Testing, testing. And uh I I limited out I personally limited out in the first hour. Not even I heard the white the last two days have been just ridiculous. It was terrible this past
weekend. I pushed a tournament. I caught I limited out in the first 20 minutes between 6 and 620. And I caught one fish for the rest of the six hours after that. I just couldn't get away in the same
spot. Like, I know they're here. They just won't bite. They won't bite. And I wanted I finished second in the tournament the week before at the same spot. I'm like, I know they're here. They're all good fish. Like, everyone you catch is a keeper. We We got My We My dad was with me. We
had We got six and my sixth one was 24 inches. So, it was pretty goodized fish. So, It was a good night. You know, we only out there for two and a half hours or something after work. So, it was good. I heard I saw the reports and my friends were telling me they're like, "Yeah, crazy." Is the water nice and
clean? No, it was it was it wasn't dirty like seaweed dirty. And we were also moving very nicely with the current with the wind. So, you know, it was but it was it was a little what's that called? Turpin. Torpin. whatever it
is was a little muddy. Okay. Um I was thinking about that when I was out there. I was thinking about that word. I think the word is ti [Music] I lost the calc in the tournament. I had five my biggest fish was 464 and I got
beat by 467. But was the what? First place was the top two fish. That was the cut. Oh, that was Kolkata. So the Kolkata was $900. So I won I ended up winning second to beat the guy that had the bigger fish than me. He only had one fish. Oh,
that's I was going to say you had throwing back. I ended up with almost 11. Three fish. Yeah, that's Oh, that's cool.
Um, how long was the 46 one? I think it was 24 23 and a half. I because I was thinking mine last night was like a four and a half. It was one of those ones trying to stick your hand around so thick you can barely get your hand around. So it was
really good. All I had was spearing and um gulp. What? Okay guys, the planning board is now in session 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 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 which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisibley and justice for all. Mr. Bazair here. Mr. Jones here. Mr. Riggs here. Mr. Crowley here. Mr. Gorgon here. Mayor Mullik here. Deputy Mayor
McDade here. Mrs. Reed here. Mr. Lholm here. Mr. Produces here. Mr. Krippen. Okay. Um, we have minutes of May 27th for
adoption. Motion. So moved. Second. Motion by Mr. Gorgon, seconded by Mr. Producus. Mr. Gorgone, yes. Mayor Mullik, yes. Deputy Mayor McDade, yes. Mrs. Reed, yes. Mr. Crowley, shame. Mr.
Lenhome, yes. Mr. Riggs, yes. Mr. Jones, abstain. Mr. Bizair, yes. Thank you. Okay. And we have resolutions. First one is 1842 Investments, Kate May LLC 409. Mount Ad and Myra Street, Block 1060,
Lock 33. Motion to approve the resolution. I'll make the motion. Second. Was that Mrs. Reid who seconded? Mr. Crowley. Mrs. Reed. Thank you. Motion by Deputy Mayor McDade, seconded
by Mrs. Reid. Mr. Gorgone. Yes. Mayor Mullik. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reid? Yes. Mr. Crowley? I'm seeing Mr. Lhome. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. Mr. Jones. Yes. Mr. Bizair. Yes.
Thank you. Uh resolution 062420252 Addis Inc. 1317 Beach Avenue block 1146 lots 6 through 24. Motion for adoption. I'll make the motion. Second.
Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Riggs seconds. Mr. Gorgone. Yes. Mayor Mullik. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reed. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Exchange. Mr. Lhome. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. Mr. Jones.
Yes. Mr. Bizair. Yes. Thank you. We have Addis, Inc. 3, 1317 Beach Avenue, block 1146, lots 6 through 24. Motion to approve that since we just
did. I'll make the motion. Second. Deputy Mayor McDade. Motions. Mr. Riggs. Mr. Gone. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Mullik. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reed. Yes. Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Lhome. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. Mr. Jones. Yes. Mr. Bazer. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um there's a couple things on this agenda that were um kind of result of that meeting we had with the site plan
requirement for the quad and the R4 zone a couple meetings ago. There was a group of people that got together from zoning board, planning board, zoning zoning office, um city manager.
Were you I don't think you were there, Zach. Were you there? No. So, we've cobbled together some things which seem fairly simple. I don't know if everybody's had a chance to look at these or not, but there's not a lot of depth to them, and it just basically says what we wanted to say from that
last meeting. So, um, unless does anybody have any questions on any of these? Um, first of all, we're what we're doing is saying they're they're consistent with the master plan. They can be sent to the council and the council can adopt and the and the council had a first reading
on these. Okay. Yep. Now, we could take them all together if everybody's fine with that. Good. Okay. So, we've got um there's no number on this. So, would you assign a number, Rich? The ordinance gets assigned by the clerk. Okay. All right.
