exactly what you just said was why that wasn't included was we want teachers or police officers or, you know, who maybe aren't a police officer
in necessarily in the city of Kate May, but if they're in lower township or firefighters, etc., etc., to to still meet the def definition because you know you could argue that a nurse living in the city of Kate May may be even more valuable than someone working at one of
the stores downstairs or whatever you know >> and I think >> yeah but we can't we we can't push back a little bit >> we we can't be expected to solve other communities problems and we can't even solve our own >> but but Dennis it's not solving a problem necessarily I think what the
point is look at look at the the um demunition of the full full-time population in this city. Look at the composition at this table. What do you think is going to be the composition of boards and commissions in 10 years? We have got to recede this community with
people who want to live here. So, we have to give them an opportunity to live here. And regardless of whether or not they work at Cape Regional Cooper or if they work somewhere else, if they're a five, if they're part of the community, they're, you know, going to the theater
or becoming a volunteer or supporting, you know, Kate May Cares or the community food bank or anything else in this city which makes it schools. >> Why wouldn't we want to encourage regardless of where they're working? Well, the dialogue on this issue has always been up to now has always been my
I'm a business owner. My people can't afford to live in in the town where my business is. >> And and so the the driving engine of this issue seemed to always be that. Now we're expanding it. I don't I don't really care one way or the other. We're
expanding it to a a new universe of of uh users. But if that's the case, then then we ought to make that statement in a definition of what to work for. >> And I don't I couldn't disagree with you. Yeah. >> Let's talk about grandfathering, shall we?
>> Before before you get into that, I mean, I'm just wondering if um this kind of expand on on what you're saying, Moren. I mean, you almost define it as the rental has to be a minimum of 90 days with the intent of encouraging uh
workforce, you know, to to rent the space, but it's also 90 days or longer and hopefully longer. >> And the longer part of it, and this goes back to, you know, the nurses, the fire police, and so on and so forth. um at as
perhaps a starting point to move into Cape May and maybe move on to buy a quad, to buy a twin and so on and so forth. So I'm I'm just wondering expanding the definition to using the
workforce housing as an example of the the minimum of 90 days. But >> do we assume this is people are going to be able to afford to live here? Yeah, that's >> because if you have an apartment above the mall that you rent for 90 days that you want lifeguards in there and it's
$15,000 for the summer, they're going to put as many people in there as they can afford it. You could be making the problem worse >> and have 10 cars and >> I mean, you think somebody's going to say, "Ah, we'll do it for a,000 bucks a month because, you know, people need to live here." Well, who's going to do that?
>> I know. This is getting too deep. >> Do we want to just uh given the the hour want to take our comments and provide them to >> Craig and we can see if he can come back with comments or revisions or you know >> I don't I don't
>> this is this is not a one or two night >> no >> fix. >> It's not a what >> a one or a two night fix. This this is a lot of discussion and there's just there's a lot of tentacles out there. >> Do do we >> I did have a comment to make about
grandfathering this thing and and I I think it's a bad idea to to to grandfather it before you have a very clear understanding of who you're grandfathering because unless somebody can tell me >> choose. >> Yeah. You can't pick or choose. If
somebody's got a use they're grandfathered. >> Just a minute. If somebody is using this thing for, for example, an Airbnb, and we know that that's happening, u the grandfathering language would
allow that person to continue to use it as an Airbnb. >> That does not matter. The the the type of rental is is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the use as a rental. >> It's never going to be it's never going to be available to our workforce inventory. If you if if you grandfather,
>> you can't resend their existing use for >> that. And there's my point. You can't assume anything. You need to know >> resend. You can't resend. >> Can't take away the current use. >> Current use. >> Why not? >> Because it's grandfathered.
