e e e e e e e e e e e
me first testing e e uh okay we ready to start okay good evening everybody regular meeting of the C city planning board is now in session and in and in compliance with the open public
meetings Act of 1975 act notice of this meeting has been provided should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of that act they shall so State at this time hearing none we'll start with the pledge of allegiance of the United States of
America the rep for it stands one nation under God indivisible withy and justice for all okay roll call yes Mr bazer here Mr Jones here Mr rigs here Mr Crowley here
Mr Gorgon here mayor mullik Deputy Mayor McDade here Mrs Reed Mr lenol here Mr puses here Mr krippin okay okay okay um first item on the agenda is
resolution of approval of resolution 225 2025 Kings Cafe LLC 401 Lafayette Street block 1046 slot 8 motion to approve that so move second Mr Gorgon motions Mr
Jones seconds Mr gorgone yes Deputy Mayor McDade yes Mr Crowley yes Mr home yes Mr rigs yes Mr bedus yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer yes thank you we have minutes for
two meetings I'll do them both in unless anybody has any questions on either one of the meetings we'll do them both in tandem motion to approve both uh June 18th I'm sorry January 14th and January 28th I'll make the motion a
second Deputy Mayor McDade motions Mr gorgone Seconds Mr gorgone yes Deputy Mayor m Dade yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenhome yes Mr rigs I'm going to be a yes the January 14th but I believe I absent on the January 28th meeting so
I'm going to abstain from that thank you Mr pusis yes Mr Jones yes Mr uh bizer yes thank you okay before we go any further um as as everybody can see Rich king is not here tonight or he's here but he's not on this side of the
table and um in his place is Steve Morris um who's a conflict Council as everybody may or may not be aware was there was a there was a question about riches being within 200 ft of the property so in order to make sure things were absolutely clear that there was no
conflict on his part he agreed to step down Steve's taking his place and I'll give Steve a minute or two to let you know where he's been how capable he is put the there you go uh yes then we'll have to vote to accept him as a conflict Council thank you Mr chman good evening
members of the board professionals my name is Steve Morris as Mr bazer indicated um I am an attorney who is licensed in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey I was bared in New Jersey in 2018 uh currently I run a solo practice out of West Cape May uh currently serve as
the solicitor for the city of Wildwood as well as their Redevelopment Council I also serve as solicitor for the lower Township mua uh prior to that I've worked for uh Middle Township lower Township and Stone Harbor I've been on the other side of the Das a number of times as an applicant on behalf of uh
folks seeking variance relief from various municipalities and I've also served as the conflict Planning and Zoning Board attorney for the city of Wildwood if any members of the board have any questions about my credentials I'd be happy to answer them get a motion to point I'll make a
motion Morris second second okay all right also we have we had certain members were not here for this application what what one moment can we just say all in favor I'm sorry all in favor all in favor hi hi any opposed I'm I'm going to abstain for
the record okay okay thank you okay um there were certain members of the board that were not here for the first U hearing of this application and they have signed certification they've been
not notorized by Steve and the announcement is that those certifications have been accepted so those individuals are able to vote and listen to this application okay all right uh the application is Katherine a Healey 230 236 248 Grant
Street block 1019 Lots 12 13.01 and 14 minor subdivision and variance relief okay please feel free to have a seat feel free to have a seat anyone who wants to thank
you okay we'll swear in anybody who's going to give testimony as well as our board engineer I think it's upside down that's not a good Good [Laughter] Start okay so those those who are going to give testimony raise your raise your
right hand please you SAR sure um and does your board normally get addresses on the record for professionals or just Okay um do those with their right hand who prepare to testify tonight they swear affirm to tell the truth in this matter I do state your names please
homeowner so proprietor of 230 36 Grand and okay and just let the record reflect I did swear to tell the truth as the board engineer and board planner okay
start us off turning your mic on Mr chairman I I know that these experts had been accepted by your board prior I know that we do have some new board members do we want to accept them as experts or put their credentials on the record I I I personally think we're okay we've already they've already' already
been accepted I agree yeah so whoever is speaking put this put your mics on sure because and speak into them absolutely because we attorneys have to say something and and any kind of thing I'll speak first almost can't help ourselves at time time so good
evening members of the board my name is Peter jaanus I am an attorney at the law firm of Highland Levin shyro located in Marlton New Jersey and like our Hearing in November my office represents the applicant Katherine Hy with respect to this application I'm going to try and
provide a very brief summary of the application just to kind of get us all back to square one with respect to where we are discuss a bit of what's happened since our last Hearing in November and then I'll turn it over to uh the applicant uh Miss Hy and Mr Chadwick to provide the bulk of the testimony uh
This concerns the property located at 230 236 and 248 Grand Street in Cape May specifically block 1019 Lots um 14 13.01 and 12 respectively in relation to those Street numbers and this is a as much as
the the last hearing was a bit of a kooky one this is really really a straight forward application what the applicant is proposing to do is to take the three existing lots and to sub divide them and essentially reconfigure them into three New Lots to be known as
uh Lots 12.01 which is 248 Grand Street and Lot 12 currently uh then it would be proposed lot 13.02 which is currently 236 Grand Street and currently 13.01 and then proposed lot 14.01 which is um 230 Grand Street and
currently lot 14 uh what the appli is propos applicant is proposing to do with respect to Lot 12 01 and again currently Lot 12 248 Grand Street is to reconfigure the lots to actually increase the size of the lot from about
2,953 ft to 30,7 63 ft and what that will do is it'll take the existing uh accessory detached garage that's currently existing on lot 13.01 and bring that into lot
12.01 uh the next is lot 13.02 again 236 Grand currently lot 13 what we're going to be doing with that is actually decreasing the lot size from 29,45 Ft to 19538 square ft um and that will include
three accessory accessory sheds um and that's lot 13.02 and then finally is lot proposed lot 14.01 currently lot 14230 Grand Street uh we're going to be increasing that lot size from 7,143 Ft
to 70 7,254 ft so that's that's actually increasing a bit as well so two of the lots are actually going to grow in size one of them is going to decrease uh also on lot 14.01 the existing 1 and a half story dwelling is going to be demolished and
we actually has been oh it has been demolished them into the site in a bit and thankfully we did receive HBC approval to do that so there's there's no qualms about that having happen and of course the new two-story dwelling is with the uh parking underneath is going to be constructed on that lot assuming
we walk away with an approval here tonight uh there are only three variances that we have in connection with this application uh the first has to do with proposed lot 13.02 uh it has to do with the building setback line from Grant Street now 25 ft
is what's required under your ordinance what we're proposing is 16.3 Ft that said the current existing setback from Grand Street is 16.3 ft so it's identical to what we're proposing it's a pre-existing non-conformity that we're keeping the same so we're not making
that one any worse the next two variances have to do with proposed lot 14.01 uh same thing it had the first variance has to do with the building setback line from Grant Street again 25 ft is required what we're proposing is 20.5 ft so about 4 and2 ft shy that said
the current existing lot 14 has a setback line from Grand Street at 17.7 FT so again we're actually bringing the lot closer to compliance from 17 ft up to 20 1/2 ft and the other item also has to do with proposed lot
14.01 has to do with the lot size the lot the minimum lot size in the zone is 7500 Square ft we're proposing 7,254 Square ft so little bit under but again same thing as the last variance the current existing lot 14 is
7,143 Ft so we're actually bringing this closer to compliance clients by a little more than 100 ft so of the three variances that we're requesting one of which is a pre-existing non-conformity that is not getting any worse and the the other two are pre-existing non-conformities that we're actually
bringing closer into compliance one of the kooky things about land use law is if it were staying the same we wouldn't necessarily need a variance you know depending upon how you interpret that but because we're increasing it but still not compliance we do technically have to ask for variance I would also
note for the record that the environmental commission the Police Department Public Works shade tree commission and most recently the fire department have all approved of this application they've excuse me they've recommended approval of this application so just for the born Zone edification I just wanted to make that clear the only
condition that was uh requested by the environmental commission was use of native Wildlife beneficial plans for any lwd Landscaping which the applicant is more than happy to do uh we have two witnesses tonight uh Miss Healey the applicant to my left and Mr Chadwick are
near to my right uh the board's right and you know little obviously inverse on that situation um the the three big issues that I think came up at the last meeting that we one of the reasons we asked for an adjournment was for our professionals Mr herles and Mr Chad to correspond as much as they possibly