Okay. So, it's uh number four, number five, and number six in the resolution list. But all deal with the village green R4 zoning. Number number six is sorry. I'm
sorry. Number five. Four and five. Sorry. Four and five. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And we had an opportunity to briefly discuss these at the tail end of the last meeting um before we adjourned. I don't think we even brought them up. Um
it was the meeting on the Jetty Motel bill. You Yeah. And then the first um reading was introduced at council at the last meeting. Okay. So, all right. So, we get a motion to adopt those two. Make the motion. Yes. A second.
Bob. Hey. Mr. Riggs motions. Mr. Gorgone. Seconds. Mr. Gorgon. Yes. Mayor Mullik. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reid. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Yes. Mr. Lenholm. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. Mr. Jones.
Yes. Mr. Bizair. Yes. So the next two are I think I'll let Craig. So the next two you shouldn't handle until I present what I have to do in the uh discussion part. Okay. Okay. Then we'll jump into that. Sure. Okay.
You ready? Okay. Um so let's let me introduce you to the housing element and fair share plan uh dated June 4th, 2025. So, what we're considering here tonight is adoption of that and recommendation to the governing body that's consistent
with our master plan goals and objectives. Um, it establishes um an ele an an element that's required of your master plan. Um, it sets forth the affordable housing requirements and how the town deals with that. Um and it
also provides the housing element data which is essential for you to provide your zoning decisions on. Um so that's updated. Uh we use the US census data. Uh the most recent stuff is uh uh census
was done in 2020. There was also some census information done in 2023. So we use the best available data with regards to that. Um, and I'd like to just start with the housing element summary and just highlight some of the uh the the
interesting points that I found that that I think that are of interest to the board. Um, so the housing element is an inventory of the housing stock, the conditions of the housing, the value type, and the number of affordable units. It's also an analysis of the
city's demographics that deal with household size, income level, age, etc. um and employment characteristics within the city. Um so notable highlights of that
uh there was as the city and our master plan acknowledge there has been a population loss and when I say population loss that's permanent residence is how they you know when the census takes their data it's where is your permanent residence. So in this
case over the last 10 years um we have lost our 10 years ago our population was 3,607. It's now down to 2,768 in 2020. That is a downward trend of
23.3%. That actually has accelerated over the so we our 10 year 10-year groupings um that has been an acceleration of population loss. Um, we are an older population.
Uh, typically we're consistent with the county, but Kate May County is generally an older population when you compare to the state uh characteristics, but 22.2% of the population, the permanent population in Kate May is over 65.
Um, our number of housing units within the city has remained fairly consistent. Uh, we're at 4,157 units. um that's remained fairly consistent because we don't have any vacant land. We don't have big housing projects
coming online. Um it's just not there. So, and I'll explain the vacant land in in some another portion, but um typically we're not seeing large ha large scale housing developments in Kate May. Um once again, our
h occupied housing rates 33.2% 2% of the total units are considered occupied. And by occupied, that's a permanent resident. 2,775 are vacant or or are seasonal units. So,
it's so a third are occupied, twothirds are not occupied. So, that's kind of the composition of our housing stock. Um, as we're well aware, the housing values are very expensive in Cape May. 98.3%
are valued more than 300,000. The medium home value increased in the last 10 years from 700,000 and that's in 2010. It's actually last 13 years, I'm sorry. And in 2023, the most recent data, the
medium home value is $879,000. Our housing stock is old, but I don't think that's of any worry because of the historic nature of our town. Um, that's a good thing in in Kate May when we have an older housing stock and we're preserving those houses.