>> Your grandfather take away your grandfather. Your grandfathering. >> You already have grandfathering throughout the whole city. >> Okay. >> Inherent in your ordinance. Then then before you before you go much >> Dennis you you park in your behind your house. That's technically your front
yard because you're fronting on a street. You're not supposed to park in front yards. You're grandfathered. You can park your car in in that space. That's what grandfathering does. You want you want that to be taken away from >> No. Well, the zoning office said that was my backyard. >> That's that's grandfather according to
definition. >> That's grandfather. >> Yeah. So before you before you go any further, don't we don't you think you really want to know whether or not we're going to get any units available for workforce housing out of these these buildings? >> You can't dictate what people ask for rent when they own the building. That's
the problem. >> What you what you need to do is incentivize them to provide it by even maybe offering the ability to put more units in or reducing the the merkantill costs or the or or or do a pilot. >> Now that's a good that's a good point. So
>> that sort of you're incentivizing individuals who have property to do that sort of thing. >> So what did we identify in the master plan? We identified that there's a whole bunch of apartments that are sitting above storefronts that are not being used. We also identified we have a workforce problem. We're now
incentivizing the use of those apartments. Grand uh not grandfathering. You got me on grandfathering. Giving them the carrot that says they don't have to they don't count towards parking. That's an incentive to try and address these multiple
problems. >> There's another >> I don't see it as it's a very sound planning principle. >> It's another inherent um incentive too because if they don't have to get a variance for parking, >> maybe they don't have to come before the planning board, which means they don't
have to pay for a lawyer, an engineer, and other experts. >> And that's very expensive to sell. So there's there is an incentive right there. It's already >> Okay. So, you eliminate them having to come and and that would be the construction office that would dictate that if they're coming in for it
>> for something that needs some improvements. >> But just to piggyback on what Craig just said, that that really is, you know, we're looking at empty spaces above the mall that sit empty because they can't get a parking variance. Um, and then we
also have a workforce housing problem. So, to me, it's just marrying those two issues. limit this this ordinance to the mall. >> Fine. >> One more see one area that that is going to get just >> thumbs up. Just we'll do an overlay for the mall. That's if that's if that's
defined as the issue. >> Mhm. >> Let's address that part of it. >> That's my biggest issue. And and I think um you have again other than I'm trying to talk think about how to say this, but you have empty ones and then you have
ones that are being used that may not be legally being used. Um, and I say that to say that if you think there's going to be a major parking change, I think some of these are already being used for managers and things like that that may
not be being used legally. So, I I the reason I say that is I just don't see it changing all that much in regards to the actual parking issue personally. So, in in part for this ordinance, is it
really looking at the C1 or are we saying something along the lines of just the Washington Street Mall or the business improvement district? Or >> maybe if we have all of these recommendations sent to Craig so we can
come back and look at something that's comprehensive. One, what is the definition of workforce housing? Is there a request to evaluate only the mall? >> But but let's also let's also remember that >> but let's also remember that this
ordinance, you know, would have to still go back to to council, could be amended, could be changed again >> exactly >> after it's introduced. So, do we think maybe I hate to say this, but getting a small group together to encompass all of
the comments and then work with Craig? I I'm just trying to figure out the best way to streamline this so we're not coming back again. >> Okay. >> And working through this. >> Is there a consensus that says that it should be only to the mall? >> That's that's my that that's what the feeling >> straw poll who says all to the mall.
>> But let me >> Yeah. >> Either way, right? Look, right, >> Craig. Craig, you you mentioned I mean even the the ordinance here is a test case. So why not make the test case the mall? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. just just limit it for the for the
time being. Limit it to the mall. Um I don't think there's you're gonna like like you said, Zach, it's not going to be that much of a difference because I don't you're not going to see an onslaught of of um store owners coming in here and say, you know, I'm next. I'm next. You're not going I don't think you're going to see that. But over time,
I I think >> we're incentivizing them by telling them they don't need to provide the parking. >> That's the that's the car, >> right? Absolutely. >> And that's where the parking problem really is is at the mall, >> right? All right. So, >> I think we I think we also want to throw on the table Bill's point of a minute
ago, and that is that >> the likelihood of this being a successful program in in a large part depends on how you incentivize this to the people who own these properties. >> Exactly. >> It has to be the carrot the carrot is
more powerful than the punch. And Rick's point is if if if you're if he's a guy who has one of these apartments and he he wants to capitalize on his property and he wants to charge $1,500 a week and he could get that on a on a Airbnb. Uh
then why don't we help him out to make to go over that threshold? Incentivizing this program is probably the only way to get it even looked at. >> Well, then add to add to it no air abn Airbnb or VBO. um who would be allowed. I mean you have
a me you have the mechanism to determine if something becomes an Airbnb to determine whether they have a merkantile license or not and from what I understand it's been >> a fire inspection on those properties too. So I mean there are mechanisms to safeguard this.
