Testing. Okay, good evening everybody. The regular meeting of the Cape May city planning board is now in session and 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'll begin with the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> All right. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Yes. Thank you. Mr. Bizair >> here. >> Mr. Jones >> here. >> Mr. Riggs >> here. >> Mr. Crowley >> here. >> Mr. Gorgon. Mayor Mullik
>> here. Deputy Mayor McDade >> here. >> Mrs. Reed >> here. >> Mr. Lenholm >> here. >> Mr. Padus >> here. >> Mr. Krippen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have the resolution number 7225 One Avenue LL was LLC 62nd Avenue.
Any motion to approve the resolution? >> I make the motion. >> Second. >> Mrs. Reed motions. Mr. Mr. Lenholm seconds. Mayor Mullik. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed, >> yes.
>> Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lhome, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Padus, >> yes. >> Mr. Jones, >> Mr. Bazair, >> abstaining. >> Thank you. >> We have resolution number 7225,
master plan consistency review regarding regulations of pools. Need a motion to adopt that. I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Jones seconds. Mayor Malik. >> Yes.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid. >> Where are they? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Your turn. >> Mr. Your turn. >> Somebody hit me. Uh, >> that's not a problem.
>> Yeah, I was gonna >> Oh, come on. That was a rhetorical statement. Yes, I do approve this. >> Thank you, Mr. Lholm. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Produces, >> yes. M >> Mr. Jones, >> yes. >> Mr. Bazair, >> yes.
>> And we have minutes of the June 10th and June 24th. >> Uh, we need to take them both separately because I have to abstain on one of those. So, the June 10th meeting. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Rigg's motions. Is that Mrs. Reed
does that second. Mrs. Reid seconds. Mayor Mullik. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. I have a question before I vote it though. And Karen, is this the meeting where we had
>> is this the meeting where we had a discussion on the HPC giving us documentation on applications or was that the other meeting we have? And I I didn't see I didn't see that referenced in either of the minutes.
>> No, I think that was a previous meeting. That wasn't in June. I don't think the HPC came in June. >> No, it was an applicant that had said he had gotten approval from the HPC and uh he didn't have the documentation. We didn't have it. And uh >> that was the Jetty.
>> That was June. >> That was June. That uh that was >> that was June. >> Yes, that was in June. Um I remember because I believe I asked the question along with you Mr. Crowley. >> I think it was the first meeting in June. >> Yeah. >> And was it not the Jetty Motel? >> No, it was not the one before.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. And it was basically I think the board wanted to see some sort of documentation that they received HBC approval before coming in front of this board and there was a discussion that ensued with that
>> or at the least or at the least documentation of HBC conceptual approval or whatever they gave. Right. >> Yes. >> Could could we hold this could we hold these minutes to make sure that the minutes include that? I think I'd like to see that on the record. >> Okay. So you want me to revise the
minutes to include that they uh the discussion about the HPC application? >> Yes. >> Okay. I I would happily do that. So we won't vote. >> I I revised my motion to include that. >> Okay. >> Okay, that's fine. Okay.
>> Okay. So I will continue calling the vote. So Mr. Crowley is Yes. >> Yes. Yes. With that change >> with the adjustment. Okay. Mr. Lenholm. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Produces.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair. >> Um, abstain from that one. >> Thank you. >> So, we have minutes of June 24th. I'll make a motion.
>> I'll second. >> Mr. Jones motions. Deputy Mayor McDade seconds. Mayor Mullik. Yes, >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes, >> Mrs. Reed. >> Yes, >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes, >> Mr. Lunhomem. >> Yes, >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes, >> Mr. Baducus. >> Yes, >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Bizair. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next item is the application 413415 Washington Street LLC, lot 1043, lot one, site plan preliminary final with the variance.
>> Mr. Comm Amanouser, before you begin, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. In your um resolutions, you have 7225 is the first resolution. Uh the second resolution, you have 072022 2025. It's my recommendation that your
records reflect. >> It does have a colon one and colon. >> Okay. >> So, this maybe we need to just get a clarification. Is is that the date? >> Correct, madam. >> Okay, that's a great So, and the one the colon one and colon two is the way you distinguish them.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Perfect. Just wanted to make sure before I went home. >> Yes. >> Make sure you're on your toes. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Chairman, would you like a motion to recognize Mr. Baldini as our conflict solicitor or >> do you need that?
>> I don't know if it's necessary. Okay. >> You'd like to do make the motion? >> Sure. I I'll make a motion to recognize Mr. Baldini as our conflict solicitor this evening. But we're not we're not appointing as a conflict attorney. He happens to be for tonight. >> Just for tonight. Yes. Correct.
>> I promise to go home. >> Not yet. >> Not yet. >> Just second on Jason's motion. >> I'll make I'll make that motion. >> Second. I'm sorry. >> Revity. All in favor? >> I >> I
>> um Okay. So, you want to >> Yes, I'm ready to go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh John Amanhauser at Dwise Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicant 413 to 415 Washington Street LLC. Uh the entity is the contract purchaser of the property located at same address 413 to 415
Washington Street. Uh the current owner of the property is uh Mr. Daniel Cassell. Uh there was a certification of owner provided with the application allowing the applicant to bring this application tonight. Uh property is identified as lot one in block 1043 of the city of Cape May. It's located in
your C1 primary business district and it is a uh contributing property in the historic district. Uh conceptual approval from the HBC was received prior to coming to the board this evening. Uh final will be sought hopefully after approval this evening from this body. Uh currently the property is developed with
a three-story mixeduse structure. Uh the current configuration of that structure is retail and storage on the first floor with storage retail and a residential apartment on the second floor and another residential apartment on the third floor. Uh if approved this evening, the project will result in
retail on the first and second floor of the building with one residential apartment on the third floor. Thus reducing residential density from 2 to one and increasing the retail space on the first and second floor. Uh here with us this evening uh is the professional engineer and architect John Hal Bruner
uh of the Highland Group. I know Mr. Hal Bruner has been before the board often but I'm happy to elicit credentials if needed. >> Yep. Not necessary. >> All right. And then uh Mr. Daniel Huffleman. Danny is a 50% member in the applicant entity. So he's here should the board have any questions of him today as well. >> You swear the two of them at this time.
>> He's probably 49%. >> Like 10. >> Mr. Hurn raise your right hand. you swear from. Tell the truth for the board here tonight. >> I do. >> Thank you. Please state your name and your your uh spell your last name and your business address.
>> Sure. John Haler. H A L B R U N E R. Business address is four Claremont Drive, KB Courthouse, New Jersey. And I'm both a project engineering architect and the subject application. >> Thank you. Mr. Upperman, is it >> Upman? >> Uppleman. Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm tell the truth before the board here tonight?
>> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Please give it spell give us your name. Spell your last name and your address. >> Daniel Offman. >> Yeah. >> Uh UF L-an 219 North Street Kate May. >> Before I turn it over to you, uh Mr. Mr.
Ammonhauser, Mr. Hurles, please raise your right hand. Use a firm tell before the board here tonight. >> I do. >> Thank you. Please give us your name and your position with the board. >> Craig R. Hurles. I am the board planner and engineer. >> Thank you, sir. >> Floor is yours, Mr. Thank you, Mr.
Solicitor. Uh, John, if you can, I know I just went over some of the uh internal features of the property. Can you give a current makeup of of the use and and what we're intending to do through the application? >> Absolutely. I'm actually going to make one correction to your introduction statements. >> Why don't you put this microphone? >> Ear, can you hear me? Okay. >> I'm sorry. We don't have as many
microphones tonight. Thank you. >> Can you hear me? Okay. Now, >> as possible so it it comes through the speakers like when I talk. >> How's this? >> That's it. >> Okay. Perfect. Okay. Well, one slight correction to uh Mr. Aman Houser's opening introduction. Um there is in
fact residential use on the second and third floor, but it is one apartment unit that is split between the two floors. It's not two units. Um so the existing density is one unit that covers two different floors. Um backing up for a second, as Mr. Emanouser introduced,
it is a mixeduse building, three stories in height. Um the ground floor is Cassell shoe store. It's predominantly the retail floor space on the ground along with some um storage area. On the second floor, there's storage area for the retail facility and the front half of that, the front that's on Washington
Street, uh is a bedroom and a family room uh as part of the apartment along with a set of internal stairs that take you to the third floor where there's two additional bedrooms, kitchen, family room, dining room. Um the property is um
known as block Thought I had that. I don't bear with me. The for the record lock in lot is >> 1043 lot one street address of 4315
4313-15 Washington Street. The property dimensions. Get back to my notes here. It's a 31 foot by 82 foot long lot containing 2542
square feet. It is fronting both on the Washington Street pedestrian mall uh as a public right of way, a pedestrian easement immediately to our east and then Lyall Lane uh to to the rear. So on three sides we're ab budding public land
and then uh immediately to our west is another retail facility. We are located in the C1 primary business district um as is all of our neighbors. The building was originally constructed around 1967. It's uh masonry on the
first floor and wood frame above that and it's in relatively sound condition. Um it's not historically significant. In fact, it's not even very sympathetic to Kate May's Victorian vernacular. Um, we're looking to make some changes with
that with the proposed renovations. Uh, the building occupies pretty much the entirety of the lot except for a 13oot rear yard setback uh, which I call the rear that which fronts on Ly Lane. Any questions about the existing conditions?
