one time e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e testing know e e hour good evening this is a meeting of the
zoning board of the City of Cape May in compliance with the open public meetings Act of 1975 adequate notice for this meeting has been provided if any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act they should state so at this
time we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for
all okay I'll do the roll call Mrs wner Mr venudo Mr Lewin here Mrs not miss Sheen Mr Walsh here Mr zexer here
Mr Jagger here Mr Miss Stevenson okay thank you um we have three Re resolutions for this evening 327 225 Katherine Robert barboa 106 2 Avenue block 1013 Lot
10 someone like to make a motion so move I'll second we have a motion by Mr Lewin seconded by Mr Jagger Mr Lewin yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer abstained Mr Jagger yes
thank you second resolution 327 225 number two Allan and Sher Blumenthal 109 1 Avenue block 1017 lot 14 C2 someone make a resolution I'll make
motion second Mr Jagger motions Mr Lewin second Mr Lewin yes thank you Mr Walsh yes Mr zerain Mr Jagger yes thank you the third re resolution 327
205 Tom Harrison 1000 New York Avenue block 1102 Lots 1 12 61 and 62 someone make a motion please I'll make that motion can we have a second
please I have to I have to abstain we are abstained it's up to one of you guys oh okay I'll make I'll second okay Mr Jagger motions Mr Zer seconds Mr ledwin abstain Mr
Walsh abstain Mr zexer abstain Mr joerger and on this one the vote is yes right or no or is it no is the result is the result that you voted
for this is the Harrison HP they did did the vote go the way that you voted yes then you say yes yes okay and it's one of those it's in the co book but yes you can actually one person can pass the resolution it's a majority of those eligible to yeah because this this
we're Lou we read it in Cox where it says it gives that example and it just happened I've never seen it happen but we have we have a quarum of four we only have one eligible to vote and he voted yes so it passes the resolution now we can say we've seen it there you go we need resolution to approve the
minutes from February 27th so move I'll second Mr Lewin motions Mr Jagger seconds Mr Lewin yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer abstain Mr Jagger yes thank
you we have three applications one's been postponed you announce that okay Mr King would you make an announcement about the C application yes
okay all right there's an application Jason and Cinda KY KL i e we the empress 501 Hugh Street block 1049 Lots 10 and 10.01 of that application it was an
appeal of HPC determination that application is adjourned uh it will be heard on is that Fe uary 20 I'm sorry April I think it was the 24th one moment sounds right April 24th correct
thank you it'll be heard on April 24th our chairperson and uh has agreed that Mr Gillan Schwarz can appear uh virtually because that is an appeal and he's just going to make legal argument normally we don't allow virtual appearance but he's the attorney for the
city and for the HPC and he's just making legal argument and the applicant doesn't want to wait until the month or two till he's available again on that date so we're going to let him appear virtually and that will be on the date I just said uh at same time six o'clock I don't know if there was published notice
but what I do know is that there will be no additional notice after this announcement so if you want to be heard for that application you need to appear on the date that we just said which was April April 24th 2025 6 p.m. okay all right thank
you uh first application for the evening William and Emily y 122 decator block 1041 lot 6 thank you Mr chairman good evening everyone I'm Andrew Katan here on behalf of the applicants William and Emily uh young to my left is Mrs Young and with
us is is our project engineer John halbruner uh the young are the owners of property located at 122 decar it's the site of an existing single family home and it's located in the RS uh zoning District uh the property just underwent
a a significant renovation of this contributing structure and that renovation is in full compliance with the plans and permits that have been issued thus far but they would like to make two additional improvements that
are not part of the uh so far approved plans through the Zone comp first they'd like to add a an slight do a slight expansion of a small Landing in the rear right corner of the building uh again to make it slightly larger and to make it a covered landing and though it will be
further from the sidey yard setback uh or sidey yard property line than it is now thus an improvement in that respect it still won't comply so a sidey yard setback variance is required requested for that covered Landing in the back right corner the other Improvement is
the site itself which is covered with concrete and stone and dare I say is generally unattractive The Proposal is to improve that to reduce the non-conformity as well as install some storm water management systems that Mr halbruner will go over reducing the
impervious coverage but still not quite make still not making it compliant so that's it just those two variances that we've identified in addition to some pre-existing non-con ities that will be unchanged uh we don't plan any direct testimony from uh Mrs Young I'll turn it
over to John to be sworn and qualified and let him do his thing Mr H Bruner um and also to squar on our board engineer do do each of you swear or affirm that to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth up you got you do I do Mr how Bruner has
