Oh, got to get this. Testing. Testing. Evening everybody. The regular meeting of city plate may city plane board is now in session. In compliance with the open public meetings act of 1975. Adequate notice 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 will start with the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible
with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Can roll call. >> Yes. Mr. Bizair >> here. >> Mr. Jones >> here. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Mr. Crowley >> here. >> Mr. Gorgon >> here. Mayor Mullik,
Deputy Mayor McDade >> here, Mrs. Reid >> here, Mr. Lenhomem, Mr. Padus >> here, >> Mr. Krippen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Riggs will obviously not be here tonight. He welcomed a new child and family. So, congratulations to him.
>> Mr. Leather won't be here. He's out investigating a fire in North Kate May. >> Okay. Okay, we have resolution number 0210 20226 recommendation for improving parking initiatives.
>> Motion to pass resolution. >> So make the motion >> second. >> I have comment on that if I could. >> Can I comment on that? >> Yes. Um, I have a slight problem with the wording of the resolution
and it actually revolves around the the the use of air quotes in the uh resolve clause. It leaves me the impression that it's a it's a hypothetical that it's u questionable
and uh I I and I also think that the resolution did not capture the actual main thrust of the committee's recommendation which was that the last 25 years worth of master plans have always have indicated consistently that
there is a parking problem and that comprehensive solutions are necessary. I don't catch that flavor in the resolution. I'd like to make some change to it if I could just to clarify the fact that the the task force the committee we put together
wasn't wasn't really tasked with with solving the parking problem. It was tasked with coming up with a way to to solve the parking problem. And I don't think that's in the I don't think that's either in the warehouse clauses or the resolution. So, I'd like to see some language that changes that to clarify
that that U. >> Did you get a draft of this? >> Yeah, I did. I got it right here before now. >> No, I I've had it for a last I I got it in the uh email from Karen. >> Right. I guess it would have been helpful to me if there was some question you had about the language to let me
know in advance. I could have tried to >> tweak it >> tweak it so that tonight you weren't trying to draft it on the fly. That's why I thought you wanted to see an advanced draft of it because I was trying to capture the sense of what you were looking for, but now to do it now is not really
>> well. Okay. >> So, I mean, I'm willing to go through and do the exercise with you, but there was a reason why I was asked to send you a copy in advance. I did it as soon as I was asked that morning. >> Okay. >> To you. Now, 10 days later, you don't like the air quotes. That's the delete.
I don't know what to tell you. >> Well, okay. I'd like to delete the air air quotes, but I'd also just like a simple phrase to be inserted either in the whereas clauses or the resolution that says that the committee has examined the last 30 years of master
plans and this issue has been identified as a planning priority in every one of them. Uh we're our recommendation is to is to act on that. Finally, >> doesn't it say doesn't it say to review the parking related issues perceived by
many persons and by the master plan to be in need of strategic plan? >> That's that's the first it it glides around that. I'll admit that. But it it doesn't hit the the it doesn't hit the point on on the nail on the head actually. >> It doesn't say as strongly as you'd like to have.
>> Yes, that's right. I and I think that the reason I would like that is is that it really not justifies but explains what the work of the subcommittee was. We looked at master plans. We realized that there was not enough data and that
a comprehensive study recommended by the master plan for many years should actually take place. That's that's really the only recommendation we made. But it says accepted the subcommittee's view that the governing body should consider engaging appropriate professionals to conduct an
investigation and review similar but not identical to that which is attached to the memo. And then it has the thing that you gave us >> and it and it really and it really doesn't >> Okay. Well, would you want to table it and then you can give me some edits and
>> Yeah, I think you would have to table it if you have some particular language and >> Well, I wouldn't want to table it for adding just one or two sentences. I think the >> but Mr. Crowley, I do believe that the the council will and the mayor will understand the spirit in which what you're what you the committee has done
and the work that you're asking to be done. I think between the minutes and the resolution, I think the embodiment of what your subtask force worked on is there. I don't know the changing one or two sentences in my opinion would provide any additional emphasis. I think
I think council will understand what it is that's being asked and why it's being asked in my opinion. >> Okay. I I'll accept that too. How about if we just take out the air quotes? >> Okay. I just I'm going to I'll take them out. I I mean whatever the I don't vote want to do. I will tell you the reason
that's in air quotes is because it's a silly term. The term parking problem, it's not a meaningful phrase. A parking problem can be you don't have enough spots. It could be people don't park where they're supposed to. It could be we have not enough parking in July, but
an abundance of parking in August. So, I I mean, so I just put parking problem because it doesn't it's a not a defined term. It wasn't necessarily that there isn't a parking problem. is that I was using the park problem because everybody used the term parking problem, but no one really agreed what the parking
problem necessarily was. >> Well, how about if we then say instead of parking problems, air quotes, the issue of adequate parking. >> That's that's see I I think that that's not a part >> that doesn't I I don't I see nothing wrong with the language in there. It it
it embodies an a multitude of things issu issues that can be looked at without, >> you know, >> defining it. You don't want it defined. Okay? you want this. >> I I don't want to take up a lot of time. I just want to make that point. If you guys don't want to change it, that's fine with me. I >> we'll just let the minutes record.
>> And Mr. Crowley, when this is presented at council, um then I will make sure to sort of articulate your concerns and and the emphasis that you want to if that's okay. >> Mr. Curles's uh commentary which I happen to agree with was pretty well
received that sometimes the lack of parking is not a problem but rather is a limiter on the density of visitors that can be here at one time. >> So that's true you know so there there was a a feeling among the boards that you know sometimes it's okay to run out
of parking around the mall because you can't take any more people anyway. So you know it makes it more walkable and spreads the people out. So it wasn't unanimous in the discussion as I perceived that the the amount of parking we have may or may not be a problem. It
may be an appropriate limitation on the number of people that could converge in one place at one time. So it wasn't a unanimous feel. So that that was sort of the >> and that and that's where a parking study would >> okay >> that's fine would tell us. >> I'll I'll withdraw my objection.
>> Okay. I would just say in the future though if anybody has an issue with a resolution even if it's not like something like this like in advance it's distributed to everyone for a reason. If you call me ahead of time and there's something in there you know it's not an imp it's not a perfect system I'm trying to get the flavor of multiple people
call me and it may be a mistake and we can work it out ahead of time and send a different version out. There's no rule that says I can't do a different uh resolution. I make mistakes you know. So do it ahead of time and then I can fix it and then we can do it in one night. It's just easier that way. >> Okay, I'll move the resolution.
>> It's already been moved. >> Okay, then I'll second it. It's >> already been >> Then I'll then I'll vote for it. How's that? >> Okay. According to >> That's what you want to hear, Bill. >> Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Jones seconds. Mr. Gorgone.
>> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid, >> I think I have to abstain. I wasn't here for this. >> Thank you, Mr. Crowley. Yes, I will vote. Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Paducus. >> Yes, >> Mr. Krippen.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> My god. Hope the minutes go easier than that. >> Yeah. I'd like to echo the same thing about the minutes. If you ever have a question about the minutes, you can contact me before the meeting and we can
um work it out so that we can adopt them right at the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any comments on the minutes? >> Motion to approve. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Gorgo motions. Deputy Mayor McDade seconds. Mr. Gorgon, >> yes.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> yes. >> Mrs. Reid, >> abstain. >> Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Padus, >> yes. >> Mr. Krippen, >> yes. >> Mr. Jones, >> yes. >> Mr. Bizair, >> yes. Thank you. >> Okay. The next item is our application for the evening. Jersey Cape Group LLC,
930 Washington Street, block 1093, lot 9, minor subdivision with variance relief. >> Yeah. Um, yeah. I was just asked to remind everybody to put your phones on silent or turn them off.
Okay, far away. Put your speakers on or microphones on rather. >> Okay. Good evening everyone. My name is Ron Gzunas appearing on behalf of the applicant real estate developers LLC. Property is 930 Washington Street. As everyone
knows, that's the former PNC Bank location. The proposal this evening is to demolish the non-conforming commercial structure and the other non-conforming improvements on the property, subdivide the parcel into three lots for construction of three
single family homes. Here this evening to my right, Mr. John Haluner from the Highland Group, who will be providing our expert testimony. And to my left is Mr. Scott Peter. Uh he is the principal and owner of Cape Real Estate Developers LLC. >> Sir, can I ask you to move your mic
closer? Okay. >> Specific to you. >> I understand. >> If we could have them sworn in, please. >> Yes. Thank you. I'm also going to swear in our board engineer who will be under oath. Do each of you, Gentlemen. There
you go. Uh, do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth, all truth, and nothing about the truth. I'll be God. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> I do. I do. >> Thank you. So, I'd like to take some testimony from Mr. Peter first. Um, so
Scott, let's back up a little bit and and and tell us when you first started looking at this property. I I mean, it was marketed for a while it was for sale. Um, what what drew your interest to this property? >> I've always been a big fan of Washington Street, as you know. This is on the
corner of Washington and Madison. I've been involved in several projects along Washington Street. Some multifamilies and also some single families. I just I think it's one of the greatest streets. I've always had some interest on that street. This came available. Um everything kind of worked. So I I ended up purchasing the property.
>> So you say I mean you've you've done single family in the HPC zone Washington. I think those those homes were pretty well received. >> Yes, I've done several projects in the HPC both Washington Broad um Elmyra. Many many projects both in front of the
HPC and the planning board. And obviously you purchased the property for development um because it has a bank on it. It's non-conforming use. What was your original um concept or idea for the property? >> Yeah. So originally the zoning permitted up to six units. So I'd kind of started
with a a sixunit kind of went through there. Just thought the density was high. Went back and forth a little bit in my own mind and also with the the prof professionals, the engineers and architects. Kind of when all the dust settled, it dwindled down to a fourunit. So it was going to be a originally a four-unit townhouse project. I'd spent
about probably six to eight months back and forth with the HPC on conceptuals and some of their ideas. I I get a lot of their input um as I'm kind of designing something to kind of make sure they're satisfied. I knew it would have been okay with the planning because it was all permitted and there was no variances for the multif family. Um some
of those meetings some of the directions we were going it was really pushing towards single families. It was really you know if we do the town houses we want breezeways and a lot of their recommendations kept on bringing me back there. So, at one of those points, I said, "What can I do to make this meet that? What can I do to make it more a
single family? I feel that that's a far better use." Of course, it's not always the best for me because it's it's less units. It's less, you know, less marketable homes or less, you know, things that you can do there. But at the end of the day, it was a better thing. It was HPC highly supported it. When I brought that idea to them, I said, "Hey,
what do you guys think of just kind of scrapping this even though we were six months in on the four-unit townhouse multif family project?" and said, "What do you guys think about doing single families?" Um, I said, "It might trigger some relief from the planning board, but it'll be a much better fit and it'll hit all the boxes that they kept on
suggesting to me." Um, so that's kind of where I landed, where we're at here today with the single families as compared to the multif family. >> So, you were sort of getting steered towards making the project appear uh to be a single single family um complex or
>> correct. when we were at the four-unit site, it was always kind of breezeways and separate entrances and things like that. So, it was that was the direction it was going. Then, I came up with the idea, which really wasn't in my wheelhouse because, you know, I tried not to get in front of planning boards unless you have to. Um, it's often much
easier. Appreciate it, and it's great to be here, but it's never you always take a beaten. Um, but again, it was, you know, I thought of of anything, it was the better of two evils. And they actually recommended that I do this and recommended that they'd rather see this. And I asked them, "Do you guys feel
comfortable if I mention that?" And they did. I said that is it okay that I mention that although I might trigger a variance, it's a far better fit to have singles as compared to the multif family. >> Okay. And that's a good segue into Mr. Halun or >> Do we have a resolution from the HBC?
>> No, no, no. He was there for um Were you there for informal? >> Yeah, it it was it was all informal. Yes. >> So So there's no There's no conceptual approval because there was no buildings. >> Correct. Correct. >> But you went there. Did you have architecturals of the multi-unit buildings?
>> Yes. So I went to them with both the architecturals and then we'd sit and tweak them and modify them. Then I'd come back again. That happened about three times over a course of about six months. >> Was that the review committee? >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. Did you have any professionals there or just you?