>> So, John, knowing the existing conditions, what are we looking to change here related to this application? Actually, there's probably one very notable existing condition I ought note before I talk about the proposed condition, and that would be the absence of parking. And the existing conditions, the parking demand would be 7.2 spaces
derived by the formulas within your ordinance for the amount of uh parking for open retail space and RSIs requirements. Number of parking spaces on site today, zero. Um there's simply none available and um none exist.
>> Question. to that much. Yes. >> Do you have any documentation that the existing uh non-conforming parking aotment was ever the subject of a variance? >> I don't. I can tell you the building's been there since 1967
and certainly eclipses the 20-year mark your ordinance recognizes as being a recognized grandfather condition. >> Okay. uh to the uh what we're proposing to do through the application. John, what are we looking to change within the building? >> Okay. The building footprint itself will
stay essentially the same. Uh we're looking to substantially renovate both the interior and the exterior of the building. In substance, we're going to be converting the entire second floor into retail space. Uh we're also going to take the first floor, which is mostly retail with some storage, and making
that entirely retail space. So in the end we will maintain entirely retail space on the first and second floor. The third floor which is residential today will remain a residential unit. Uh density of residential stays the same one for one but the area of the
apartment gets reduced. We're taking the entire second story and making that part of retail. Um substantively interiorwise we are eliminating the steps that lead from the apartment to the exterior. Presently they discharge directly onto the Washington Street Mall. Uh we much
prefer that to be a commercial presence. So we're taking that door and putting on the back of the Lyle Street side. We are introducing a new elevator and inducing a new open interior stair between the first and second floors. Um the number of bedrooms for the apartment with the reduction area goes from three down to
two. Um and again the entire first and second floor will be retail space. >> There's no storage. >> I'm sorry. >> No storage. There's incidental closets here and there, but there's no dedicated storage uh room. Um, and I say small closets on the order of less than 20
square feet. >> And John, when we talk about the variance relief that we need here, you mentioned already number of parking spaces off street that are required. Uh, we also need a variance for lot coverage. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> All right. Do you aside from those two variances, do you see the need to ask for any others this evening?
>> No. None whatsoever. the uh even the lot coverage um I think it's a highly technical variance because the lot coverage that exists today is what we're proposing to be to maintain. We're not exasperating it, increasing it or improving it. It's simply that which it is today is what we propose it to be tomorrow. >> Yeah.
>> And the parking variance which I'll get in a little more detail with is necessary because your ordinance drives the number of parking space demand based upon the use of the spaces. a residence space is um derived those
park requirements are derived from RSIS. Presently, we have a three-bedroom apartment which requires two parking spaces. We are proposing a one-bedroom, I'm sorry, a two-bedroom apartment which requires one space. So, on the plus side, we're reducing the demand of the existing facility by one. But where it
goes wrong in the wrong direction for us is the second part of the parking demand for this. Is that related to the retail? Your ordinance bases upon one parking space for every 200 square feet of retail floor area. You may remember my earlier testimony. We're converting
almost the entire um retail space into sales floor area and we're increasing to include both first and second floor. So our retail sales floor area has gone up by to in total about 1,000 square feet. Um and that increases the technically at least the parking demand. We go from
requiring seven parking spaces today or 7.2 rounding down to seven to needing 17 in the proposed condition. Okay. >> Does that include employee parking? >> I'm sorry. >> Does that include employee parking? >> Your ordinance is derivative on the retail floor area. I don't think
>> on employee parking as well. >> Okay. Then whatever employee parking requirements are is deficient today and will remain deficient in the proposed conditions. You're increasing the number of employees obviously. So you're going to be increasing the number of parking spaces. >> That would be a a fair assumption. Yes.
>> So John, when you consider those two variances, is it your professional opinion they could be granted under the C1 hardship criteria? >> Absolutely. >> And with that being the case, what are the unique characteristics of this lot that you see that would justify relief under that standard? >> Well, to begin with, we're dealing with
an existing building. So if you look at the two variances that we're seeking, we'll start with a lot coverage. An existing building fully developed with no additional land and we're not seeking to make any exterior improvements outside the building facade. So it would be a pretty difficult an exceptional
practical difficulty to the applicant to force compliance of lot coverage. It would actually require removal part of the building and that just doesn't seem to make anyone any sense for anyone in terms of the parking. Um the ability for us to provide parking at all, let alone
compliant parking simply doesn't exist with the limited lot area. We have 2500 square foot and change in lot area. It simply isn't enough room to have a retail facility or even a residential facility and provide compliant parking. >> Mr. Hammond, let me stop you for a
minute. >> Sure. >> So I'm just taking a look at your application. You you your application, not yours personal in a personal sense. >> I understand. does does not request a C1 variance. >> We we can provide we can provide
testimony under C2 as well. I just I think it makes sense for us to to ask for it under C1 the more we evaluate this. >> So are you asking this board to accept an amendment to your applicant >> if they'd be willing to do so? And I believe the notice indicated that we'd ask for any and all other >> I was looking for >> variances.
>> Is that the case? >> Find it. Just give me one second. Let's see. Yes. Uh we may number six. Applicant may also ask for any s other such variance, relief, exception, waiverss, permits, approvals or licenses deemed necessary or appropriate. >> And you'll submit an amended application
to the board. >> We could do that requesting honor. >> Members of the board, I leave it up to you. This applicant has requested an opportunity to amend his application. Generally speaking, amendments are liberally accepted by the courts, but um it's your discretionary call.
>> Mr. Chair, >> I think we'll abide by your advice. >> Would you explain the amendment? >> Sure. If you were to take a look at the applicant's application, it's on page I guess it would be three of the application. >> Yes. applicant is required to advise
this board in the public in advance of the application being heard what type of relief the applicant is seeking under the municipal land use law. In this particular case, the applicant has indicated they're seeking variance relief and the section that is checked off is substantial um benefit which is
the we sometimes referred as a C2 criteria. Uh he did not ask for a hardship variance which you're now hearing testimony relative to a hardship variance. So, I just want to make sure before we move forward and your board votes on applications, you know what you're hearing. Uh, so if the applicant
wants this board to hear a C1 variance application, they have to amend their application. You know, that's >> the hardship does the hardship variance pertain only to the lot coverage or also to the parking. >> So, Mr. Halurner testified that in his opinion it applies both to the lot
coverage and to the parking criteria. >> Is that your position? That's the testimony I provided and I will also in light of Mr. Baldini he's bringing this to the forefront provide testimony in support of C2 varants as originally applied for. >> Right. >> Yeah.
>> So, but before we go forward, I think you should know what you're hearing. So, um I've interrupted this case, which I rarely do, but I did in this case because I want to make sure that it's on the table that you're either hearing the C1 variants or you're not. And there'll
be a separate vote on them. So, what you're starting to talk about is whether or not you think the testimony will meet the C1 criteria based upon um what you've heard relative to parking. That's a different issue. The issue to to only before the board right now is do you
want to hear the C1 criteria argument by the applicant and if so, you should allow the amendment to the application. I will tell you generally courts are liberal in allowing these amendments particularly where the advertisement by
the applicant is broad enough to cover the uh type of variance sought by the applicant >> and that's and that's the public that's the public disclosure. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And C1 in particular if in C2 they they would not be so liberal with the Dvarian.
>> Right. >> Um just a question Mr. Pearlles, are you comfortable that you were when you did the review for this application um to consider this amendment now? >> Yes. So, I noted that it was they only checked off the C2 on the front cover.
You status it shows C2. Um so, I noticed that. Um but as a planner, um typically we try and justify it under both the C1 and C2 criteria if we can. >> Um and we can find those proofs because it helps our case. >> Okay. >> Um so, I just want to make sure I don't
have an issue with them >> proceeding under both the C1 and C2. >> Everybody Everybody good with that? >> Yeah. Do we need a motion or just we're good? >> I think we're good. >> If I get a consensus of the board that you seem good with it, we'll proceed.
So, I think I think that's feeling I'm getting here from the board. So, so you'll submit a a revised application to the board >> to indicate C1 as well as C2. >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, we'll do. Thank you. So John, just to >> hearken back there to to your C1 criteria. >> Sure.