could to kind of iron out some of these details and hopefully provide uh the Mr hurles and the board with some level of comfort as to a couple of issues the first one was the easements on the property and we're happy to discuss those tonight and the other one was um
uh I won't say a drainage issue but there was some questions about the drainage and how it might affect some of the adjacent Lots we're here to address that tonight as well um and I think that was that concludes my opening remarks uh unless the board has any questions regarding those I will turn it over to
uh Miss Healey the applicant who would like to give a a short um comment sure you said there were three issues and sorry the other one was the um the parking garage underneath the uh the the
one building I believe the one that's going to be constructed um on um let's switch lot of two3 yep there you go so one thing I can say and I noted in Mr heres's letter that he said he would defer to the HPC as to how that's being handled that proposal has been presented
to the HPC they have actually granted conceptual approval relative to that so they are aware of where the parking is going to be located they have given conceptual approval the HPC typically will not give you final approval until you've received your board approval which is the only reason we don't necessarily have that right now but they
have seen the design actually um Miss hey was with the HBC today to discuss some other items that was not discussed it was some of the other uh design items I believe the fence was the main point of discussion at the time so today uh so the HPC has seen this they have granted conceptual approval and assuming we get
our approval here tonight we do intend to get final approval from the HBC but they haven't given you any comment on parking no that parking at all either way they approved it they approved no so so was this in the subcommittee or was this in the full commission commiss full commission it was a conceptual hearing
happened live that was this morning when we were meeting right well this morning was subcommittee the subcommittee so did you meet with both the subcommittee or the full both commission so the full Comm so just let me back talk yeah talk the design relative to the actual house
and where the parking is going to be located underneath the house that was before the full board in a public hearing twice twice and was granted conceptual approval both times this morning was a subcommittee meeting TP most importantly to discuss the materials being used for the fence so do
you have the letter that the HBC provided that conceptional approval or no yes we we I do we do and I believe we presented that as an as part of our application right okay uh but of course again we're happy to to to submit that
again for the record is that the the notice of conceptual approval dated 7:15 2024 I think that was made part of the application yes okay that's the one okay make sure you're talking to them Mar Jo they make you up so just Jim you had
mentioned just I don't know if his mic was on he said yes to that question so I just want to make sure the record was clear I'll clarify even further hopefully not to muddy the waters hopefully to clarify we appeared before the HPC with the original dwelling
design talked and discussed about the um garage area being located underneath the residence and also discussed in detail the grading and drainage of the property at the front the raise in grade and the
production of a low retaining wall at the front of the property as an aesthetic element as well as a functional element that meeting we also presented and discussed the plan which provides garage
doors which face to the side rather than towards the street those garage doors were recessed into the building to further limit their visibility from the street the HPC issued conceptual
approval of that building um commended us for the design and thought in regards to how we treated the garage and Landscaping the rise in grade so that the building didn't look like it was significantly higher um and
we solved that by raising grade in the front of the property with the decorative wall they commended us for our design uh elements in doing that and gave us unanimous approval in a subsequent meeting with
Miss Healey they mentioned a desire to potentially have us redesign the front steps the steps that took us from grade to the first floor front porch so we then appeared at the HPC for
a second Hearing in which we presented that alternative design of the new stairs very simply the original design took us with a couple steps up a landing and then straight up to the front porch
at the middle of the building they wanted us alternatively to come up a few steps go right and left and then enter the porch at right and left also on the front of the building we reviewed that discussed
that presented that alternative to them and they issued a second conceptual approval of that design the location of the parking the location of the garage doors didn't change nothing really changed on the
building other than the way in which you access the front porch with those redesigned stairs but in essence the HPC has issued to us two conceptual approvals of the building design which
incorporates the garage below and the side facing garage doors hopefully that clarified and rather than muddy orders and we're here today we're here today because we wanted to
resize the lots for the longterm I am Seventh Generation in Kate May dating back to the 1840s on my mother's side and my son who's behind me Alexander AJ moslin he
is eighth generation and I'm hoping down road to have a ninth generation we had a wedding in Kate May for my middle daughter the first one married so my whole dream when my mother was passing in 18 was we knew the neighbors they had
the home for 18 years or so the 230 Grant and my mother said please let them know if they ever want to sell Kathy you should purchase that I did purchase it in 23 and November of 23 we have no intent
of making any of these three homes airbnbs they're single family residences for my children and I uh the first home 236 um the middle home of the three we bought that Land from the city in
1976 uh in 75 we built a home in 76 my father and mother purchased the land in the early 80s for 248 that is to the right of 236 we held the land for almost 20 years
before we built a second home uh the the the home was just original land my father was supposed to be nine units on that home uh my father took them to court and the developer didn't build the
nine units we were able to stopped that and almost 20 years later in 2003 we built a cottage we were uh warded uh in 2004 from the city of Kate
May for the Victorian design of the cottage home we were given an award so now we fast forward to 2023 I purchased the land um we used the house this summer it was a rental and we took the
house down in December to prepare to rebuild uh have three children who range from AJ's the youngest at 23 and my oldest daughter I have two daughters um and the oldest one is 34 and they love
Kate May and they love to be here and two of the three work remotely and they're able to work in the Summers from Kate May so it's a lovely situation I appreciate the board I love
Kate thank you uh having no questions for Missy I'll turn it over to our uh engineer Mr Chadwick who has um professional qualifications have heard so take it away J be with leave to move for no I'm good
they'll be fine over there okay you can take the mic with you cool and um Mr Chadwick this is part of the application correct this is this drawing that's in front of you now is the original subdivision plan that uh is
a matter of record with the board okay thank you um very simply this is the lot that currently is 248 Grant Street this lot this odd shape is
236 and this corner parcel here or on the angle of the street I should say is 230 Grant I'm going to turn this over to make it even clearer to you and Jim for the record I believe this
color-coordinated um item was previously marked I think at the prior hearing if I'm correct oh you didn't leave the exhibit so could you leave it this time absolutely thank you sure I believe it's marked as A1 however and if not we'll we'll mark it as
such on each of these plans I've colorcoded the lot configurations this is the existing condition again this is 248 this is number 236 this is number
230 this drawing here at the bottom is the proposed reconfiguration of the Lots can you see it all he's got the front row seat you guys way in the back if you if you need me to move just just let me know my I don't
want you to catch a glare off of the uh he's got the Bob uker seat anyway this is the new reconfigured 248 Grand Street the detached garage is located here we wanted to make the detached garage and
the brick fire pit area part of this original lot so that's why that configuration is the way it is we also wanted to reconfigure the lot for number 230 Grant
Street to give it a little bit more land area than it currently has um as Peter already mentioned we've increased the lot area of that lot marginally but more importantly we've kind of squared It Off made a simple rectangle that rather than the odd shape
that it had end result is that lot is bigger than the current configuration as regards lot area and then this is the area where the dwelling for lot um for number 236 Grant Street
is this is also portion of that lot and there is a connection essentially a 4ft wide dog L here that connects this portion to the front part so this is part of this it provides Street Frontage
as required by law our attorney has mentioned easements and there was some discussion of those in the past and very simply those easements are right in this area right here these Lots as Kathy described
they're going to be owned by her three children there is a tell me if I'm wrong if I get the term wrong there is a trust I believe set up um for a sign in perpetuity I like that word in
perpetuity for her children there are no mortgages so there are no mortgages on any of these properties what we're trying to do is to make it a make the children able to
communicate from one lot to the other as they are part of a family but provide the legal mechanism for them to legally encroach onto the other Parcels we envision that there will be a
driveway here when this property is reconstructed that will give access to this part of the lot as well as back here to where the garage is thus the creation of the easements to allow that access when the owner of this property