been recognized by the board previously as an expert engineer and architect so I'm sure that Mr chairman are you accepting him in that yes we are thank you good Mr berer okay the property address we're dealing with is 122 decer Street known as block 1041 lot 6 it's mid block uh between
Carpenters Lane and Beach Drive on the west side of decar this is in the RFS residential seasonal District zoning district is also in the historic preservation uh District the property size is relatively small particularly
compared to what the Zone intends is 26 feet and change wide by 114 ft and change deep uh and it's just shy of 3,000 square ft 2,976 Square ft it's developed with a single family home 2 and a half stories
tall with three bedrooms that was constructed originally Circa 1886 roughly 140 years ago um it also is sites developed with a approximate 8ot by 8ot shed and the rear of the property in terms of zoning bulk conformance uh
the use is conforming as a single family home uh it satisfies a minimum floor area of 840 sare ft it satisfies the minimum rear yard setback were 25 FTS required it has just over that 25.82 ft
and it complies the maximum Building height now unsurprisingly for a house built 140 years ago most of the other zoning ordinances are simply not conforming to today's requirements namely the lot side itself itself at just shy of 3,000 square ft The Zone has
a varying minimum lot area dependent upon a use for single family homes the use in the zone requires 6,250 Square ft so we're roughly half the size of what the Zone would required to be the minimum for a single family
home the building set back off decator Street where 20 ft would be required we 11.47 ft the lot width and Frontage where 50 ft would be required for a single family home we at 26.6 feet and where the sidey
yards would be a minimum 8 feet each on the North side we have 0.38 ft to of the landing that we're proposing to reconstruct and improve 1.27 feet to the building and on the south side we have 2.76 ft to the
building in terms of lot coverage the zone for a single family home would permit a maximum 45% lot coverage and it's existing conditions at 66% and we're a three B home single family would require two parking spaces
we have zero parking spaces proposed or existing or even proposed for that matter for contexts the surrounding properties are also in the RS Zone and they are residential homes and bed and breakfast ends as Mr katn described in his opening
statement The Proposal improvements we have are very limited uh in terms of the exterior alterations to the building we're going to take this rear entry coverage step in the back and simply reconstruct it and enlarge it slightly and slight improvements are
going to consist of removing pavers and Stones uh and some concrete walkways and kind of reconfiguring those and replacing them all with brick pavers and doing so we're going to be improving some of the drainage conditions which are right now result in puddling uh
particularly on the South Side between us and adjacent neighbors um part of our improvements will involve replacement of that sidewalk with new p wers and also storm water inlets and a recharge system not because it's required by ordinance but because we need to try and solve a
puddling problem that's been prevalent on this property for some time so in terms of improvements that's it the reconstructed Landing covered porch um you may remember I mentioned that the existing Landing is 0.38 Ft from the
property line we're going to be increasing that slightly but increasing that to just over 1T to match the existing building so we are making that slightly more conforming than what is there today the sard setbacks to the
buildings proper they'll remain unchanged obviously we're not doing anything to the building so they will remain unchanged the lot coverage remembering where 45% is the maximum permitted 66% exists with the alterations we're proposing we're
dropping that down to 62% so while not conforming we're making it more conform ing there are the variances that we require um are Advanced both under the C1 and the C2 criteria uh first of all under the C1
and this is dealing with the existing side yard setbacks we have 140 year old building that it simply is situated on a lot in a way that we can't alter nor can we change these SE not conforming lot Dimensions lot area and lot depth it's
been there for 140 years we don't have opportunity to improve those um so nor are we increasing or aggravating the degree of nonconformity so I believe those variances can be granted under the C1 hardship we simply don't have the ability to make a conforming and to force conformance would certainly create
an undo hardship upon the applicant the variances that are relating to the things you're altering the side yard setback and the lot coverage both of those conditions are Advanced under the C2 criteria because we're making both those conditions better um while not conforming we're
improving both the side yard setback is increased the laot coverage is decreased so certainly there is a betterment to the neighborhood and his Z plan by making those more conforming than what the present conditions are furthermore I believe there are multiple purposes of Municipal land use law that are Advanced
by the granting of this requested relief namely to encourage Municipal action to divide the to guide the appropriate use of development in a manner which promotes the public health safety morals and general welfare we are preserving in fact we are restoring 140y old house we're doing so