>> So the basis that you believe exists for granting relief under C1 relates to the existing improvements on the lot and inability to really fit adequate off- streetet parking andor to comply with lot coverage based on those existing conditions. Correct. >> Exactly. the C1 criteria where the board
may grant a C1 variance by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the lot which I think applies in this case as well as the extraordinary exceptional situation uniquely affecting a piece of property and here's the part that I want to underscore structurally legally
structures legally existing thereon. We have a legal existing structure that has this non-conforming in terms of lot coverage uh and the inability in terms of being shallow and narrow to provide parking. Both of which create a unique hardship upon the applicant where force
compliance would result in undue hardship. >> Okay. >> So I think that establishes the positive criteria under C1. >> Okay. >> Um there is a negative component that we must satisfy. For the sake of brevity, I'd like to address the positive criteria under the C2 because the negative criteria applies equally to
both. >> So, knowing that, what purposes of zoning, if any, do you believe would be promoted under the C2 criteria if this application were approved? >> Usually, the clearest way to start talking about the um positives are to reflect back upon the purposes of the
municipal land use law and those how those purposes may be advanced by the subject application. Now before I get in the technical dissertation of that, just looking very briefly at what are the positive effects that this U development may have. First of all, the Washington
Street Mall is certainly one of the crown jewels of Kate May. It demands to have commercial vitality to be successful. And this not only preserves commercial use, it expands it, which is certainly promoting um one of the major
commercial attractions of Cape May. I'll tie that into one of purpose shortly. The second benefit is if you take opportunity to review the uh elevations and plans that were submitted as part of the application, I think you're going to recognize a dramatic significantly
dramatic increase in the building aesthetics um on all sides visible to the public. So the enhancement to the character of the mall is dramatic and the enhancement to the streetscape and aesthetic improvement is going to be dramatic. Those are two very big positives that result from this
application. taking those positives now and tying them back to purposes of the municipal land use law that are advanced by them. I'm going to refer to um subsections by paragraph number for your ease of reference for those who keep the list in front of you. Under sub paragraph A, the purposes of municipal
land use law is to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of land development in a manner which promotes the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Again, promoting and enhancing the Washington Street Mall is certainly promoting the morals and general welfare of the
neighborhood and the city of Cape May. Moving next to subp paragraph G, which is purpose is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a v variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uses
according to the respective requirements of New Jersey citizens. And I abbreviate some of that just for sake of brevity. Um but again you've established the commercial zone for commercial purposes. We are promoting that by taking what is now residential and making it more
commercial uh advancing that purpose. And lastly sub paragraph I to promote a desirable visual environment uh through creative techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Again, the aesthetic enhancement that occurs to >> that was I I yes
um the aesthetic enhancement to both a building in the neighborhood is extreme. Um Cassals is a kind of an institution. I remember going there as a kid myself, but it's not a particularly attractive building and uh that if you look at the transformation this building is about to undergo, it's going to be dramatic. I'm
looking forward to seeing it. So, those are purposes of the miscellaneous law that tie into the benefits I described that all pile up on the balancing scale of the um C2 criteria where you have to measure the positive versus the negatives. >> And in terms of the negatives, John, do
you see any potential detriment to the public good with the zone plan of ordinance if the board were inclined to grant the application? >> Absolutely not. We got to take these again one one at a time. The variance we're seeking for lot coverage, the potential adverse effect that you have
for lot coverage variances typically has to do with storm water runoff. In this situation, we're doing nothing to exasperate a condition that has existed since the 1960s. So, it's difficult to imagine there being an adverse impact to the um neighborhood, let alone one that
rises to a level of being substantial uh based on the fact this is an existing condition that has existed for years and is entirely consistent with coverages of all the lots in the Washington Street Mall which were our neighbors. So I can't see any substantial detriment to
the public good um for that nor impairment to the purpose in of the zone plan as relates to lot coverage. Taking the second um variance that would be parking. Um the potential impact adverse impact of parking is that there's not
going to be adequate parking to serve the facility. In context, we're dealing with a mall that is three blocks long with commercial spaces. I won't try and estimate the total gross floor area of commercial uses on the on the three
block stretch, but I can tell you that we're increasing our commercial retail floor area, which is the driver of parking demand by the ordinance by thousand square feet. That is truly a drop in the bucket compared to the gross floor area of the entire mall. Our
patrons are by and large going to be pedestrians already on the mall. Certainly there's going to be a destination for some for which then become patrons for other people on the mall. So while we are technically increasing parking demand, we're not
doing so in a manner that is significant um in any way that would cause a significant adverse impact to the neighborhood. So I think if you bounce the positives I just discussed and pallet up one side of the scale and you measure it against the virtually non-existent negatives on the other side
of the scale in my opinion it's overwhelmingly in favor of the positive thus supporting the C2 variance criteria. >> Now John in addition to the variance relief we've asked for a number of checklist and site plan waivers as well. Is that right? >> That's correct.
>> Okay. And is it can you go over those and provide your professional opinions as to whether you believe they're to be justified? >> Absolutely. A couple submission requirements um that we are seeking waiverss for predominantly because unlike a new site plan which involves a new building or even a substantial addition to an existing building, the
things that go along with site plans um don't really apply in this case. For example, one of the waiverss we request are plans and profiles of utility layouts. The utilities are in place. We're looking to add one new utility and that is a fire suppression
system necessary for the new second floor retail. Um these utilities are already in place. The next wave we request is for calculations for drainage facilities. Again, we're not proposing any modifications or changes to the drainage
flow patterns or coverages. Um so it seems appropriate to seek a waiver from providing calculations for something that you're not providing. Third would be a landscape plan. Um the property today is virtually devoid of landscaping and there's no room for new landscaping
and we're not proposing any. So we're seeking a waiver from the requirement to provide a landscaping plan. The next two all kind of lump together. Diewall separate them. The next one would be environmental impact statement. We're seeking a waiver from the requirement to submit an environmental impact statement.
We are taking and renovating an existing building in the same footprint. We're not making any site improvements or anyight site changes. So there can certainly be no impact to the environment and such as such a waiver from providing a statement to that effect seems appropriate.
The last submission requirement we're seeking waiver for would be the traffic impact statement. Again, we're adding a a thousand square feet of retail space to a mall. The impact of that is inconsequential and negligible. So the
impact does not warrant doing a traffic study. Okay. in my opinion. >> Understood. >> John, before we turn it over, any any other uh testimony you'd like to place on the record related to the proposed uh development here? >> No, I think uh I'll be happy to
entertain any questions. >> I have a question. You you in your presentation, you argued, I think, if I heard it right, that it it is consistent with the municipal land use laws, the the variances you're asking for. I
identified three stated purposes of the miscellaneous law that I believe are advanced. >> Why? Why do you suppose is the land use law does it include parking requirements? >> No, l does not specify parking requirements. Your ordinance specifies parking requirements.
>> Okay. Why do you suppose that is? What would be the reason for parking requirements >> in terms of your ordinance? >> Yeah. Well, we use the Reese's standard for our parking ordinances. So that's a state uh standard. >> Not for commercial. We don't
>> RSIS is residential only. >> Okay. For Well, we do have it for commercial. Now, why did we do that? >> Because there are other areas of town that are commercial that that may require parking and because in some cases
it's it's it's okay to let to not require it because of the nature of the neighborhood. And you can't I mean you as as with any ordinance Dennis you you make a generalized ordinance and then you try to apply it specifically to different individual properties and they don't always they
don't always melt. >> Yeah. They very seldom mesh frankly. >> No. In some cases I don't even know why we have them quite frankly. >> That's a good point. Well, I'd like to talk about that a little later. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I mean your ordinance and I don't mean to to tear it apart, but your ordinance allows 90% building coverage,
lot coverage. You can't have a building cover 90% of a lot, particularly one on the watch watching street mall, and then provide parking at a rate of one for 200 square feet. It's simply impossible. >> Correct.
>> So, I don't I don't dismiss parking demands in Kate Bay as in any shore town um is always a struggle. Um, I submit to you by this application that while we technically are advancing the park in demand by your ordinance definition, pragmatically we're not. We're not doing
anything to exasperate it. And furthermore, if we were to make an attempt to provide parking on site, it would be at the expense of existing street parking. So, we actually advanced the plan early on
that provided a couple on-site parking spaces. Doing so required elimination of on street parking. Who wins there? >> I have a question. I have actually three questions. Um, you mentioned that the footprint is not changing. >> Correct.
>> In the first iteration of the plan off a lane, the I guess the structure at the at ground floor level was being pushed in. >> Correct. >> Is that not being proposed now? >> Not. >> So that's going to remain. So the there is a reconfiguration of that entryway there.
