testing. All right, I guess we're ready to go, guys, huh? >> Okay. Good evening, everybody. The Cape May City Planning Board is now in session and compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice meeting has been provided. which any member of this board have reason to
believe this meeting is being held in violation of that act. We shall so state at this time hearing none. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisibley andice for all. >> Okay. Roll call. Karen. >> Yes. Mr. Bizair. >> Here. >> Mr. Jones. Mr. Riggs. here. >> Mr. Crowley >> here. >> Mr. Gorgon >> here.
>> Mayor Mullik. Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Mrs. Reid. >> Mr. Lenholm. >> Yes. Here. >> Sorry, >> Mr. Pedus. Mr. Krippen. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have the minutes from October
14th for approval and or correction. Any corrections? >> Motion to approve. >> I'll make the motion. >> Thank you, Moren. >> Second. >> Thanks, Bob. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Gorgon seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lunhome. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Stain. I was absent. >> Mr. Jones. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have one application tonight
which is Swain's Property Management LLC 305 and 313 Jackson Street. It's block 1040 lots 2.01. 013 and 4 minor subdivision and variance relief. Tony, might as well put your microphones
up. Put your microphone on. >> Okay. Um, fire away. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Anthony Monzo from Monzo Catinates Dales representing the applicant Swain's Property Management LLC in connection with a subdivision
application which is basically a lot line adjustment um to correct um an encroachment that has occurred for years uh whereby uh the home and driveway opposite or adjacent
to Swain's hardware store is actually part of the Swain's property. propert and what we're trying to do is have that lot line adjusted so that the driveway and garage associated with the residential unit is part of that property and Wayne's hardware store is a
separate lot. So what we're looking to do is is um create that subdivision. Uh it triggers variance relief because of several existing nonconformities. um Swain's hardware store which you all know has been in Kate May for probably a
century and um over the years uh it's been operated by the Swain family and the Swain family owns Terry Swain owns Swain's property management LLC which own previously owned the hardware store property and also the adjacent property.
So when the hardware store was sold, uh this issue came up and as a post-closing condition, it was an agreement that um we would come to this board to seek a subdivision so that we can clean it up um going forward. Uh the nonconformities
that are triggered um are are listed in in Mr. Herurles's memo. I just want to go through them briefly and then I'll have Mr. Swenson, who's with me, uh provide testimony to support the variance relief. Um uh first we have lot size uh where
10,000 first of all lot four is where the house is. Lot three and 2.01 is the hardware store. So as part of this we're consolidating three and 2.01 which will now be 3.01 and lot 4 will remain lot four.
>> Actually I'm going to correct you there. >> Okay. We did receive a memo from the tax assessor who requested that lot four become 4.01. So a lot of these subdivisions happen and the lot numbering is wrong during
the resol. So I want the resolution to reflect that that's proposed lot 4.01. >> You need a history. >> You need a history. >> Exactly. So >> okay. Thank you for clarifying. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure before we start talking about it. It's proposed lot 4.01. So >> the other one is 3.01. 1.
>> Yeah, the consolidated one of lot 2.01 and three will be 3.01 and proposed lot 4, the new configuration will be 4.01. So I'll I'll briefly run through these with and I'll start with the residential
lot which is proposed 4.01. First is lot size. 10,000 square feet is required. 2,895 is existing. By extending that lot line, the proposed square footage is 4,137. So even though it's still a
nonconformity and the non-conformity is being lessened, uh this is actually making it a better situation for that lot. Uh with respect to both lot width and lot frontage, 100 ft is required. 42.9 exists and 58.95
is proposed. again making a non-conforming condition slightly better which triggers variance relief for that as well. And lastly um lock coverage and this is um 80% is is required. I I'm not sure if it's 80 or 75. I think Craig's
table has 80% but then in his comments he had 75%. We're going with 80. 80.4 is existing. 83.4 four is proposed not because there's any improvements being made, but because all the land that's moving over is all impervious cover. It
just by the math increases the percentage of lot coverage. So even though that's a variance, it's not based on any improvements or any increase in impervious coverage. Um and then with respect to um the hardware
store uh itself, there are also some nonconformities that are also listed in Craig's memo and and specifically the the one that variance relief is needed for is sideyard setback because the the the driveway and the garage are moving
over to the residential property. The hardware store is only.7 feet now from the property line whereas previously it was 10 feet which is required in the zone. So that's a variance with respect to proposed lot of the garage >> 01
>> where the garage and the driveway um both >> Tony I can confirm it's 80%. >> It is 80%. Okay. >> So with that um background I'd like to have Mr. Swenson sworn in and I can have him place his credentials on the record.
Mr. Swson board here. >> I do. >> So, uh, Mr. Swson, can you just, uh, place your credentials on the record and also your experience with respect to testifying in land use matters? >> Okay. I have, um,
43 years of, uh, land surveying experience. >> Uh, excuse me. I have 43 years of land surveying experience. I have a degree in uh mathematics, one in liberal arts pre-engineering, one in civil engineering with a major
inland surveying. >> I think I think >> and I was going to say I have testified before. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so what we're seeking is is variance relief mainly under the C1 hardship criteria. I think it also fits
under C2, but in this case uh I think it's a classic hardship. uh nothing's being done and this is just to make a non-conforming situation better. It's never going to be fully conforming because of the circumstances that exist and that is um that relief is
appropriate where in this case by reason of the um exceptional shape of the lot um the existing structure that's been lawfully constructed. Complying with the zoning by just doing this lot line adjustment is not only difficult, it's impossible. So based on that, we believe
a hardship exists. So I'm going to have Mr. Swinson address that. Um so first of you were involved in the in the review and preparation of this plan. Mr. Swson. >> Yes, I was. >> Okay. Can you um just touch on I I gave
the criteria for a hardship, but you as a professional planner, can you elaborate on that and indicate why this would qualify for a hardship? >> Yes. in this particular instance is um has already been spoken about. The lot
is very oddly shaped. Um the buildings that are on it have been there for numerous years and the garage that we're trying to get incorporated with the lot has always been associated with the
house that is on that lot. Um due to construction over the years of the Swain's hardware getting quite large um it has incorporated part of this property just because of the way the
original lot lines were. Um, when it was originally own all owned by one person, obviously there was no issue. But now that they're looking to retain just the home and sell the hardware store, it's
it's creating a hardship on the homeowner themselves of the smaller lot by um, you know, not them not having the garage on their own property. Um, this is definitely a hardship for the homeowner.