>> Just me. Okay. And and that's sort of your practice um as as to develop a property. You just don't >> Yes. I found I get it's it's a much easier process for me often to you know and they're they're wonderful because
they welcome it for me to go to them first and say this is what I'm thinking. What are you thinking? It's a lot easier because you can kind of often massage it and then when you go to the meeting it's kind of a lot of it's done. A lot of the headway's done. So and I've I've met with both Mr. Carol on a meeting and also Mr. Becker the chairman. So, I've
had a couple different several each preliminary meeting. There's usually two folks there and I had three different meetings with two different people each time. >> Mr. Hal Bruner, um why don't you pick it up from there? Current conditions on on the property and uh this evening's
proposal. >> Okay, we're at 9:30 Washington Street. >> Let's accept him as he's an expert engineer, planner, and architect, right? >> Uh engineer and architect. I don't want to have planning license. >> Okay, engineer, architect. I >> Thank you, Mr. King. No, I I I forgot to qualify him. >> You've testified here before numerous
occasions >> on very frequent occasions. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Acknowledged. Thank you. >> Okay. We're at uh 9:30 Washington Street, south corner of Madison and Washington Street, block 1093, lot 9. We
have a property that's in the R3 medium density residential zoning district. It's a property that is 15,678 square feet in size. It has frontage both along Washington Street at 103 and about 163 feet of frontage along
Madison. It's currently developed with an existing one-story bank building known as the PNC Bank. Uh it's been vacant for some time now. Um and I should note that as I think you mentioned in your opening statements, the bank itself is a non-conforming use
in the R3 zoning district. Um, vehicular circulation is a um, one way in off Washington Street with an exit of of the drive-thru on onto Washington Street as well as a second driveway onto uh, Madison Avenue. I
won't go much further into the existing conditions because we're really here to talk about the proposed conditions and that kind of sets the stage. And to further help kind of set the stage, let me give you the setting of the neighborhood uh, within the same block that we are. Um the entire block is developed with
single family homes also in the R3 zoning district. Most of them on lots that are approximately 50 feet in width. Directly across Washington Street we have uh also in the R3 district is a multif family home the Washington Crossing Street apartment or Washington
Ros Washington Crossing apartments and then also the Thomas Webster house on the corner of uh Madison and Washington. And then the balance of the properties across Washington Street are single family homes. Caddy corner to us we have a multif
family lamplight or condominium. And directly across Madison Avenue we have the bed and breakfast in known as in at the park. Again most notably the block that we're on is exclusively with the exception of the subject property today as a bank
single family residential. And even more notably, this property abuts three properties. Each of them is developed with a single family home. You heard me say single family home quite a bit because what we're proposing here this evening is to subdivide this
15,000 plus square foot lot into three lots, each intended to be developed with a new single family home. >> It will be one corner lot. >> Pause you for a second. >> Absolutely. You said each intended to be developed with a single family home. Not
to be a lawyer about it, but what you mean by that is that you'll either build a single family home or nothing. Or are you saying we're intended to be single family, but we may put a duplex on there? >> Single family homes. It will be developed with a single family home if we prevail this year. >> What we're being asked to approve
tonight is three lots for single family homes. >> That is correct. >> And if you build any but a single family home, in my view, you don't have an approval for that. >> I'm sorry. In my view, if we approve these subdivisions with variances for lot size, we are approving it for building single family homes.
>> Agreed. >> Not three duplexes. >> Now, Mr. King, that the application is for a subdivision to construct three single family. >> It was intended to do. And I think he meant they're going to do that someday. But I just want to make sure that that's not just an intention, that's a requirement if you're going to build on these lots. >> That is what was being proposed. That is
what we're seeking approval for. >> All right. Thank you. Yep. >> It's an intention without quotes. >> What's that? It's an intention without >> Yeah, exactly. I don't want to get in, you know, this guy. >> All right, go ahead. >> Okay, so we're looking to subdivide this parcel into three lots. The corner lot and then one lot each fronting on
Madison Avenue and Washington Street. Um the one on Madison Avenue would be 73 feet of frontage and about 75 ft deep for a total of 5,201 square feet in lot area. The corner lot
proposed lot 1.02 would have 52.65 feet of frontage plus the radius curve on Washington and 89.79 ft of frontage along with the radius curve uh along Madison Avenue for a
total of 5,467 square ft. And the third and final lot would be fronting on Washington Street. It's uh 50.12 feet wide and 100.2 2 feet deep totaling 5,10 square feet.
There's the stats. Now, notably, the minimum lot area required for a single family home in the R3 zoning district is 6,250. So, you're going to hear me talk about the variances we're going to need for lot area. And before I delve too much into them, I think it's worth talking a little bit about some of the benefits of
what we're proposing to do in terms of building three single family homes compared to what the zone otherwise intends allows um or as a byite alternative. >> Is this better? >> Yes. Good. Okay.
So the R3 zone, while it does not permit the bank that's there now, it does permit both multifamily and townhouse development. The lot size we have at 15,000 plus square feet can actually accommodate as a matter of rate three townhouse, I'm sorry, six town houses or
a multifamily building with six units in it. Either way, that would be a density of six units, be it a townhouse or multifamily. If we were to consider that barright alternative, the lot coverage that would be permitted
under the townhouse or multifamily would be 75%. I'm going to compare that to the lot coverage that's permitted for a single family home, which is at 45%. So right away, what we're proposing with single family homes is going to result in a lot
more green space, open space, and less intense development by virtue of a much lower lot coverage allowance than what the zone would otherwise allow for the multifamily or townhouse development. Similarly, those developments being townhouse or multif family would allow a
higher floor ratio than what the single family home would allow. Town houses allow 0.45 45. Multif family allow a 0.5 floor ratio. As single family homes, the development would be limited to a maximum of 0.4
flu ratio. So right away, the intensity of the development proposed of three single family homes is significantly less than what we permitted as a matter of right. In terms of straight out density, the density is literally half of what the zone would
allow. In terms of lot coverage, you're dealing with a significant reduction in lot coverage permitted for the single family home than what would be allowed for the multif family and town houses. Now, that's just straight statistics. Let's start talking a little bit about the character of the development that
may result from the single family homes and why it's better than say a multifamily building or a townhouse development. First of all, the streetscape compatibility is significantly enhanced by having three individual single family homes compared to that of again a
townhouse or multif family building. The approach reinforces the historic pattern of re residential buildings rather than introducing a single dominant mass typical of town houses and multif family structures. The individual homes allow the streetscape to be read as a sequence of
buildings consistent with traditional lot development on this block and in most of Washington Street instead of a continuous facade that visually lengthens and overwhelms the block on a corner lot in particular that we are it's important to maintain that
human scale on both street frontages both on Washington Street and Madison Avenue something that is again greatly enhanced by the opportunity to be having smaller size buildings with residential to single family compared to the multif family buildings.
Three smaller homes will have visibly legible components significantly less in bulk than again one large building of town houses or multif family. Those larger buildings typically have more uninterrupted roof lines and elevations which are inconsistent with a
finer grain of the architecture along Washington Street. The smaller buildings allow for more differing roof forms, more open porches, and vertical articulation. Again, aligning more closely with these surrounding historic buildings.
We end up with increased yard areas by virtue of having more buildings each with individual yards. So you have meaningful sideyard separations allowing for more light air and open space further enhanced by the reduced lot coverage that uh single family home is
permitted to have. Remember 40% versus 75% lot coverage. And finally the smaller single family homes are much more in alignment with historic residential patterns along Washington Street. Um the overall lower intensity development
is significantly a significant benefit compared to the higher density in development of the multifamily and townhouse development. That's just the building form of the streetscape parking parking demand is
literally cut in half compared to the bybrite development of six units where we're proposing three. traffic traffic count is significantly reduced. Much fewer trips will result from three single family homes than again a multif family or townhouse development.
So overall, there's a significant net benefit to the neighborhood in the historic district and the city by the granting of of the requested relief for lot area. >> Yes. >> Can you just go back? I I I I don't know what to write down about the parking. I I I may have misheard or misunderstood.
>> Okay. You said the parking is better having the single family, but I I'm just want to know what that means. You mean that there's more parking or is there less parking required? >> There is less parking demand by three single family homes and the demand would be there for multif family or townhouse development. >> Okay. >> Can I ask you a question?
>> Sure. >> Your analysis here is based on a comparison between multi-unit buildings and and single family homes without respect to whether there's two lots or three lots or one lot. You're comparing it to the larger, more complicated, more
impactful buildings that are permitted in this zone, but you've pegged it just between that and three houses. Correct. >> That what we're proposing are three single family houses. And I am comparing the benefits of that development
compared to the alternative of higher density, larger mass buildings. Yes. Uh, how about the comparison between lower density units, two lots, not three? >> Why don't we say one lot? Why don't we have one gigantic? >> That's a good Yeah, that'd be a good
question, too. >> Would that have a benefit? Sure. >> In your logic, it would be very good. Well, the question that question you'd have to answer then is a 15,000 lot compat 15,000 square foot lot uh
consistent or inconsistent with the surrounding properties. >> It would be entirely inconsistent to have a lot that large to have a single family or be two single family homes on it >> except for the one across the street. >> That's that's an apartment building. >> No, that's an old house. >> It was it was apartments at one time. It
was a lot it was a lot of them. >> Well, it's a big lot. It's a big house. >> Yeah. Well, John, let's let's stop there and expand on that idea of uh the parking. Three three single family homes um versus I think you said six units
>> up to six units. Yes. >> And and don't leave out the uh the affordable housing unit that's required with that as well. >> Yes. Once you have >> unit would have to be constructed. >> Correct. >> And everybody thinks that oh well they're not going to build that but um eventually somebody has to right.
>> Yeah. Sure. Um when you have a multif family building like that um the owners a little bit is it different the way the property operates in terms of the single family home versus the smaller units in terms of rental friends turnovers the
type of activity that occurs on the property and and the the type of people that are purchasing the properties. >> Sure. >> Is there a difference there? A single family home as a general rule tends to be owner occupied and not used for rental or income purposes
>> compared to a multif family or townhouse development which has a much higher probability of being used for rental income. >> So I I I see a a train of thought developing that oh well there's it you're you're an unders sized lot here and and therefore you're packing more
density in than than is allowed. um focus on that argument because usually when you come in for a subdivision, the concern is that well, you're allowing more in the zone than it's allowed and you're going to wind up with extra units in in the in in the zone. And that's
usually the typical objection to a subdivision, right, that you've seen. >> Sure. And again, the density that we are proposing is half of what the zone would otherwise anticipate or allow. So, so that that concern is not applicable here. >> Clearly not.
>> The the the d the typical density concern. >> Correct. >> And with the density which comes the level of intensity of use, there's a very thing that I'm fond of is the streetscape, the character of the neighborhood. a large monolithic
building compared to three smaller buildings with articulating roof lines, more variation and more develop rhythmically with the balance of the neighborhood. If you look up and down Washington Street, you don't have as a rule large monolithic
buildings. Yes, we have one right across the street. That's not exactly what this prominent quarter really wants to have. It wants to have a much smaller scale residential building that again is in rhythm in keeping with the character of the Washington Street single family
residential character. >> Mr. Gun, can I have a question? I have a question. >> Yes, Mr. >> The lot the building sizes for these lots, the square footage of the buildings what 2,2100 ft something like that. >> If with a 40% lot coverage and roughly
5,000 square foot, you're looking at a maximum of of about 2,000. or the flare ratio maximum 2,000 square foot. >> Okay. And and the other question I have is the we talk about parking the lot in the corner. Where would the access drive be for the house?
>> The access for the corner one, what we're actually considering doing is having a shared driveway uh between the corner lot and the lot on Washington Street. Okay. >> And then having the one on Madison Avenue um discharge directly on Madison Avenue. >> So the lots So the lots on Frank on
Washington Street will have a shared driveway. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yeah, the um the corner lot can be problematic because of the proximity to the intersection both for vehicles coming and going. Um to make things worse, Madison Avenue is a county road.
Uh and there's absolutely no backing out onto the county road, so we think it's going to be better to have a shared driveway on Washington Street to service the corner lot and the lot on Washington Street and uh leave the one single driveway on Madison Avenue for the lot that's on Madison Avenue.
And I have a question also. The the lot sizes um that you're proposing, how do they compare to the lots lots in the general area there? >> Slightly less in area, but entirely consistent in frontage. And the frontage is what the public perceives in terms of
lot size. Very few people know how deep a lot is, but people see the width of a of a property. And the 50 ft plus that we're talking about is entirely consistent with virtually every other residential um property on the block that we're located on. It's entirely consistent
>> on that block um east of Washington. >> They're very very similar. >> Yeah. They're almost exclusively 50 foot wide lots >> and and in depth in area. Correct. Very close. >> Yes. the west side of Washington. Same lot frontage, but those lots are a
little bit deeper. >> Correct. And with the exception of the larger lots at the uh for the Victorian or the Washington Commons um building, which is a much larger lot and a much larger building. >> So, is Washington Street not also a county road?