>> Yes. What is the currently Cass has entries off both Ly Lane lane and off of the Washington Street Mall. Okay. >> And it's a traditional 1970s indented recessed um doorway. >> Um we are on the Lyall Lane side closing it off entirely. It's within the
footprint of the building above. So we're not increasing the the overall aerial footprint, but we are increasing the ground floor area. uh on the Lyall Lane side. On the Washington Street Mall side, we still have a slightly recessed um entry entryway uh but not as deep as
the existing one. So, we are slightly decreasing that. >> Great. >> But again, the overall building footprint has not changed. We're doing it all within the um confines of the overall footprint. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. You know, after seeing the first iteration, I wasn't sure whether that was remaining
or not. So, okay. Um the second question is retail is a very very general use. Do we have a specific user specific type of retail or is it just general retail a user to be found? >> May I answer for you? >> Yeah absolutely.
>> Okay. Um this application is being customally developed for a particular tenant particular owner and operator. Queen made jewelry. >> Okay. and the entire fit out, layout, design, the aesthetics, signage, all is
tailored towards that specific um tenant >> or I should say a tenant operator. >> And my third question, it's pretty evident that there's existing retail there. Cassal is, you know, been functioning and and utilized. >> Um how did you establish the fact that
there is an existing three-bedroom apartment there? Is it being utilized now? Um has it been discontinued in use? Um there is a p this area and the mall area has been a um a study of last
master plan re-examination in which we recognize there are numerous existing illegal apartments um nonapproved. So there's nothing in your application that it's there's no resolution of approval or mercantile license or anything. So,
I'm just asking for the board's pleasure, how did you establish that that there is an existing three-bedroom apartment in that structure? >> I will answer that first from saying that I've walked the property. I've measured the property. I've identified that it is undisputably a three
bedrooms. In terms of the legality of the sedonic firm condition, I can offer you I'm hoping Mr. Amanhouser has a response more little more positive than that. I >> I don't have American tie license at this point. I know there wasn't one provided. uh we can request but I I don't have anything further related to
the legality of that existing >> the Cassels live there >> correct yeah >> it was never need for merkantile license the owners live there now >> right >> what what's the use what's the use of these two apartments what's that going
to be a single apartment >> one apartment >> no twobedroom apartment was that going to be >> for rent for uh were the owners going to live there like the cells did or What are we talking Oh, Mr. Kelly, are you asking for now or in the future?
>> Well, what's their plan? >> Okay. I just wanted to clarify. >> Yeah. >> No, the you say that you said the Cassels live there now or did anyway. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> The mother did. >> She's going to have to provide. >> Did Dan. All right. This is Mr. Um, if
you made a definitive plan as to how you intend to utilize the third floor, we're proposing as a residential >> use on the third floor. You know how you're going to use that? >> Yeah. >> Really to be determined, but we just want to keep it what it is existing. >> Please define residential because
residential is you live there or residential is >> res non-commercial. Correct. >> No, let me clarify further. Is it going to be rented as a short-term rental transient or is it residential in the sense that someone will live in that
accommodation year round? Have you made a determination in that regard as of yet? I know you don't own the property yet, but have you determined how you're going to utilize that space? >> Currently, we plan to use it ourselves >> and you would make that a condition of the application. >> You really can't do that.
>> No, I don't want to make it. >> You can't limit a residential property to being a rental or not a rental. >> You can. The use is residential. We cannot restrict the residential use to >> well it does make a difference in in the
application and in my opinion in looking at this because if it's being used for short term then the impact of parking is greater >> yes >> than for someone who was living there. So that does make a difference in my my view and how I would view this application. So um
>> from from an ownership perspective a apartment over a commercial use is a permitted use. The form of ownership is immaterial as far as the use goes in consideration of the parking variance. I think it matters. >> Yes.
>> Um they're they're saying it's an existing owner's quarters. That means that owner is residing in there and he's using it as a place of business. There's there's no parking turnover. um you're not having trips to and from the site. Certainly has less impact on traffic
situation and traffic flow. If it's going to be a short-term rental, obviously have people coming from out of town to try and find parking in a congested area that doesn't have very much parking in it. So, it's it's a different situation. This is the
discussion that we had in the master plan re-examination with regards to this. Um, we recog the master plan recognizes that a lot of those apartments have not become usable or
u essentially approved as as permitted uses because they can't accommodate the parking. >> And we in the master plan re-examination discussed that. We've discussed that. We recognize that's a situation in that neighborhood. Um now we also recommended
that you know that those apartments may be more beneficial for workforce housing because those employees need somewhere to live. We recognize that that may more be more palatable because that type of use has
less of a parking demand. They ride their bikes. they would just have to travel downstairs from their apartment and and you know be a pedestrian on their way to work. Um so the difference in the usage of that matters with
respect to the I think the balancing test or the evaluation of the parking variables. So I >> that's my plan. >> You've just argued in my >> I'm not I'm not making an argument. No,
I'm saying I'm saying it's consider it's a consideration of the parking varian my thought along this. >> So if so if the applicant is willing to make that a condition of approval >> in support of the variance then they may do that >> also because we're you've also indicated
Mr. Harles in your review that a traffic impact report um you would may be approp appropriate a waiver. Well, now if we're talking about short-term rental as opposed to long-term as you've just indicated, then a traffic impact might be warranted if they're not sure. So
typically with regards to the checklist waiver for the traffic impact statement, I am supportive of granting that. The way that that if you look through the information that's required for that checklist item, >> it more relates to
um circulation, signalization, lane width, etc. that. So if you were proposing a large development and the street that it abudded was suffic insufficiently wide, then you would ask for that. So >> okay, understood.
>> What what we probably should have in our checklist is more of a parking assessment because we run into that we run into that condition way more often than we run into this park traffic impact report. So I'm supportive of granting that waiver. >> Mr. Hills, just just to note too, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but
that existing presently for residential use for as long as it has, as was testified to earlier by Mr. Alburner, I'm not sure that there'd be anything in place right now that would prevent the current owner from leasing that out to short-term rentals. I don't think there's anything that would prohibit him from doing that right now.
>> I can't definitively say that that's we have no evidence that it exists or and you know, approved as however it was approved. I'm that's why I asked the question. I was unsure. >> Yeah. >> Because it's a hodgepodge of approved, non-approved, illegal apartments over
there. >> And Mr. Alber, your testimony is that the configuration of that building, as far as you're aware, has been in place predating at least the parking ordinance, but for quite some time. Correct. >> Well, yes. The building itself was built in 1967. the while I had no direct
knowledge of when the apartment was created, I could tell you by looking at the types of finishes and the decor that those that has existed since the 1970s. >> Okay. I guess would it be fair to say that that apartment uh has never been
subjected to the standards uh that we now have on on the books for review and approval of residential rentals because it's never been a residential rental. Is that right? as I don't think any of us could speak to it. I don't know the answer to that question,
>> but if it were to be a residential rental, it would be subjected to inspections, fire inspections, uh, merkanteal license reviews, and all the rest of that. >> Yes, it would be. Yes. >> All right. >> Can I ask a question about the elevator
with that third floor? I I don't know if I didn't understand the diagrams. The elevator does the three floors, >> right? >> It does. >> So, you only get access to the upstairs
by getting into the store or if people are coming in and shopping in the store, how would they would have access to taking the elevator up to the third floor? How is that working? >> You could turn the key off. So, you could limit it to just two floors >> with your elevator. So, you could make
it So, it operates to all three floors or you can turn it off to just two floors. >> And the apartment, >> please make sure you're on the mic when you speak. Thank you. >> Uh the U apartment will also have on Ly Lane there's a door to go up to that apartment that's going to remain >> correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So, Mr. Ammonheiser, I I'm not sure that I caught exactly where you were on the position, the short-term, long-term, and applicant use of the property. So why don't you get some testimony from the applicant as to what his intended use is
so that the board when it discusses the matter will be clear. I'm not sure my mind. >> What I was referring to was what the current owner in my opinion could do right now. >> Okay. I understand. >> Not not the proposed use. The testimony was provided was that he intends to utilize it himself but he doesn't
nothing part of this application was intended to limit that. So as we we didn't agree as a condition of approval to limit that to just personal use. >> Okay. That's what I want to understand. >> Sure. >> So, board members, you understand, right? >> I got it.