And do you see any substantial negative? >> I see I see no negative um you know no detriment to the public. No, I see no negative aspects of adjusting this lot line because nothing's going to change is you know
physically >> and no substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan. >> No. If anything, it's actually helping the intent of the zoning plan by getting all the residential um you know, property onto the residential lot and keeping the
commercial onto the other lot. >> So, in your opinion, this application and the all the variances requestedly comp um comply with with relief under the criteria for the C1 hardship? >> Yes, they do.
Um, I can go through the C2, but I think this is a classic C1 hardship. Um, but it's getting >> I don't see the need to get into the purposes of zoning. >> It's an existing non-conforming. The lot was getting smaller. >> So, I have no further questions. We can
entertain board questions and go to Mr. >> I just had one question I asked background with Craig. is it if a residential property in a C5 zone was an allowed use and Craig? >> Yeah. So, I'll put it I'll put it on the record because it's a valid point that I
wanted to make during my my uh review, but so in the C5 service district, the single family dwelling is not a permitted use. Um it's an existing non-conforming use. Typically, if you
were making that lot smaller, that would trigger a use variance. In this case, the lot that contains that non-conforming use is getting bigger. So therefore, it was my opinion that we don't need to address the non-conforming use. It's an existing nonconformity. No, none of the situations are making
that worse. Um the lot is already accommodating that use. >> Hence, hence it's in front of our board and not the zoning. >> Right. Okay. >> Right, Craig. >> Okay. Um, I'd like to summarize my September 3rd, 2025 review memorandum.
Uh, once again, this project is located in the C5 service business business district. You've heard testimony from the applicant that this is a lot line adjustment. There is no proposed improvements associated with this. The shifting of the line does not facilitate
any new development. Um it's just to get the assoc the residential single family dwellings improvements that they use now conting contiguous on the lot that they that that will be associated with that use. Um so um it's really a lot line
adjustment uh roll into my completeness review under uh the map details required for minor subdivisions under letter M. uh we asked them to provide the lot numbering and I I I've already talked about that
but we received the lot numbering request from the tax assessor. So as a condition of approval um proposed lot 3.01 and proposed lot 4.01 which will be the subject of these should be revised on the plans uh in accordance with the
tax assessor's request. That being said um Mr. Monzo has gone through the variances that are requested. There's really the lot line adjustment really only creates or worsens one nonconformity and that is
with regards to proposed lot 3.0 Wayne one for swains. that lot line moves over closer to them and therefore that sideyard setback of.7 feet um is worse than the ex existing conforming
situation of 10 ft. Um but the benefit of that is that that garage and that driveway that are associated with that single family dwelling are now on that lot. So I I think that's a benefit as opposed to um a detriment. Um, this is
also one of those eyeball tests when you're walking down the street. No, you wouldn't really know that that lot line is moving. Um, those improvements really look like they're associated with the single family dwelling. All these years, I believe they were. This was kind of a surprise to me when I saw the
subdivision come in front of me, but this lot line adjustment makes sense from that standpoint. Um, so in reality, I'm not going to go through all of these um the chart on page three of six, but you're essentially memorial you're creating two lots and you're memorializing the existing
nonconformities into the new lots. So you uh for Swain's Hardware, there's a building setback line, existing nonconformity, a rear yard setback, existing nonconformity, and then those two are existing, not being changed. The sidey guard setback is the one that's
being changed uh for the uh for that was for Swains for the proposed dwelling. Uh the nonconformities with regards to lot size that's changing but it's changing to the better. Um Swain is approximately eight times the
minimum lot size um in the existing condition. They're shaving some of that lot area off and making this bringing this one better into conformity. Uh it's a little it's almost 30% it's 28% or 29% of the required lot size. It'll now be
41%. So that's getting better. Uh the building setback lines are existing nonconformity. Lot width lot frontage are getting better. Their existing non-conformity as is. They get to 58.95 where 42.9 ft is is the existing
situation. Uh rear yard setbacks stay the same, but you're um memorializing that existing non-conformity. And the sideyard setback on the one side of three-foot is an existing non-conforming situation that's not being uh affected at all by this. And then the lot
coverage is slightly increasing just due to incorporating a whole bunch of lot cover. That that sliver of land that's being pulled into that lot uh is virtually all coverage. So therefore, it knocks that coverage up a little bit. So
they're slightly over the 80% maximum where 83.4% is is uh proposed. With regards to the general review comments, um item number one was the only technical comment that we had and that relates to the lot numbering. So
we've gotten that addressed through the tax assessor's memo. Um they will be required to revise the plans as a condition of approval. Items two through eight should all be conditions of approval. They're all standard conditions for this type of application.
I'll just roll through. We did receive the environmental commission report that is dated 10825. They recommended approval with no comments. The fire department recommended approval dated 9:1525 with no comments. The police department
recommended approval dated 911 2025 with no comments. The public works department recommended approval 9:1525 no comments. Shade tree commission uh recommended approval 930 uh it looks like
923 2025 with no comments. So um that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. >> Anybody have a question? >> I just have one question. The uh the little strip It leads back to that rent.