in a very unimpactful and innocuous way to the neighborhood and that certainly advances the public health safety and morals General Welfare by slightly increasing the non-conforming sard setback we are also providing more adequate light air and open space than the present day conditions and lastly
we're going to be promoting the conservation of historic sites and districts by the proposed work that we are anticipating so I believe that adequately addresses the positive criteria when we go to talk about the negative criteria one can truly say what
is the negative effect by the grant this relief both of the non-conforming conditions are being improved by the as a result of this development so there certainly can be no significant adverse impact to the purpose intent of the Zone plan and the benefits I described greatly outweigh those detriments and
for those reasons I believe the requested relief could be granted and John just to make it crystal clear we're not even proposing any expansion of interior living space here this is just a little covered deck on the back of the property absolutely existing landscaping and existing Flor ratio existing floor
area all remains unchanged through things I might mentioned earlier thank you right that's our presentation we're happy to take questions but we don't want to waste your time on what we think is pretty simple anybody have any
questions nope take it away okay good evening everyone uh would like to summarize my December 2nd 2024 review memorandum for this application uh once again this is a project located in the RS residential seasonal District um you've heard
testimony from the applicant indicating what they're proposing to do which is essentially demolish and reconstruct an existing um Demolition and reconstruction of an existing 50 square foot Edition and replace the existing Landing with a new covered porch uh
there were some waivers that were requested from items 24 19 and 33 uh for completeness items um based on the nature and scope of this project I did support all of those and granting of those waivers and then did recommend
deeming this application complete I agreed with Mr how Bruner's testimony this is an existing nonconforming structure on a non-conforming lot so the lot is undersized the lot size requirement in that district for single family
dwellings is 6,00 250 ft where 2,976 ft exists uh and the lot width is and Frontage are sufficiently narrow and do not meet the 50 Foot requirements and that is the the existing lot is
configured at [Music] 26.06.2012 bettering that situation however the uh setback to those improvements is 1.39 Ft or 8T is required um lot coverage is also non-conforming as it exists the maximum
permitted in this district for single family dwellings is 45% where 66% is existing 62% is proposed um in addition to reducing the lot coverage they're also proposing a stormw system that
mitigates any of the potential overage and um potential negative impacts from the um existing lot coverage overage um so that's a good positive aspect of this application and then finally whenever there's an alteration the code directs the board to re-evaluate the parking
standard um in this case a three-bedroom dwelling um has a requirement based on the residential site Improvement standards of two parking spaces there are no existing there are no proposed and whenever I do this evaluation I look to see whether we could fit any on the
lot there is no opportunity to provide parking on that lot um so that's the summary of the variances uh my general review comments begin on page five of six these should be standard conditions of approval um item number one is to provide the first floor elevation on the
plan and they have to comply with um section 525 58d uh the uh item number two is just there was no there was no way for us to compute or uh confirm the floor area ratio calculations but you've indicated in your testimony there's no additional
floor area ratio so it's an ex I believe it's an existing non-conforming situation but it's not being worsened or impacted by this development item number three and four deal with the grading and drainage plans
um the design is acceptable and they will ultimately be required to comply with chapter 525 the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements both during and after construction there are you know provisions of that that apply during construction so that should be a
condition um item number five uh we evaluated a landscaping plan there was none provided we would just like to you to verify that there's none going to be impacted by this by the construction we're not eliminating any of the landscaped areas as part of this correct that's correct so we would just ask that
a note be added to the plan just to confirm that um five is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after structure to make sure that it's not damaged during construction and and you would any damaged sections of sidewalk would have to be required
replace to the satisfaction of the board engineer seven is the requirement that they have to provide an inspection escrow and that your certificate of occupancy is tied to an acceptable inspection to verify that you're complying with all of the conditions
that the board sets eight is compliance with the recommendations of the shade Tre commission fire department and Public Works Department we did receive a fire department revieww recommending approval dated 1325 Public Works recommended approval