>> No, >> Washington is not. >> No. >> Okay. >> Lafayette and Madison or >> Madison? I'm sorry, Bill. Yeah. >> So, one of the challenges I'm having is
that you're asking us to evaluate this application, but you're comparing it to a development that is not up for consideration. So, I'm I'm I'm I'm struggling with everything's being compared to a multifamily when that is not even on the
table. So, what we're talking about here is what you >> That's an appropriate analysis. Okay. What you're >> I'm just saying I'm having a I understand. I understand. Well, I mean, look, there's ways that can be done. Sometimes a developer will come in and they'll say, "If you don't grant this, I'm going to do X." And they'll give you
this big ugly thing to do. That's that's the wrong way to do it. All right? But it's appropriate for you to consider whether this is a better zoning alternative to that which is permitted. That's always the analysis you're doing in any variance analysis. Is this a
better zoning alternative than that which is permitted? this happens to permit what they're whatever this I mean Craig will speak to this but a six family or four unit whatever so you know that is an appropriate thing for you to consider now it doesn't mean you have to grant it it's in your discretion and all
that but it's not an inappropriate way to think about it you're supposed to consider whether it's a better zoning alternative to that which is permitted in the zone >> okay so that argument my second challenge is I I'm I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be considering it. Let's
just say that argument that three units is better than six. I'm not understanding traffic flow, parking, anticipated bedrooms. I think that the um argument that this would not be used as a rental property as a single family is for those of us who experience Cape
May and single family homes would argue back on that. So, I don't think that that necessarily would stand. That's this is my view only. um and that these are the things that are sort of missing for me to be able to understand what your vision is or how this would be
utilized. So I know we have a number of people here in the audience who are going to express their opinion, but I'm trying to understand what I'm being asked to to approve because I there's three drawings on here, three three diagonal, you know,
sort of um properties. I I can't tell what's going in here or what's not. >> You know, it's there's traffic flow. This is a very busy intersection. You're going to have cars. How many bedrooms are there? It goes from one parking spot to two based on the number of bedrooms.
All of these things. There's no on street parking there. All of those things. Now, Mr. King, and you may argue that that's not for my consideration right now, but it's part of my how I'm evaluating this application. I'm trying to be as fair and and open-minded as I
possibly can. Eurles may give me arguments as to why I shouldn't consider any of those. I'm just giving you where my mind is right now. I'm trying to my name used in vain there or heard my name. What did I >> No, I sorry. I I didn't use your name. >> I was I was mostly listening and then I heard my name. What did I do?
>> Nothing. I said you gave me a balance to why why I'm I'm struggling with trying to understand what I'm being asked to approve here. >> You're not you're not seeing a finished product. you don't and that's a challenge look like the driveways are going to be all that sort of detail
>> is is probably more concerning to most people than the fact that it's three units I'm I'm sort of throwing that out there but we you you the first I heard tonight was a shared driveway >> right >> um I did >> this just little little things like that so
>> could I could I >> this is the risk that you run when you don't provide design plans So, >> may I ask a question, Mr. Peters? Are you going to develop this land or are you getting this approval and then you're going to sell the lots for somebody else to develop?
>> No, I'm a I'm a builder developer. So, what I achieve tonight, if I do achieve it, I'll be developing the site. Um, I I understand the point. It's kind of like the chicken before the egg. It's often difficult and financially, you know, a big cost to get the full plan done and get to a board and maybe get denied. Um,
because this has multiple layers to it. I can assure you the design on this is going to be wonderful because if we do get granted tonight, I go right back to the HPC and they talk a lot of significant things nowadays about parking and you know design of building and setbacks and coverages and so I can
assure you it will be perfect for us. Often it's hard to come with a full-blown plan because you don't know if you're going to get approved. You know, I'd probably come with a plan that I know would get approved which would probably be the multif family. Um and it's not intended to say that we would do that. It just it's hard to go through that level of plans and professionals
and when you don't always know, you know, what you're going to get at it. >> Well, Peter, it's fair for our board to qu ask. >> Oh, of course, >> because we all feel like we are, but there got to be right here. Um, it's it's it's fair to ask those kind of questions in this instance, I think,
because it's an undersized lot on a busy corner. So, you know, the the normally axe ingress and eress in a, you know, a lot of subdivisions we see, okay, like three things in a row on in the middle of in frog pond, you know, in the middle of a road on Swan or something.
>> Frog Hollow. Thank you. Uh, is Well, I I I handled that case up to the Appel Division. You remember that? It was the Frog Frog Hollow. Remember it was and Swan was the street. >> I like Frog Pond better. >> What's that? >> No, I like the Frog Pond. >> Yeah, Frog Pond. That's Well, there's a reason for that, but that's another story. Um
that's not really a question in ingress and egress, right? But on a busy corner with an undersized lot, that is fair commentary, you know, shared things. So maybe there's something in between full-blown architectural plans and three squares. You know what I mean?
>> Can I can I ask a comment here? Let me go back to what Moren had said very very succinctly. Every point she made was was a was a good one. But the one I would add to that is that this whole discussion would not be precipitated
were not for the fact that we are here to consider giving approval to three undersized lots. Those lots are between 18 and 20% below the minimum requirement for a lot in that zone. If there were
two lots, there would not be a need for a variance because you would have two lots of size comparable to the code. The the trigger of this whole discussion is uh three lots putting essentially three
pounds of flour in a two-lb bag. I really don't. >> And and then all of what Morin said actually becomes deeply into play because it's creating the problem that is exacerbated by the fact that we have two we have three undersized lots that
we now have to wait to see what the plans look like. >> I mean, if you compare this to the uh the R4, this is a, you know, a twin size lot in Village Green with two-bedroom homes. So, I mean, I'm c I'm I'm I'm
comparing that because that's what I'm used to when you're talking about and those are twobedroom homes. >> Go down go down the street. They're all same lot sizes. >> Go down Washington Street. They're all >> No, I understand that they're not 5,000 square feet. >> If if I may help just try and reframe
the board's analysis of this. You're you're evaluating this under the flexible C variance. So, do the positives outweigh the negatives? Um, is the zoning plan impaired? Are there substantial detriments here? Um, the
risk that they run by not providing design plans is leaving some things out there unknown that weigh in your balancing of this of the analysis. Um, is the traffic going to be addressed? Is
is there enough separation? This is a signalized intersection. Is there enough separation between the driveway and where cars queue up to that intersection? It is also on a county street, so the county has some involvement on um evaluating the driveways on Madison. Um but it
certainly can weigh into your balancing and I think what they're hoping is that the analysis of the massing the Mr. how Bruner's testimony was correct with regards to lot coverage, floor area
ratio. So, you're going to get less massing with three structures than you would with get with by right permitted uses that they wouldn't have to necessarily come for a variance. Um, one of the things that I noted when I when I
get these applications, I have an initial reaction. It's like, well, just like Dennis mentioned, hey, comply. why why don't you come in with two single family dwellings? Well, that's not what they're offering and that might not be what financially is viable for the applicant and the applicant is not
required to do that. They can come in with the highest and best use that that that our zoning allows for them. And they've identified that the highest and best use of that is the attached multifamily dwelling that has a 12,500
square foot minimum lot size and allows one unit for every 2500 square foot of lot area. Um that yields six units. Um what he didn't mention and so from a practical standpoint I'm saying okay is
he going to build that? Most developers come in and they'll they'll stop at four units because the fifth unit triggers affordable housing or they'll go as far as they can. Um, and what is hasn't been discussed here is there's a 40% density increase if you do affordable housing. That's permitted. So, you would be
allowed to do up to eight units there with your set aside. Um, but you would have to do that. Um, but our ordinance section 59 allows for a 40% density increase if you're doing inclusionary units. Um, very familiar
with this. You just got your affordable housing uh um packet tonight. Um, so >> I don't think the anal the analysis isn't just comply. it is. We're offering a better we what we think they're what I think they're
going to try and convince you of is that three single family dwellings there is a better zoning alternative than building it out to what they're maximally permitted to do. >> And I would say I I won't argue with
that. I'm just trying to figure out what this is going to look like at the end of the day. So, and and that's so the difficulties that the board may be having is they may want to see >> aesthetics may be preeminent or prominent in their decision-m and they're like, I want to compare the
multif family, what that looks like versus the three single family dwellings. What are they going to look like? And I know Mr. Peter has done development on both of those types of developments on in this stretch of Washington within the R3 district. Um he's done two single family dwelling
subdivision right next to the um the physic estate next to the tennis courts and he's done a a multif family right across the street from that. Um I don't what's the name of that development called? >> New Jersey. >> It's a >> Victorian walk. >> Vic there you go. Um so he's done both types of development. So it's not
foreign for him to do one or the other. And it's not a threat. Um, a lot of times boards feel like we're being threatened with but when you're when you're dealing with this with the flexible C analysis, you have to decide what could be built there versus what
they're offering and is it a better zoning alternative. And they have to demonstrate the positives outweigh the negatives and that there's no detriment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Um, so that's that's your analysis and certainly things that they're not
providing can weigh into that. So if if they're not satisfying that and that's that's you know I I'm hearing some of that from the board. Where are the driveways going to go? That could be a traffic consideration. That could be a negative. So if they're not addressing that, you know, your your scale may
balance one way or the other. >> Would the construction office look at that once a design was done? So, we have done a a very similar uh subdivision application on Beach Avenue where we some of the we we >> the motel was
>> Yeah. We granted variances for lot size, but we had conditions on those conditions said the house had to be oriented a certain way. Driveways had to be off the side street and not Beach Avenue. You know, we can do all of those things as conditions of approval should
you want to go that route. Okay. They've asked for a lot of waiverss. Um you you'll see that in my you may you feel like hey I'm I don't want to grant that waiver. It's not it's not giving me you know I recommend a deeming it complete because it's very similar to what we've
done in the past. But at the end of the day, if you don't have enough information to make your deci an informed decision and and you know evaluate that, you can add you can you know we grant those waivers as part of
our so you can say I don't feel that it's appropriate to grant that waiver and I need that information to make an informed decision. >> Let me hear your analysis. >> They're not done yet. Well, I I think they should present everything before, but I just I think we're just we're
starting to get all into the the meat of this and it was starting to go ary. I just want to refocus the board on kind of what you're how you should be evaluating this these variances. >> Yeah, because I'd like to hear more of what they have to say. >> And it's okay that it went arry because
that sort of informs us that um we're not getting the point across. Um and and what we're trying to do here and the testimony you're hearing is designed to alleviate these exact concerns about the
overdevelopment, the over congestion, the too many cars, all of those things that come along with um a higher intensity development, which are typically the concerns that people have that the public has when you come in for
a subdivision. I I I'm hearing it now. we have three lots and not two instead of just one as the gentleman pointed out. Well, what does that mean to me? That sort of suggests that he's concerned about well you got too much here, too many houses and that's sort of
getting caught up in the fact that well the lots are a little bit too small. But we point out what can be done by right here. Um and that is this this property is going to get developed. Mr. Peter owns this property. This is not a contract with a contingency to come in
here and see, oh, what we can get. This is going to be developed. This board's going to decide how it's going to be developed. What we're asking here for tonight is a simple subdivision. What's it going to look like? Well, I can tell you this. The houses have to go through the HPC.
That's no easy thing to do. Mr. Peter is very familiar with that. In fact, he starts the process that early. he just doesn't walk in there with a full set of developed plans and then he has to redesign for a time. So he has his method of doing that. Um
the houses are going to comply with the ordinance with the bulk standards with the setbacks. You're going to hear that from Mr. Hal Bruner. Fully compliant fully compliant with the coverage fully in compliant with the with the floor area ratio. So you're going to have houses that are proportional to the lot
size. Yes, the lot sizes will be a little bit smaller, but as Mr. King always points out, you have your floor area ratio, which is a direct correlation to the size of the lot, which shrinks everything. So, it's in proportion. So, yes, we take a chance to
come in here without the houses designed and that's a very common way of doing things. Um and and we do that be because of the expense of doing that and because you really don't know it at at that point. Um so that's what you're going to
wind up with. You you you see you see the houses. Yes. You see the the three squares. The houses will be positioned within the buildable area. The setbacks are compliant. All of the bulk regulations will be compliant. And your three single family homes will be
approved by the HPC. So, in terms of protections to the community um in what you're going to get that that's pretty good. I don't think anybody's coming back here for a second variance. Um we know what'll happen. I think um the
policy's been to make them come back in for a resubdivision if they try to get some additional variances. So, that's what we're trying to do. Um, if we didn't get the point across, I I think we can in in in light of all this now, John, and picking it up from there.
When you're doing these comparisons, are you really doing it in in terms of saying to the neighborhood, hey, this is we think this is better to have the three single families than I what Mr.
Hurles pointed out is eight units? No, that's >> I don't understand the benefit of that, Mr. How Bruiner. I'm trying to understand the benefit to say, "Hey, don't do this. Give us what what the ordinance uh uh permits because that's
going to be a better benefit to the community. We can argue this in the negative and and and you and I had this discussion and and we sat there and we saw, well, let's try to think of what a benefit would be." And I said, "Well, maybe uh Mr. Jones will point out that your your you know your your assessed
values will be a little bit higher, but I couldn't even sit there and say for sure that that would be true, >> right? >> Let's explore that for a second. Let's look at the the larger development. Let's let's look at the we go. Let's go with six units.