Was that access to the hardware store? And will it still be access to the hardware store? >> It's right where the L5 number is on the on the driveway. >> I think everybody knows that the there's >> deliveries come from the back. That's a good question. There's a ramp ramp
remaining there. But I mean it's part it's part of um proposal at 3.01, >> right? But but how do you act how would is it utilized physically because there's no act be no access to it now. >> Would Swain's employees use that? Is
there a door there? They would >> you say there I'm not sure what you mean by there's no I'm looking at from Jackson Street there's a narrow walkway. Is that what you're talking about? >> Yes. At least there's a little ramp going. >> There's a little wall though that incorporate that's incorporated around
it. >> I I don't know the answer to that. >> Doesn't the application have a photo? Well, >> we could probably clear it up that that if that ramp is to be utilized, the the easement would have to remain in effect.
>> The extinguisher is not a good picture. would be the access to that ramp. >> But the ramp is on the on the Swain's property. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. >> But how do you get into it? >> There's no there's a there's building there's space between the the the store
and the property line. I mean that >> I think >> based on this picture >> that ramp is meant if I remember correctly I think the ramp is like if you were coming out of swings and go walking down that ramp it's like brings you to the surface but you don't necessarily need to come all the way
down to utilize that walled off space. >> That's what I was going to say. I think it's just for access. >> Right. I think they like a little break area. >> It's like a little break area. Yeah, I believe it. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't I don't think there needs to be any e access easement or anything for
that. I don't think it's I don't think that traffic from people coming out of that ramp are accessing Jackson Street, >> right? >> And it would only be people who work there anyway. >> Yeah. It's like a little break area for the people. Okay. >> Okay. >> Any other questions or comments?
>> There's nobody in the public, so there's no need to open that up. So, uh, we'll do a motion that encompasses all the >> the motion the motion I recommend be made, but how you vote is up to you is a motion, uh, to grant minor subdivision
with the associated variances outlined one through three or one through nine on page three of the engineers report subject to conditions one through eight on the engineers report. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thank you, Bob.
So, Mr. Jones motions. I'm sorry, I didn't catch who seconded. >> No, Mr. Gorgon motioned. >> Mr. Gorgon, you seconded. Okay, thank you. Seconded by Mr. Gorgone. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Mr. Lhome.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> This is incorporating the recommended changes from the tax assessor. Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Then I I'll vote yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Mr. Jones. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. That's got to be the shortest one we ever had. >> Okay. >> Hey. Hey. Um Bill, I have a question for you. I know it might be too late just to point something out on this. I have a question. Um Tony, on this drawing it
says there's a one-story frame building and then the picture it's two and a half stories. >> This is new and this is >> it's definitely two stories. I mean >> two and a half. >> Should we just go like that?
>> That's the surveyor. >> That'll be correct. >> It'll be Yeah. Change the text. I'm just >> Tony, who's the >> Do we need to put this on the record? >> Who? >> What's happening? >> New owners or is it the
>> I was trying to see you said the area in between. >> No, there's another picture I believe that has that, but >> down here. >> Yeah, rampers like back. You still have this. >> So, it wouldn't it wouldn't have gotten this far. >> The mic on please. Is this
>> is this owner's gagliardi real estate LLC? >> Yeah, >> that's that's good. >> We had we had their consent. I believe we submitted it with the application and if we didn't, I'll make sure it gets in the file.
So, Rich, do we need um to include that in our minutes that the applicant will supply revised plans to reflect the two and a half story as in the pictures?
>> I have to I'm just putting it on the record. That's all. >> Is that for the residence or the store? >> The res. two and a half story the residence. Okay, >> I'll put it in the resolution. >> Okay, >> thank you.
>> All right, guys. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Jacob. >> Okay, the next item we have is master plan consistency review of ordinance 584-2025 amending chapter 525, the city zoning code to promote workforce and long-term
housing opportunities in the C1 zoning district. So, do you want me to So, with um the recommendations from the planning board were uh sent to council uh council reviewed and adopted everything and then
um and also at the table discussed um the location of the workforce housing uh within the C1 district and at that time we were coming back with a proposal to only incorporate it onto the Washington Street Mall. council decided that they
wanted it all in the C1 throughout the C1. So, just as um sort of an FYI and courtesy back to this group um letting you know that the ordinance has been revised and incorporates all of the other recommendations by the planning board uh with the only change is that we
will be making it for the entire C1 district as is consistent with the master plan. So, >> the board should revote whether they think that's consistent with the master plan. >> Okay. Right. I'll take it from here, I guess. Yeah, that's okay.
>> Okay. So, I did not prepare an a third review memorandum for this because we've had three iterations of this. So we've we've thoroughly considered this but the ordinance 584-2025 the fourth whereas contains the exact language of the 2019 master plan
re-examination which specifically states comprehensive conso excuse me comprehensively re-examine and address standards for the C1 district. Um availability of off- streetet parking in this area is streaming lacking in an ability to develop new parking is
problematic due to land availability. Availability of workforce housing has also been cited as a concern. This area is pedestrian friendly and complimentary to apartments over commercial uses which are permitted currently. Ability to convert unused areas above commercial
uses has been curtailed by lack of parking. relaxing or eliminating the parking requirement for apartment uses in this district should be investigated based on that language and based on the proposed um ordinance. I believe the board can find this consistent with the
master plan language um and find it consistent with our master plan. >> That part that you just read didn't say anything about workforce housing. Does that what you just read? Did that say something about workforce housing? Availability of workforce housing has
also been cited as a concern. Thank you. >> Now, this is not while it's called workforce housing, it applies the definition is broader. It's anything 90 days or more. That's >> well, the the iterations of this plan
have specified and defined what workforce housing will be considered. And if I could just add to the conversation because originally um I'm going back some time now. Um I was charged to do some research on what
other municipalities have defined work force workforce housing. Um I've reached out to several municipal managers throughout the state of New Jersey and they've all come back with basically uh as you see fit. So, um I'm reporting
back to the board that this was thoroughly discussed at council, thoroughly vetted. Um it's now back at the planning board. Um and I believe this is a good step forward in what I think we're trying to achieve here.