Kathy's house now wants to get back to here drive a delivery truck for delivery of mulch for example or to have the landscapers come in and access that area temporarily while they unload their equipment and cut the grass on all three
Parcels they'll come down this driveway and park back here technically we've got the legal e legal element of that easement to allow that to occur so that's a configuration from the current condition to the
proposed condition and why we've done that and one thing I wanted to mention because I believe this was a question that came up the last I'm sorry to interrupt you Jim one of the questions that came up was a good one and a very simple one which is what happens if any of the Lots get sold the applicant has
testified that obviously she and her children have no intention of selling the Lots anytime soon that said just for the sake of the record the law is pretty clear in terms of how easement operate what their requirements are if one of the Lots were to ever be sold and again I'm just speaking hypothetically the
applicant has mentioned they have no intention of doing so anybody who purchases one of these Lots is of course going to run a title search they will be made aware of the existence of the easement and they will buy the pro purchase the property subject to that easement if they don't want to of course there's a mechanism by which property
owners can have easements removed have them Chang so um that's one of the things that I think the board can rest comfortably with that this is a perfectly legal mechanism by which to give properties access to one another and to the extent that one of them were ever to be sold again hypothetically um
that's typically how it would be addressed either it would be purchased subject two or if the property owners want to work out some sort of result in terms of either amending it removing it uh entirely that is something that the property owners can do amongst themselves in accordance with New Jersey Law so I just wanted to address that
because I know that was a question that came up as well take it away Jim thank you during the course of our Jim very quickly I'm sorry to interrupt you I believe this is a new exhibit correct this is a new exhibit okay we'll have this marked as A2 and I'll be sure to
leave that with you Karen me that's A2 Mr A2 yes there are actually two plan sheets let's call them A2 and A3 oh understood okay okay so as I was saying during the course of our prior
hearing um Mr herles had a valid concern about uh a change that had occurred to the site that wasn't Illustrated on the original subdivision plan that was
submitted to the board and I'll give you the lead into that very simply my client is a forward-thinking person she had a wedding coming up and a
reception for her daughter at these properties Grant Street is a very busy street and she realized that parking on Grant Street could not be accommodated
and she didn't want to disturb all of her neighbors on that street by having everyone visiting for this wedding reception parking and disturbing the street so she did something very simple she had Stone placed in the backyard
area so that people when coming and visiting could park there tents could be set up Etc problem was in all honesty she didn't realize and didn't apply for a permit to place that stone and a neighbor made a
complaint to the city about the stone that had been placed so Mr hurles had a concern about it indicated that we should prepare a plan showing these conditions that
exist how and why they're going to be used and how we're going to address that rear yard area so for those purposes I prepared this plan that has the photographs of the various conditions in the backyard and the second sheet which
I'll show you in just a second I indicated that Miss Healey was a Forward Thinking person she's lived on this street for so many years she understands what happens over
50 over over 50 years you're over 50 anyway so 1976 we moved in the property and been on the property since 1975 she's concerned about contractors who will hopefully be building the new
house on lot 14.01 the goal or the second secondary goal for the placement of the stone was to provide an area where the contractors could park during the course of construction rather than parking on the street as we've said the street is very
busy for traffic there's limited parking it would have been a nightmare for those contractors to take up half the street when we can provide temporary parking for them on site during the course of construction so Kathy had the Stone
Place here she had Stone placed here as well to enable contractors to be able to make that access and Jim just for the sake of the record you're referencing the the sh the yellow shaded portions of A2 am I
correct I am ref A2 A2 A2 exhibit A2 so I just wanted to make clear for the record that when he says here and here that's what he's pointing to and and I'll will stipulate that it's also that stone was also
placed in the area this rectangular area which is the future parking for the outdoor space adjacent to the garage Stone was placed in that area as well ultimately may I ask a question during the course of construction you
will make sure that the contractors are aware if this is approved that they are required to park back there yes yes there's really there's meters in front of the home being constructed Ed 230 Grant there's also an issue that a
flooding issue so if any kind of equipment is left overnight it could flood so I don't want anyone's equipment out okay I just want to make sure that that's clear yes thank you absolutely as followup to that question
is this statement this area of stone the yellow shaded area here and the yellow shaded area here is followed by the word temporary it is Stone that will be removed once the house construction is
completed and returned back to its original condition of sod or lawn areas or vegetated landscaped areas can I ask a question before we go further approximately how much Stone was dropped
there that your reference there there I would say less than 40% more than what was already existing so 40% additional in tonnage what are we do you I have no idea I I can't answer that because I wouldn't
know but I'm saying we had it wasn't more than 50% we didn't exceed it so how did you order the stone you called up the contractor then asked for just a certain amount or I I'm it
was actually just brought in like a week before the wedding because we had a big storm planned it was April it was um September 21st was the wedding and they were it was a pretty bad weekend the prior weekend and we were concerned that
we were going to flood out so you didn't order it yourself in other words my contractor ordered your contractor did unfortunately I know that we didn't exceed less than 50% I would if I
had to estimate for doesn't matter yeah unfortunately I don't know bottom line is the contractor ordered the stone to to create a stable walking and driving surface it is our
intent to remove that stone in its entirety except for the area this rectangular area around the garage that's within in easement when the construction is completed so all of this area is shaded in yellow
all of this area shaded in yellow on A2 is Stone that's existing now that will be removed and return to lawn and landscaping when completion of construction on lot 14.01 and Mr heris this question is for
you the uh Co won't be issued until you do an inspection of the site to confirm that that has in fact all taken place yeah I made a recommendation in my report that that says that the co shouldn't be Ted tied directly to the removal of that stone so you're not
going to get a CO for the construction of the new dwelling until that area is restored to that satisfaction of that plan or whatever the plan the board approved we understand that and we agree to that as a condition of approval
okay um I'll continue There is a ston lined basin at the rear of Miss Healey's property generally from the middle of
the lot this parcel drains to the rear into this Basin this area is much flatter but it's been designed to drain to a drain line that is placed within
this walkway behind the three sheds that are on the property excuse me the two sheds that are on the property that's existing that's existing and connects to an inlet down here on ad joining lot 38 we have submitted drainage
calculations to Mr harles I believe he has reviewed them I believe he does not have conflict with them other than a condition that he didn't see the construction of this drainage element
and wants us to be able to wants the ability as part of approval of this project to inspect the ASB built constructed drainage element so that we can prove that it does what we say it does we don't have an objection to that
condition either um our goal is to solve drainage issues that exist on this property the calculations show that this drainage line here connected into the drainage system on lot 38 will collect
and receive that drainage and this Basin here which receives all this runoff from the middle of lot uh 248 which drains to the back is adequately sized to handle all that drainage as
well is Cape Island Creek yes in the far back that Cape Island Creek apparently what the city has done years ago is they have installed a series of inlets and drainage pipes
essentially that run from they run from an inlet out out here on Grant Street underground to another Inlet here and then Underground through a series of drainage basins along lot 38
to a discharge somewhere it's not it's not on your property it's not on our property on The Fringe triang that's a city-owned property is it lot 38 backs up to that parcel and that's city-owned and her triangle condominium is on the other side yes
correct the city did that installation the city I'm assuming the city did that installation there there was in the late I think it was the late 80s because I remember they they cleared and they they used some of our land to
put some pipe they did a maintenance in the late 80s to it but this is to my understanding and uh Mr hares can verify this to my understanding that all the drain elements along lot 38 are within the lot
38 city-owned property we're assuming that we we asked you to locate that but there was difficulty in Loca we've been digging and still having yeah I've had there's been some investigation and we assume that it is but we can't be