>> Okay. >> We want to leave it exactly the way it is currently used. So, >> but smaller. >> Yeah, it's true. But smaller. >> So, our understanding of the way it is, it's used as a um um apartment for
living quarters for the owner of the property who runs the store downstairs. Absolutely. And but with no limits on him leaving tomorrow and going to get a merkantile license and renting it. Okay. >> So, it's just going to be exactly the way it is. >> Okay. So, if I could just interrupt for
a second. So, that's not exactly how it's being used today though. >> If you're going to now propose to rent it out, >> I never said I was going to, but hey, John, >> I'm just I'm just trying to understand because it >> ask some question. So, John, I think just to to try to get across what
Danny's looking to get across, the current use of that third floor is purely residential. Correct. >> It is. >> Okay. We're talking about reducing the the amount of >> and half the second floor. >> Right. But I'm focusing solely really on the third floor right now because that's what we're proposing to remain as residential. Correct.
>> We are Yes. be taking that as residential. >> We're also talking about reducing bedrooms in that third floor. Correct. >> No, we're talking about reducing bedrooms overall. Correct. Okay. >> So, we're keeping the residential component in that property that exists now. Correct. >> We are.
>> Okay. Now, whether it's owner occupied, short-term rentals, however it is used, theoretically, it's a residential use right now. Right. >> It is. And will be maintained as such. >> Thank you. >> We're going to keep it as a residential use.
>> Correct. And a residential use that from a parking demand perspective, the demand's been reduced. By reducing the number of bedrooms, so is the parking demand. >> Okay, >> that's all I wanted to ask. >> I I Okay, I understand what you're saying, but you're your applicant is keeping all avenues open. I'm just going
to indicate to you that some towns view short-term rentals as commercial use and they require mercantile permits to operate on that fashion. >> That's correct. >> So, I don't want to mislead you or or the board here. You're saying it's going to continue to be used as a certain use
and you say but the options are open and they are but I just want to be clear that that may not your idea of a particular use and mine might not agree as to whether it's residential or commercial.
>> My understanding is what is what he's saying it's residential no matter how he uses it. If he decides to rent it out he would have to obtain a merkantale license >> and that we understand that >> that's the way I would see it. >> Yes. >> Yes. And we agree with that. >> And meet the standards for a residential rental property which include a a whole
raft of inspections. >> It's not much. >> None of which are objectionable. Whatever inspection, a zoning inspection. >> That's it. >> But I think the impact >> not something a private residence is exposed to. >> It's not a whole I have a condo that that I could I could run out year round or or summer or and it's the same
inspection. They take 10 minutes, Dennis. It's not it's not obtrusive and it's not >> Yeah. But I do I do think that the parking impact is a little bit different and we we have seen that impact and so you know that does concern me and I'm not asking you to make a definitive
statement if you're not willing to but it also impacts my >> view of the application. So I'm just being perfectly honest about that because you know other applications have come before this board. Um the board has approved based on the conditions believing that a property was to be used
as a residential and it's turned into a short term um >> still residential use. That that's that's the argument that everybody getting. It's still a residential. >> I understand that we I'm I'm going to go with what was said at a planning board meeting with regard to the use residential, short-term, whatever it
might be. We can disagree on the the definition of that terminology, but I do believe that it's just in my opinion having a short-term rental, residential short-term rental, transient residential rental is different than someone who's living there full-time um and utilizing
an accommodation for workforce housing. That's my opinion, Mr. Chairman. So, John, just just to follow up on that briefly. So, what we're proposing is a two-bedroom residential unit. Correct. >> Correct. >> Whether that's owner occupied
as we've indicated the premises is now or it's leased out as a short-term or long-term rental. Do you see a significant difference between the parking requirements or the parking I guess difficulties regardless of what that use is? >> No. the occupier of that unit whether
they're there on a weekly, monthly or annual basis are probably going to have a car. They need to park it. >> Okay. >> So, no meaningful difference that you can >> No. In fact, again, remember a three-bedroom apartment has higher
probability of requiring more cars again whether that apartment is being used on a weekly, monthly, or annual basis. So the parking demand is being reduced by the application. I'd also like to talk very briefly about the alternative. We
can provide on-site parking. Not a fully compliant manner, but we can provide on-site parking. >> You would still need a parking variance. >> We would, but we would be increasing or decreasing the degree of non-conformity, but not in a way that the city the city benefits from because we're going to be
losing street parking to do so. We quite frankly advanced a plan as part of the digital application that cut away part of the first floor of the building to make enough depth to provide three parking spaces on site off Lyall Lane. Now the only way we can access them would be to remove three street parking
spaces. So in the end no new parking spaces were created but we will be closer to satisfying our on-site obligation obligation. >> The first iteration of the plan actually decreased parking overall in the city. There was you were providing two on site and you were removing three city spaces.
So there was a net loss of one parking space. >> Yeah. Because the first one had to be hand. >> Yeah. So I don't as a planner I would have a hard time justifying a parking variance making a net decrease of overall parking. >> But I'm bringing that up not because we're advancing that application now but
to demonstrate for those who are having a hard time getting their heads around the variance we're seeking now. Well, compared to the alternatives and what we're proposing now, I think is a much better alternative. >> Anything else, John? I know we respond
to some questions. I think that's all we have at this time. Mr. Chair, >> any questions for you members of the board? >> Nope. Um, Greg, >> I would like to summarize my June 11th, 2025 review me memorandum for this
application at 413415 Washington Street. Um, it is located in the C1 primary business district. Uh, you've heard testimony from the applicants. They are seeking um variances both under the C1 and C2 criteria. Um, you'll note my review only
reflects C2 because of the checklist, but they have agreed as a condition to provide a new application indicating that they did indeed seek C1 criteria um, variance. They've also requested a site plan, both preliminary and final.
Um, and you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating the existing and proposed use of the building. So, I won't rehash that unless there's any questions from the board. um and roll right into the completeness review uh
checklist items on page two of six. Um they've asked for waivers from items number 27, 28, and 33 for the C and D variance checklist. And they've asked for waivers from item number 3, which is the EIS statement. And the the
application um says that the board must specifically grant that waiver. and from 3W the traffic impact report. Um and the ordinance also requires you to specifically grant that waiver. Um but I did recommend um if board is supportive
of those those waiverss uh the application should be deemed complete. With regards to the variances um once again lo this is located in the C1 primary commercial district. apartments above commercial uses and retail sales
are permitted uses in the zone. So, we're dealing with permitted uses um with regards to the relief that's requested. Um this is a conforming application with the with respect to everything um except for two items. Lot
coverage, their maximum permitted in the district is 95%. They're essentially reconfiguring some things on site. Um but at the end of the day there's an existing coverage of 99.7% where they are proposing 99.7%. So
there's no increase in coverage with regards to parking. The apartment is um required to comply with the residential site improvement standards. Uh for threebedroom in the existing condition they're required to have two on-site spaces. In the proposed condition for
two-bedroom they're required to have one on-site space. So there's a net decrease of one space in eliminating that bedroom for that apartment. >> Craig, can I ask you to clarify that? What's the calculation for going two bedrooms down to one space?
How does Reese's calculate that one space? >> I'm not understanding the question. >> Parking space. >> The parking space. >> Okay. So threebedroom, there's a requirement of two, >> right? >> Two bedroom, there's a requirement of one. Okay. Residential site improvement standards say when you have a fraction
it rounds down. >> Rounds down. >> Always rounds down. It could be 129 and it would round down to one. >> That's what I was asking. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> Okay. >> For the retail. So the retail is being in increased the retail space from 1,039
ft to 2,999 square foot. That is an increase from an existing condition that requires 5.2 spaces. In the proposed condition, it's required 15 spaces. So, there's a total requirement of 16 spaces where there
there's no ability to provide any on-site parking space. And that is the variance that's being requested. In my questioning and in the board's discussion, I sort of went through my methodology and and criteria. I think
the use of that apartment doesn't matter with regards to the treatment. It is a permitted use, but I do believe that it can weigh on the board's consideration of that parking variance because of the way our our discussions with regard to the
master plan, how it treats the understanding that that area has been influenced by the lack of parking and the unability to provide on-site parking there has stagnated the ability to
make conforming apartment units above of the commercial uses. So the master plan is clear in that. If if you know I I know we've all discussed that so the board should be familiar with that and I'll be happy to discuss that further if the board has any questions with regards
to their consideration of that. Um on page five of six uh there was a question as to whether I considered this application under both C1 and C2 criteria. um NJSA4055D-70 both C1 and C2 criteria are listed on
page five and Mr. Baldini can elaborate on that if the board has questions with regards to the proofs that are required to justify those variances. Under the general review comments on page five of six, um under construction
details, we've uh asked for new fire suppression connection details. I believe the fire department has also requested that. So that should be a condition of approval. Um item two is our standard review of the stormwater and grading requirements. Um this is a
site plan, but virtually there's no site plan improvements that are proposed with the exception of a fire department uh suppression connection. Is that correct? Okay. So there are very little site improvements that are required. Um,
but we uh they do have to comply with chapter 525 both during construction and after construction, which is to make sure that they demonstrate that they're not adversely impacting anyone with their storm water discharge. Item number three should be a condition of approval and that's city sewer and
water department approval is required for the new connection and those utility connections should be shown on the plan with the appropriate details. Four is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction and the applicant is required to replace the
sidewalk to the satisfaction of the board engineer. Item five is a standard condition that they have to provide the required inspection escrow and that the certificate of occupancy is tied to the acceptance of the improvements.