>> Yeah, this is your definition of workforce housing. It's it's suited specifically to this town. Um once again, I searched too. You know, I went through an exhaustive search to find a definition of workforce housing throughout the state of New Jersey. You
may be the first ones that have a legitimate definition. So, >> where is the area expansive, Bill? the whole C1 zone. >> But where I mean the the Acme uh where Elanes is, where the bike rental
property is on the other side of Carpenters's Lane, >> across the street from us, >> across the street over here, >> the overlay, the mall overlay, >> there is no overlay. >> That was proposed before that's being eliminated.
>> I know. I want to ask a different question. Mall overlay is what percentage of the the Pro probably less than 10%. >> Half of it. >> No, probably less than 10%. >> Okay. So, you This is a 90% expansion to
workforce housing. >> And and that was the original condition. That was the original ordinance that we brought to this board. And >> which is why we thought it was too much. >> Yeah. And and yes, and but all of the other conditions that were put forth have been adopted or being u included in
the ordinance. This was what council decided they wanted to have that this to be consistent rather have rather than having I think the term was used targeted zoning. >> They didn't want spot. It was brought up by a council member that they did not
want spot zoning to be applied and and they wanted to be able to show that we're looking at the entire zone versus a small subsection of that zone. So this is kind of what as the deputy mayor said
a compromise to come back to the planning board and say hey this is what council would be agreeable to and at the end of the day it is as we said it's council's ordinance so it's really back to us as a courtesy.
>> Yes. They ultimately don't have to listen to your recommendations. >> Correct. >> Right. um you they you you you find either consistency or not consistency. Um but at the end of the day, if you make a
recommendation, you're allowed to make recommendations. They're allowed to consider that, but ultimately they decide how to create and enact an ordinance that effectuates your recommendation or the planning board's consistency with the master plan. So
when it was brought to council at the last council meeting, it was considered comments were made and the approach of um what they considered spot zoning was not acceptable. So that's why it's back to us to incorporate now the whole C1
zone. So like I said, at the end of the day, we can make the recommendations, but this is in essence what they are agreeable to. >> All right. in well and incorporating the other recommendations that this this board made. Uh no requirement for site plan development, no requirement for
parking variances, um that they would not have to undergo uh you know their inspections would be for fire inspection on a yearly basis. Um and all of the the other things that we discussed there were about four or five notification to anyone who currently had um a short-term
rental mercantile license. Well, now I I wasn't aware that you had to have a a license for year- round rentals. >> You don't. I'm sorry. >> So, so it's not it's not it's not related to short-term licenses. It's uses that are existing now.
>> That that that is correct. that anyone who currently has a property that is being utilized for rental that they would be notified that there is a change and they should keep their rental their mercantile license up to date. >> But they don't have to have a license
>> for those who are currently have >> apartments do it for less than 95. Yeah, that's who we're will send out notifications to those individuals so that they are aware that they want to keep those license active if they continue to rent their properties and
don't choose to have them um be considered workforce. There's a specific section in this ordinance, section 52568, continuation and restoration, which has essentially the mechanism for an interested party to
establish that that existing non-conforming use is is valid. Right? >> And then there's an appeal process also indicated. >> Okay. Um, which standard is if I'm a zoning officer and somebody comes to me and they have
an apartment or they've got a a place that has a a part has two rooms in it that are that are 125 square feet each. How many how many people are allowed in 125 square foot room? >> Is that is that the bedroom or is that
the whole space? >> The bedroom. >> Didn't we do this math last? >> Yeah, we did. >> Let's see here. >> So, it's on number two at the bottom. Y >> the last meeting. >> Yeah. >> Okay, there it is. >> Okay. So, I'm going to read that paragraph. >> How about the one before it, too?
>> Yep. Specific standards applicable to workforce housing are as follows. Consistent with the IPMC 404.4.1, 4.1 Each bedroom for one person shall be a minimum of 70 square feet and
any bedroom proposing two persons shall be a minimum of 100 square feet. There shall be no more than two persons per bedroom regardless of size. Overall, a workforce housing dwelling unit shall not be occupied by more occupants than
permitted under the following formula. 150 square ft of habitable floor area shall be required for the first occupant and 100 additional square feet of habitable floor area shall be required for each additional occupant.
>> So the second calculation involves total space to >> habitable area >> bedroom space. >> Yeah, >> kitchen. >> So I guess if you have a really big bedroom that you're going to have to split it in half to get more than two people in it.