Bigger building, more traffic, more parking, less greenery, less articulation in the buildings, less light, air, and open space. That is what
that means. What is the benefit? Why would the board want that as an alternative to what we're proposing? What we're proposing gets you the direct opposite of that. Half the density, less traffic, less parking, more light air
and open space, less building mass, better streetscape. I'm failing to see why the board would want to do to have the applicant revert back to one of the other alternatives. It's I I don't see the benefit of that alternative.
>> I'm trying to picture what one of your houses would be. Could you just in your mind, what would you be building there? a twobedroom, a five bedroomedroom. >> It would it would be a three garage. >> Yep. It would be a three to four bedroomedroom single family. The max you can do based on the Florida area ratio
is about 2200 square ft². So they're not big structures. The singles again I I feel like we can't beat this home enough. These are smaller lots, so equally the houses are going to be smaller. And the most important thing is when you go to a single family use, the coverages are less. So I'm really
hurting myself by doing this. Um, I'm I'm actually sitting back kind of thinking like why am I why am I doing this? Why am I here tonight? Because of course it's not easy to take the beating, but I'm leaving many units on the table here. And I'm like, well, you know, maybe I I would reevaluate this because this is hard. This is hard to sit here and, you know, look at look at
this and try to do something that, you know, this fits here. This is more work for me to come here and do this than it is to come here with a permitted use, a multif family, and build that thing, make all the units, make all the money, and and you know, that's it. But it this is work. Um, but to answer your question, they're small, modest houses.
They're um they're based on the floor to air ratio. Again, it's a smaller lot, so it's going to be a house that's going to fit on that lot. I'm not here asking any variances. Often when I'm doing a subdivision, and Mr. Hal Bruner said that you come in with a subdivision, and that might trigger, oh, a setback variance or a front yard or a coverage,
these lots are smaller equally. The house is going to be smaller. So, they're not they're not >> But they're going to be tall. If you're going four bedrooms, you're going to have a >> Yeah. Yes. They're going to be two story, but >> the air flow as you're talking about is going to be just like a townhouse. >> Well, no. The space between them is what we're referencing. We're talking instead
of having a stack row of either, you know, call it four to eight units, there's no separation between them. Now, you have big, you know, up to 20 feet between houses. Now, there's three houses on something that could be up to eight. So, there's a lot of open space. And again, I didn't even know this, but
the coverages change. Just just because you convert to a multif family, >> your coverages go up. So you're allowed to cover. >> That's a very important point. I I have emphasized this with the zoning board, but I should probably have this conversation with you guys because you don't see it enough. But our zoning for
the R3 district and RS district and multi is a menu. So it's based on the use. So when you change uses, uh you change uh the floor area ratio and lot coverages as well as setbacks. But so
for instance, Mr. Halbruner touched upon it, but I'm going to emphasize it just because it's important in your in your balancing test. Um, the lot coverage for a single family dwelling is 45%. For a multif family dwelling, I believe it's
75%. Am I Am I correct? It was either 70 or 75. So it's 75%. That's huge. >> Um, that's a big difference. The massing of the building is controlled by the floor area ratio. For single family
dwellings, it's 0.40 or point or 40% of the lot area gives you how much um habitable space you can have per dwelling. For a multif family use, it's 65 if I'm not mistaken. >> 0.5 >> 0.5, I'm sorry. Yes.
>> Um 0.5. >> Um Oh, it's 0 65 in RS. Thank. Okay. So it's 0.5 in the R3 district. So you're you're afforded 10% more habitable area for the lot if you change that change
back to that use. So um you will get a more modestly scaled development if you go with single family dwellings as opposed to multif family. Um and that's just based on your zoning requirements. >> Okay. Dennis said if he came in if he wanted
to not go get any variances and put just put two lots there he would have what a 3200 square foot house maybe something like that and that's where you get your five and sixbedroom house >> on those two lots I would think I'm not I'm not >> larger lots >> yeah
a larger house would be accommodated by a larger lot >> yeah but that's when you get to your McMansion for the two lots and he doesn't have he could do that he wouldn't even have to come here >> all right so the four bedrooms that you're talking about are your driveways going to be big enough to accommodate the parking that is required for those?
>> Yes, I'll meet all zoning requirements, whatever is permitted for that bedroom count. >> And it's it's two bedroom it's it's two parking spots. >> Speaking of that, can I ask you a question? Uh Ron, >> yes. in your in your packet uh in that section called waiver
requests item number 28 uh you say here at this time only floor plans and elevations have been provided for the proposed structures >> yeah I've stated a few times >> I well no obviously they they haven't
been and they were not that might just be a a carryover from a former application possibly So >> they're not provided. >> They are not provided. >> You don't have obviously don't have them in front of >> my my point would be if they were
provided, we we should be seeing what they look like. That would help a lot of these issues. But um you're saying you're saying this is not correct, right? >> Well, that one's not checked correctly. >> That's mentioned a couple other places, too. If if you know if we didn't have the
layer of the HPC, I would absolutely have plans, but that's a whole level and layer in itself and that's multiple multiple visits. For me to go to them and have the uncertainty that it may or may not make it here, it wouldn't be conducive for me to do that. I would go to them with something that I know would
be permitted as I did before this meeting that I knew would be permitted, the multif family. And it was at that meeting that triggered that, you know, hey, it's not the best for the area, but although it's permitted and it's in your zone and it's completely allowed to be done, it just it's not what fits. And I get, you know, it's a hard decision to
give relief. Um, and not air variance works. And, you know, but in this case, it works. It really does. There's not many times when I can actually say that in front of a board and feel so confident that this is absolutely the best use of that site. Um, not the multif family. And often when I'm in
front of boards, you are asking for relief and you're, you know, you you kind of, you know, you give the good and the bad and at the end of the day, you you hope for the best. But in this case, the alternative is nowhere near as good as what I'm proposing tonight. >> So, I appreciate the argument between the density of the multif family versus
these three singles. It's just very, you know, when you're trying to evaluate an application that's in front of you, which is this, and understanding that absent of the comparison, and I know that we have to do it. It's just understanding all of the factors that will go into the end product. Um, and we
just want to make sure that we understand so that we're not surprised when this is done, it's developed, and we look at the property and say, "I'm sorry, what happened to the traffic flow that we thought would be incorporated, the amount of parking, how many
bedrooms, how dense is it?" Because, you know, let's admittedly, these may very well become rental properties. They may be purchased by people and part partially used, but you know, we see that as a trend that's occurring. So, you know, all of those considerations at least go into when I'm evaluating
something. So, just looking at this, it makes it challenging and difficult. I understand the argument. I can appreciate it, but you know, um the only other question I'd like to ask um if and I don't even know if it's appropriate at this point, but it is a you know, this lot is small. you're putting three
units, three single family homes. During construction, I think you're going to have to have site maintenance that will be pretty tight because you're not going to have parking for, you know, contractors and everything else on Washington and there's no real place to park. So, I I'm
just putting it out there and, you know, in light of the fact that we've got a lot of neighbors here and a lot of people from the community who are going to want to understand and appreciate how this is going to be managed in their neighborhood. So, I just I'm not asking to put you on the spot to know that if it's I don't want to sidetrack too much
here, but I the first thing I do is introduce myself to the neighbors because they often can make or break a job. I don't build all three together. We build them in phases. So, we'd probably do one another one and then the last one might be a little more problematic, but it would be not as though you're doing all three at one
shot. That way, we have a staging area on site to house construction, dumpsters, things like that. >> Um, so it's thought out. >> Thank you for sharing that. I think it's an important consideration community. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, can I ask Craig a question at this point?
>> Uh on a byite use in a zoning district. U can that be rejected if it creates what what appears to be a prepoundonderance of negativity in that district? If they were to come in for a
multifamily dwelling on this lot, they would be required, even if they weren't doing a subdivision, if they're going to use the entire lot. >> That's my point. >> It would trigger anything more than two units, trigger site plan review. So, you're going to have a bite at that apple at reviewing traffic safety,
parking, everything that goes along with site plan analysis with a multif family dwelling. >> Okay, that that answers my question. >> Yeah, they're not they're not going to just go pull a building permit. Of course, that that's where >> they're still coming here. >> Let me just speak to that for a second then, just so no one gets too excited.
It's a byite sight plan. I mean, it's a permitted use that would comply with all the bulk. It's a site plan. Your ability to say no to that, particularly it's on a road that's regulated by the county. Right. >> Right. >> So, >> one road of one of the >> Yeah. Your ability to say no to that is
terrifically narrow. Okay. Okay. I mean it it almost can't be done. Um you can request adjustments and stuff like that as the things about ingress and egress if it creates a public safety hazard and you really have to show that and it's very
very hard. So I don't want you to get the impression that if you say no to this and they decide to do a six or eight unit um development that you're going to be in a position to do much about it. I'm telling you now so you're not surprised if it happens that you are going to be in a very difficult spot to
do anything about it. And I will almost certainly not be able to defend the denial in the superior court. Just saying that now. So I don't want anybody to have any misperceptions about that. That's my legal analysis. >> You guys on the same page? >> Yeah, I'm just I'm just being truthful.
You're going to see it when it comes in for development. You're going to approve a site plan approval. >> It's called by right for a reason. What? >> Yeah, I I get that. I'm talking about leeway. >> Multi family. for multif family. If in the alternative, if they came in for multif family on that entire lot and
it's more than two units, it requires site plan approval from the planning board. >> But this would not once we would approve this here tonight, >> it would So, we've done this on several other subdivisions where we don't have development plans. Um, if you were to
approve the subdivision tonight, whatever conditions that you set, if you say the driveways have to be located off of Madison versus Washington or the houses have to be oriented towards Washington or whatever, we've done all of those things in other approvals. All of the conditions that are set forth in
there, you would I would review any plans for compliance with your approval before they can pull building permits. >> Okay? Um that's the normal course of action whenever we've gotten subdivisions presented this way. >> Y we did that on Pittsburgh too. Yeah,
there I've come up with and >> there there's a recommendation that I've put. It's not a it's not our city requirement or anything, but my recommendation is for them to deed notice in case he sells off a lot so that any future buyer knows exactly it
comes up in the in the deed search when they're when the property transfer happens so that they're advised of it early on in the process that they have to comply with our resolution of approval and all of the other things that were waved. all of the all of the technical items, degrading drainage
plans, um the setback, all of those uh parking issues, all of those things have to be addressed before they can pull a construction permit. >> Is it my understanding that one of these three lots is affordable housing? Is that what you say? >> No.
>> Affordable housing is triggered at the fifth unit. >> That that's what I heard. Thank you. >> Okay. So that's when you have to have an on-site or off-site unit because we allow both. >> Right. >> Ron, are you are you
>> I just have a question. Um the houses along Washington Street, I know those houses very well. They're I guess they were built in the 1850s. They're beautiful Victorian style houses. What do you know the square footage of those houses? say the last two houses before where PNC Bank is.