Six is our recommendation that they comply with the requirements of the Cape May Fire Department, Police Department, public works department, environmental commission, city engineer, and shade tree commission. Um, a city engineer did issue a report with regards to the first iteration of the plan. That is no longer
valid. So, we can kind of strike that. Um, with regards to the environmental commission issued a recommendation of approval dated June 27th, 2025 with no comments. The fire department recommended approval with the following
conditions. That's a fire suppression details are needed. The fire department connection the FDC location to be on Lyall Lane side of the building with a 2.5 in Siamese connection.
Elevator details for private access to third floor is if planned to be restricted. Are you acceptable to those conditions? Okay. Um, and that's dated 62725. Uh, HPC uh gave a notice of conceptual
approval that was dated April 21, 2025. There is notation in there with regards to the first floor rear wall being relocated to accommodate parking. We can strike that because that's no longer proposed. Uh, the police department recommended approval with no comments
dated 6:30 2025. The public works department recommended approval with no comments. 62525. Shade tree commission recommended approval with the following conditions. Uh please Oh my goodness.
What does that say? Please proceed to plant two plantings in the rear space provided. Thank you. You acceptable to providing two street trees on I'm guessing the Lyall Lane side. >> I mean it's something that the board really puts us to do. Frankly, it's supposed to be a pedestrian mall. It's
going to hamper that pedestrian recirculation, but >> Okay. >> board wants us to do. >> Well, you're agreeable to do that sat satisfactory to the city's review of that. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, that's all that's the highlights of
the those recommended commissions, comities, and departments. Um item number seven is our standard condition that they have to provide uh the inspection escrow and the CO is tied to that. That's a duplicate. We can strike that one. Sorry about that. Um
eight is the provide the required performance guarantee and inspection escros that's required for site plans. Nine is compliance with all other state, county, and local approvals. 10 is evidence of providing final HPC approval since they got conceptual. 11 is
compliance with all applicable affordable housing requirements at the time of approval, issuance of building permits or CO as applicable. And finally, should the board grant approval, they have to provide uh the requisite number of plans revised to
address all conditions of approval that the board sets. That's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. I know we talked about a lot of things in that one. Part of your comments dealt with the second and third floors ability of
all promoting residential uses promoting >> right it's a permitted use >> employee housing which we talked about >> right >> so we're not this is not aggravating anything that we have talked about in the master plan >> as far as the use is concerned the use is contemplated in this district
>> right >> and and as far as our master plan re-examination is concerned we recognize that there has been difficulty in developing these units because of a parking situation. Whether the whether the applicant is addressing your
concerns with regard to that parking situation is up to each member to decide. And if the third floor were were to be converted to commercial space, how many more parking spaces would we need instead of the residential use? Well, you can see that the commercial the
commercial area is driving the parking variance. Um, you know, >> so just say it's another thousand square feet, you're probably looking at another five parking spaces, >> right? >> Um, any other questions from members of
the board for Greg? Then let me open up to the public. >> Yes, I was going to tell you. >> Anybody in the public care to comment on the application? Okay. Public portions closed. Mike, you had a question? >> No, I was just going to tell you to open it to the public. >> Okay. >> Don't forget.
>> Mr. Ammonheiser, you accept as a condition of approval the general review comments and to comply with those contained in the board engineers report of June 11th, 2025. >> We do. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any members of the board have any further comments?
>> Yeah, I have a comment. This application raises the perpetual problem for Cape May, which is that parking is the number one complaint that everybody has, both the residents and the visitors have about coming to Cape
May or living in Cape May. The application suggests that it is to the benefit of the community that this application double the size of the commercial space and provide this residential unit.
Uh that that's their argument. I would make the same argument if I were they. Uh on the other side of that coin, however, is that this application does significant damage to an already damaged system in this town by opening
the doors once again to uh the theoretical and practical expansion of the need for parking. If I could put something in your mind, you've all seen, I think, the videos on YouTube as a humorous video where the Japanese subway
system typically employs individuals to stand on the platform and shove the people into the subway cars. That's what's happening in Kate May with respect to parking. The commercial interests of Kate May are are served by
this application. The commercial interests of Cape May are viable and vibrant depending on the number of people that come down here and be customers. I get that completely. But dragging along behind the process is
is a set of regulations that we have that we have to evaluate that to look at the impact on our existing resources and our ability to accommodate those v visitors. This application makes the situation
practically worse. It makes it practically worse. And it and it is once again in a series of of uh decisions which have piece by piece pulled threads out of the zoning code that we have that that talks about
parking. Now, I can't vote for this resolution simply because of that. I also can't vote for this resolution or this application because the question mark of whether it is there isn't a residential facility for use or for rent does have a bearing on whether or not
it's going to impact that whole sit that whole environment around the mall ly lane and the park and if it were a residential rental there would be changeover problems there will not be there there will not be how many cars is it one car
>> they're not going to be there it's not going to be one car in in a two-bedroom apartment. It's simply not. We know that for a fact. We know that because we looked at our residential rental impact on parking and and people come with at least one
car per bedroom. And if and possibly more, likely more. U Dennis, if the property owner used that unit, how many cars would he have? Yeah, I'm I'm he could use it, but we're not >> How many cars do you think he would
have? One or two? >> Yeah. >> Well, how many cars do you think someone renting that unit would have? >> How many cars? >> One or two? >> Could could be one for a weekly rental. It could be six. >> It's always going to be one or two cuz the owner's going to be there. >> Two bedroom.
>> But yeah, >> you cramming people in the Volkswagen. It depends on it depends on whether or not uh it's advertised as sleep six or sleeps two or sleeps three. But we're not talking about that now. We're only talking about two things in my mind.
Number one, the negative impact it has on the already problematic issue of parking overall in the city. And number two, we don't know what that residential unit is going to be used for. And it could or could not have an impact. >> Okay. >> I I can't I can't vote for this. >> We we got we got your point.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Anybody else? kind of >> Dennis, it does create a negative impact. However, it creates a negative impact for businesses to even want to be here. We've been kicking this >> parking situation down the road now for how many years? It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. We
can't inhibit businesses from growing and expanding in this area because of parking. >> Yes. And and the master plan the master plan recommends that we consider that commercial district to remove all parking requirements. And and if the
city wants to do that and this committee wants to recommend that the city do that, that's fine. But you can't in my mind, you can't simply have a set of of regulations that are routinely absolved. >> That's that's that's why that's why we
review the ordinances because if they are routinely absolved, we shouldn't be they we shouldn't have them to begin with. >> Well, that's that's that's really my point. But we're we're caught in time right here with an applicant who's butdding up against something that has that that probably needs to be examined
but hasn't been examined and has actually been avoided examining it for quite some time. Giving it another variance is not going to solve the problem of the city's inability to identify what they need to do about parking. So the the applicant
is caught in the wash. He wants to make a He wants to make something out of He wants to expand his commercial base. I don't have a problem with that. >> That's what's creating the parking issue. >> But that's the problem I have. I don't have a problem with saying let's let's make as much money as we can to go ahead
and do that. This is a K is a business enterprise. It's really a business enterprise. So >> city >> it's a city that that thrives. It's a business enterprise. And to the extent that the city has a set of rules that are inhibiting that that maybe the city
ought to start looking at that. But the point is now not that not a long range policy discussion but this application this application asks for uh to to expand the grandfathered re requirement or the grandfathered parking
spaces that they have already been given for years uh from 7 to 16. That's that's that's double the impact. Double the impact. I I just can't bring myself to say let's have another variance because the next one we had a variance back in
in uh December on this very concept and that didn't work out well. But we're not going to bring that onto the table. But simply to say there'll be more. There'll be more. And what do we do? Another variance. And your point Bill is is well taken. If it's always exempted it
shouldn't even be there. shouldn't be there. Exactly. >> I don't have a problem with saying that. What I have a problem with saying is if we we we don't do something about it, we can't just simply expand the bubble. And so this application brings me to a point
where I'd say God bless you for trying to do this. The the hardship that you talk about is not the hardship that I see. The hardship I see is on the city. And so that's why I can't support it. >> Yeah. You're talking about a business that's in a place where the people
already are. >> Theoretically, >> it's a pedestrian mall. They're already there. You're not drawing. >> They're drawing from the people that are there. >> Theoretically, >> so >> not theoretically. >> That's the way it is. They're on the mall. >> They don't walk from the dry dock to go to the mall. >> They're on the mall already.