Well, you know, this I we've worked on this and let's let's see where it goes. Um I mean this this is not going to this is not going to create workforce housing. I'll tell you that right now. You've got to have financial incentives for somebody to be wanted just just I mean we're trying and I I this is the first step
>> and I think that's the message Bill that we are looking at something to have hopefully get some interested parties. Um and I I think that's the really the underlying >> make this you know an area that would perhaps attract someone to take a look
at it um and may want to do it and see where it goes. It's not going to be the panacea. it's not going to, you know, be a revolution of changes. Um, but I think it's an attempt for us to move in that direction >> and may afford some opportunities to to learn from it. Um, number one, and
number two, um, expand it to other areas that might be more conducive, but we don't know that until we start the process. >> What What is the the appropriate venue to have a discussion on incentives, possible incentives to incentivize people? I don't think it's the ordinance, this ordinance per se, or
maybe it is. Uh, but I agree with what you're saying. >> Council, probably council. >> Yeah. And we have talked about it a little bit, Bob, but at this point, we've been, we've been, you know, sort of trying to work out the details. Yeah. >> Um, and then it it goes on to does that happen where I mean, I know that the
mayor has spoken um it's been in the paper um that he feels that this is a very important initiative, right? um in in saying that, you know, you've got to be able to prove that you're in, you know, interested in having this take off. So, that's one area. The other thing is, you know, he does give updates
once in a while. Now that we would have something on the books, it's to sort of engender that conversation. Um, and people may look at properties they have and don't necessarily want to invest a great deal of money in upgrading the fixtures, but have accommodations to be
able to say, you know what, I if I don't have to go through all of the the standard hoops of parking variances and site plan, but I've got some rooms and maybe it works for me as an employer, >> uh, I've got a business in town, if I've got accommodations that might be of
interest to full-time employees who live here or want to live here, you know, anything's sort of possible, but without this framework, we didn't even couldn't start those conversations. >> It just doesn't apply. That doesn't that doesn't incentivize somebody who doesn't have existing space. >> No, it doesn't. No, I understand. If
you've got a building on a mall that has one story, if you want to add a second floor, you've got to go through the hoops and all that stuff. So, it's not really incentivizing that. >> But you also have to incentivizing anyone who already has the space. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. You also have to have
have a finished product where the rent is affordable to the the people that would be be running this place. So you don't have a situation of trying to uh yeah bring in a whole gang of people just to share the just to share the rent. I mean the people that are in the
business are in the business to make money. They're not in the business otherwise. So without an appropriate incentive, >> this incentive was no parking variance and no site plan review and that >> that'll do nothing with the the rent that get that ends up getting charged. >> I can't disagree with you, but without
at least putting something together, we may find in a year that we have to it's worth and and let's be reminded again, we are going to make recommendations, but at the end of the day, it's council's ordinance. So, you know, this
is this is I think what the deputy mayor is saying and what the mayor has indicated throughout the process is this is the step in the right direction. We have to show the public that we're making a good faith effort in this. I think it's been widely um reported on so
people if you are an applicant coming to this board, you understand what our policy initiative is. And Bob, we may very well find in the next year that we hear from potential um landlords for workforce housing and they may get it
may solicit conversation about what else is needed. >> But yeah, you I I'm getting from this this is proworkforce housing, not anti-shortterm rentals. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yes. >> Right. >> This action actually precludes future
short-term rentals in the city though. Uh, no that's not really true because if you have you had to get you probably have to get a parking variance if you wanted if you want >> you need a used variance. >> Yes. No, you >> the uses being so >> shall be limited to
>> and that's I thought that was I I was surprised that everyone missed that but um if if you look at page three um under the C1 primary business district the use regulations apartments above commercial uses is being stricken as a permitted
use and being replaced by apartments above commercial uses shall be limited to workforce housing. So you're taking out. >> So you would need a use variance in order to bring a apartment above a commercial use online that could be used
for short-term rental that doesn't qualify as um workforce housing. >> But if you already have one, you can get a certification. >> So the existing ones, right, are can be grandfathered in. But to make new ones, you would need to use fence.
And that wasn't that wasn't something that was added that was in the original presentation. So >> So I just Yeah, I just want to make sure everyone knows that that that So you're not going to see someone come in and we we started seeing them and my impression was that that was not looked upon
favorably or at least there was concerns there with that. Um, but now that that ability to have to bring on a new apartment above a commercial use and not be able to control it with regards to how frequently that turns over, that's no longer a permitted use if this
ordinance is adopted. So, I just want everyone to understand >> seems like a poison bill, >> but we this was not this is not something new in this version. I just want to make sure that that's on the record. >> Well, eliminating eliminating the short-term rental part of it is new. No,
that was in what we reviewed the last. >> No, we've talked about that before. >> There's always a but not to define it as such that you need a use variance to do it. >> Yes, we have. We said it's not allowed. If you cross If you make it a non-p permitted use, that's that's why the other ones that's why the other ones are grandfathered because it's not
>> Well, it was grandfathered because of the I thought the parking >> No, it was that I mean it was grandfathered because they don't want it. By expanding this to not just the mall, but the whole C1, you've expanded the the effect of the poison pill
because you you're now catch capturing properties that were never originally intended to be part of this discussion because this discussion started out and it was limited to the mall. >> No >> microphone. Dennis, microphone, please. >> No, Dennis. The original ordinance that
was first introduced at council and sent to this planning board was the entire C1. It was at the council table that it was asked to consider only the Washington Street Mall >> as a possible trial. Yes,
>> the council has decided and asked for this just to come back for sort of the council has decided that it is now going to be expanded to the entire C1 and all of the other conditions that this planning board provided back to council were incorporated into the the new
ordinance. >> But the language started with the master plan language which did restrict it to the to the Washington. >> No, >> it did not. the the the master plan language always considered the entire C1. >> The first ordinance that draft that we
saw was the entire C1. It then was tweaked with concerns and comment to only include the the blocks of the Washington Street Mall >> as a trial. That's that's kind of the history of >> and then when it went back to council
talked about and it was then changed at the table to then come back to us that incorporates the entire C1 which is essentially exactly where we started at from the beginning >> and that's consistent with the master plan.
>> So property owners in C1 all of C1 are now going to have to be informed that their ability to use their second story >> or add or add on to it. >> Yeah, >> you're going to have to be notified, I
think. Otherwise, you're going to have another problem, >> but it specifically requires that. >> Yeah, I know. But but property owners out there have no idea what's going what's about to happen. >> No, you're right.