1325 and Shay Tre commission recommended approval January 13 2025 and there was no comments associated with that so um there's no issues there um nine you're required to comply with any and all other state County local approvals uh
finally item number 10 uh we would need evidence of final HPC approval um 11 is comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements um before you get your certificate of occupancy and then finally should the board Grant approval
um you're required to submit revised plans to meet the conditions of the board's approval um the requisite number of sets come to me and I would review those um for compliance that works those are all fine I think finished floor is a little over 14t anyway but it's a contributing structure so it's okay
subject to the uh 10.5 whatever it is it is okay that's a summary of my report I'm happy to answer any questions the board has everybody okay we'll open it to the public now anybody within 200 feet would like to
speak please come up to the microphone okay sir please state your name and spell it and then give your address and I'm going to swear you in first do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and the truth s be God please state your name and spell it my name is Mark
s your address your address 124 Decor Street literally next door and share 5 foot wide space between their house and ours and I just want
to my coowner Jan Li and I support this application good thank you anyone else within 200 feet anyone Beyond 200 feet um close it to the public then okay the motion that I'd recommend
being made but how you vote is up to you is a motion to Grant variances 1 through six on page three of the engineer Report with the waivers 249 19 and 33 on page two and conditions 1 through 12 on page
5 that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you but remember that there's four of you so that the applicant needs three yes votes in order to succeed so not that that would affect your vote but I just want you to know that so you're not surprised by it um and if you're going to vote
against this I would ask that you clearly articulate your reasons because at present only reasons in favor of the application and no reasons against the application have placed in the record so I would need you to clearly articulate that okay anybody will make that motion
so moved I I'll second it Mr Zer motions Mr Jagger seconds Mr Lewin yes Mr zexer yes Mr joerger yes Mr Walsh yes thank you thank you all thank you
Council luck with your project we finishing it it's close it's an old house there'll be another project soon enough yeah never really next application is 519 Franklin
Street blck 1076 Lots one [Applause] evening Mr chairman board members uh John amuser the DSE Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicant 519 Franklin Street LLC um the property is located at 519
Franklin Street identified on the city's tax map is block 1076 Lot 1 like the last property this is also located in the RS residential seasonal zoning District this is also a contributing property in the uh historic district and HPC approval final approval has been um
received already for this proposed development um the property presently exists as a two-story 3unit multif family dwelling the intention of this application is to convert that use to a single family dwelling uh both of which are permitted uses so we're attempting
to go from one to another uh albeit in reducing the intensity of use on the site uh here with me this evening uh we have Mr John halbruner John is the professional engineer I know he was just here on the last application where he recognized him as such so he'll be testifying again also have uh Mr Daniel
eelan he's a member of 519 Franklin Street LLC one of the members who if necessary is here to provide testimony uh this evening um so with that if we can turn it over to John I just want to disclose to the board my firm in the past I believe as represent not me I've
never met Mr uffman but my my partner did work has done work for Mr uffman I'm told that there's nothing happening right now but I don't vote so I don't get tooo concerned about it but I do want to put that on the on the record but I I've never spoken to the gentleman as far as I know unless it was in a somewhere in a building somewhere never
work here so John if you can just talk about existing conditions what we're looking to do here on this site absolutely um as you mentioned the street address is 519 Franklin Street we're uniquely on the corner of Franklin Cory and O Pearl
Street we actually FR on three different streets Mr alun I know we just recogniz you but I just want to do it because it's a separate application I'm going to swear you in I'm also the chair will you recognize him as a expert engineer and architect do you swear affirm the testimony about to give it the truth all Tru the truth hope we God I do thank you
sorry interrup you go ahead okay as I mentioned property address is 519 Franklin Street that's on the northeast corner of Franklin and Corgi we also have fronts on Pearl Street we are in the RS Regional seasonal residential seasonal District much like the last
application we're on a property that's 55 ft wide by 80 ft deep containing 4,299 ft is presently developed the two and a half story dwelling originally constructed circuit 1865 about 20 years older than the last
application at about 160 years um it originally or has most recently contained three separate living units it's uh 27 ft tall and is developed on the the site is developed with the building itself