quite certain of that in fact Jim I think you you walked the site with the city engineer Mr deer correct I did um I was going to get to that later but now is a perfect time to do this Craig Craig I had a question on on that discussion on lot 38 uh on the tax map behind this
property there's a lot 30.01 I's see lot 31 I got 31 30 28 28 is Seaboard walk 30 is Amy Walker and 31 is yeah that's it it's a little looks like a little easy but it runs past lot
16 oh are you talking about the segment that goes up towards Grant Street yeah okay is that part of the discussion you were just is that City Loan city-owned land it is according to my information yeah I think it's like a little buffer rail
line okay all right that's 13.01 uh to the right is the property up on Grand Street which is the address is uh 236 that's lot
13.00 on the tax map ask your question again I'm sorry I was rustling paper I'm sorry the lot that that they're talking about in their plans as as uh 232 Grant on the tax map it's it's lot 13 no dots no periods no
nothing we're doing 230 236 and 248 not doing 23 we're not doing 232 well okay now then in that case where does where's the property line between lot 10 n lot
15.02% and then there's 15 there's 15 and 15.01 no that's a 13 that's 1302 no that's 132 okay the tax map reflects that too it's just lot
15 okay usually the decimal number means it's been subdivided and I think this lot has never been touched I think it's the original lot 15 lot lot 13 no 15 15 15 15
there isn't no 13 on here that I can see Dennis there's 130 13.02 is the Heritage triangle condominium so there is there are there is a successive lots of numbering of 13 but it falls off of this
sheet so I can't really answer any questions that you have with regards to that okay so I have another question so the coming from Grant Street and alongside the dulos's property which is
224 grant that is that is the cape Island Creek uh yes that's a cape coming from like Windsor across grant grant yes that's the cape Island Creek this is kind of where the cape Island Creek and
a rail line in there too so there are City own lots that Traverse through there in which drainage improvements have been made um when Cape Island Creek was sort of abandoned there was piping that was run through there they mentioned it was a city project I I I I
have information that said it was there were County and City projects that were related to that um but there is a series of city or county owned Parcels that run along that spine of the Old Cape Island Creek okay so let me ask you this lot 38
okay which is behind all these houses yes continues it Narrows down mhm down behind the stoned area yep then it continues out to Grand Street that's all part of 38 yes all part of 38 and the tax map
on Landscaping plan actually tax map doesn't match that yeah it does it's part of lot 38 you can you can kind of see it more globally on the tax map sheet it's not really blown up
but you can see where it goes yeah yeah this is this is it and it runs along the back of all the properties that front on Grand Street and it goes off the Broadway M that's where it crosses Dennis if you look at the sheet that has
y there's an Alf fall pipe there exactly that's where the little up left almost looks like a little Bridge the other sheet where crosses this is the old right out to umad we're off track because none of that has any I just I just want to make there's a lot of kind
of mini discussions happening I don't I don't want the record to get a little jumbled what is the number of that what's let's just have Mr Chadwick pause until we can get all members on the same page we're changing that line yeah we are look we are
changing but that's up to the tax ass to figure out is changing putting that all this configuration lot number I I get it I understand that ju Just Just to be let me just we probably need to have one
focal point on this yeah if I mrus do you want to bring us back to Center and then we can have Mr Chadwick address any questions they may have Mr herles I think he has something I was just wanted to like so he was asking questions but I wanted to see where he was going and did I answer his questions yes okay fine Mo
on and just very quickly I just I I heard somebody say it I don't know who so I just want to be clear the lot numbers are changing and in terms of once we reconfigure them existing lot 14 will be 14.01 existing lot 13.01 will be
13.02 and existing Lot 12 will be 12.01 and those are numbers 230 236 and 248 respectively I just want to make sure the record was clear on that 13.02 you said yeah so 13.01 which
is 236 Grand Street will be 13.02 and that extends from Grand Street down to where the configuration it's up there Dennis all does it does it follow that little Alleyway down to the bottom no it doesn't so if you take a look sir those
are the lots on the bottom drawing right this is proposed lot for 248 Grand Street that would be lot 12.01 what about 13.01 in red 236 is 236
Grant Street which is proposed lot 13.02 which includes this portion a little four foot dog leg here and the rest of that was my that was my question perfect it looks like a barbell this lot
bit like a barbell so we we had like a sidebar there and we kind of went sideways with regards to that but there there are city the city own lot there and maybe it's a good segue for you to talk about your on-site inspection with the city
engineer and improvements that may be necessary on lot 38 thank you Mr hurles I I love when the board gets ahead of me um I met with city manager Paul
Dietrich who I believe is also the city engineer Paul has as one of his nice little tools a GPS system that when I met with him in field he was able to use his phone with the
GPS system to locate the approximate location of where we think a drainage basin is at this back corner but we couldn't find it we probably should just note for the record Mr Dietrich is a licensed
engineer in the state of New Jersey as city engineer he did say he's a city engineer correct okay I met with Mr Dietrich on site um Mr hurles I invited as well but
I'm sure he had a different commitment so I met with Mr Dietrich at the property we talked about two things we talked about the drainage of the parcel to the lowly Inlet in the
back and we also talked briefly about a comment that had been included within Mr haris report about a drainage I'm not sure I have the correct language but drainage issue in the neighborhood end quotation something
similar to that I said Paul I'm trying to read between the lines what's Craig looking for here and he says oh we're talking about not this Inlet here that we're trying to locate we're talking about back here at this back
northwesterly end of the property he says there's a drainage problem back there so we walk down to that portion of the property what became very evident is that these Lots here which front on I
believe it would be Broadway they drain towards the rear they're holding water lot 38 however is higher in elevation so as these lots are dra in
towards the rear that water has nowhere to go because lot 38 is higher our lot is just for the record Jim I'm sorry to interrupt you lot 38 is the city-owned lot correct lot 38 is the city-owned lot so lot 38 is essentially
prohibiting our neighbors on the opposite side of lot 38 from draining onto M Healey's property we're draining on to lot 38 Paul and I came to a very simple conclusion the solution to the
neighbors's drainage issue is the construction of a new drainage Inlet somewhere either on the perimeter of lot 38 or somewhere on the rear of those lots that are holding water and then
connected into the drainage line that runs below the city-owned lot 38 I said Paul frankly my client may be willing to to contribute toward that
solution I've got to speak with her what we ultimately decided is fair and we've communicated to the board's engineer and copied Mr Dietrich as well so he is aware of our
position my client wants to be a good neighbor should the city decide that the way to solve this drainage problem of one of our neighbors is to construct this Inlet and the connection into the
drainage lines under lot 38 my client would be willing to to pay a proportionate share as limited by state law should that occur clearly it would be something that the city has to construct because part of it if not all
of it would be on the city owned lot 38 but there are neighbors there that will benefit from that Inlet were one to be constructed at some time in the future so we've indicated to Mr heris that
we're willing to contribute towards that out of proportionate share based upon something that the Legal Eagles can figure out but we're not willing to pay for Full Construction of an inlet on somebody else's property to solve their problem
may I make one uh important comment nowhere does my property line connect to the homeowner who contacted the city and said she was having a drainage problem
in the back corner of her property so my property does not connect in any way to that lot and that lot number is the one is it on here it's maybe not oh
Matthew's walker uh it's Walker okay just 30 yes I just want to make that record clear that and and when you look at the topography and you actually stand out in the field on lot 38 you can see that Miss Healey's
property is significantly lower in elevation at this rear corner than the neighbor's property and lower than lot 38 so her lot can't be draining onto that neighbor's property but we're willing to be good
neighbors and if the city says hey we want you all to contribute she's willing to do that it's only for our best interest God forbid should the board make it a condition of approval of this project is one is one Inlet enough I think one inlet's enough I just don't
know exactly where it would go I I don't think we need to get the details with that I think the way that a condition could be set up would be if the city is going to make improvements within lot 38 the applicant has agreed to provide
their Prat a share and however that may be computed um I would Envision that whatever the contributing drainage area is because they are all contributing to that that drainage issue um and that the applicant has agreed to provide funding
based on their Pro r a share for those improvements whatever the city has determined and to confirm Mr chus applicant would would willingly self-impose that condition in connection with any approval here tonight yes yes okay so we would just make that a condition and then once we have a