>> In my opinion after hearing everybody and what Zach has said there's already people living above the mall now without a permit without an inspection they're living up there. This is the best solution Dennis right
now that we have before us is and it eliminate it incentivizes them if you don't have to have a parking space and that that hinders a lot of people from coming before us >> and as you know Bob said you know the
the lawyer fees whatever the engineering fees and now they can use those units for their employees or if people want to move into this area that work elsewhere, the hospital, other police departments, wherever, teachers, it's great. Have
them move into the area and let's grow this community. >> Well, you know, the do do as Dennis said, this this is like the test case. You do the mall. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. >> And we can expand it from there. >> That it's all riding on the affordabil the affordability of it. >> Well, if if you allow them, they don't
have to get they don't have to get approvals for invariances and so forth. they they they get a building permit. There's a a lot of money and time and anguish right there. >> I mean, to me, it's a positive step that we're we're trying to address one of several issues regarding housing here.
That being one, and and affordable housing, you know, being another one, but I think you need to separate that from from the work. >> I can't see any other path we can go down but this one. >> Can you can you fashion something based? >> Yes. Oh, so I think you want some
clarification in a definition, >> right? >> And you want to limit it to the mall only. >> Yes. >> Right. >> And I'm happy to be part of any kind of a group to do it. >> So Mr. M Mr. Gillan Schwarz crafted this. So I'll talk to him about the
recommendation. >> That's the area, right? Right. >> The mall is essentially >> three block three blocks. >> Three blocks. >> Three blocks. One, two, three. >> Okay. So Okay. All right. Can I just go back to the grandfathering thing? Not that I don't believe
everything everybody says, but what's our attorney say in terms of grandfathering something? >> He's the one that recommended the language, Dennis. >> He wrote this ordinance. >> I agree with whatever your attorney said. >> Believe Justin's resolution.
>> You can't zone. you really want to go back to your long-term professionals, Chris and Rich, because they're the ones that are going to be here on an ongoing basis advising you. >> So, you're you're really better off asking that question next month when when Rich is back. >> And and that's kind of what where I was
trying to get at is, you know, try to get the comments together. Let's work with our long-term, you know, our professionals. They're here day in and day out and and then try to come back to council with a full comprehensive thing so we're not going ping ponging this thing back and forth.
>> But you did do an excellent job tonight, Mr. >> You got a sense, Craig? >> Yeah. So, I'm going to make these recommendations to Mr. Gillanswartz and him and I will work on crafting the language that you guys are looking for. >> Before we before we close out, Jules,
you you have something You have to pass on too. >> I'll make it short, but I I prefer Oops. He's going bad on me. Um sitting too long. >> She passes around. >> Um >> well, what what is it, Jules?
>> We found out with the merkante licenses when we hired a consulting firm that we have like 900 properties that should have mercantal licenses. >> Uh Jules, I need to stop you there. Um, there's been further investigation and I just I I don't want to speak for the
city manager or the deputy clerk, but those numbers are are being worked on and being revised. So, I don't want that to, you know, so I I apologize, but >> Okay. One one of the things that I think is very very important. First of all, I agree with workforce housing. I think it
should stay in the mall, but I think you need to know exactly what exists in the mall in way of uh pre-existing non-conforming housing or pre not just housing uses. I'm I'm I uh I believe
strongly that there are a number of properties that have been illegally converted and would not pass muster if if there was an investigation. It's not a lot of properties and I think I think that should become priority so that you know exactly what it is that you're
going to end up modifying if you do a workforce housing ordinance that deals only with the mall itself. >> Well, Jules, we're also talking about the possibility of maybe buildings adding up adding adding not just what's there now, but adding second and third floors to provide workforce housing. is
it there's more to it than than just going after >> well then you're increasing the parking problem if you're going to add more >> well that's the point is workfor housing is more important that that that's that's that's the sense that I get from everybody
>> well the most important thing is the safety of the people that live in the city >> I I agree >> and you know uh some of us who have been in some of these buildings and you know a lot lot more about them than I do uh there's not fire breaks between some of these these individual properties that
are that are connected. That that's got to be an issue that's known. And um I just think I think it's important to do an evaluation of each of the properties to determine where it is you're going to get your changes. That's all. >> Okay. Thank you.
Anything else from anybody? Last motion. >> Bills. >> Oh Jesus. Sorry. Payment of the bills. I'll make a motion for payment of bills. >> Second. I already signed it. >> M. All in favor? >> I.
>> Okay, everyone. Thank you. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Thank you everyone. >> Not quite as easy as you think. >> No, I don't think it's needed. >> Of course it is. Of course it is.
>> Let me tell you. Okay. Thanks for >> You're welcome.