and stone concrete and unpaved parking areas in terms of bulk Conformity there are a number of non-conforming bulk requirements in the present condition the minimum lot area which you may recall from last application varies depending upon the use and its present
3unit use would would require 12,500 square feet is minimum lot area and remember the existing is 4,299 square ft the minimum building setback where 20 feet would be required from both Franklin and Corgi 1.56 feet from
Franklin and 2.22 feet from Corgi street where the minimum lot width and Frontage for a multif family home would be 100 feet we have 55 ft where the minimum re yard setback would be 5.9 ft I'm sorry would be 25 ft
the existing is 5.9 ft to the second floor deck and number of parking spaces I honestly don't know the number of bedrooms within each unit but a minimum there would be a minimum of two parking spaces required for each for a total of six parking spaces required for the
triflex unit and we can fit comfortably too so we're certainly not conforming in with regards to the minimum parking space requirements again for contact purposes uh surrounding properties are also in
the RS Zone um and developed with residential uses except for across corg street where we have the postal the post office the proposed development is very little happening on the outside was all happening inside most significantly
we're taking three units taking into a single family house we are we will be taking a second floor deck inste of stairs almost certainly introduced as part of the required means of ESS for the third unit um when it was a three unit apartment
and we are removing that and doing so we're going to be increasing the setback on the non-conforming um parel avue or rear yard setback side in doing so Mr I'm sorry my notes I'm just an outside porch is becoming an interior stairway is that
is that a summary can you just say I started to write it down it didn't sound right so there's there's an open Deck with stairs off the second floor rear of the building along the pearls Street of pearl avido Frontage that deck is being eliminated in its entirety and John by doing that you mentioned
that'll actually in improve the non-conforming rear yard set correct we're going to increase the rear yard setback not to a conforming degree but more so than what it is today I'll get to those specifics in a minute sorry um in terms of site improvements we're going to take a combination of
unpaved stone and concrete driveway parking areas we're going to formalize that by introducing brick pavers um both in terms of parking area and drive strips um to formalize the parking and to create a more aesthetic and functional parking situation uh we're
going to introducing a new 30-in tall fence around the property and other than that the rest of the site remain substantially unaltered to accomplish this let me just back up for a second um we are proposing no changes to the existing Landscaping is with wild
Landscaping it's going to remain landscaped as it is there are a number of variances that are necessary in order for us to accomplish this first of all to preserve the minimum lot area the non-conforming building setbacks the non-conforming rear yard setback which by the way is
being improved and a lot coverage uh which again is something that's also being improved most of these variances can be Advanced over the C1 much like the last application the hardship variance we have a minimum lot area where
6,250 ft would be required for the single family home we have 4,2 99 Square ft side aspects to that conversation remember the minimum lot area for the current use is 12,500 for the triplex so by converting
the use from a Triplex to a single we're reducing the minimum required lot area so we're making that condition while it's non-conforming more conforming than today's uh situation we have the non-conforming building setbacks which remain unchanged
1.56 feet to the steps 7.78 feet to the porch 11.3 feet to the building all from Franklin Avenue required would be 20 ft those are existing conditions they're unaltered by the application and it would be an undue hardship upon the
applicate to force compliance with those things in a very similar vein the setbacks from Corgi Street where 20 ft is required we have 2.22 ft to the porch and 8.87 ft to the building both those conditions again remain totally unchanged by this
application and lastly we have the rear yard setback from Pearl Street where 25 FTS required we're proposing 7.97 ft to the building which is an improvement over the 5.9 ft that exists to the second floor deck which is being removed
as part of this application so we're taking that non-conforming condition we're making it more conforming albe it not full the compliant so that's all could be Advanced under the C1 criter there's simply existing conditions on a house it's 160 years old uh we can't practically make them conforming it' be
an undue hardship upon the applicant to force performance with those things there are also elements of the C2 criteria in play here first of all I'm going to return to the lot area we are making the build the
nonconforming lot area more conforming by the change in use again a lot area hasn't changed but the requir lot area for Triplex use is sign iFly more than out of a single family home and by converting to a single we are making this far more
compliant we are going to be improving lot coverage where existing conditions 57% and as multif family would be allowed to be 70% so in the present Condition it's conforming when we switch that to a single family home the maximum loot