>> I I I don't know offh hand. I can kind of venture to guess. I'd probably say 2500 22 >> and what are we looking at here? >> 20 21 2200 based on the floor area ratio. So slightly smaller but not significantly. >> My concern is what it would look like. You have these beautiful homes and then you're going to have these smaller homes
ending the block >> in conjunction. They're probably going to be the same height. It's just that where you you don't get is the depth. So the street state's going to be the >> the width maybe. >> Well, the width will be the same. And that was one point that Mr. Halbruner brought up was um the great thing about the subdivision here is they're all the
same. They're all consistent. The lot frontages and that's what we all see. We don't see depths on houses. It could be 20 ft deep. They could be 50 ft deep. So you really won't see a difference between driving down the street, but their square footage will be different because they're not as deep. These this is where we're lacking here tonight. And that's what's great about this is we're
not lacking in frontage. You're not going to see a tiny water tower of house. It's consistent with all the other houses. They're all 50 foot outside of the multif family adjacent, but all the other lots here are the same width. So the depth is where you lose the square footage where
>> So the frontage would be the same as the existing homes on Washington Street. >> Correct. And the the exact lot size is the same. >> Okay, >> that's probably a little bit >> you can you can see the >> they are meeting the minimum required lot frontages for all the lots. So the
only variance they're seeking is for lot size. So lot frontage, lot width, >> they're all conforming. All of the other bulkan area requirements have been met or will be met as a condition of approval. >> In my opinion, with as many projects as
I do, I feel, you know, I take a lot of pride in what I do. Hence why I'm here because really, if we come down to it, I'm in business to make a living and this is not probably the most profitable, but it's what works. Again, we don't make decisions on that. I get it, but I just I'm being completely
forthcoming. But for my opinion, the humble opinion that it is, and I feel the most important thing is your frontage. That's what we all see driving down the street. We see the front of houses. Um, and these lots are consistent with everything else that's there >> and and and back to the open air and
space. You do have the space between the homes. Can I if I can just elaborate on what you just said if I can help you help me understand this like say for example lot number 103 the setback on one side is 12 the set back
on the other side is eight so that's 20 so your house footprint is going to be 30 feet wide if the lot is 50 feet is that about right >> correct >> and and then and you're saying that's consistent with most of the houses on
Washington Street. >> Actually, probably not. >> The other ones are probably wider. I I would venture to say most of those houses don't have Well, most of these neighbors would know. Don't have a total of 20 feet on on on >> to have eight feet would be a lot on on
one side for most of the older houses on Washington Street. >> Yeah. >> Why are 12 foot setbacks shown on the plan? >> Because you have to have 20 foot m total, don't I did that because I know a big condition of the HPC and that was another important item they did recommend when I do design this is they
wanted the house to front Washington. Um originally I came to them with a plan of them possibly fronting all three along Madison. They said no we the condition we want is we want them to front Washington. Another >> the question I'm asking is the in that zone there's only an 8 foot sideyard
setback requirement. You're showing 12. Are you is that >> parking? That's the shared driveway. >> Part of the problem is we need to park. >> So you want Okay. So >> a big con. >> So I just want to make sure that everyone knows that they're offering greater sideyard setbacks than what's
required so they can they can accommodate parking spaces. >> Yeah. >> So that 12 foot is the driveway. >> Yes. >> A big important, you know, from being in front of the HBC, a really important item for them is the parking. They do not want to see cars in the front. So
any house that I do if it's in the historic zone, I make it that we can put the cars along as far back as you can possibly go. That's why we hug the house to one side so you can get the parking in the back. >> There'll be no parking in the front. Again, that's what's so, you know, tough here because it's hard to come up with a
plan. We have to go to them next. And as we said, they're, you know, they're quite strict and I can assure you they're going to >> I just I just wanted to make sure that got on the record because if the board were to approve this, you're going to be bound by these setbacks that you've
shown. >> Ron, are you finished with your presentation? >> Uh, no. I think Mr. Hower still has to put proofs on. Okay. >> Yeah. If you don't mind, I'll I'll be brief because I think we've talked an awful lot about the benefits. >> Uh we are advancing this application. >> You need to speak up.
>> We are advancing this application under the C2 criteria. >> Yeah, >> there are multiple purposes of land use law that are being advanced. First of all, the promotion of a desirable visual environment. Again, we spoke at some great length about the rhythmic pattern
development of Washington Street, the smaller scale massing and enhanced streetscape that would result from this development. We also have preservation of historic character, you know, reinforcing the traditional fabric of the development patterns within the historic district, the efficient use of
land, and the promotion of an appropriate neighborhood density, half of what the zone would allow. Those are all benefits and purposes of the news millennials law that are being advanced by this application. It is a superior planning outcome compared to the conforming development.
Reduce building mass and perceived scale. Enhanced streetscape rhythm. Increase yard areas and space between buildings. Avoidance of long and facades. More light air and open space. There is minimal and nonsubstantial detriment. There is no increase in
overall density. In fact, a significant decrease compared to what the zone allows. There's no adverse impact on light air and open space. In fact, it's enhanced by the application. Traffic and parking demand are both reduced by this proposed development compared to the alternatives.
So, there truly is no substantial detriment to the public good. So, with that, I believe these negative criteria has been satisfied. The positives we've talked almost at nauseium about and for those reasons I think very convincingly these benefits outweigh the detriments
and the variance can be granted under the C2 criteria. >> Thank you. Mr. Haler, >> can I ask one question about your your analysis here on page five of your packet? Uh and Moren brought this up a little
while ago. Uh, item 16 of your reporting and property information says, "Do you use does the use of the structure require that you have a current merkante license
since rentals require a merkante license?" And you say, "No." Does this mean you're not going to be renting this property? >> No. It's >> That's the current year. That's the current year. >> The current bank's closed. Yeah. struct. It's your structure. It's what they're
>> there's a structure there. Now, this >> the existing non-conforming bank building. >> This refers to the all the proposed property information. >> Renting is a residential use anyway. It's not a different use. So, it's not something we can do much about. >> What's that? >> Renting is a residential use. There's
not much we can do about that. I mean, you can >> But it does require a merkantail license >> if you rent it. >> Yeah. >> But it doesn't exist now. What's being proposed doesn't exist. So therefore, they wouldn't have a mercantile license. I think is what the point is. >> Okay. But what's being proposed is
3,000. >> Yes. And I think that if you >> which are not necessarily going to be rented, they don't know. >> They say they're not going to require American. >> So I'm just >> that's not something that they can force on a person who buys a house. Dennis, that's that's not pragmatic.
>> And as long as they don't say yes then >> because that would that would be equally misleading. There should be there should be a spot that says unknown. >> Well, that's right. Why don't you say not applicable or we don't know now. >> They don't make they don't make the form.
>> All I'm doing is trying all I'm doing is trying to figure out uh what they what they ask us to consider. So, >> right. >> So, that answer the question is we don't know at this point, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Got it.
>> I do have one question about the um lot between lot 102 and 103. You've got the you've got 12 feet on lot 102 is a sideyard set back and 8t on lot 103 and 12 feet on the other side of lot 103. Why wouldn't
you put a driveway on each side of each of those houses? >> Well, here's what happened, Mr. Chairman. Um, we received the review letter from Mr. Harless who was questioning where the driveway should be. He wants to wanted recommending a driveway add a driveway to Madison. We
know that the county um very unlikely to agree to an additional curb cut on a county road. Um so the solution to that was to uh propose a shared driveway, eliminate one of the driveways, which is a goal everyone um seems to want to
accomplish um and put a shared driveway between lot point 1.02 and >> well then why not why not make that a 12oot step? that we were going to get to that when we went through the review letter. Uh we would need to do that to accommodate that that shared driveway.
>> So you're really going to be creating two separate driveways. Not really a shared drive. >> Well, one you have a you have a the drive apron driveway at the the curb is the issue with the with the county and you
want to combine them and reduce them as much as possible. >> One point of entry on a Washington street. So when I say drive >> except the except that Washington street is not a county road. >> No it's it's not. >> So that that so the county as far as that part of it is concerned the county has no
>> I would >> jurisdiction in that to m >> from an engineering standpoint it is safer to have the point of access to the roads as far away from the intersection as possible. So, I would prefer the and
the the leg of that corner lot um is longer on Madison. So, I would prefer the applicant be required to try to attempt to get that approval through the county. And if not, then we would deal with the access between the lots. Um but
I would I I wouldn't support a shared driveway. I would have proposed lot 1.02 2 be within that 12t setback if required and then have the driveway for proposed lot 1.03 farther away from that intersection um you know along the side
lot line that's farthest away from the intersection. So I would not I'd be I would not be an advocate of combining those. I would have, you know, the le the least amount of trips that are interfering with that the proximity of that intersection the better.
So, and that being said, I also wanted to point out the county has far more restrictive requirements for driveways, curb cuts, etc. than our ordinance does. Um, so, um, I will trust them in
whatever they approve along Madison Avenue. >> Um, it's not Madison Street, by the way. >> That's that's bothered me the whole time looking at that. Um, >> on that same issue, Craig, um, these plans that they gave us show a on on lot
101, they show a 12 foot at the back, a setback on the top side of the lot. Uh but the driveway is over here. Now, how would they if they're going to use the 12 as a parking >> that that existing curb cuts got to go away?
>> All right. >> Um that's that's where the bank access. >> Um so I would recommend that that driveway for that lot be provided at the far like the top side the 12 in the 12t setback.
>> Right. And I think that's what they intend. I think, you know, that's it seems that where they're proposing the 12 foot wide setbacks is where they're proposing going to be proposing their driveways. >> And your recommendation is put a second cut at the back side of 102
>> off of Madison 101. >> 1023 103 off. >> What I'm recommended is they it's >> 102 should be off of Madison if they can get that approval. And if not, then I would probably accept it
>> through the 12t wide setback. >> Okay. >> But I don't I don't advocate for combining the driveways. >> And then what about 103? >> 103 should be on the far right >> on side lot line >> to keep that driveway as far away from
pos as possible from that intersection. >> Be close to how close can be >> up on the line. >> They can be for residential dwellings. They can be right up against the property line. Not that we're tweaking the plans yet, but um >> so what so we'll go we'll go through
your comments first and then we'll open up to the public. Would you rather >> Are you guys done with your presentation? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> So the folks of the the our normal practice is the engineer gives goes over his comments on the application and then we open it up to you.
So that's what we're going to do. So, I want to first say I was not advocating for or against the applicant. I was just trying to explain to you and reframe how you should be weighing the v the consideration of the variance. So, I don't vote. Um, you guys do. You guys are entrusted with that balancing and
and how you vote. Um, and I understand the frustration that you guys had. When we don't have a lot of the design information, it leaves questions in your mind. Um, so and and I think you've raised the important ones like traffic safety, parking, you know, um, where's
storm water going to go? All of those things are considerations that we address um, as conditions of approval should you grant it, should you feel that their presentation has swayed you um, to vote for this. Okay, that being
said, I'll roll into my January 5th, 2026 uh, review memorandum. This I will summarize. Um I'm going to roll right into the completeness review. You already know what they're proposing. It's a three lot subdivision in the R3 district. It's a permitted use. Um and
here's the completeness review. So these are the checklist waiverss they've requested uh under the CD variance checklist. Number five, which is the plans and elevations of the building. There's been no building proposed here. Um, we've
seen subdivisions like that. Um, that information would be provided as a condition of approval. Should you wave that information? Uh, item number 12, I assume that we've received a certified list. I haven't seen one. Um, I don't think we would be here tonight. So,
>> yeah, there's there was an AT. So, item number 12 has been addressed. Um, item number 13. Um this would be um they each individual lot would have to provide their own zoning table as compliance item um and demonstrate that they comply
with not only the bulcan area regulations but every condition that you would set forth on this development item 14 was the topography. We would need that any new construction requires
a grading and drainage plan. So that would be a condition of approval. Item number 20 is providing the flood plans, wetlands, and buffers. Uh the flood information, what zone this is in um and have to how they comply with the flood regulations would have to be
addressed as a compliance item. Item number 22 is the proposed first floor building elevations that ties into our compliance with flood regulations. That would be required as a condition of approval. Item number 23, uh the locations of trees greater than 3 in or
greater in diameter. I did see a report from the shade tree commission said there's no trees on the site. Um we would be recommending some as part of the required uh landscaping and vegetation plan but um that we would ask that that be in condition of approval.
Um item number 25 is all areas disturbed by grading and construction. That would be individually on each specific lot. They would have to address that. Item number 26 uh the locations of all the utility infrastructure um that affect the lot would have to be provided on the
plans. Then 27 is the plans of the proposed utilities. Each one of these would have to tie into the existing utilities including sewer and water services. That all has to be shown on the plan. Item number 28 is the requirement for them to provide the
drainage calculations that are required. That should be a condition of approval. Um item number 31 is the proposed site easements. Um it should be noted that each one of these driveways has a site triangle requirement. They would be shown on the individual plot plans. The
intersection of Madison and Washington also has a site plan, a sight triangle requirement that should be provided on the subdivision plan before it's filed. So that that becomes a sight triangle easement um that is protected.
Item number 33 is the requirement for a landscaping plan. That should be a condition of approval. Um we are dealing with a minor subdivision approval here. So there are map details. Um a lot of these are um redundant but I will just
go over these quickly. Item number J is the name and owner of all adjacent property owners. um that should be provided on the plans as a condition of approval. Uh L is the location of all of the required street tree uh road easement public rights away etc. That
all has to be provided on the plans. Um M is the all of the bulk and area information that's required and they also have to get uh city approval for the lot numbering. Um that hasn't been done yet. Correct. >> Oh no, we we do have that. I think I
sent it to you, Craig. >> We do have that. >> Yes. >> That's important because when we write the resolution >> Yes. So, uh it would be 9.01, 9.02, and 9.03. >> It's lot nine.