>> I have a question for you, Bill. When you fill out, >> are you suggesting we ask council to notify everybody in the C1? >> Yeah. Otherwise, you're going to have a big room full of angry people. >> Well, it's kind of the same thing we did
with the people affected by the HPC's wanting to expand their their uh borders. We we we suggested they notify all those folks, too. >> They haven't been back yet, right? >> Probably. >> They haven't been back since then. >> No. So, if someone has a residential rental
on this zone, they fill out their mercantile license. They don't declare how they're going to rent it. Correct. >> They don't, right? I mean, >> they do in some ways, and I can't remember exactly, but the form requires them to uh complete certain pieces of
information, but I I I I know where you're going with. >> I think it says less than 180 days. >> Well, it's it's it says how many bedrooms you have now. um how much square footage it is. Um so you have to indicate if it is a short-term rental on there on the current application. Um but
keep in mind if you're not renting at all, you could just have an empty space up there. So you wouldn't necessarily be on a list for us to know whether if you have a current short-term rental, I should say. We would know who you are just because you have a property
somewhere in the C1. We wouldn't necessarily know that you just have storage space on the second and third floor because there's no reason for them to come to the city to notify of us of that. That did that make does that >> I when I did my merkantile licenses I thought it was said less than 180 days.
I don't remember checking anything >> the application in the last two years. MTRA did that and now there is additional information. You must indicate square footage, how many bedrooms. >> I remember doing all that. I just don't remember. I thought it was 180 or 175
days. I definitely don't remember seeing it being 90. >> Now that's that's new. >> So how >> the recommendation of the city solicitor? So >> but I mean so now it says not less than 90 days but it doesn't declare what if you in
the middle you can I don't understand how you're going to track that. >> Well we haven't developed an application yet so I I don't necessarily think I can speak to that. that would be in part between the city solicitor and the city clerk. >> So once once we had these conditions
set, you know, we we have discussed being able to track someone who is registering as a workforce house housing property. I just think it would be a lot easier and simpler if it just took that phrase
out about short-term rentals because if there have a space right now, if they're creating a space, they'd have to get a variance for parking anyway. >> And you can turn it down. >> Why does it have to say no short-term rental? >> Well, I can take that back to the city solicitor, but he was the one that
recommended that language. So, >> well, can I make a motion that we vote to take that out? >> What are we doing? Then are we changing the the >> because everything we just talked about is based on >> Well, you're making then you're making a whole I think as the the deputy city
manager is saying we're kind of making a wholesale change and this has already been accepted the original proposals to council. >> Yeah. So >> you can make a recommendation. >> You can Yeah, >> you can make a recommendation. Doesn't mean they have to >> No, it doesn't mean Right. I mean, we could vote no and send it back because we want this change and they could
change it and that's fine. Well, I mean, I don't want to speak for council, but if you watch the last council meeting and the way that this was discussed, this is what they found to be acceptable from the majority, which is how it got back to here. So, if we're going to make
any changes, we should go through all of the changes that we want to make because we started basically with this same product. It was changed at a council meeting, brought back to us, which was the original product. So, we're going to
play this pingpong game back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. I think it's our charge to look at is this consistent with the master plan and the policy initiatives that the city's trying to put forth. >> And Mr. Riggs, I I seem to recall that
Mr. Gillan stated that this was to come back sort of as a courtesy. Am I misunderstanding what was >> No, it's required to come back here, but but but but because the changes were made. >> Okay. All right. >> But but you don't have the board. the council doesn't have to listen to our >> Okay. All right. I I I you know, I
apologize, Bill. I don't know. >> I The only other thing I that I think is a little bit misleading is it couldn't be it couldn't be named workhorse long-term housing. something that doesn't have that that aura that it's only workforce housing that that kind of
somebody may want >> if you want to put something together and give it to us to send back and I will >> something to let you know it's not it doesn't just >> and and and if I could just talk to that for a second and if you watch the council meeting and you see the city
solicitor Mr. Gil and Schwarz speak. I think it's by design to call it workforce housing. Otherwise, it's losing the essence of what I think the policy initiative is, which is to encourage people to
start a family and start to >> to live here. >> To live here. Exactly. >> Well, the other thing is >> you make it long-term work longterm. >> Well, also, Bill, you might there might be opportunities in the future. >> It's in the title. long-term in the title. >> We have a whole definition of of
>> It's in the title. >> It's in the definition. >> It's in the definition. And can I also say that having something that includes workforce housing >> affords us an opportunity should there be any kind of funding available in the future to engender and you know a community to invest in this. Um, excuse
me everyone. Excuse me. >> What's going on here? >> Excuse me everyone. There are so many conversations. We need to make a record. >> All right everyone, let me just All right. Hold on a second. Let guys, let me rein this in a bit. >> Would like to speak. >> We have >> Thank you. >> We have >> There's a statute that tells us what
we're supposed to do. Okay. Your board engineers read to you the master plan. We don't get to reddraft that right now. That's the master plan. The question is, is this consistent with the master plan? You can vote yes. You can vote no. Or
you can say why you think it's inconsistent with the master plan. But we're not ordinance drafters, okay? That we're not we're not consulting on drafting uh necessarily. We're saying is it consistent? Is it not consistent? And if it's not consistent, we say why. And then what they can do is as I understand
the ordinance, they have to make a specific finding on a full a majority of their full board or full committee, whatever, um as to why they disagree with us and why they're doing what they're doing. That's how this works. So, you know, >> does anybody think anybody think this is
not consistent with the master plan? >> Does the master plan say anything about no short-term rentals on C1? >> No, it's silent on that issue. >> Then it's not consistent with it. >> I didn't hear what you said, Rich.