Um, our employment and labor characteristics are not really unique and they reflect both the county and state numbers. We're we fall in line with those. Um, our number of families below the poverty
line is actually less than the state and county averages. Uh, we're 77.5% where the state average is 9.7%. So, that's a good thing. Um, that's really the highlights that I
found um for the housing element. Um, it's there's a lot of data in there. Um, you can glean through those numbers. Um, but I thought that those were the biggest highlights or changes that we've seen over the last 10 years. Um, and if there's any questions, I'll I'll dive
into that before we get into the fair share plan. The one surprising number to me was the median rents. I'm sorry. The the median rents. That seems surprisingly low to me. Yeah. Um, that's the best census
data that we had. Um the numbers did look low to me because if anybody finds a thousand dollar a month house in Kate May Yeah. people would jump at that and and that being the median to me is crazy. And and you know I was surprised
the other numbers. Yeah. Some sadly some gladly made sense. But this one I thought was odd. It doesn't even make sense in an investment market as you as we are. what they're could that be a rent in the Osborne Court and that probably certainly helps
that number but I can't imagine with all the rentals that we have that that number that's only about 85 units is this year round year year round or vacation that's what I'm asking yeah they don't distinguish I don't think it's normally an average of a year round rental it's it's it's your year round
rental yeah you can't what what I'm saying is if they're asking someone I don't know how that gets reported like if they asked someone, "How much rent do you collect on your place a year?" You know, when I used to rent my place out, my answer might be $14,000, but it's only rented for six weeks, you
know, so like or eight weeks or something. Although, if you look at Victorian Towers though, you know, you have a lot of units in, for instance, Victorian Towers, and they're all rental, right? To me, excuse me, that would drive the number down. If if this is strictly year- round rentals and not
well Victorian Towers think that's where I was thinking that the numbers could be skewed is if they're only counting full-time residents that are renting. And if that's the case, your your summer rentals are going out the window and then there aren't that many full-time
rentals in Yeah. I mean, how many units are in Victorian Towers? 250 275. Is there that many? It's it's up there. Okay. So, and you add another 85 at the housing. I mean, you're still talking about 10% of the And then you have the the courts, you know, Broad Street
Courts. No, I know that's only 85. Yeah. But that's only about 85 units. Yeah. So, you're still talking only 10% of the of the actual inventory. Just it it does seem very surprising. I maybe maybe that's 50% of the year. Yeah. Yeah. 50%
of the full-time rentals, just those two locations. And that would that would skew it way down way down especially if they're not counting uh summer rentals. Right. So onethird of the population is year round. Is that what you're telling me? Yep. Yeah. One third of your housing units. And that is how much then? What
was the your number? 7004 your population based on the 2020 number is 2768 fulltime res. I'd be curious. And that census was done pretty much in the middle of COVID. Correct. 2020. 2020. So
be curious to see what the new census brings. Yeah, there there was some 2023 data that kind of verified it. So I didn't think it was that those numbers didn't look skewed to me because of the 2020. And I did look when I looked at this stuff, I did consider all right,
we're in the COVID period, you know, how did that skew anything, but um I think the 2023 reflected a bet better data set. At least I'm hoping. and it they're they weren't that far off the 2020 numbers. Okay, here it's an interesting
if you look at table 14 on page 19, we we identify uh home values over a million dollars. There's zero owner occupied. Yeah, owner occupied.
That's my point. Nobody's living in the McMansions. Actually since co a lot more people are this is this is right before co a lot a lot a lot a lot of people have moved down 23 it's a shame how much I mean it changed
right after the census you know I know a lot of people moved down here since co I know I know you're saying that but this is this is data from well who knows where they got this from Dennis Census Bureau yeah that's like I said there That one's suspect. There's data in here that you
may find inaccurate, but it's the best available data that we have. Um there's there's reference to our population trend in here. And the only available study that's ever been done for Kate May County is the South Jersey Transportation Authorities study which
forecasted an increase in population which has never occurred in Kate May. Um, so I I kind of threw that data set out like but you know I kept it in there because it's the only available but I did put a caveat in there that it's not it's not consistent with the trends that we're seeing. And the other question I
had about the population was uh this in this 2020 census they there was a bit of a confusion because in one section they counted residents they counted the coast guard base recruit classes as residents
and in other sections of the census they did not count them. So is is this population number that we have here does that include the coast guard or not? I there was no data like C like clarifier showing what whether they
were counted or not. I'll I'll send it I'll I'll send it to you. I'll show you the But they're talking about your permanent residence. So unless they're they're they've established permanent residency there, they shouldn't be counted. They they they but they are in
one section of the I'll send it unless they're permanent. You can you can chase your tail on this data a long time if you want to. Yeah, you could. But since it's supposed to be the basis of the policy, maybe we should chase ourselves. Well, I I I I don't look at
the specific numbers, but I look at the trends and I I you know, I think our trend is we're losing permanent residences. You know, it's so and that's and not only have we lost them and you can look at the I mean, I think I put the last five or four 10
year data sets in there, the it's been consistent losses and this last 10 has been an acceleration of those losses. So, And we also, by the way, just as an aside, we have we're showing in 2020 the
same population as Kate May showed in 1900. It's interesting. Are there any other questions? Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, yes. Can I just raise
about vacant land now? You can talk about vacant member said something to me which is very insulting. We um I don't think you're doing an apology. He said, "Do I remember that number?" Can you put your mic on, please? Somebody
Oh, it wasn't. Yeah, I don't want to hear that. Yeah, it's not Republicans. All right, moving on. Yes. Okay, now I'm going to talk about the fair share portion of this. Um so, we're dealing with our fourth round. We're trying to address the fourth round numbers which takes us from 2025 to
2035, the next 10-year period from this year moving forward. Um so in 2024, um there was New Jersey state legislation changed the rules, the methodologies and calculations and the timing of all of this. Um so we're
dealing with a whole new framework um that we did um from the previous round. um and they established our numbers and Kate May accepted the new numbers from the state in his binding resolution adopted by council on January 23rd,
2025. So based on those numbers are based on a department of community affairs report. Um they gave us a rehab number of 46 and a fourth round number of 48. Um so we have to address those numbers
in our plan. All of Kate May council, all of Kate May's affordable housing numbers moving forward since Kate May city accepted the new fourth round numbers, assuming they are not challenged are, and they're located on page 33 of that report. I'll just
highlight those. We have a rehab obligation of which is cons which is also titled our present need of 46. Um we have a prior round obligation which was from 1987 to 1999 of 58.