coverage drops down to 45% though so as a single family home the maximum lock coverage is 45% what exists is 57% and we're reducing that down to 54% so again we're taking that making it more
compliant so if you look at all the positive effects by this application we're making the lot area more conforming we're making actually the lot width and Frontage more conforming for the same reason as the lot area sounds counterintuitive I know but the minimum
lot width for a multif family home is 100 feet what's present today is only 55 ft so it's a non-conforming condition the minimum lot withth of Frontage for a single family home was 50 feet and we provide that at 55 ft so we're taking a non-conforming condition by virtue of
the existing use and making it conforming by virtue of the proposed single family use LW coverage is being reduced from 57 to 54% and parking is being made fully compliant we have a total of seven bedrooms which requires four parking spaces all of which are being provided
on site now so we're taking non-compliant parking we're making a compliant we're reducing density we're taking three units we're taking it down to one and we're restoring restoring an historic building back to its original
single family purpose and doing so makeing it more harmonious with the neighborhood those are all very positive things that this development if approved will have on the on the neighborhood there are multiple purposes of the municipal land use law that are
being advanced first to promote the general welfare and morals um Again by the restoration of a historic home back to its original single family use in a manner with less density is certainly promoting General Welfare to the public we're providing more adequate light air
and open space by increasing the non-conforming rear yard setback not conforming but more conforming than was there today again the reduction in density certainly is promotes the establishment of appropriate population densities and other purpose of the mpal land new law
we're providing conforming parking where non-exist which promotes a free flow traffic and another the purpose of the unal landu law by eliminating the rear step in in landing we're going to be and doing the restoration of this the building we're going to be promoting desire of visual environment yet another purpose of
Municipal land use law and finally we're going to be promoting the conservation of historic sites and districts by the restoration of this building so there are clearly multiple purposes of that the miscellaneous law that are being advance in addition to all the benefits I described so that's all on the on the
positive positive side of the scale let's talk briefly about what the negatives could be well each of the non-conforming conditions that we're dealing with we're either making more conforming or conforming so truly there is no negative effect by the grinting in this in this relief so the C1 criteria
hardship is clear the benefits are clear there are no negative effects so for all those reasons I believe the variances can be granted um by this board I'll shut up now he makes our life pretty easy uh any questions Mr
hner I have one small question on AZ 101 the existing floor plan says the house is 24 9 a half and the proposed is 25 and 1 and
3/4 this I'm I'm assuming this is staying in the same footprint it is exactly the same footprint there is no change to the building footprint whatsoever outside the elimination of the second floor deck how do we get bigger then I'm going to say it's a
typographical error I would and any I would say the same thing I'm not trying to picky I just just jumped out at me no it would jump out and that's fair fair question um 25 okay it's small but but given that what we will do is any architectural plans to be submitted as
compl liance plans will show that these the footprint is not being altered in any way changeing sighting no we're going to keep I'm just trying to think of what would make it the the survey shows that it's 25.5 and I I think that's probably the
origin of the difference we have the survey plans we have the architect plans which my firm actually inherited from a predecessor architect and I think that's where the basis of the discrepancy lies but we will resolve that discrepancy I promise you need of this applications to
keep this entirely within the existing footprint I I just I have a question it's more curiosity it actually doesn't have anything to do with zoning but the application says there's um no need for mertile license well if this were a single
family home there would be no mertile license required uh unless it's rented out for less than the season I guess but I mean right now I thought that the application was talking about current and and as well as future but it's not
important that can be obviously you're going to follow what the law says I was just curious as to what the intent might be with the building so it's going to be for the alman's personal use that's there's the answer
great hear your view sure hey excuse me one moment before you go on the fire department did give me a report on the 24th of March which was Monday they recommended approval with no conditions no comments what was the date I'll give it to you and you can give it
back that's Monday what was the date March 24th I'll read it thank you sorry about that thank you Downing and pay for sometime okay I would like to summarize my January 27th 2025 review memor Rand