>> Oh, yeah. >> Is it in the exact >> But I don't know where they instructor. That's That's what I'm That's why I want to know, >> right? >> It should be in the same sequence that it's appeared on the >> Okay. >> I I actually think it should go the
other way around, but >> assuming no interference with lots of three last week 901. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Can we just I just want to make sure I get this exactly right. Tell me again what you think this should be. So, the the >> tax assessor
>> tax assessor recommended the lots be numbered nine. >> I want that on here on on P. Where do you want Where do you want this? >> Um, it'll be P or M. >> Oh, an on M. Okay. I was doing P. Okay. Oh, yeah, that's right. Okay. >> Yeah. Glass shall be designated by
consecutive numbers and and approved by the appropriate city officials. >> So, on their map they're >> they're saying it's 9.01, 9.02, and 9.03. 03. >> Okay. But 1.01 is now 9.0. >> That's what we're assuming. Yes. >> Well, yeah. Sometimes it would get us in
trouble. >> It doesn't indicate otherwise. >> Why don't we get a reaffirmed? >> All right. I I'll I'll put it in as >> just numbers are right where they are. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But right, but Patrick didn't
indicate that it was any different than what he's seeing on here. So that's why we're all presumed the difference of which one's which really from the sequence up the street. >> I I understand he didn't indicate otherwise. >> The reason why we make >> I'm going to write I'm going to write
lot numbers are to be 9.01 9.02 and 9.03 >> but will be confirmed to the satisfaction of the board engineer. So you guys >> and the tax assessor >> because he has to provide more information. >> What? But I don't want to make him talk. >> Yeah. I >> you're going to review the final plans. They got to say it in the order that
>> Gotcha. >> Okay. >> Three should be one. >> The The reason why we make such a big stink about this is because when we pull these resolutions out years and years later and we're referring a lot 1.01 and
it suddenly became 9.03. >> Yeah. We It drives us crazy. And that's internally from from the engineer to the zoning official. All of us. We've seen over the last se several years a good example of that. We all wish there were
better records of these ancient properties when they come. >> There's big voids in information sometimes. >> Okay. Um so letter P uh is reference to all existing and proposed deed
restrictions. Um, and I note in there that I recommend a deed notice and I put that language elsewhere in the review memo, but that should be a condition of approval. Q is a requirement for the stormwater management report. Um, and then finally provide the plan in digital
format is letter S. Um, all of those should be conditions of approval should the board uh grant any approval. Um, and wave all of that requirements at this time. Um, so therefore, if that is appropriate, I recommend deeming this
application complete. >> We take no exception to any of those conditions. >> Okay. Um, with regards to the zoning review, this is a site that's located in the R3 residential uh district. Uh, you've heard testimony indicating that
the single family dwelling is a permitted use. And you've also heard testimony that semi- detached dwellings are permitted, two family detached dwellings are permitted, as well as multif family dwellings are permitted. And that is important in your analysis in dealing with the what they're saying
is reduce density versus what could be built there. Um there are three variances that are required. Each one is for lot size for the specific lots and I will um say that lot 9.01. I'm just going to stick with my
>> stick with yours. I >> I'm sticking with my terminology. >> I added a sentence that says the board is assuming in its resolution that 1.01 is 9.01 etc. Right. Just >> so I'm sticking with on my zoning table lot one proposed lot 1.01 1 um has a lot size of 5,201
ft where 6,250 foot is the requirement. Proposed lot 2 is undersized at 5,467 square ft. And proposed lot 1.03 is 5,0 square ft where 6,250
ft are required. The total of that equals 15,678 square feet. Um I noted that uh we we discussed uh the lot width and lot frontage requirements are met and consistent with the
district. The habitable floor area we don't have any design for that but it will have to be greater than 840 and also be less than the floor area ratio max uh which is 0.40. The all of the setbacks are being met as
shown on the plan. However, there are sideyard setbacks that have been enhanced on the plans, and I wanted to make that correction for Rich. So, that ends up in the resolution. Proposed lot 1.01. Uh, each side, it should say 12 foot. I'll wait till Rich gets there.
>> Yep. Gotcha. >> Sideyard setback for 1.01 should be 12 foot 8t. So, one side is 12 and one side's 8. Proposed lot 1.02 is the corner lot. It only has one sideyard and that is proposed at 12T. And then proposed lot
1.03 should be 12T/8T. So it has one 12T and one 8T. >> Yeah. Just a quick question. What on lot it's still 1.01. What is the dotted line behind the uh footprint of the house?
I think >> I think you ended up with a there's an extra solid line in there. The dot the dash line is actually the permitted building envelope >> because you have the 25 foot rear yard setback. You have a 12ft side and an 8ft side.
>> What the 25 line goes >> the 25 foot line is measured to the rear yard setback. >> Yeah, >> right. >> That's where the dotted line is. >> That's where the dash line is. That's the appropriate line. The line >> Oh, sorry. I thought Well, >> there's a line in the middle of that. That shouldn't be there. >> It shouldn't be there.
>> Should not be there. >> Okay. So, do you see that? >> I do. I did prepare the plan, so I really can't answer this. The what the intent was there. >> Okay. Um, I talked about uh the the
project is going to have to comply with building height. It's going to have to comply with lot coverage. I explain the difference uh between the uses and the menu that we have, but 45% is the lowest lot coverage that is um permitted for
that specific use. So all of the other uses in that district have a greater lot coverage allowance. Um same thing with floor area ratio. Single family dwellings is the lowest floor area ratio uh requirement that we have. All of the
other have a higher floor area ratio that's permitted. Um parking will have to be compliant based on the number of bedrooms, but it's a minimum of two parking spaces per single family dwelling. Okay. So, we talked about the variances.
Um I've already kind of talked about the balancing. You guys have to decide um the positive and negative criteria. You've heard Mr. Hal Bruner give that testimony. Um, you've heard some of the uh positives aspects of this project. Um, some of the considerations that I'm
going to be talking about. Um, parking, drainage, uh, the massing of the structures, the streetscape, all of those things can go into your consideration in in your balancing. Um, if you feel like this is a better development, um, that can change the balancing um, and consideration of your
analysis. Okay. All right. All right, I'm going to move into my general review comments that start on page six of eight. Um, the first one is the deed notice, and that's just a notice that gets filed that is searchable and comes up in the title search whenever there's a transfer of
property. But if Mr. uh there's no requirement that you have to develop these and he can certainly sell them off, but if you were to sell them, the potential buyer would know exactly what's required of them in developing that site. Um, in the past we've had,
uh, purchasers of property be totally surprised and angry about the restrictions that were on the on their lot. So, um, that's kind of the way that I've recommended that we deal with that. >> Exactly. So, item number two, we just
recommend that the zoning table should be revised to reflect the comments in this review. Um and as updated um tonight, the subdivision plan shall be revised to reflect Madison Avenue is not Madison Street and the county designation should
be provided on that plan. Um verifying that it is a county street. Item four highlights the sight triangle requirements. I've already talked about those, but that should be provided on the subdivision plan um at the intersection of Madison and Washington.
and that should be recorded as an easement. Item number five, uh just hashtags, uh the compliance with the requirements to comply with our minimum first floor elevations as well as comply with our
flood damage protection code for new construction. >> Craig, >> yes. >> How are the new regulations going to affect that? They have been passed by the state. >> They don't. right now these they're subject to what is on our books right now.
>> What about what about if something doesn't get built from a year a year year from now and >> they'll be subject to the new real rules. >> Pardon me. >> They'll be subject to the the real rules. >> The new rules usually tell you what what >> at the time at the time of >> Yeah, they will they will tell you when you're you're required to comply with
them. >> They're in the new flood plane. >> They're I don't believe in a flood plane now. I don't know. >> I know. In a new flood plane. >> I did not check. I don't know. >> This may not be in the flood plane. >> That's what I was going to say. >> The spine the spine of Washington and Lafayette Avenue predominantly do not fall into but it may fall in a new one.
>> Washington Street. >> Yeah, >> Washington. >> I think I think Lafayette Lafayette Lafayette doesn't. >> You got me. >> All right. Um so that was item number five. Number six is their requirement um
to comply with the stormwater management requirements. um that is for all new construction and that runs with the property. Um they have to comply with the parking requirements under item number seven and provide the RSIS calculations for the specific number of
bedrooms that are proposed on each lot. Um item number eight, so lot 1.02 is at the corner of Madison and Washington Street. It is recommended that the dwelling proposed for that lot front on Washington Avenue and the driveway be
provided with access to Madison Avenue. The driveway should be designed to provide the maximum separation distance from the intersection. So we would ask that you try and get that approved through the county. If that is not approved, I would add a
condition that they per be permitted to provide the driveway on Washington Street, but that has to be provided with the furthest distance from that intersection >> as shown on the drawing. >> As shown on the drawings, right, in that 12t wide sideyard setback.
>> Nine is compliance with the city sewer and water department for the new uh utility connections. 10 is the requirement to provide the street trees uh for each lot. Uh lot 1.02 should be noted has to have one street tree per
each road frontage and they can't be provided within the site triangles. Item number 12 is they have to provide a landscaping and vegetation plan um in accordance with the code and select those species um based on the uh shade
tree uh shade tree commission requirements and recommendations. 12 is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction and any sidewalk in poor condition has to be replaced. All of the construction details have to be provided on the plot
plans under item number 13. 14 is they have to submit uh the uh new curb cut locations to the superintendent street and send roads for approval. Um as well as deal with the
county on Madison Avenue. 15 is our standard condition that they have to post the inspection escrow and before their certificate of occupancy can be provided that uh they the engineer has to certify in writing that um it is met all the conditions of
approval. 16 is the standard requirement they have to furnish the required performance guarantee and inspection escros for the subdivision. 17 is the recommendation that they comply with the requirements of the fire department, police department, public works department, environmental commission, and shade tree commission.
We did receive reports from the shade tree commission dated uh January 13, 2026 recommending approval say indicating no trees on the property. Public works recommended approval dated
1125 with no comments. Police Department recommended approval 18206. No comments. Fire department recommended approval dated 11226. No comments. Environmental commission recommended approval with the following
commission conditions dated January 29, 2026. And they recommended that any residential housing units proposed on the three proposed lots be accompanied with landscaping plans with a focus on the use of native drought tolerant plants. Is that acceptable?
>> All acceptable, Mr. Rose. >> Okay. So, that's a summary of those reports. >> Um, item number 18 is map filing review will be completed upon any approval. So, that's making sure that the plans comply with the map filing laws. Um, item
number 19 is uh our standard condition. They have to comply with any and all other necessary state, county, and local approvals. Um 20 is ident excuse me again identifying that Madison Avenue is a county rightaway and that they have to provide uh evidence of Kate May County
Planning Department approval for that. 21 is noting that this project is located in the historic district. So HPC approval will be required for all of the development on the lots. 22 is they have to comply with the affordable housing
requirements. And finally, should the board grant approval, uh, the applicant is required to revise the plans consistent with the conditions that you set and submit six sets of those compliance plans to the board engineer for review and approval. That is a summary of my report and I'm
happy to answer any questions the board has. >> I have any questions? >> Yeah, I have a question. I'm >> back on page two of eight, number five. >> Two of eight. Number five. Yeah, this information must be provided as a
condition of approval. So, we're asked now to approve this request. Uh we don't have the plans, elevations, or structures or anything else about this property. So, we're going to be asked to
approve something we don't have in front of us to review. I would think that an analysis of that set of plans would would have a direct bearing on whether or not we could approve this this parcel. So we we've got a we've got a
cart all the way down the road and the horse doesn't even have his bridal on yet. >> So with these wave you so we you have to grant these waivers. You don't necessarily have to grant them. you can say, but so they've been they're here.
They presented if you don't if you think you need this information, then you would not grant that waiver um and say that you need that as consideration of your analysis, >> right? >> Um that being said, um they've come here, I think, with some risk saying we
think that what we're providing here and our testimony is going to carry the day. So, you may want to see that and it may sway you one way or the other. Or you may say just say they're asking for the waiver. That's on them. I'm going to not approve this because I don't have that
information. >> So, we So, our task would be then to review each of these requests for a waiver and and evaluate each of them or or >> that's up to you, >> right? >> I generally kind of listen to the board engineer. Rich, your mics.
>> I I I generally listen to the board engineer and he usually says they're conditions of approval, but as I understand it, what they're asking us to vote on is with a W on number five, but the rest are conditions, right? >> No, they're they were all they all should be conditions of approve.
>> I know, but number five, I thought that what we were saying was that we weren't going to require plans and elevations >> for tonight. >> They're they're asking for that waiver. >> That's what I'm saying. So I'm saying this should be as a condition of approval. >> But what they're requesting is a report
that has a W next to that one. >> Number five. >> If we vote on it tonight, we make it a condition of approval. >> Right. >> Oh. >> So what I'm saying is 12 131 19. I would put C's next to all those. But for number five, what what's proposed to be voted on tonight by the applicant is
with a W next to number five. We essentially are waving these as considerations >> items >> of the review tonight. All of these items because we don't have any of these items, but we were waving them with the condition that they provided after.