Our prior round realistic development potential or RDP is zero and that's because we prepared a vacant land analysis during the prior round. And a vacant land analysis is an analysis of
all of the vacant land within the city and evaluated to see if any affordable units can be produced. And the way this is evaluated is it has to meet a certain lot size. It can't be environmentally constrained. It has to have proper sewer
and water in front of it. Um and based on those that criteria alone, um we do have tracks that are larger than half an acre. Um but they're all environmentally constrained. So, we don't have any large development tracks. Um, East Cape May
has has been addressed. Um, that was a concern during the prior round and we did have some language in our prior um plan that addressed and set aside. If if that was ever developed, we would have a 20% set aside for that. But now that
that has been acquired and that lawsuit has been addressed, um that is now environmentally sensitive land and will never be um never be improved or developed. So our RDP for that was zero.
Our third round obligation which is takes it was the period from 1999 to 2025 is 212 units. Our third round realistic development potential, our RDP is was 12 units. Um,
and those 12 units happened because developers got in developers of a couple of large subdivisions or large developments got in before the requirement took took effect within excuse me within within the city. So,
they kind of beat a deadline um and the city was still held accountable for those units. So there that RDP is 12. The fourth round perspective need that's which is our 2025 number that the state gave us uh is 48. So that's the
perspective need. The fourth round realistic development potential our our RDP is zero. So within this document we prepared an updated vacant land analysis. So we every every 10 year
every time you get a new round you have to prepare that vacant land analysis. We have to look at what properties were acquired if there was any redevelopment etc. Um same thing as the TW as the prior round. We have zero realistic um
opportunities for development of large tract that would provide inclusionary or the 20% set aside. Um so so if once you total up those they call that the combined prior third and fourth
round unmet need and our our number is 306. Now the next section on page 34 is how we address those numbers. So addressing the rehab present need obligation there's 46. So 46 existing
units will have to be rehabilitated by the city in the city by 2035 and the city intends to address this obligation by continuing to participate in the Kate May County rehabilitation program. The next addressing the prior round
obligation, this is our 1987 to 1999 uh 58. uh the vacant land analysis addresses that um and that was approved by the court and that gave us an RDP of zero. So there was no RDP to satisfy in the pri prior round
addressing the third round obligation which is our 1999 to 2025 period the 212 um in the third round that vacant land adjustment was completed and and it calculated the 30 the city's third round
realistic development potential to be 12 which left the remaining third round unmet need of 200. So in this case, we have to address that third round RDP of 12. And these were the 12 units that escaped from those developments. Um and
I'm trying to remember the developments. I think um the Osprey Landing maybe. Yeah, Osprey Landing, the Pella subdivision, and the 10-unit development on Washington
Street. Does the the Yep. So, those were the three. And so, they drove the those. So, we're required to provide 12 units for those. So, um
those 12 units are going to be addressed by the accessory apartment program. So, we already have an accessory apartment program as part of our zoning code. It's already permitted. Um, so we continue to rely on that accessory department program to address those six units in
the third round. Um, those units have not come to fruition. Um, so we're incentivizing those. So, we're doing two things. We're increasing the funding levels. So if you if you need if you want to develop one of those units, the city will fund that
out of their affordable housing uh fund. Um so they will increase the funding limits to 25,000 for a moderate income unit, 40,000 for a lowinccome unit and 70,000 for a very low income unit. And then finally the city will work with its
administrative agent to market those accessory apartment program in a more vigorous manner. Are those are those required to remain that way forever or is there is there lifespan the 30 years? There is a there is a cap. Oh, I'm sorry. So the
accessory the accessory apartment program are a little different than the regular inclusionary zoning. So if you So for instance, the subdivision that was required to provide two units and provided those on Lafayette Street,
they're deed restricted for a 30-year period. These accessory apartments are only deed restricted for 10. So they're they're more attractive to developers. So there's a better chance of them coming online. And does that
mean if somebody has a house that's in an area that's only zone single family, they can put, for instance, a garage apartment in and not need variance if they're going to be uh variance relief if they're going to be providing this? It's they have to meet certain criteria,
but that potential exists. Okay. Okay. All right. So, our inclusionary projects um will address three affordable housing rental units. Um the deed and autoado project, the two two affordable family rental units were provided on Lafayette
Street. Um they have been deed restricted and they are currently in the process of being affirmately marketed. Okay. Um there was a yacht harbor marine project that was approved by the zoning board. I don't think the planning board approved that one. Um they approved