>> If the master plan doesn't say no short-term rentals in C1, then it's not consistent with it. Well, actually what it says is that you're allowed to have apartments above commercial uses. So, let's just focus on what we're talking about first. This is not a residential
zone. So, it allows you to have certain uses above commercial uses. So, this only applies to, as I understand it, apartments above commercial uses because other apartments aren't permitted. There's not supposed to be residences in your C1. >> Correct. That's the starting premise
here. So, all we're talking about those limited instances, which I think are probably mostly on the mall, of apartments above commercial uses. And if you have one of those now, and it's a short-term rental, you can do that indefinitely just by paying attention
and confirming that you want to have that forever. It's that simple. All this is doing is saying that if you're going to create new ones, then they need to be consistent with this ordinance, which this ordinance is designed to make it more likely to be workforce housing
because that's what the master plan says you want. It doesn't mean it's definitely going to be, okay? And it's it's going to be it can be anything over 90 days. So, they can have a 100 day. They can rent it out for the whole summer, >> right? To whomever they want. It actually be harder to get workforce housing
>> and that because it's >> I'll give it requires a use variance. >> I don't vote. I'm just trying to get everybody to vote on what you're supposed to vote on and think about what you're supposed to think about. How you think about it, what you think about it. I don't particularly care. So if you say that this is not consistent with the master plan because it's not going to
create workforce housing, then you can say that and they can ignore you. But that's that's what it is. >> The master the master plan actually, if we read it again, I just read it three times. It actually is talking about the parking problem. And it and then it then it ties the
parking problem with the possibility of having an undefined thing called workforce housing in apartments above the commercial. But it's not talking about any kind of it was a policy to >> all of those things were discussed
and rolled into that one recommendation. >> Right. So I disagree with the fact that it didn't involve workforce housing. We that there was a long discussion during the master plan process about work availability of workforce housing. It ended up in this recommendation as did
the relaxation of parking standards to try and encourage that workforce housing. So um I I think they were both part and parcel of that recommend >> and yet there's no no part of the master plan other than that sentence that talks
about what workforce housing is. >> No, I have to boil >> or how much we need it or how many how manyart how many people we need to be workforce housing. >> I have to boil down these long-term discussions into recommendations. the planning board. That was the
language that I thought enveloped what the discussion was and what the findings were and you guys voted on it in the affirmative. So that's what we're stuck with. That's we what we have to evaluate whether this ordinance is consistent with that or not.
>> And so we then drafted an ordinance which defined workforce housing which definition is now coming under some kind of revisit revisiting here at the board. It's it's it's me it's meant to expand expound upon the concept that's in the
master plan. What's in the master plan is not ordinances. >> But you but you I you you seem to be saying if I can hear you right. You seem to be saying that workforce housing is an inappropriate term. You want a broader term which covers other things. >> I wanted I wanted to not have that connotation is strictly for Yeah.
>> That's what I thought you said. >> It says longterm also, doesn't it? >> Mhm. Well, the or the define it doesn't here it says work workforce housing >> in the title of the ordinance it says to promote workforce and long-term housing
opportunities in the C1 zoning district and it says it further down >> as well >> but it doesn't say that it doesn't say the definition the definition in the ordinance is is going to be workforce housing. It's not going to be workhorse and long workforce and long-term
housing. >> But I mean, it's not it's not >> So, you're just saying we need to make a we need to put make slouch. >> Yes. >> Well, anything over these this that fits in this criteria would be considered long-term or workforce.
>> You could just change the subtitle. >> If you just change the title. >> Well, yeah. Workforce long-term. Yes. >> Yeah. >> That's >> againation. It's a connotation. >> I understand that. Yeah. you're talking about in that where it says new language that that heading there. Yeah. >> So just by changing that by saying
workforce and long-term housing >> which is now consistent with the title right of of the ordinance >> and I can Yes. >> which includes um you know workforce and long-term housing opportunities only to employee only to employees of the owner of the building but to
encourage places of residence generally through duration and residence requirements. It's really quite frankly it's in there. >> Yeah. >> In the second paragraph in my opinion >> on page two. >> Yes sir. >> When this ordinance passes, please
notify the people in that zone. >> They will be. It's not that. >> Thank you. >> That's going to be >> So we'll send we'll send a recommendation to council. They notify everybody that's >> and I just want to clarify when you're saying notify everyone regardless of the fact that they have a a property that's
under any rental condition because we don't know them all. >> Parse through all that. Just just you've got tax records roles. >> I just want to be clear on what it is. Yes. Well, Mr. Riggs will have that discussion with the city clerk >> and the solicitor. >> Yeah. Actually, because there may be
people who own a a property uh that that they'd like to convert to a workforce housing. Sure. >> That's what we hope. >> Possibly. >> Rich, did I hear you say, >> Rich, did you say this only applies to
new apartments that are being created? >> Only applies to things that aren't currently being used for, we'll call them short-term rentals for fear of another word, or something other than long-term rental. Um if if they can establish they're currently using for
that then they get grandfathered. If they can't establish they're currently using that then no. >> So if it's currently an attic or it's being lived in by someone >> however it is shown currently on their whatever in their
property jacket is how it would be taken forth into the future. Correct. In terms of >> Well, this says this says they have to notify the city. >> Yeah. They go in that they can go in It's in here. It says, from what I recall, it says there's two ways you can
>> they have to proactively come to the city. >> Right. Right. Correct. >> Two ways you can do it. You can pro you can come to the city, right? >> And seek a certification that you are a that you are using it for a um short-term I'll call a nonworkforce
long-term rental. >> Currently, you're running an Airbnb. >> Okay. uh you can go in and prove that and then you get a certification that you continue that or you can do it the hard way and if it ever comes up you can try to prove just like anyone else can
prove that they are pre-existing non-conforming use they can we can we actually hear those all the time if you wanted to >> right so >> so so just to backtrack for a second so I'm going to probably I'll have a conversation with the city clerk but because just to understand it's going to
be for everyone in the C1 zone will be notified of of this. So, probably the more appropriate person would be the zoning officer and but I'll work that out internally on who's going to >> justify first of all just notify everybody what's happened. >> Correct.