>> Okay. But are we saying that after we do this tonight, are we requiring them to provide plans and elevations of the buildings and structures for this subdivision to be recorded? I think no. I think we're waving that. >> We're waving it. So, what I'm saying is what they're voting on is with a W next
to number five. >> Oh, okay. I understand what you're saying. >> What I what I meant there is it should be provided as a condition of satisfying the compliance review for each individual lot prior to them getting
pulling their construction permit. Okay. So, we're waving it at this point, but ultimately it will be required before they can pull a construction permit be before they can get a compliance sign off >> which will be after the fact and and
removes any opportunity that this board has to consider whether those plans are a good thing or a bad thing. >> Right. You entrust that to me. >> That's that's his job. >> And and and the HPC >> and the zoning officer and the zoning officer looks at >> and HPC. >> Yeah. the HBC HPC >> and the construction official also
because he who will also look >> and this is all because we need three undersized lots. >> I I just I want to >> this all these all these comments >> you've done this for by rate lots. >> Yes, >> you have an opportunity to vote. I I don't want to argue about it. I just want to know what they're voting on.
Okay. And as I understand what we're saying now is >> they're going to they they may want to record their subdivision before they build anything. Okay. So, as I understand it, and I'm not being critical. I just want to make sure they're getting a wa they're getting a waiver for having to provide plans and
elevations for this subdivision to be signed and completed and recorded. What they're not getting a waiver for is having to do plans when they get building permits. But that's that's obvious. So, as I understand it, they're getting a waiver. They're requesting a waiver and receiving a waiver and then
get subdivision approval and record their subdivision without providing plans and elevations. I never require the plans and elevations of the buildings to be provided prior to them filing the minor subdivision plan. The once the >> once we give
>> That's okay. I agree with you. >> Yeah. Once we grant approval, they only have 9 fund is it 190 days? I think it's 190 days from our approval to file that plan or else if they don't get it filed in time, they have to come back to us. >> Craig, you know, I'm a glorified secretary. >> Understood. >> Okay. And what I'm saying is I got to
write a resolution. the resolution. If I take what you do here, it's not going to say that. It's going to just either say they need plans and elevations to have their subdivision deemed recordable. Okay? >> Which is what this would normally do. >> All right. So, we're waving it then. >> We're waving it. But I'm going to say that this does not uh excuse the
obligation to provide plans and elevations before obtaining a building permit. Okay. >> Right. >> Got it. >> We've we've we've approved >> all of them, though. >> We've approved projects without having to have this conversation. >> Yeah. Yeah, this is a standard way of him running. This is his standard way of
doing this stuff. >> I I'm not going to require them to get give me grading and drainage plans for lots that have not even been determined what's going to be. >> Okay. No, but I'm not Look, this is not a small thing. We've had an hour discussion tonight about the criticism by certain board members that there's an
absence of plans and spec plans and elevations for these buildings. Okay. So, to me, I don't want there to be any confusion. Okay. If this is granted tonight, they have and I'm not, it's not a bad thing, but they have a subdivision without providing plans and specifications. If I make this a
condition of approval, then that means that this subdivision is not approved until we get these things. >> Okay? >> So, they're very different things. So, what I'm saying is they can they have to provide, for example, flood plane, wetlands, and buffers. If they're going to record the subdivision, they're going
to have to have that. >> Okay? So, we're we're going to we're going to have to alter that thinking. Then, um the only thing that needs to be provided prior to them filing the subdivision plan is item number 31, the site triangles.
Where's the easement? Item number P under the M the subdivision approval checklist under 44518 which is providing the easement >> and the deed notice. >> I was going to say the deed notice. >> Okay.
>> Everything else would be prior and item S. I'm sorry they item S is providing the plan in digital format. >> That's the subdivision plan. So those are the only things that we would be required in order to create the
lots and file the subdivision plan. The remainder remaining items would be we're waving them now, but they're required to be be provided prior to them getting compliance review approval and pulling
construction permits. >> Okay. Thank you. And so not requiring at this point plans and elevations uh will not help this board decide whether
three lots is a good idea or a bad idea. >> That could be an important consideration in your balancing test. Um but that's for you to decide. Um >> but remember they're not obligated to come back with plans. You may never see him again,
>> right? So if you say we're denying this because we don't have architectural drawings and he goes back in his office and pounds on his calculator and says, you know, eight units sounds really good. He may never come back again. >> More than likely not. >> I'm just I'm just I want I don't want
there to be any confusion. So then you say, "Well, you be careful what you wish for." >> I'm telling you that >> what I look what I >> he also get this approval and abandon it and build eight units. That's true, too. But understand, he's not obligated to go back and spend 10 or $20,000 on
architectural drawings and then come back here and get them approved to have the HPC say they don't like them. He's not obligated to do that. So, you need to weigh that in all your decision-m as you do this. And that's >> what I do know is he has to the houses are going to be approximately 2100 2200 square feet,
>> right? >> All approved by HPC. >> Well, you assume? >> Yeah, >> they'll be approved. No, it has to be. >> HPC is is no cakewalk. >> I get it. >> I I'm here to tell you that.
>> We're well aware. >> But the HPC, >> it's not a light thing to to say they have to be approved by the HPC. It's a heavy lift. Uh, by the way, speaking of the HPC, you had this conversation with them and they
they talked you out of building a a multi-unit building. Is that what you said? >> A multif family. >> It wasn't it was my choice. It was based on all our conversations of the design and the conditions they were suggesting. And it was an idea I said, you know what, what would you guys consider
three? And they're like, absolutely, it's a far better fit. Um, I don't think it's their position to talk anyone in or out of it. their position is to tell you what design they want, what size, what siding, what things like that. It's a design board. Um, and I will say, you know, you guys know what you're looking
at and you know plans, but I give the HPC, as much as they drive me crazy, a heck of a lot of credit because what makes your town so great and they are very, very difficult. It is not a cakewalk. It's, you know, if you want something done right, you go to them and they really, there's been many, many meetings on one side I've had with them.
So, it's it is a big lift to go to them. So, I could say that you, if I was in your position, you feel comfortable knowing that someone has to go to them on what's going to be put there. >> Okay. All right. We're going to now open up to the public. Um,
anybody who wants to speak, please come up to the podium. Please give your name and address so that they can record it if you're interested. >> First group within 200 ft. >> Yeah,
>> I think everybody's within 200 feet. Uh Gary Waxman 931 owner 931 Corgi Street. >> Bear with me, sir. One second. I've got to write all that down. Just bear with me, >> sir. >> I'm still doing these conditions. Uh my word document. >> I don't know. >> I couldn't hear.
>> Uh hold on. Where's my notes? Okay, sir. Uh please state your name and give your address again. And remember, I have to write it, so spell if you have to. Go ahead. >> Got it. Gary Waxman. >> Waxman. >> Waxman. W AX man- 931 Corgi Street owner
>> sir do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth old truth and nothing but the truth so be God >> I do >> thank you go ahead >> uh uh my property is uh the rear of my property is uh on the uh kind of the rear of the bank property so most of the
issues that I was concerned about have been um not necessarily addressed but brought forth by certain members is like, you know, there's no plan. We don't know what it's going to look like. There's things. I guess my concern is what's the buffer going to look like between the properties because as I'm
sitting out, uh, you know, on on my back porch, uh, you know, grilling and all that, u I'd like to know, you know, and I don't know if this is the appropriate forum for it, but, you know, trees, fences, things like that. That was important to me. Um the the other thing
that I did want to mention and maybe I misunderstood something early on. >> Sir, do you want us to address that first with the applicant? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. It's easier if we do one thing at a time. >> Thank you. >> So, we're going to meet all the setbacks that are required in that zone. And again, going to the single family use,
it's a lot less dense. The plans, the house itself is going to be, it looks like if you're on Corgi is going to be about 25 ft away. >> I think he was asking Yeah. fence or shrubbery to block. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. We we have to do a full landscape plan part of the conditions of
you know what we're going to propose and and we definitely do fencing. >> Does that would that typically create a buffer between the rear of our property and where the lots are, trees, fences, things like that. >> Will you include a fence or a hedge
between your property and that gentleman's property, that area? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll put that in the resolution. Okay. Thank you. >> Native plants. >> Right. Right. >> What's the point number? >> It's 1.01. Sorry. >> So, it's between lot 1.01
and his property is behind that. >> Just lot 10. >> He's right. >> Yep. >> Sorry. Just be as specific as possible. >> I'll do both hedges and offense. >> Thank you. Uh the the other thing and and maybe I misheard something early on,
but I thought uh Mr. Peter had said that when he went before the HBC by the time he got done the suggestions were for four units if multif family is that did I mis mis understand what you said >> it was my recommendation at that point I
didn't realize it was a note that I could do eight there I didn't know eight was on the table but um it was my s my you know position what I thought would work on that site it dwindled down to four not knowing I could do eight Okay. Was I'm just
curious. Was that based on what your impression was of your meeting with HBC or just what you thought was the the allowance at the time? >> My thought process of the design what I thought, you know, you try to maximize square footage. You try to maximize, you know, what you can do and things like
that. Um, and you can't often go above four. Um, except news to me tonight, but you can't normally go above four. So, that's usually where I cap it. But again, I I didn't know that. And that that's a great information that you know the Florida area ratio and the density
changes with the COA requirement. Um but no that's we normally cap it at four. >> Okay. All right. Because that because all the comparisons were with six units. I was just curious how if it changed any of the calculus but >> well if you do a strict calculation they're technically allowed to put six
units there. >> But okay >> he opted not to >> for other reasons. value. Okay, thank you. That was it on my end. >> Hi, I'm Laurel Neski. I'm at 924 Washington Street. >> Okay, just help me out. I got to spell that. So good. Laurel,
>> you have to guess. No. N u c h ke is the last name. Laurel like the tree is the first name. >> N say that again. N what? >> N >> N U S C H K E.
>> I typed it once but it self-corrected. There's something totally Okay. So, and the address again? Go ahead. >> 924 Washington. >> 24 Washington. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth shall be God. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
So, a couple things. Um, I if I was sitting on this board, I would have I I think I would be looking at the
application favorably, but I would be very hesitant to vote on it because of the lack of plans. I think um you know when you're giving three variances
um for new construction in a historic town there's a lot of weight that that carries and um
I saw the plans that Mr. Peter did um originally for the HPC um with the townhouse and the single family home, four units. um and they were atrocious and they got picked apart
and um they clearly didn't comply with any of the guidelines that the um HPC has in their regulation book, whatever. Um,
so for me, uh, as a neighbor, I'm concerned about what this whole project is going to look like. Um, the my other big concern is
the traffic. Um some of you um Moren, you've seen me at um uh council meetings uh complaining about the speed on Washington Street, the accidents that happen at the corner of
Madison and Washington. Um I've been there more than once trying to offer suggestions on how to make that intersection a safer place. So, I think that um trying to keep if if the county
would allow that cut on Madison for two of the properties, I think that really would be ideal because the less traffic you have, pulling out into Washington so close to that intersection um would potentially mitigate
future accidents. There are so many near misses at that corner. we hear them um two, you know, two buildings away. Um and then of course there's the parking issue. These will be rental properties. We know that this is what has happened
to our town. Um the last census that was done, Cape May was number two in the state for losing the most year- round population, which some of you already know that, I'm sure. Um, so you have
four bedrooms. You're going to have multiple cars per per home. And where are those cars going to park? There's no parking on the street. They're going to park over at Kowanas Park. And all those
families that want to take their kids to play on the playground are not going to have any place to park. So, I'm asking for consideration for, you know, long driveways so you can
stack cars. That's what my husband and I do at our house. Um, and again, you know, it'd be so much easier to really get behind this if we saw something more than just
a lot subdivision plan. Laurel, if I may address your your comment on with regards to parking. Um, should the board grant approval, they're going to be required to park >> have adequate parking on site. So, there will no be no need for off-site parking.
>> Um, the HPC is not going to want to see parking in the front yard. >> I know. >> So, that's why they've provided 12 foot wide sideyard setbacks in order for them to get the cars further back out of the streetscape. So, I think there there's already some movement and we kind of
know a little bit more than than what's on the plans with regards to where the parking is going to be. >> And Laurel, I will say one of my concerns was the use of Kuanas Park as an overflow. And so, we will have to be attentive to that because that parking is not for that purpose. It is there for
families or, you know, going to the park with their children. Um, and so we will have to be attentive to what what occurs there. Um, I did just want to touch on your concerns about the fact that we're looking at something that's just the these four these three drawings. Um,
>> and I will say and I think that the applicant and his um his team here have noted it. So >> we oftentimes don't look at the design aesthetics, >> right? That really is not part of what planning does. And so we are going to rely very heavily on HBC and I think
that they will carry the day on this because you know they are very firm on what they will approve and what what they will allow. And the other thing I will note also is that we're taking this from what could have been six to eight units down to three. Um and so I think
from the neighbors perspective that uh lessening of that density um I would see it as a positive. I certainly would if I was living there that it won't have as much you know cars and volume and you know um density in what's being put on
there if you're doing three. Um >> I mean I know that's the threat Moren but when he initially went to HBC it was four units. >> Yes. And so hearing that I agree with you. I have a hard time. I'm a very visual person. So I I mean I'm
entrusting that my decision, should I make it to move forward with this is going to rely on HPC to make sure that this fits in with the streetscape >> um and is respects what's in that neighborhood and does in and doesn't offend in any way. And I will say that.