that. It was approved as a conclusionary project with one off-site unit that was required to be developed. That unit has not been established uh or even proposed yet. And that development is not really coming out of the ground. They started
work, but it's just sitting there. Um, but it's that's in our plan. And if that if that development is ever um approved or constructed, the unit is required before any cos can be issued. Is that where John Fleming's office used
to be? Yes. Next to that. Okay. Yep. And then we're claiming three third round bonus credits that we're allowed to claim when we have rental units that meet certain meet specific requirements. Next is addressing the fourth round obligation. This is our 2025 to 2035
period. We have an obligation of 48. We prepared a vacant land analysis which is in the appendix of this document and there is no RDP for the city to address for the fourth round. just a fourth round unmet need of 48. So we have to address the combined prior
round, third round and fourth round unmet need of 306. So this is considered our combined unmet need. So, in our plan, and if you recall during our last re-examination of the
master plan, um we encouraged the Kate May Housing Authority to come and consult with the city and try and come up with a plan to improve the the housing authorities units as and address
Kate May's housing authority. I mean, address Cape May city's obligation to provide affordable housing. Now, those things don't normally coincide because the housing authority operates on a little different program than meeting the state's house uh affordable housing
obligations. So, that pow-wow between us has facilitated talks between city government and the housing authority and those talks are ongoing. Um there has been mention of possible gut
rehabilitation of those units um that they have 85 existing units. If you provide gut rehabilitation in your plan, they are considered new units as far as your count. Um there this this is a the
state has accounting requirements for all of these units. Um these terms are very specific. They mean a lot to me. They're probably overwhelming to you, but when I say unmet need and gut rehabs and they mean things to the state. Um,
but uh, so the important part is there are ongoing negotiations, we because of the strict deadlines that the state imposed on towns complying with our new affordable housing requirements. Um, we have not been able the city has not been
able to finalize a plan with the housing authority. So they are in our plan. Uh we recognize that we want to work with them and come up with you know affordable housing units with them. Um but the agreement has not been reached. Um but those units will be used to fill
any existing gap in its third round RDP of 12 and with a balance going towards any com the city's combined unmet need for the other rounds. So, those would be amazing to, you know, get those units
into this plan. Um, it's something the city is working with. Um, and we would use affordable housing trust fund monies to help with fund any agreed upon project to and also utilize redevelopment if necessary to address the redevelopment requirements as part
of the plan. We also have the accessory apartment program. So any accessory apartment units created via the city's accessory apartment program beyond the six accessory apartments needed to satisfy our third round RDP will be put towards
the city's remaining combined unmet need. We also have are relying on our mandatory set aside ordinance. This is already in our in our zoning ordinance. It was used as part of the third round compliance. So we have a citywide
inclusionary zoning ordinance. Um all re residential developments of five or more units have to have inclusionary units. Um we also provide a density bonus. So if you're doing inclusionary development, you're allowed to do that
at a denser uh at a density higher than the normal zoning. And it's it's it's made to incentivize developers to do inclusionary developments. 20 and 40. Yes,
if they meet certain if the on there are on-site and off-site requirements, but it's 20 and 40, I believe, is your is correct. Um, the required set aides were set originally at 15% for rental projects and 20% for um for sale projects. We're going to up those
numbers to 20 and 20. So, it'll be 20% across the board for both rental and for sale projects. Okay. So that so those are the big highlights. There are no huge department departures from our existing
uh plan type. Um we've increased the numbers. We've incentivized certain things. Um, and our biggest change I believe is working with the housing authority to
try and come up with a an agreeable um project that works for both the city and the housing authority and we have till 19 or 2035 to do 2035. Correct. What happens if if it doesn't happen by then? Well, the numbers move forward. Um,
if you if as you can see some of our numbers in the last round weren't met and they they kind of get pushed into the the unmet need. So that that unmet need number that keeps moving forward, you know, creeps along. But remember,
our plan has to provide a realistic opportunity to provide affordable housing. So, it's not it's not going to say all these units are going to come come to fruition ever, but there's the opportunity was always there. Craig, how much money is in our affordable house or
trust fund? Any idea? I just got that number from the city and I it's over $2 million and I don't remember the exact number. Now, is that is that COA funds? Is that the COA funds that goes to? Yes. So, th that's something. So you're
you're speaking about the affordable housing trust fund. Um that's something that we the planning board really doesn't consider. The governing body does and I have prepared a spending plan that is consistent with this plan that the governing body will adopt at