discussion with the city manager um you know as to when the city would do the assessment come up with an estimate then you would be notified as well as with the other yeah it comes down to if and when the city makes the decision to actually construct the the inlet obviously if that doesn't happen this is
bit mood but if it does then that's when that assessment is made all right that's the long roundabout way to get to where we are now um Mr hurles has prepared for the
board a plan review memorandum dated January 7 Craig correct me if I've got the wrong date yes I think that's your most recent report that report was prepared responsive to our submission
of A2 and A3 to the city A3 is sheet two of that plan set I want to take a moment to just talk about this we talked about the need to provide contract tractor parking on site for Mr
hur's position as the engineer and because of his concern about hey what's going on back there a valid concern we prepared uh a blow up of that rear portion of lot
13.02 to show what would happen with the contractors they're going to come in the driveway of lot 14 point 01 and they've got room to do a loop to be able to head back out again this
provides them the ability to park trailers in the backyard yet still allow access in and out during the course of the day it's going to mean the contractor who's working on this project has to be very diligent about dealing
with contractors and trailers and subs and hey you you're you're done or you'll be done tomorrow get your trailer out of there I got another one coming in bottom line is we didn't want to inconvenience the neighbors we've provided a way to accommodate that temporary use of the
back portion of the lot on Stone that is there presently again that will be removed when the house is done so this second sheet of that plan set provides the mechanism visually for Mr harles I think to be comfortable with how we're
going to do things as as well as provide some additional data for items that he had asked for just a question is there enough of a radius for them getting out of there onto Grand Street when you know if they need to get in and out yes we actually
were walking that today and we did notice one thing that a city meter NE is only a 3 foot from the apron and we are going to petition to the city to ask they're parking on both sides of that street yes yes okay that that's my
concern for someone getting out and being able to make that turns yes okay but there is a meter issue and we did address we took a measurement of that today so we are looking to contact the city this week regarding the placement of that
meter for your concern about access and you you you have this plan it doesn't show one here but this corner of the property right here is where the intersecting street is so there's a little bit more space in
this area okay and Jim just for the sake of the record you were referencing A1 in that I was referencing A1 that's A1 okay A2 has the yellow shading and then A3 is the most reasonable Grant
Street is a very busy street it's one of the widest streets in a radius of about A4 mile and a lot of tractor trailers go up to to the hotels on the beach front delivering food and different so um and
it does get a bit of traffic uh foot traffic going to the beach because of the Lifeguard house being right there all right through the course of my testimony so far we've addressed I think what are the major issues easements
means of access um temporary condition of stone Paving the lot configur ation Etc uh as I mentioned a few moments ago Mr hurles has prepared a rather
extensive uh plan review memorandum in response to that and prior to this meeting we prepared a response letter essentially I've gone through Mr heres's plan review memorandum item by
item Point by point to respond in writing as to how we were going to to address each of his specific questions concerns items elements Etc within his report our plan is for me to go through
this item by item for you now it's going to take a while well why don't we let un unless you guys say Jim shut up you talk too much already what what I what you we usually do is the board will ask me to summarize
my review memor and we'll ask you to confirm whether you're okay with the conditions that I recommend um we can handle it that way that that's fine that's fine that gets me off my bad knees there you go thank you Mr hurles Mr chanis before we go into the engineers report does does Mr
Chadwick have any further testimony we've talked about a lot of the tertiary issues any further testimony relative to the the three variances that are sought in order to in addition to the minor subdivision before we shift over there anything with respect to the variant
um no I think the variances are very straightforward we're making a better condition in regards to each one of those there may be one potential variance which you didn't mention which is some language in the ordinance about the proximity of
walkways or Paving to a property line you're not supposed to have Paving right on or adjacent to the says impervious Paving yeah I think so the way I evaluate it is that you were providing pervious walkways within that five feet
then we're good okay and Mr Morris if you're talking about kind of weighing the positive and negative criteria with respect to the variance I'm sure this board is very familiar with the positive and negative criteria that has to be demonstrated that is essentially a legal conclusion some applicants do present
planners to essentially take all of the testimony that was provided by the engineer to essentially make the legal conclusion that the positive and negative criteria are met that's the a decision for the board to make We believe We presented enough facts for the board to render that conclusion of
course if the board has any further questions for any of our Witnesses here tonight we're happy to answer them but at this point I would have no objection to moving forward with Mr hur's letter and then we can you know turn it to the public and kind of take it from there there's only one other thing I might add I'm sorry go ahead I'll I'll wait till
you done um within the plan sets that you have are the architectural preliminary plans for the dwelling that we propose to construct on lot 14.01 um if you haven't yet had an opportunity to look at them please do
it's not an overly large dwelling it's two stories over parking there are no uh um elements that we think are egregious to it it meets every single zoning criteria with the exception of front
yard setback which we have improved significantly from the condition that currently exists we think it's an attractive house we want to build that house and we hope that you approve this to
allow us to do that I'm done thank you so excuse me if this property is marked as to never be sold then why is this important to do all this it's not it's not it's not dri that it can't they can't be individually
sold I don't think that's I don't think that's the condition we're asking for they're they're making the statement that it's going to stay in the family will remain this way inity but there's not a deed restriction saying that they can't be sold individually and to be honest with you and Mr Morris you can correct me if I'm wrong this might be
the first time in my life that I might have come across a rule against perpetuities issue I don't know that you could legally restrain alienation in that fashion no I'm just asking like what's it never mind I understand no if if you have a we we want to we want to clarify
I me if you intend on keeping the property together which you stated multiple times what's the benefit out of this we we put a we put a a a detached garage in
and the use of the pool area it makes us allowed to have a area for the family to gather for recreation um not Crossing two different
property lines that is basically in a nutshell and I think the ultimate goal and Kathy correct me if I'm wrong is essentially for the properties to run more efficiently to have a a nice flow so that we can construct the the additional house and that everything
runs relatively smoothly um for the the walkways can be continuous and not have to be worried about Crossing property lines um it make it made sense I want to do things properly and I want to build a
third home for my third child so each child has their own home okay it's a goal of nine generations and just to briefly comment um while there would be no sort of restriction that this board could impose relative to their right to sell or transfer the property uh the deed
restrictions and the easements that they're going to put put in here they have the effect of making the property less marketable if it's not sold as a whole essentially and that's why I mentioned in in the beginning to the extent that again hypothetically one of the Lots were to be sold that person
would have have two options they they run a title search they'd see its existence they'd purchase subject to or if there was a concern there obviously a discussion would have to be had with the other property owners with respect to again moving it amending it removing it entirely abandoning it there's a couple
of different legal ways in which an easement can be terminated we don't need to get into that now but essentially we would be the easements would be beholden to the law in the state of New Jersey as it pertains to easement themselves just a quick question you're you're really talking about three
properties here correct yes three lots and and one property is connected one part of one property is connected to the other part of that property by a 4 foot easement or or car it's physical it's physical
land right okay it's not an EAS not well no it's physical I said I Ed the wrong word it it looks like a barbell one piece of property is here the other part of it is here and it's connected by that thing now on this plan uh when you cut off this big piece
here where the garage is uh that garage used to be part of third of one of U 236 236 right and and the pl says a a proposed High metal 4 foot high metal fence does that metal fence run all the way around that
black line which black line right here the one that's that that that delineates the new piece of property that's going over here let me J do do do you want me to stand up and explain I just worked with the
HPC today regarding that the garage okay if if everyone I'm going to get over here so I'm not in anyone's view very quickly I think Kathy's going to going to take a look at A1 and address this question this