>> Yeah. I mean, we're in a very unique um area in town. Most of my neighbors are year- round residents. That is very unusual. >> Yes. >> And um you know, we didn't buy the lot.
Um so, we can't really dictate what happens there. If we had three more year round residents move in, we'd be thrilled, but you know, it's just not going to happen. >> You don't know that. You don't know that long.
>> Fingers crossed. >> Yeah. Well, the the shame is we don't have families in town because the prices have gotten >> the prices are crazy too much. >> So, I guess my concern ultimately, >> the traffic, >> the intersection itself. I mean, Pat's
gotten hit at the intersection. You know, we've seen cars plowing through the sign over at what used to be the Plum Palace. Now, it's that pink. >> You know, it's just a really it's a dicey corner. Thank you.
>> So, and I'm sure no traffic study has been done, >> right? >> So, >> it's your concerns are noted. >> Yep. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> I just want to say and I'll I'll make it quick. Um the HPC is an open forum and I'm happy to share an email tonight and
and it is public notice. So, everyone that may have concerns about the design or the arrangement, they're more than welcome to come to the HBC meetings as they are here tonight. Hi. Uh, my name is Betty Fritz. Frit TZ. I'm at 926. >> There was a cough right as you spell
your name. Can you spell your name? >> F R I F as in Frances. R I TZ. That's my last name. Okay. >> And the first name is Betty or Elizabeth. >> Hi, Miss Fritz. What's your address? >> 926 Washington Street. I'm right next
door to where they're building. Do you swear or affirm the testimony about give us the truth, the whole truth, and God? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. All right. I um I have a problem with the
let me say apron when they uh my that was my grandmother's house and it's been in the family. I'm 85 so it's been in the family for over 80 years. But um I don't live down here all the time
and neither did anyone else, but we came down and the family uses it. Um at any rate, um the when the bank when the bank was built, it was built in the 70s, I believe. And um when they put the my
driveway is right next to the bank's driveway on Washington Street. And when they put the driveway in, they just made one driveway out of it, which was fine. Uh, but now I don't know what they're going to do. Um,
because you're talking about driveways and this and that. >> It's going to be much much smaller entrance. >> Yes, but he's I I need my driveway. There's no way to park. >> Tell them what you want. I expect they're going to do it. Just tell what is it that you're What would you like to
see done on that driveway? >> Mr. K, I I understand the problem. Miss Princ, >> well, I just want to be able to get into my driveway. >> Yeah. The the >> I have the apron. >> When they constructed the bank driveway, they just brought the drive all the way to the telephone pole.
>> It doesn't bump up with a curb and then bump back down again. It just goes straight across. >> I think Miss Fritz is concerned that somehow >> alleviate her concern. >> I just don't want to um >> she wants to have access to I don't want them to dig up my driveway or anything.
>> Right. We will make sure that you have full access to your property. >> Oh, good. Okay. And >> you're going to separate your driveway from hers and she's going to have a regular size full driveway. Correct. >> Why can't we just say that? >> So, they're going to separate that driveway from yours and you're going to have a regular fullsize driveway.
>> Well, that's good. But, um, also, uh, >> Mr. Har is a little taller than, uh, theirs. Uh, and they have like oh I don't know what you curb things in in it marking it all the way to the back where
my um property line is. >> I understand. >> I don't know if you will destroy that when you dig up the parking lot or what, but I'd like to keep them. And we also have uh
uh bushes along the side. And I don't >> our board engineer is going to make sure that when it's done, you're going to have a nice uh separated driveway and be separated from the bank driveway. Is that a great and our engineer will make sure of that. >> I also uh think that three houses is a
lot, but um I think it'll be a little bit crowded. I don't know, but I think so. >> But it it it is permitted. So >> yeah. Well, I'm just saying. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, your your opinions are >> just my opinion. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, and what what we're
going to see when we look over is it going to be the side of a house? Is it going to be an air conditioner? You know what? What's it going to be like? And is it going to be high or low? Well, we don't know that yet, right? >> No, it'll be too. >> No. No. I meant tall.
Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Anybody else scared to comment? even if you're not within 200 feet. >> Okay. And we're going to close the public portion.
Uh any closing comments, Mr. Galzunas? >> I I after hearing everyone um I I think what they and and and I just it's so frustrating when I hear what we're being threatened or it's a threat.
It it's not it it's simply a demonstration in in an attempt although misunderstood to show people that what what you're doing is less impactful than what you could do and not even come here and ask for a variance. And it some
it's it's maybe it's difficult to understand but um applicants seem to frequently have this problem. All of the concerns that these folks raised um are are being addressed by this application.
It's less in every metric than what can go there by right without asking for any variances by measurably so. And and Mr. Hal Bruner went through all of those factors. They're real. They're numbers.
They're quantitative. they can be measured. He's measured them. It's not subjective. So those concerns and and nobody wants to see change, but you know, the property is going to be developed and the board has the opportunity to
determine how it's going to be developed. There might be a notion here sometimes that uh well, we can force a developer to downsize and make them do two lots or one lot. Many times that's not economically
feasible for the developer. That's not a justification for a variance, but it is justification for the developer to just go in a different direction. Mr. Peters explored various directions. We feel that this is the better
alternative for all the reasons that Mr. Hal Bruner put on the record and for all the reasons and concerns that we heard from the public. It's a difficult corner. We heard that it's a busy intersection. We heard that. What's the
best way to address it? Well, it certainly sounds to me like the best way and opportunity to address that is to keep the uh volume of development on that property property to the lowest extent possible and and here's the
opportunity to do that. So, that's all I have to say. I hope we have a favorable vote. Thank you. >> Thank you. Unless there's further discussion, I'll frame the motion. Go ahead, sir. >> Just to for my just have a short question. >> How about putting your speaker on or your microphone? Actually, I'd prefer
you keep it on. >> Is it on? >> Yeah. Just so I clarify my mind in Craig's memo, page five of eight, and he talks about the reasons why this hardship variance would be
justifiable. And it talks about things like >> they have not asserted a hardship variance. >> What's that? >> They have not put on proofs for a hardship. >> Okay. >> Their proofs are their proofs are for a C2 balancing. The benefits outweigh the
detriments without a substantial negative impact on the zone plan zoning ordinance or new. >> Okay. No, this doesn't apply. >> C1 doesn't. C2 is in there at the at the bottom, but it's it's got some language in there that makes it a little more difficult, but Rich just boiled it down. Okay, that's fine. That's that was my question.
>> Yeah, it's C the your test is the C2 criteria. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, what you want to read what the motion would be? >> Sure. The motion I recommend being made. We always make the motion in the positive. That doesn't mean you have to vote that way, but we always frame it as
an approval. Is a motion to grant the variances for lot area as set forth in the engineers report on page four with the sideyards amended to be 128 for 1.01
12T for 1.02 and 128 for 1.03 3 as well as a minor subdivision approval uh and the completeness and technical review which as I understand it numbers five on page two number 31 and
uh P and >> S wait >> uh yeah P the site easements they need to be done before the subdivision map can be filed the remainder of them need to be done before a building permit it can be issued. Um, and there are certain
conditions that we discussed tonight which although done in conversation are are certainly conditions of approval that includes an attempt to seek approval for two driveways on Madison and if that is not obtainable then to put the driveways in the 12-oot
sideyards as indicated on the plans along Washington. Uh for the gentleman in lot 10 on Corgi, uh you're going to put uh a hedge and fence along uh that property line to help buffer those properties. And for Miss Fritz, u we're
going to uh ensure that u after this is completed, she's going to have a separate driveway. Her driveway will be separated from the bank's driveway and she'll have a nice full driveway uh in the ordinary course and our board engineer, it'll be done to the board engineer satisfaction. Um those are the
conditions as I um understand them. We also changed the tax lots 9.01, 9.02 and 9.03. Um those are my what I can garner from my notes. But anything that we said during the course of the hearing is a condition is also a condition in case I miss something. Okay. Does the applicant
have any concerns about those conditions? >> No. >> Okay. So that's uh what how I recommend the motion be made, but how you vote is up to you. Please articulate your reasons for or against. Although certainly you can rely on the reasons that are in the record, but it's better
if you also state them as you vote. There you go. Okay, I'm going to make a motion to approve that. >> I'll make the motion. >> We'll second. >> Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Gorgone seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Uh, excuse me. Yes. Uh just one comment
regarding traffic and you're comparing it to a a townhouse versus the single units which I I like the three lots. It's going to be uh I think more appropriate for the the streetscape and the the size of the houses. But also if you take a look at the traffic for a bank, you have cars coming and going all
day. I just did a quick calculation. I don't know how many parking spots are there, but I I figure they could fit over 20 spots in that lot there right now with the bank. And those are cars that are coming and going all all day long. And you're going to have a situation here of
uh six to eight cars maybe at the most or something like that uh parking there and they're not going to be go coming and going all day long. Um so it'll be uh actually less traffic I think than what the current condition is. Uh but I'm I am a yes.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade. Um I'm going to approve this. Um, I'm hoping um that uh you're going to live up to some of the things that I heard. I do agree that this is a less less dense build. I think it will fit in
better with um the lot and the street. Um I'm I feel confident that HPC will um work with you to get to get a design that fits in. Um, and I think that seeing um, the neighbors here um, and
articulating some of the concerns, you understand um, the things that need to be addressed um, and they are the conditions that will be set forth. So um, for that reason I will approve. >> Mr. Paducus.
>> Yes, I'm going to agree to this. I personally do not like seeing empty buildings in Cape May. It's a residential area. We have to rely on HPC to do their job. And once we approve this, I'm sure that Mr. Peters will get his architectural
team together, whoever he hires, and make a designs and present it to HBC. And we have to trust them to make their decisions whether to approve it or not. So, because of that, I'm voting yes. >> Mr. Krippen,
>> I'm voting yes. I just believe that the uh benefits outweigh any potential detriments for this project. >> Mrs. Reid, I'm going to vote yes because I would rather see the three homes than
um town homes there. >> Mr. Crowley, >> thank you. I don't have any problem with um the HPC weighing in on this because the HPC is primarily for what the property
looks like. My concern is that um we're being asked to create three undersized lots undersized by 15 to 20% below the minimum lot coverage. And we don't know, we haven't heard any
testimony about what impact that will have on a lot of different factors that have to be taken into consideration once we see what's going to be built there. The HPC is not the issue. The is the issue is the impact on the on the use of
the property on the city and that's what our issue our concern is. We represent the city. U I would much rather see what is going to be built there. h what the impact is going to be before we decide whether or not three lots is a good
idea. So basically what I'm saying is I don't I'm not prepared to approve this. Just my personal opinion is I'm not prepared to approve it until I can see a clear balance in effect because our vote is supposed to be a balance of impacts
negative and impacts positive. And I haven't seen it yet. I haven't seen it in the testimony. So I'm going to vote no. Mr. Jones, >> I'm vote yes. >> I'm gonna vote yes. The uh I certainly think the streetscape concerns are going
to is are more than addressed by the by the three lots. The developer, the the applicant has stated that the homes are going to be in the 21 2200 square foot range. He's built on Washington Street before, single family detached homes.
HPC is going to have to review all these plans and I just I happen to think that this is this this is this is a positive. Would you rather have a bank there than this? This works. I think I'll vote yes. >> Mr. Bizair.
>> Um I'm also voting yes. And for most of the reasons everybody's spelled out here tonight, I mean, it's it's it's it's not a threat when somebody comes in and says, "We could put six units there. Instead, we're doing three." I mean, that that is now that takes time. It takes money and it's
a battle that nobody really wants to go through, but it's a possibility. So, there's certainly um that in the background, but over and above that, as as Mike said, this is going to look much nicer on the street. It's going to it's going to flow. It's going to flow on
Washington Street. Um the traffic, Laurel, I don't know what to do about I mean, the traffic's there now without these houses. And not that this is going to create tons more, but it's certainly going to add some to it, but it's it's it's an eyesore sitting there. And um
it's it's going to be a nice project for the city. Mr. Peters has built other houses in town, and I think he's been a credit to the town for what he's done. And again, the HBC is going to make sure it's done right. So my vote is yes. >> Okay. Thanks guys.
>> Good job gentlemen. >> Mr. Chairman, board members, thank you for your time. Well considered opport. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have bills to approve. >> Make make a motion we approve. >> Second.
>> Motion we approve both bills. >> All in favor. All right. Thank you everyone. Journ. >> All in favor. Thank you everyone. Good night. motion to ajourn. >> I just I just don't
>> you know I understand why >> he was inside he wouldn't have had the clown. Bloom.