probably at the at their next meeting. Um and I will present that to them. Um but the funds have to be allocated. So, like when I talked about um subsidizing those accessory apartments and bumping those numbers up, we have to account for
that as part in our bank. Um we're allowed to provide a set aside in there. Uh 20% of those funds are allowed to be used for me to prepare a plan for our attorney to, you know, review things. If we're sued by a developer, it's allowed,
you know, we're allowed to use those funds for authorized reasons as part of our fund. um to address affordable housing. Um I think I answered your question, right? Um actually, but that's that's that's
more of a the funds have to be set aside to allocate for the mechanisms in our plan. They are um and that will be addressed by city council. And I know some of the funds that Ocean City sends their funds to the state. You're allowed
to do that, but we don't. We keep it in house. Correct. Correct. Okay. Okay. So, there are the highlights of the plan. Um, happy to answer any questions with regards to that. Um, after there's any questions. Um, I would
ask that the planning board adopt the fair share and housing the housing element and fair share plan. Um, as an element of the master plan. Um and and I believe the believe the language that the board
would be adopting this under is um amongst the other things the planning board has determined that the attached fourth round housing element and fair share plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the city's current master plan and the adoption of the imple and implementation of the fourth
round housing element and fair share plan is in the public interest and protects public health and safety and promotes the general welfare. This took a lot of work. I can't wait till this is over. Just to answer Mr. Jones, from your
email, um it the bal the COA fund balance is 2.7 million. I just want to make a comment, Craig. You've taken a what to me was a complicated subject and now I understand it between uh the way that you presented
it and uh and this document too. A lot of credible data in here. The terminology and accounting methodology that the state requires is almost counterintuitive to if you're using common sense. And that's like when
when you see that unmet need stuff and the numbers are getting pushed forward and you see these huge numbers, you're like, "Oh my god, we're going to have 313 or 300 and some units in in affordable units in town." No, we have to provide the opportunity to provide that. Um, so once you you kind of
simplify that, it takes the terror, you know, fear of this. Um, you know, I in my opinion, I don't think Kate May has ever looked at affordable housing as the boogeyman and a lot of other towns do. Um, I think it's necessary. I think the
town recognizes that, you know, those are those are employees and support a lot of the businesses in town. Um, I think Kate May has always been agreeable to trying to provide affordable housing within the city. Um, and that's always
for the last three rounds that I've worked on these plans for the city, that is my that has always been how I think the governing bodies and planning boards have treated this. So, and we have to realize it's not one project that's going to that's going to
fix it, take care of this. It's peace meal. That's just going back to the COA fund. $2.7 million sounds like a lot of money obviously, but if you hand that to somebody and say go fix the affordability problem in the city of
Kate May, it's two houses maybe or or it goes really maybe three, you know. Yeah. Craig, do I understand that we're in uh conversation with the afford with the housing authority at this time? Yes.
Who's is there a committee for that or does council? Yeah. And so it's actively engaged and city management along with city man there's a there's a consulting team that's working with the housing authority to try and come up with a palable isn't part of the issue
the fact that the city doesn't own that. The authority does. So the housing authority owns the the lots. So they're like any other developer. They're treated like any other developer in some respect. Yeah. But don't but that's also the feds involved in that too. Right.
Right. So the funding sources are are where we get we kind of don't coincide with like because they can get funding sources for doing certain things that don't necessarily help us. So like when I mentioned gut rehab that's that
terminology is state terminology if we if they do gut rehab of 85 units we get credit for 85 brand new units. Um, that's huge, you know.
So, I just wanted to comment compliment Mr. Hurles's report and just tell you great job and really like everyone else has said here trying to synthesize a very uh complex topic and trying to condense it into, you know, a palatable
way that I think people can manage. So, good job. Thank you. Thank you all. Anybody care to make a motion to adopt this document? I will make the motion to adopt the document as put forth by Mr.
Hurles. Second. Excuse me. Second. Okay. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Lholm seconds. Mr. Gorgone. Yes. Mayor Mullik. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reid. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Yes. Mr. Lhome. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. Mr. Jones.
Yes. Mr. Razair. Yes. Thank you. Then we do the resolution. Resolution. Yes. So now we need a motion to adopt the resolution adopting this. I make a motion. Second.
Deputy Mayor McDade motions. No. Oh, was that was that Mrs. Reed? I'm sorry. My apologies. Mrs. Reid motions. Mr. Rigg seconds. Mr. Gorgone. Yes. Mayor Mullik. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reed, yes. Mr. Crowley, yes. Mr.