way I'm going to borrow your pen if you don't mind as I'm okay so the fence you're proposing delineates the new barbell lot not necessarily let's well it says on the plan okay
let's so this is we're we're referencing this is the back of the neighbor's home there's existing fences here there's one little Gap like 4 foot in here and maybe two a gap here could you could you show her this is existing fence this is what
I'm talking about that's already then this has a little fence by Heritage triangle it's this area he's concerned about answer is yes we're putting a fence to retain the pool right now there's an
existing offence around the pool that's metal it's getting removed and not being reused we're talking about putting an iron fence that's coming right here to here that's one
from the street I spoke with HPC this morning and it's a picket fence that's making being made out of iron then we're doing a uh separate fence right here that's
going to run to here and that same uh uh what's the kind of fence called it's a um split rail it's the split rail is going from here for the all the way back for the gentl
purpose because there is a pool here in the back of 248 that entire rear yard area has to be ENC cased with a fence it can't be can't be a split rail though it can be a split rail if there are a pool yes as long as
there's a mesh as long as there is a mesh or other obstructing element that prevents people from squeezing through or climbing over that fence so there is a fence that will run from here along here along the back and
we'll follow this line on an angle it adjacent to the circular fire pit and connect back up to the garage that encloses the rear yard area where the swimming pool is located and it has a fence in the area that I indicated to
you when I was standing next to you and you're on this plan that's colorized the one we had before which is not different from that actually I believe you're talking about A1 if I'm I'm looking at it right there so I think it's A1 that we're talking
about around the garage perimeter is a a beige coloring which is uh papers apparently future pavers they're not there now they going to be and and there's a black line around those pavers
is that going to be a fence no it is not just showing the the uh boundary area of what this is a um uh an apron for the drive for the garage and now where now it's Stone
because where the doors for the garage right in the back here right here this yellow the little yellow piece is where the actual there is a cement apron for the garage door there's one garage door
and I believe it's approximately it yeah well it's it's no the garage door is probably like 18 ft is that garage is that garage a dwelling is there no no it's freestanding it has
a second floor which is a storage component on the second floor there's no and Kathy just for the sake of the record you have no intention of rendering that to be habitable to rent it out no no no no okay no I have I have a storage closet up there with some
Viking um my father's files of his uh 60 years of building Viking Yachts okay so no there's no so the the purpose of that garage is strictly for storage yes not not vehicle parking it's just
storage uh no I have a car can fit in it okay so it could be used for either parking or storage yes that's that's it want the record to be clear just not to live in no no habitable space no the access is from Den do that answer you question yes yeah but also out of
curiosity when that garage was well it's on the current lot how did you access that garage we went through we went through the side yard at 236 you went through the side yard or 23
236 right next to the driveway and we came back goove across the grass and then yes [Music] back and that goes back to our the goal of this essentially is to have this run more efficiently so they don't have to do things like cut through the grass or
anything like that yeah and you were saying that somebody who would perhaps purchase one of these Lots in the future would have to decide whether H he or she would like to live with this Arrangement or not that would be part of his or her
consideration is that yeah in the sense any kind of market exchange you take the property subject to certain items such as easements and that's part of your title now and also this this a blot u in the back here that's all Stone now if
that were converted to Grass uh would you at some point in the future consider putting another house back there no not at all there can only be one residential home per property one one it's a residential Zone one house per lot
okay there is no other we have intention to build the home at 230 Grant which is very within the um size and predicament of the neighborhood it as and so if they did want to further subdivide that
parcel the the barbell right do Mr Crowley and if they if they did want to try to do something with that that southern portion we'll call it from looking at this north south of the barbell portion as the chairman indicated there is no Frontage and if
they wanted to try to attempt to develop that they'd have to come before this board again to further try to subdivide that lot because there would be no Frontage but there would be an it would require variances for lot width as well as lot Frontage we have no intention okay any other V have any
questions not then we'll turn it over to Craig okay I would like to summarize my January 7th 2025 review memorandum for this application um being called the Healy Point subdivision this is a three lot subdivision we have existing three lots
we're we're going to end up with three lots they're being reconfigured as as per the application and how described by the applicant I think that is I don't think there's any questions with regards to that so I'm going to skip right into my completeness review um for the checklist for CN D
variances um there were waivers necessary from items number 18 27 which is utility layouts 28 which is drainage information um for those three items I did support granting waivers at this
point but that information should be provided as a condition of approval for the map details for minor subdivision approvals on page four of 10 um there letter P which is reference to all existing and proposed deed
restrictions and easements Etc um they showed those on the survey and the subdivision plan however the easement descriptions have not been submitted but that should be provided as a condition of uh approval uh for review by both the
board engineer and board attorney I letter Q the storm waterer management report um they have provided that information at this point um however the the they basing the that
report on the existing system that's been inst installed without any supervision or inspection so we want to verify that that system it does exed indeed exist as it's described in those reports so that
information should be provided as a condition of approval and then finally letter s is our standard condition that if should the board approve this the subdivision plan should be provided in digital uh format and finally the final plat details letters
EFG um those all should be provided as conditions of approval that's just requiring the final signatures on the plat um and then finally letter J um there there's a requirement if for a subdivision that the engineer has to
provide an as built lot grading plan after the construction has been completed um so that should remain a condition of approval based on that I did support deeming this application complete um providing that those conditions would be
met moving on to the zoning review and Zoning requirements that are on page five and six of my report um so the existing Lot 12 is being proposed as lot 12.01 that lot size is being increased
from 20953 Ft to 3,763 square ft um so there's a net increase there all of the other Bulan area uh requirements are being met so there's no variances necessary for Lot
12 01 uh we did evaluate the existing accessory detached garage based on where they're proposing the lot lines um there are no non-conformities with regards to
that so that doesn't require any variances proposed lot 13.02 which is being called uh number 236 um that lot size as it exists now is
9,459 uh portions of that is being carved off and it's going to create a lot size of 19,5 38 Square ft that is conforming in size the minimum lot size in this zone is 7,500 square feet um however there is
one variance that's required for lot 13.02 and that is with regards to the building setback line on Grand Street so that building has an existing setback back of 16.3 Ft it's proposed at 16.3 FT
but it's on a new lot so it is good protocol to grant that variance and therefore there's a variance necessary for that existing non-conformity on that new lot moving on to lot
14.01 this is an existing as lot 14 as it exists now it's an existing non-conforming lot area situation so as it exists 7,143 square foot exists where a portion of the other lot
is being carved off to create a new lot 14.01 that will have a lot area of 7,254 square ft where 7,500 ft² is re required so it's slightly undersized it's more conforming
than what it was but it's a new lot and it's non-conforming and they're building a new structure on it therefore it needs variants um the building setback line to that new dwelling on that lot uh is the requirement is 25 ft it's
proposed at 20.5 ft where 17.7 ft exists or did exist to that lot that dwelling that was just demolished okay so those are the three variances they both they one of them relates to lot 13.02 and the other two
are lot to proposed lot 14.01 so those are the three variances that are necessary to be granted and I'll move on to my general review comments on the beginning uh top of page eight so we always ask the applicant to revise the zoning tables
consistent with the um comments in the review memo as well as the board conditions um item two we already talked about but they're going to be required to provide the uh proposed easements for review and approval by the board
engineer and board solicitor um item three um this relates to our discussion with the conceptual HPC approval um this is something that occurs not quite often but it has occurred at the zoning board level where
um an applicant will get an approval be referred to the HPC and then the HPC has an issue with the approval that we granted because of an HPC standard um in this case I tried to flag that and