>> Yes. So, I'll work out internally on who the >> a letter from the tax assessor's office is probably going to cover everybody regardless of their current conditions or their current status as a landlord. >> Exactly. I just wanted to make that known at the table >> and that and that will also capture the
number of residential ratables versus commercial ratables from the tax office. >> And just Craig to ask you again, it says nothing. What do >> you mean by that? >> It says nothing about no short-term rentals in the master plan. >> What's that? >> The master plan mentions nothing of
>> We never discuss short-term rentals during our Got >> re-examination. So there's no language for or against short-term rentals. Okay. All right. >> Just let me understand this thing that we've been giving here. Is this the am I
doing the right thing? Is this the ordinance itself? What is the actual ordinance? >> Yes, >> this is the ordinance. >> It's the ordinance. >> Then page five of this of this package that we have. >> Section four, courtesy notice. >> Yes. >> Section one is a change of definition.
I'm just f focused on section four. >> Okay. >> That's talking about overlay of Washington street mall workforce, >> right? >> But none of that applies anymore. >> That's correct. >> So that's going to be changed to being everyone >> because we're we're having that >> that's that that I'm going to start
over. I don't want it yell at section four seems to still be directed to the Washington Street Mall only. And I assume you're going to correct that to be the whole C1. >> That is correct, Mr. King, because we were making that recommendation now at the table. Okay.
And the whole overlay comes out of this thing. >> Everybody you understand it all now? Do we >> We're approving this. We're approving this with a with a caveat that the that the heading would be workforce long-term
housing. We're also asking council to notify anybody affected by this, anybody in the C1 zone to let them know this is happening that this this change is being proposed. >> Yes. >> So, so within this ordinance though, the back to what I was talking about earlier. So because we're changing it
from just the Washington Street Mall, that's why the city clerk was going to notify the Washington Street Mall from the merkantile process. So within this ordinance, we should change it rather than the city council hereby directs the city clerk to provide a courtesy notice,
we should direct the >> the tax assistant, >> whoever >> the appropriate city administration personnel. That's how that's all. Yeah. And then to all property owners. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Not just mercantile. No, not to agree. But that's why it was originally the
city clerk. So I to the deputy mayor's point, it should just say to the appropriate >> city administration, >> you know, as directed by the city manager. >> Yeah, >> that that's you. >> Craig, that's what that's what you're being told to do.
>> I'm just providing my recommendation. You're just going to get the tax rules and you're going to send a letter to everybody. >> I I just want to make sure because sometimes I just want to make sure because sometimes when ordinances are introduced, adopted, and then they're implemented, sometimes the staff comes back and go, "Well, wait a second. Why
why am I called out to charge this this initiative? I just want to make sure that >> we're consistent when we're >> we have to clear that with Paul, too, before it gets presented to council." So, >> so we'll just say the appropriate authority as deemed by the city man. >> This is why the city manager has almost
boundless authority under our constitution so he can figure it out. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Last thing, Craig, can you help me with this? >> I have something in my head. Um, this is more my litigator head than my zoning board head, but I thought there was a requirement that if you're changing a
use in a zone other than through the master plan process, you're supposed to give some kind of notice to people in the zone. Am I totally making that up? >> No. There there's municipal land use law notice. So like this this of this whole ordinance is a zoning change. >> Yeah.
>> So there is municipal land use law language that says you they have to notify and they have to do it in accordance with the municipal land use law. >> Yeah. >> Um it is it's effectively I know there's publishing in the paper in the official paper. I don't know what I don't know
whether there's anything more required because I usually am out at that point and it and the administration takes care of that stuff. Usually the clerk so I'm not exactly sure what it is but I know there's specific stuff that they that the town has to do for the zoning
>> I'm not Mr. Generally capable of learning and of knowing that or researching it but what I am just pointing out is that there may be notice required >> by law but I think this board is asking and you don't have to do it >> that even that if it doesn't require
specific notice to individuals like a 200 foot list kind of >> sure >> that they do that but it's up to you if you >> and I will we will take that back I don't I don't see any issue um with it Mr. King but we will talk to Mr. um Dietrich uh and and Chris and the mayor
and let them know that that was a discussion at the table. >> Okay. >> So, we're voting on if it's we think it's consistent with the mayor's plan. >> That's that that's our vote. >> We should vote. Motion's out of effect.
>> So, move second. >> So, the motion is this ordinance is this ordinance consistent with the master plan? Am I correct? Now, the it's it's it's a motion to find it consistent with the master plan, but with two caveats. One
is they're changing the definitional section to also include the word long-term housing in the caption, and they are also recommending that notice be given to specific property owners in the C1 district of the upcoming change >> that all the >> of the C1 district. Yep. >> How about that section four?
>> Well, they've told us they're going to fix that, but yes, that it's not just the over. But I think what I just said, I think covers that. Okay. May I ask again who motioned and who seconded? >> I motion >> and Okay. Thank you. Mr. Jones motions.
Mr. Gorgon seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Um I'm voting yes. Um and I I believe that this is a positive step uh in addressing a long-term issue uh here in Cape May and I think it's a step in the right direction.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Uh, >> no. >> Mr. Lhome, >> no. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair? >> Yes. >> Okay. I don't think we have anything else on the agenda, do we? >> Final motion. >> Motion. >> We have to pay bills, don't we? No, I don't have any last month. >> They didn't work last month.
>> Yeah, everybody was off. >> They don't get paid. >> Mr. Lho motions. All in favor to adjourn. I thank you everyone. Good night. >> Okay. Good night all. >> Good night. Oh, got