Lenholm, yes. Mr. Riggs, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Bizair, yes. Thank you. Hey, you want to go through the uh municipal public access plan? Sure. Uh the municipal public access plan or the MPAP
um is a plan that we submitted to the state. Um, let me just back up. Ju in general, just so anyone watching, uh, the municipal public access plan provides for public access throughout the municipality on
any tidal waterway. So, it verifies that you have beach access, appropriate access to uh, uh, Cape Island Creek. Um, it doesn't necessarily have to be physical. It could be visual. um you know but
um so all of the title waterways that are flowed um they don't necessarily have to be accessed they can be you know closed for safety reasons closed for environmental protection reasons but there in general there has to be access
to these waterways um Cape May really does not have a public access plan I mean problem they all of your beachfront all of your street ends intersection with Beach A Avenue pretty much have a beach access. Um, this is we're not one
of those towns where there are issues. Anyway, the New Jersey D requires these beach access plans and ties uh New Jersey DE permitting um both municipal and public.
Um it ties grant funding to this the establishment of these plans. Um so they require that we provide these plans. Um it's a state template that we have to do it in this exact format that they want. Um and this plan has been vetted by the
New Jersey D approved for our adoption and they require that we incorporate this plan um into our conservation element of our master plan as part of the process. So, I'm making the recommendation that it is consistent with our master plan and that we do
incorporate this as part of our conservation element. Um, part of that. So, Madison Avenue Pond in here. Madison Avenue Pond. No, I don't believe it is.
It's not a beach. Not a beach. It's not a beach. I said title. It's not It's not title. I said titally flowed. I think I I'm pretty sure I used that language. Okay. So, do we have to accept the plan? So, I would make the recommendation to accept the plan.
Anybody have any questions of Craig? Hey, can I make a motion to uh um I'll make a motion to adopt the city's municipal public access plan. I'll make a motion. I'll second. Mr. Jones motions. Deputy Mayor McDade
seconds. Mr. Gorgon. Yes. Mayor Mullik. Yes. Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reid? Yes. Mr. Crowley? Yes. Mr. Lanholm? Yes. Mr. Riggs? Yes. Mr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Bazair? Yes. Thank you. Are these plans uh going to be in the city's
website or available if people I believe they're already on. They are already on there. This was originally presented back in February. All right. As well as on the planning board page. It's on the planning board page. Yeah. These these plans that we just adopted have a
heightened noticing requirements because we are adop we are adopting changes to the master plan. Yeah. So um they were all posted the plans were posted with the cler city clerk as well as um with Karen's office um available for public viewing. we had to send them copies to
the county as well as adjoining you know municipalities etc. So and all of the projects Bob are also on yeah the I just feel it would be easier to see some of these and they are all posted out on the city actually read them on site from a
housekeeping standpoint we need to adopt the resolution just adopting this right I'll make a res a motion to adopt the resolution I'll second Mr. Jones motions. Deputy Mayor McDade
seconds. Mr. Gorgon, yes. Mayor Mullik, yes. Deputy Mayor McDade, yes. Mrs. Reid, yes. Mr. Crowley, yes. Mr. Lholm, yes. Mr. Riggs, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Bizair, yes. Thank you.
I think the last thing on my list is the uh master plan recommendations for implementation. Uh swimming pools. Um, in your package, I prepared a memo dated May 9th, 2025. Um, I believe that city council
requested an update to the planning board's discussion and findings regarding swimming pool recommendations that were found in the master plan re-examination. We had talked about that at several different meetings. Um, I believe that in here in this report, um,
is a summary of our findings. So I indicate uh the existing master plan recommendations that were included in the re-exam um which is section 3.10 which is found on the top of page two. Uh I indicated the current regulations
for swimming pools that we discussed. Um and I believe that the board found that the ordinance was appropriate and that no changes are recommended to the pool code requirements at this time. Um, the board also discussed concerns regarding the development of pools on corner lots
and we talked about corner lots and the corner lot standards and restrictions. Um, I pointed the board towards section 525-59 which is the corner lot restrictions. Um, and I believe the board found that these restrictions are sufficient to address the concerns that were raised
that no additional pool requirements are necessary. Corner lots require that both yards facing the streets must be treated as front yards and therefore pools and patios connected may not be located within the setback or forward of the building phase. So that's based on my
notes. If that is what the board believes that they discussed and the findings that were required, I would recommend that the board endorse this memo and forward it to the city council for just their update. Mr. Mr. Harlo, the only thing I don't note on here is
that pools are restricted, not permitted in the R4. So, is that something that should be incorporated into this memo or these are regulations regarding pools where they're allowed? Yeah. Okay. Well, they're not permitted in the R4. So, there's there's no need. Okay. All right. I I just wanted I sometimes
explicitly stating something is is always good. Um only because people Right. Right. So, you're you're totally right. R the R4 district does not per permit swimming pools as a permitted accessory use. If I could just uh make a
recommendation um if we do move forward with a motion to bring it to city council, can we transmit a copy to the zoning board as well so they're aware? Sure. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I only have one question. Um,
with regard to section two, this 10 ft from the principal structure, we haven't really resolved what the purpose of that is. Um, 525 62. Gotcha. I I I understand. um you
know and when people you know on one hand it says if it's covered by a rigid cover when it's not in use then it's permitted to be within 10 ft. Now I don't know how you're supposed to do that when you're analyzing a um site
plan or a plan um because then they can put it anywhere they want to put a notation that says covered with a rigid cover when not in use. But, um, you know, I'm just not clear if the purpose of this thing is for fire prevention because I've had other members say, well, they can view it as a safety thing
that you want to be able to get everyone on every part of the pool so they can pull a kid out. And that like makes sense to me logically. I mean, I'm not an engineer, but that I still don't know what the purpose of that is. I'm not saying it has no purpose, but it may have more than one purpose. And we keep getting caught up in I don't really
remember where it came from. So, I I remember Arnold Pitman on the zoning board. So, this this came from a as a recommendation from the zoning board to the planning board. Um, it originated with a former chairman, Arnold Pitman,
who was a firefighter and recommended this as a safety measure. And I'm going off my memory, but I believe that it was to facilitate the ability for a firefighter to put a ladder because people were putting pools right up
against the back of the house and there was no ability to put a ladder up to the second story access from the back. So, this was intended to provide 10 ft to allow a firefighter or emergency personnel to access the rear of a house.