>> The mall creates the parking problem, not the businesses. The whole concept of it, >> you can't blame one business for that. >> I'm not blaming one business for anything. What I'm what I'm blaming is that that the the the code provides for something that's never been required
>> that we Dennis, we we got we got your >> Okay, I'm just answering Rick. >> Just for the point of voting, Dennis, I think you're not going to be you're uh probably not >> probably not voting. I just want I just want to we have 10 members here and one one alter's not allowed to vote. You're allowed to speak on it. >> Okay.
>> If you want to. >> Anybody else have any comments? >> Yes, I do. Um, so this is to me not the application um having to do with the expansion of the business. You have a a nice plan. Um, it looks well thought
out. Uh, and the impact to the parking from a commercial expansion. I wouldn't have any problem if it was that alone. My concern is is that we're having this the creation of a residential area on the third floor that is undefined and
not knowing whether or not that would be used for the owner um and full-time year round or become transient and the transient does have a different um impact um in that area. uh you have cars
coming and going when there's changeover, the frequency of the changeover, cleaning services coming in, all of those things that occur. Um Dennis is right, Mr. Crowley is right, we the city has to take on um the onus of taking a look at how these spaces
should be used and could be used. And it may be that we will be redefining how short-term rentals are in this city and especially when it comes to this location because if we're going to want property owners to expand on workforce housing there, it needs to be used for
workhorse housing and not adding more Airbnbs, verbos, and transient um accommodations. It's that is not the place for it. it just exacerbates an already known and existing parking issue by adding that in as a dimension. So I
have no pro, you know, again from if this was strictly on the commercial side of this application on the first two floors, I would be fine with it. Um, but for me, the third floor is just really it's standing out and it's being undefined at this point. Um, and you
have the right to do that. I understand we can't put a condition on the application. and if we could, I would ask for it. >> Um, so those are my comments. >> Thank you. Anybody else care to make a comment? >> All right, then. Um, we'll we'll vote on
the uh we'll vote we'll vote on the application with the variances all in one fell swoop. >> If that's what you'd like, you you want to vote C1 and C2 separate? >> No, I think I think they've agreed to to >> bring them together once.
>> We're fine with doing it through one vote. >> That's fine. And so just so you're clear, it'll be C1, C2. It'll also be the uh uh preliminary and final site plan approval with the uh site plan and um waiverss sought by the applicant. And
those were identified in a June 11, 2025 letter of the board engineer. >> Okay. Um somebody care to make that motion? I'll make the motion. >> Okay, I'll second.
>> We have a motion by Deputy Mayor McDade, seconded by Mr. Jones. Mayor Mollik. Um, first off, I think it's a beautiful design um and um major upgrade to that building and frankly I hope it happens. But I do have a problem with the
undefined uh third floor. I I I think for um decades we've had discussion on on the planning board and largely there's a lot of um buildings on the mall that are remain empty to this day which I think is absurd frankly. I think
there should be workforce housing. Um but as it exists today you have the owner who lives there um and and runs the shop. And I think frankly that's that's the definition of mixed use. And I think that's a wonderful way to do it. Um, and I think that's what makes Kate
May Kate May. You have you have that uh the people right there um or workers that are right there. I think that makes all the sense in the world. Weekly rental in that situation I I just don't support and therefore I vote no.
>> Deputy Mayor McDade for u my previously stated position. No. >> Mrs. Reid, >> I concur with Deputy Mayor and the mayor. I think that you're unwilling to
uh lock yourself into a owner residency tells me that it's not going to be a owner residency. And there's so many problems with people coming uh in and out with their luggage, double parking because they can't get a place to park
on the mall, uh beach chairs, whatever. It's just not right. I I can't vote for it. I'm sorry. No, >> Mr. Crowley. >> No, >> Mr. Lhome. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Riggs. >> Um, I've listened to the testimony. Obviously, I asked a few questions with that. Um, I I agree with the mayor and the deputy mayor and their sentiments on that undefined third floor. Um I I believe that a traffic impact study is
probably actually needed um in my opinion um because of the unknown to it. Um so I'm going to be voting no. >> Mr. Padus, >> you know, I made a statement that we can't
stop businesses from trying to grow in Kate May and we just won't address this parking issue in Kate May. However, I have to vote no on this issue because it just wouldn't be right to have this as a
short-term rental in Kate May. We don't have the parking. We need to address it. We finally need to address it. When are we going to address the parking in Kate May? I asked the mayor. I asked the deputy mayor. When? Let's get it done.
Look what we're doing. So, for that again, I'm ready now. >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes. Mr. Bizair. Um, >> I'm voting yes. And the comment I have to make is I find it somewhat
hypocritical that it's okay to create a parking variance for six or seven cars that don't exist that are going to be created for the commercial use. But to deny an application because there's one residential parking space that does not
that is not part of a meat of this application. And I just I I don't I don't quite understand it, but we that's that's where we are. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Ask questions or >> No, sir. >> No. >> No. You've rendered your decision. >> Well, I know for bringing it back. trying to understand what to do to >> I don't I don't know that I I'm not sure
I have any of us have the answer for that. I don't know. >> Okay. Um we have next on the agenda payment of bills. They just got passed out. >> I'll make a motion pay the bills. >> Second. >> Just third
>> motion by Mr. Jones, seconded by Mr. Lholm. Mayor Mullik. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid. >> Yes. Mr. Crowley, >> yes. >> Mr. Lhome, >> yes. >> Mr. Riggs, >> yes. >> Mr. Baducus, >> yes. >> Mr. Jones, yes. >> Mr. Bizair, >> yes.
>> Thank you. >> Do I have anything else for the board? >> Yes, >> we have some balls in the air still with the master plan implementation stuff. This was one of them. >> Um R the R4 district um I has been
mentioned. I'm not sure if it's just I just looking for a consensus of the board as to what direction you would like me to focus on next and prepare a report and with recommendations. >> I sort of thought the R4 was was the >> uh yeah >> say the R I mean from my perspective I'm
getting questions constantly. So, you know, I really would like for us to do a little bit more work in that area. You know, >> Bill, I would agree too. I think the R4 was way beyond time to get looked at. And but I also would would like following this discussion, I would also
like to suggest that we go to the master plan and take a look at everything it says about parking and and and get serious about helping the city get to a solution to this problem. And there are solutions. Uh but but I wouldn't I
wouldn't at this point recommend that we scrub the the ordinances with respect to parking. But I think we need to look at what is reasonably available to us to do for the city council to give them a way to address parking that doesn't cause
this kind of a problem when every time one of these applications come up. >> One of them what we discussed tonight was on the mall it's impossible to provide parking. It's it's we're we're we're kidding ourselves that we have had that have had that requirement. Well,
the the the master plan recommendation does include, as Craig said, it does include references to the lack of of u uh the usage of those apartments in the mall, but it also talks about a parking garage. >> It does. >> And and so and and and every every time you mention the word parking garage in
this town, somebody throws up on your face. And it it's it's just it's just about time because we are >> become a repel. I I I've mentioned it to a few people that that is a cons, you
know, it's a distant consideration and people I've spoken to have actually had a fairly good reaction. >> Let's and you know, we need something like that. We need to be we're as popular if not more so than for example Annapolis and they have a public parking
garage right in the middle of their town. And so there are and trust me I I have some experience in this issue. Moren, you probably know this. >> Yes. >> Um there are lots of ways to design,
fund and support that kind of a resource for this city. And in fact public private partnerships are available all over the place. Our our master plan recommends public private partnerships and a lot of different things. It's time
to just stop listening to everybody cluck their tongue and say, "God, the parking's terrible around here." We We need to do something about that. And I think this this committee, it falls in this committee as a planning board to to address the issue and make some
recommendations to council that they can actually deal with. And then it then frankly, it's the council's job to run with that ball. But if they don't have that information and they don't have that support from this board, it'll never get done. Parking is the most complained about thing in this town. And
the more you attract people to this town, and we're on the top 10 list of every survey and every travel magazine, the more we we want as many people as possible coming to Kate May, but we don't want to, pardon my friends, bitching and moaning about parking and maybe not come back because of that. So,
so we need to be be serious about it. We're not a little town in the middle of nowhere. We're we're we're the number one tourist destination in everybody's mind. People come here and and and and the the evidence of that is clear enough and I happen to live across the street
from it. The temporary use of our of our Lafayette Street park for for free parking is clear evidence that there are a lot of people who come to this town and don't find a place to park. When that park gets done, those people are
still going to want to come. But where are they going to park? Every night of the summertime, there's at least 200 cars in that lot. >> And that means 200 spaces that And you know who those 200 spaces are? They're the they're the 16 people.