for this application um this is for 519 Franklin Street LLC it's in the RS residential seasonal District you've heard that they're converting the structure in use into a single family residential dwelling where it was multif family three units um there with regards
to the completeness review there were uh requests for waivers from items 4 22 23 26 27 32 and 33 um they indicated that there's no changes to the proposed Landscaping plan during their testimony
um because of the nature of this application and the scope um I did support granting those waivers and deeming the application complete um just before I go into the variance analysis um and I we've we've had a couple of these lately but if you
rem if you recall um I've advised the board that K May doesn't have one menu per zoning district for all the uses we have separate zoning tables for each use within certain districts the residential
site Improvement stand I mean the the residential uh the RS District um has approximately four different uh essentially zoning tables the biggest departure or change that happens between when you go from one use to another in
those in that zone um the lot sizes change and the lot coverage requirements change um floor area ratio also changes but um they're not really proposing any change to that um and it does conform so anyway that being said I'll roll into
the the analysis of the variances um so this is an existing undersized lot lot size requirement is 6,250 Ft for the proposed single family use uh where 4,299 ft exists U Mr how Bruner uh
phrased it appropriately um essentially for three units they were required a lot more a lot size requirement I don't remember it offand that might not in my report but they're making that situation better it's bringing it more in line to be conforming uh with regards to the
building setback lines on Franklin and C hgy Street uh there are two existing non-conformities that are not being exacerbated or made worse but uh 20 foot is the requirement for each of those front yard setbacks 1.56 is provided existing and provided at Franklin Street
2.2t 2.22 feet is uh existing and proposed at corgy Street the rear yard setback is being bettered 25 foot is the requirement
5.86 feet exists to the second floor it's uh it's a landing and steps it's a deck and steps deck and steps okay and 7.97 ft is proposed after the removal of that finally the lot coverage
so the lot coverage in this change of use drops from 70% permitted to 45% permitted so existing right now as it was covered at 57% would be conforming but because we're changing the use that
requirement standard drops and now the 5 they're reducing the overall coverage on the site so they're making it better but they're still not bringing it in line with what's required so 54% is proposed 45% exit is required they're also
proposing a stormw system as part of these improvements um so that would mitigate any potential adverse impacts here um so that's a good thing uh floor area ratio I just a note um 0.65 is required
0.637 is existing or proposed um so that is met so they're not overdeveloping the lot with regards to the massing of the structure and and finally um they had a non-compliant parking situation um when there was three units the residential
site Improvement standards requires for a seven bedroom single family dwelling four spaces um I I estimated there was approximately three on site um Mr hbr's testimony was that there was two um regardless it was non-conforming they're
proposing for and meeting that standard um so that is met so there some positive aspects to this um development and Redevelopment of the site um I'm going to move on to my general review comments if there's no questions with the variances okay um these should be
conditions of approval it's compliance with chapter 258 the flood damage protection uh code uh item two we've asked that they revise the zoning table to reflect the comments in the review memorandum items three and four uh are
our storm water review so this is not considered major development um we've asked for some additional grading and drainage information be provided on the plan so that we can comprehensively evaluate it but conceptually that drainage system will
work on that site we just want to see some um additional information so that we can verify um that positive discharge is being provided and and the storm water is getting to where it needs to get uh five you've indicated that there's no changes to the Landscaping so
we would just ask you to add a note to the plan the ver ify that um six is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction to make sure that there's no damage sidewalk um and if there is any you have to replace that to the satisfaction of the board engineer um along the lines of that
sidewalk so you're you are proposing some sidewalk and driveway apron um along Franklin Street um we're concern I'm concerned about the brick sidewalk and preservation of that so we want to ensure that those Construction details
preserve to the greatest extent possible and that and and uh protect the sidewalk that's there um as well as you know we'll Bey add a note that there not not to be
altered anyway that's okay um finally item number eight um provide the required inspection escrow and your CEO is tied to um acceptance of the improvements and a satisfactory um inspection item number nine is
compliance with the shap Cape May shet Tre commission the fire department and the public works department we received public works department recommendation of approval dated 31225 with no comments sha Tre commission recommended approval
with no comments dated March 15 2025 and finally our board assistant provided us with the fire department revieww dated 32425 they recommended approval with also no comments