give them a heads up that their proposed building may be inconsistent with the HPC standards um and I deferred that review to them and they did they did get conceptual HPC approval so they obviously did not find that that was an
issue um so item number four uh the subdivision plans have to be revised to indicate the current status of the proposed we dwellings in this case we now have a dwelling that's been demolished on lot 14.01 so the the
subdivision plan should indicate that um not an issue other than just revising the plan item number five is our standard condition that they have to comply with chapter 525 which is the minimum stormw management and Grading requirements um
we did get a review and then design system for lot 14.01 and evaluated that separately we found that um acceptable um we did talk about the stormw system that was put in without
any um in um inspection um so that has to be evaluated um the stormw calculations that were submitted do support the application based on the amount of um runoff that
they're addressing however it's dependent on the the functioning of that system so therefore um those comments are tied to the acceptability of that system and verification that that system exists as as shown and that deals with item number
six also um there is reference to the lot 38 discussion that we had so if the board wants to Grant approval to this we recommend that that Prat share recommendation um be incorporated as a
condition of approval satisfactory to the city um item number seven talks about the fact that they have proposed an Innovative use of the existing Stone surface to address construction vehicles during
construction of the dwelling on lot 14.01 um I don't have a problem with it um what I did want to make sure was that the certificate of occupancy for that dwelling is tied to the removal and
restoration of that area that has that gravel parking and it should be noted that that parking area will be reduced and will only be able to in the post construction complet completed will only
hold three vehicles okay eight is our standard condition that they have to um get city sewer and water department approved approval for the connections to the new dwelling um item number nine and and I think some of the board members pointed
this out the the the depiction of fencing on the plans is difficult to discern which fencing is on adjoining properties which fening is yours so I would ask the plans to be clarified to show what is proposed what is existing
what is the neighbors's prop neighbors fencing um just so we evaluate and make sure that there's proper buffering between the those lots item 10 uh is the recommendation that they have to provide one street tree per lot um so that ask that the Landscaping
plan be revised accordingly and I believe we also had a recommendation from it was either shade tree commission or the environmental commission so um that some some Environ um some Landscaping native wildlife and beneficial plants be provided so we
would ask that as that condition the applicant resubmits that plan to them with that new Landscaping species on that um to their satisfaction 11 is our standard condition that they have to provide a
landscaping and vegetation plan that's um acceptable by the zoning official um 12 we've called out some inconsistencies on the Landscaping schedule that should be fixed as a as a compliance item item 13 is our standard
recommendation that after all all construction activities have occurred we go out and evaluate the sidewalk to ensure that there's no damage sidewalk um should there be any damage sidewalk um that should be replaced to the satisfaction of the board
engineer um item number 14 the demolition on lot 14.01 the plans were not clear as to what where the driveway apron was and where the improvements were um what is going to be left and what is proposed so
that would we would ask that the plans be cleared up to depict exactly what is going on with those improvements within the city right away 15 is just um housekeeping the city tax assessor has approved those lot numbers as shown on the plan and and
talked about tonight so we don't have to any issues with the record not reflecting those um and then the minor subdivision plan will be reviewed for compliance with the title recordation act upon approval by the board um there's tying The Monuments The
Monuments have to be set or escro furnished is a standard requirement um 18 is our standard requirement that the co is tied to acceptable um review and imp um review of the improvements that are
constructed 19 is the requirement that they have to provide the required performance guarantee and inspection escrow that should also include the restoration of that gravel parking area um number 20 is comply with the
recommendations and requirements of the Kate May Fire Department Police Department Public Works Department environmental commission and shade tree commission we did receive reports from the environmental commission dated 22 October 24 and that has the recommendation with the condition that
they provide native Wildlife beneficial plants for any new Landscaping the police department recommended approval with no comment dated 10 1014 2024 the public works department recommended approval dated 10124 with no
comment and the shade Tre recommended approval dated 10232 24 with no comment um item 21 uh oh I'm sorry did I miss fire department I think I think I
have that at the very end sorry today fire fire department dated 22425 they recommended approval with no comments sorry about that and then finally any required any required approval should be conditional on compliance with all other
state county and local approvals this project is located within historic district so we would like to see evidence of final HPC approval and then um they have to they're required to comply with any and all applicable housing requirements at the time of
approval or issuance of building permits as applicable and finally should the board Grant approval for the minor subdivision as well as the variants the applicant is required to revise the plans to address all conditions that the board sets and submit the requisite number of copies to the board engineer
for review and approval that is a summary and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has I have a question about one of the variances sure which one um the uh front setback on on the
1401 on 14 1801 right okay the requirement is 25 ft uh the old house was 17 the new house is going to be 20 um I guess is a question to you folks why can't you just move the
there's plenty of room on this piece of property why can't you just move the house back four feet and avoid a variance if you look down the street it the homes that have been constructed uh recently were all set
closer to the street and that you know the what we wanted to achieve with the garage that's existing that's back there you know it Den Dennis we have any ordinance as you know that that when when a new house
is constructed you're able to take the houses on either side of it and and average those Street those Furnitures if that's what you can meet so they're actually further they're further back than the two houses to the right of it that have been constructed left of it right towards the beach I guess yes
towards the beach and one was constructed within the last 10 years and it's closer to the street that's not a bad question um and we do have a setback averaging or ordinance which takes the average of the four
adjacent dwellings on the same side of the street they provided four on they did provide four um I'm not sure whether that average would work out 16 17 and 22 yeah 16 17 and
22 but the thing is it's that side of the street that you're really going to be looking at not not where the bend is on Grand Street going towards Broadway so that that just it makes like Kathy said it makes it more visual pleasing provide a little bit
Street having a porch and Jim if you want to I can provide a little bit more to the answer to Conroy tennis Mr Crowley I'm sorry to Mr Crowley's question why couldn't we just move it back part of the project
provides handicap accessibility there is a chairlift at the back of the building that would be constructed off the landing of the re rear stairs at the back of the structure
if we were to move the building back to accommodate the front yard setback then we'd be asking for a rear yard variance to accommodate handicap accessibility this seemed more of a natural way to handle the issue to
provide handicap accessibility provide a usable rear yard area that's what setback averaging would do okay and and provide a setback that that's consistent with what's there actually better than what's there now and for the benefit of the record we're speaking about proposed
lot 1401 230 Grant when you referenc that yes correct the floor plans for that building the preliminary plans that you have shows a chairlift to be constructed at the rear of that rear landing outside so so the setback
averaging is meant to encourage people to not have that missing tooth in the streetcape so you know it tries to average out and allow so unfortunately because the structure on lot 12.01 is
setback 48 ft or 45 ft it drives that average to 23.5 where 25 is the requirement my my father purposely built his Cottage set back so that the two homes we don't like air conditioning I
worked in a factory all my life and we're not big air conditioning people so that's why we set the house back 45 ft that's a technical stand yeah and and it's really around the corner so if you're on Grand Street looking at this row of houses that this is going to be
aligned with um setting it back may not be the appropriate approach so I think that the board could find a variance justifiable any the other questions I had was there's on that same lot there are two going to be two driveways or two
curb cuttings no no no just one just one how what about the easement that's the driveway the driveway using existing driveway is the EAS the easement over the driveway there's no there's no other
curb cut on that lot Dennis all right I would have to see a picture of the house how do you get how do you get not there anymore it's not there anymore no no I'm talking about I'm talking about the new house well you it's on the side the driveway the driveway the driveway comes
down that side it's also an easement to get to the back to the back park there is no driveway in front of the house you're you're parking in the back back here yeah that house side loads from that driveway so you're parking on somebody else's lot basically