>> A lot of them are employees. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Well, and I do want just to go and not to cut you off, Mr. Kelly, but the the thing that we need to immediately discuss as a planning board, as a council, is the workforce housing and how we can utilize those apartments on
the mall. And however, we need to define that area so that it is not in getting turned into a short-term rental transient environment. We need to do it's critically important. If they're sitting empty and there's an opportunity
there and it makes perfect sense to to look at that and say what do we need to do as a city to make it attractive for the property owners to use those for workforce. Let me let me just gently push back on you a little bit. >> We just penalized this guy
>> because workforce >> we just penalized this guy terribly for I'm not sure for what I mean I just I mean if it we if he was going to use it as a owner occupied he's still going to have cars there. He's still going to
have coming and going all the time. How do you how do you >> not the same extent? I I would >> Well, I'll tell you what. I would not I would my vote on that would not the variance would not have affected that at all. My thinking on the variance would have stayed the same if you let if we let this guy have it for somebody else
to park. It wouldn't have changed my idea about the variance at all. >> I have a question. So, he came before us on another property, >> correct? >> Right. >> He did. I remember. >> And we approved it. >> Right. because uh his workers were going to be living above. If he had come
tonight and said, "I'm going to have my manager of the store live there or an employee live there." Would this have changed everybody's vote? >> That's that's that's what sense I got. >> But he he never said he was written that short term. We did. >> Right. >> Well, that's another thing. He never
said that. But no, actually he come before us and said, "I'm going to have this for my employees that third floor, would it have changed your mind?" >> Is that what he's using it for? >> No. In that discussion, >> he didn't say it. He didn't state what he was using it for. >> In that discussion, what he previously said,
>> members, if I could just interrupt for one second. Thank you. So, you can talk in general terms >> of your parking plans. You voted and you all expressed your opinions during the hearing. So, you have to limit your comments to general comments and not
redis past application because the applicant's not here. >> Go Phillies. >> Yeah. Votes over. It's done. >> Here's a general comment >> to push. >> There you go. >> To push back on on Moren's point just a
little bit. Workforce housing is a problem. Workforce housing is not the city's responsibility. It's a problem that needs to be solved jointly and cooperatively between the people who those people work for and the
city. If there were an option or if there were an issue in my mind, if there were an issue that screamed out for public private partnership, it's workforce housing. and and and and if if any approach going forward, this is why I said it a minute ago, any approach
going forward must include that sort of cooperative arrangement, we can't s and if we were to say recommend that workforce housing be used in all the apartments in the mall as an ordinance that that's not that's not good enough in my mind. >> I'm not say Yeah. Well,
>> yeah, >> and I wouldn't I wouldn't limit it to that. I would certainly say that it requires some uh communication with those business owners from the city. And this is just strictly my opinion. This is not the deputy mayor speaking here. But sitting down and saying how can we
encourage >> this development? What is it that that we can do to help you as a city to do it? Because I do believe that we have a responsibility in some in in from a context. >> This is an issue that screams out for a
task force. employers who buy property specifically >> I was just about to say that have already done that >> and there are neighbors of those houses who complain about it. >> Yeah. >> So >> what's going to happen if someone puts an application to make >> four apartments
>> a fourbedroom apartment above the mall based on tonight we're turning it down. >> Well I kind of >> we can't talk >> I'm not going to talk about the application. I want to talk about the mall and the and the current situation. We my understanding and Bill you would
be the perfect one to correct me is there's been applications in the past and there's a reason that there's a lot of second and third floor uh apartment non apartments you know that are just laying empty because they weren't given the variance because of parking. never
applied >> or just never applied >> or >> we don't see it, >> but maybe have seen a denial in the past and said, "Hey, they're not going to approve it." >> I don't remember a denial. This is the first This is the first denial that I remember on the mall. >> There was an application back in the
day, the Fudge Kitchen, the owners of the Fudge Kitchen changed, they had storage only was their um condition. >> That's across the street from them. and then they changed it because of workforce housing. You guys did this in the last six years since
I've been here. So >> actually the tendency has been okay >> the fact that they have to come get site plan approval and get variance approval has has essentially chased them away and been a
>> Yeah. So I mean that's that's what that that was part of our discussion in the master plan reason. My only point is I do think it's silly to have valuable real estate like that sitting empty, but I don't necessarily take the leap that the answer is they should all be
converted into weekly rentals. I just to to me that's that's my stumbling point. >> Well, then you've got to then you've got to have a carrot for the workforce housing. You can't you can't say it has to be this. >> So, what do you think it should be? >> You offer enough incentive >> this bill. What do you think it should
be? What what's the incentive? >> Yeah, >> they don't have to get any any approvals. If they want to help, they just help. >> They can. >> But the thing is, >> you've got businesses that don't have second floors or that are maybe removed from the mall. Can their employee can
their employees >> be put Yes. And and that to coordinate that, I don't know. How do you how do you >> verify that? And then you're going to have >> then you're going to have you got to you got to regulate them. Now you got to they got to pay merkantail licenses. You got to >> inspections, all that kind of stuff. And it just gets to be ownorous.
>> And and employee housing is >> you're giving up a lot of money. >> Yeah. >> To to to provide employee housing. >> Yeah. So back to my original suggestion, can we put together some sort of a working a task force to look at this problem headon in this committee?
>> Well, it's got to be multifaceted because you can't just say we want workforce housing. If you're you're in the same breath you're talking about a parking garage, that's generally not going to be workforce housing. I would I would or parking for workforce housing. I would not think >> No, I'm not I'm not I don't want to I
don't want to suggest that we just workforce housing is not the issue to me. It's a secondary one. The issue is our parking regulations create an un an unattainable standard and it and a city as it gets popular and more and more so
is going to be the parking is the problem. Workforce housing is a is a section of that. Parking is the problem. >> No, no question. It's been that way for >> every shore town has the same issue, >> right? Well, to a certain degree.
>> Ocean City, they complain about why would they complain about it? >> And and the the one on Lafayette Street, who how however the city got that to be parking is a great accomplishment. I I just thought because there was blue acres and green acres funds provided for that, you were never going to be able to
park. They're probably breaking some regulations. >> It's not going to stay like that. >> Yeah, but anybody who rides bike an advertisement should need a parking garage. >> But anyway, a good while. >> Uh >> yeah, we we're we're
>> we'll have to we'll have to again we're doing we're doing master plan stuff as soon as we can. We've got two applications. >> I I believe that the consensus was I want to start with the R4 stuff. >> Who? >> R4. >> Oh yeah. Well, yeah, that is the thing. >> Okay. Okay.
>> But, Mr. Chairman, I think just kind of speaking on behalf of city council, if the planning board were to have suggestions on specifically the mall and and any other workforce housing. I mean, I think >> the the old the old traditional answer
is we could we could form a subcommittee and they could they could start putting some things together to bring to if anybody would if you want to do that tonight. >> I'd be happy to sit on that subcommittee. I'd be happy to sit on it. >> It's kind of scary, Dennis. I >> mean, I would Mayor Mayor, I would b
>> Mayor I would have a bifurcate that and talk about what we're talking about here, but also bring up the parking garage again. >> Yeah. >> Really? I mean, you can do both at the same time. >> Yes. Yes. Yeah, >> we we that's a profile encourage frankly because everybody
because as as Dennis points out the the tide might be changing and and if you could if you could design and create and market and fund a parking garage that does a lot of things. >> I've always thought that the problem with that was just there were louder voices. That was it.
>> Yeah, >> there were louder voices against it. Yes, >> there should have been a lot more common sense people working on this. >> It has to be funded by the city and then there's that old >> No, there's not that that doesn't necessarily mean >> Well, it doesn't have done that. >> That's that perception. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right.
>> All right. >> Well, okay. Let's let's let's get I'll get three people want to start a start a parking committee and have have meetings and kick around some idea. Three or four of you besides Dennis maybe.
>> I'm not smart enough. Anybody want to be >> I'd be happy to if you would like me, Mr. Chairman. >> You're going to want to be on it. I'm not being facitious. >> Yeah, I do. I I have a lot of feelings about this and I have a lot of research on it, too. So, >> could be helpful.
>> All right. I'll get there. I'll I'll volunteer. >> Okay. >> The three of you and the three musketeers and Dartanian over here and we can have our meetings at the brewery, right? in all my free time, Mr. Chairman.
>> All right. So, you guys can for you can call your own meetings and >> Yeah. Okay. >> Bander about and see if you can come up with some ideas. In the meantime, we'll we'll try to tackle the R4. >> Okay. >> All right. Final motion.
Move we adjourn. Okay. Thank you guys. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you.