That's how it originated. Now, it has other benefits and I think they've been discussed at zoning board members like this prevents people from jumping off of their balcony into the pool like you know so there there are other things that go along with it but maybe but yeah exactly
with a running start with a running start you could probably make it but I'm not advocating that um firefighters going to put a ladder on a rigid cover of a pool that doesn't sound like sound firefighting technique to be honest um I'm just telling you that's how it originated. That's how it got to
the planning board in based on my memory. Well, I'm just saying that that that section right there, I mean, this is the planning board, not the zoning board. So, we see it a lot more in the zoning board. But I've had four or five of these and we get in this long discussion about where the windows are and whether it's a porch or a balcony
and then you end up saying exactly what you just said now. And then another member says, well, yeah, what about, you know, safety rescue and there should be space all around. And I would just like to not have that conversation. I just like to know a statement of purpose or taking the hard taking the hard cover
off solves that. Oh, no. What I'm saying is having that hard cover language in there makes it seem like the reason is for the firefighting, but it doesn't necess it may not necessarily be for that reason. That's right. Right. That's right. Yeah. I see where Rich is going. Having been on zoning, you hear these discussions
all the time. You were there. Yeah, absolutely. I was there for the one with the jumping off application. Sorry. If I were to make recommendation, I'd just like some clarification for that. Yeah. So, I was asked just to prepare an update of what was discussed
before. So, if this wants to be a new discussion item before the planning board, we can certainly do that and make any recommended changes, but this document was prepared just to update where the planning board was in reviewing these. If we think that there
needs to be further review or discussion on it, particularly with that, can we just send it some send it saying that there may need to be clarification as the purpose and intent of section 8? We can because I can envision a discussion by council on on on this. Okay. If it
was in my opinion my entire life and it was about Yeah. Yeah. Right. If it was solely based on a ladder then what difference does it make if it was above ground or below ground pool? In ground pool I I I don't know. I don't know. It does. I mean, I remember that when all that went down with the pools and the 10
feet and the ladders and all that stuff, but right, I don't know why it says above. Why would it matter if it's above ground or not? Still in the way of reason foot in the ladder. I I I'm not prepared to provide analysis on how that got to be the way it was. Sorry.
We can send it to council and Yeah, I'm just make a recommendation with Rich's comment because of the ability to lability. Yep. Right. So, uh Mr. King will prepare a resolution for that. Well, that's my is that the understanding that there'll be a resolution and then we'll send it up to
council that way. Okay. Is that what everybody wants? Right. Okay. Is that what you want? Yes. I'll make a motion. Okay. That uh this is sent to council with a copy to the zoning board. Right.
Resolution with with the comment uh asking for a clarification as stated by Mr. King second Mr. Riggs motions. Mr. Lenholm seconds. Mr. Gorgon. Yes. Mayor Mullik. Yes.
Deputy Mayor McDade. Yes. Mrs. Reid. Yes. Mr. Crowley. Yes. Mr. Lhome. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. Mr. Jones? Yes. Mr. Bazair? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Next item is payment of bills. Motion to pay the bills.
I make a motion to pay the bills. I'll second. Thank you. Um, Mrs. Reed motions. Mr. Garone, seconds. Mr. Gorgon, yes. Mayor Mullik, yes. Deputy Mayor McDade, yes. Mrs. Reid, yes. Mr. Crowley, yes. Mr.
Lhome, yes. Mr. Riggs, yes. Mr. Jones, yes. Mr. Bazair, yes. Thank you. Anything else for final motion? Make the motion. All in favor? Thank you everyone.