no you you have in your ins set the floor plans for the building this is thank you you don't have to stay on the driveway when you get to the back of the property you can get you can go onto your own property this line here is the front of Grant Street where the easement
is is a driveway it's Grant this is Grant out here this is the driveway that's on the left side of the house there's a driveway there now but it's been Tor was it's been removed we're going to reproduce a new driveway which is consistent with the easement that runs along the
left hand side of the house and from that driveway you'll make a right hand turn into the recessed garage oh I see okay that all right all right okay I have one other sort of amusing don't
seear this is a better better way of looking at that it sounds like we don't really know where the piping is on MAR 38th with the creek RS no we definitely don't what if what if some of that inadvertently is existing on Kathy's
property if it was determined that way then the city could seek to get an easement across that so could could we try to address that now that they would allow an eement I would absolutely allow an easement we have no development in the back area of the property it's all
nature back there and you know I have a neighbor's property that's not proper their entrance and I've never addressed that issue with them it was built before we buil our home you want to be a good neighbor and not cause a problem a
condition absolutely not and there is a at Heritage Square there's an entrance that's not compliant and I would not that was built six years before my property in 76 was built we're a good neighbor okay I think
there's little risk of any structures being constructed over it other than a fence right so you know from that standpoint anyway on storm water um it's you usually what you if I defer to
the city solicitor and having been a conflict CI to Lister or a couple of different townships in Ocean County typically yes usually what happens is when it's installed an easement is almost part and partial where you're saying listen we're installing this on this particular item
where you're granting us an easement so that we can access it when necessary to provide maintenance repairs move the conduits move the piping yeah the issue I think that that Craig mentioned pretty well and so did Jim is we don't know what's there we
can't find it so Mr is kind of irrelevant in a way if it's an automatic easement because the easement is there it's it's not automatic but we would be willing to Grant it if it happens to exist on our property so just to kind of to kind of bundle this up in one of the conditions we've already spoken about um the
applicant has indicated they would bear a proat aare for any drainage improvements necessary on City lot 38 So to that end would they be willing to make it a condition of approval that to the extent that any sort of improvements made by the city are found to be on Miss
Healey's property that applicant would grant them an easement with right to access for maintenance Etc a absolutely thank you and for the sake of the record um Craig provided a very thir thorough analysis of his letter we would agree to
pretty much everyone as a condition of approval just so the board is aware of that thank you any other comments questions from anybody may I offer one question for Mr herles your report on
number 19 talks about a performance guarantee inspection escrow Etc different municipalities handle the preparation of the cost estimate differently some boards tell the applicant's engineer prepare the
estimate some other boards say the board engineer wants to prepare that so very simple engineer to engineer who's going to be in charge of we ask that you prepare that okay and I review that and make a recommendation thank you sir and thank you for making that
clear you you're going to have one have suring Bill though with all these easements oh I think I think it's only I think it's one but landing Kate May is priceless good point let's open up to
the public anybody would care to get up and speak anybody within 200 feet anybody's not a family member all right public portions closed nether does the applicant have anything else before we go to uh the board findings which were fairly
comprehensively wrapped up by our board engineer but I'll I'll touch on a couple points I had a long 30 minute closing argument prepared but I think I'll just I'll let that go for now I would like to thank everyone for their volunteer in the city it is a very special place
agreed okay thank you Mr chairman do we need to make a we'll make a motion for the well first of all we'll do everything together the variances and and the site plan or subdivision minor subdivision three VAR and and the waivers of check okay and then subject
to the that Steve's going to correct and and I understand that that's the board's preference to bundle all of the relief sought in a resolution in the affirmative um so somebody care to make that motion first then Steve will tack on the uh I'll make the motion I'll second it okay okay we have a motion by
Mr Gorgon second it by Mr Jones Mr gorgone yes okay we're not voting yet has to go through the conditions yes thank you Mr chairman um applicant comes before the board tonight seeking minor subdivision approval and variance relief regarding front yard setback for two
parcels and lot area for one parcel which I will specify for existing block 1019 Lots 12 13.01 and 14 under the proposed reconfiguration Lot 12 would be identified as 12.01 13.01 would ident be
identified as 13.02 and 14 would be identified as 1401 um as indicated very comprehensively by our board engineer the relief sought relative to and I'm going to reference these by by their street name for for sake of keeping it straightforward um the front yard
setback required for 236 Grant Street is a pre-existing non-conformity the structure is uh is established and configured right now it is 16.3 Ft where 25 is required uh if we
moveing closer toward the beach to 230 Grant they are seeking a front yard setback for what would be a new construction as well as lot area I will note that um by way of this reconfiguration applicant has increased the lot area of 230 Grant albe it's
still deficient um the front yard setback is not necessarily a pre-existing non-conformity now as the structure has been demolished so they wouldn't necessarily be entitled to that consideration however um it would be an improvement from the what was the former front yard setback and uh our board
engineer has provided commentary that this would be consistent with the adjacent Parcels as specified by the city ordinance regarding uh the averaging of front yard setbacks and you'll have to excuse my nomenclature as that's uh I'm not familiar with that in other municipalities well done thank you sir I
I appreciate it um first and foremost applicant has agreed to comply with all of the conditions specified by the board engineer all of the conditions that I'm going to touch on here were included in those conditions but I'm going to rehash a couple that fall more on the legal
side than the technical engineering side um applicant acknowledges that there are some some drainage requirements and applicant has agreed voluntarily to Bear any Prat a share of those drainage improvements necessary on adjacent lot 38 owned by the city um to the extent
that when we identify whatever infrastructure is subsurface on lot 38 to the extent that that encroaches into the applicant Miss hey's property she has represented to the board that she would Grant the city an easement to maintain access Etc as necessary for
that drainage area um the board heard testimony relative to some stone that was placed in the property potentially without permission but applicant provided testimony that the same was to accommodate an event they had but it's also being repurposed
to enable their contractors to park in the rear of the property rather than tying up precious uh parking space on Grant Street uh applicant has represented that that stone will be removed or otherwise uh placed placed otherwise on the property so that the
final product is consistent with the subdivision plan as approved uh similarly approval will be conditioned on applicants recording of easements that are consistent with those on the subdivision plan uh subject to review by the board engineer myself the
conflict board solicitor regarding the legal description of those easements one more comment is that the CEO would be tied to the removal and the restoration of the stone as it relates to to the entirety of the properties we'll call it other than that it compliance with the entirety of the
conditions of the engineers report and I believe that bundles up just about everything so I I would be proposing a motion in the affirmative to approve second okay to approve this minor subdivision approval in the three variants subject to subject to the
conditions Mr Maris not to add but could it be added that the contractors will be required to park in the rear since we're allowing this um you know condition of the the gravel to remain through the construction I plan to be present for a good bit of the
construction if the applicant is willing to voluntarily impose that condition we can put it on the record I do not believe we as the board can tell them they can't park in a public space yeah I will as as I accept an estimate it will be uh communicated appreciate that the
parking I want she'll be on top no I understand I I just think it's important I was to there's no I I just think it's important from the public perspective that we are discussing this since it's been made as part of the condition of the construction thank you thank
you okay um roll call okay Mr Goro motion Mr Jones second it Mr Gorgon yes Deputy Mayor McDade yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenhome yes Mr rigs yes Mr pusis yes
Mr Jones yes Mr there yes thank you okay thank you guys thank you very much we appreciate the board's time thank you for your time okay uh we have payment of bills motion to pay the bill I'll make that motion
second I'm sorry who motion Mr buus Mr R sorry oh I'm sorry Mr rigs so uh we have a motion by Mr rigs seconded by Mr lenhome Mr gargon yes Deputy Mayor McDade yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes
Mr rigs yes Mr puses yes yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer yes thank you any other matters for the board oh all in favor I thank you everyone good night for