thank and finally you did provide evidence of HPC approval dated 1112 2024 and I believe that was part of your package um and then item number 12 you're required to comply with any and all applicable
affordable housing requirements at the time of approval or issuance of cosos and then finally item number 13 should the board Grant approval you're required to revise the plans consistent with the conditions that the board sets and submit the requisite number of plans to
the board engineer for review and approval summary of my review and I'm happy to answer any questions everybody good we'll open this up to the general public anybody within 200 feet would like to comment come up to the microphone please
evening my name is Jane Howard my husband John and I the property at 76 Street okay 76 Street okay I just have to swear you in but I'm sure that was all true do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so you God I do thank you Jean Howard go ahead yes I have two questions the ising the fencing I heard you mention can you elaborate on that is going to on
property if it's going to have Gates the fence will be a 30 in tall uh camping tall or not because of sight triangle considerations it will border the entire property except for where the um Vehicles will enter and exit the property
and the driveway is that going to go through from Frankl yes yes I have some concerns about that that I'd like to present Pearl Street is a oneway 15 M
hour no parking Street ranging from 13.6 ft wide to 15t wide with no sidewalk in essence pory street is also a oneway street that is 19 with parking on the right side sidewalks
on both sides and a speed limit of 15 milph while we do not take issues with 59 Franklin being converted from a family dwelling all of which was previously excuse me may would you
please turn on the mic is it on is it green uh it's red turn okay can you press a little button okay it'll turn thank you very much you're welcome do you need me to start over or did you hear okay all right you're welcome so as I
started stating the home was previously used year round by one family with two cars and we don't know how many cars are intended to be for the new use we do
have considerable safety concerns if the driveway of 519 is intended to allow access from both Franklin and pearl streets we have been in our home going on seven years in that time frame we have watched on numerous occasions and
more so in the summer months cars not abiding by the oneway and 15 Mile speed limit on both Pearl and Corgi streets with the season in full swing we have observed children from the surrounding rentals play bowl and games and riding
their bikes on Pearl Street Pearl Street is also heavily used as a foot path day and night traveled by people walking to and from town and to and from the beach with all their belongings pushing carts and baby strollers which makes it difficult to quickly move out of the way
of a speeding wrongway driver in addition as Pearl Street is so narrow and has no sidewalks people tend to walk in the middle of the street despite the numerous oneway do not enter and speed limit signs on one occasion I witnessed
a bike rider be so startled by a car coming at them in the wrong direction that they fell off their bicycle onto the pavement on another occasion I was walking our dog and was intently watching what he was doing and looked up only to come face to Hood with a car
coming at me quickly in the wrong direction I always tell people to look both ways before Crossing Corgi and pearl streets and they ask me why they're one streets and I tell them it's because people don't abide by the fact that they're one way and speed right
through others in our neighborhood have also witnessed cars speeding and going in the wrong direction down both Corgi and pearl streets we're afraid it's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured or Worse killed by a wrongway driver having 59s driveway
accessible from both Franklin and pearl streets is only going to exacerbate an existing problem and possibly contribute to a serious injury or fatal accident therefore we would like to ask that 519 driveway not be able to be entered or
exited from Pearl Street and a buffer of Shrubbery or other comparable barrier not a curb which people may drive over be placed at the Pearl Street side of the driveway to mitigate these considerable safety concerns I do have pictures to provide further
clarification as to the width of the streets Etc I appreciate your time don't go away from the podium because I my experience is that there's conversation to be had about how to mitigate that or is like a one way is can it be an exit only or
something is there something we can talk about try to make can you talk about parking conditions along that that that street that thare sorry say that again a long Pearl um well we're not proposing to park anything on Long pearls Avenue but there's an existing driveway apron that discharges onto Pearl Street today
we're not creating that new we're simply continuing it now in terms of traffic safe first of all we're reducing the number of cars that are expected to use this by reducing the number of units second of all the alternative to pulling straight through on Pearl Street means
backing up onto Franklin Street that creates a far more dangerous situation than something pulling forward on a Pearl Street I can appreciate the concern for drivers driving the wrong way on Pearl Street but nothing about us having a driveway is going to promote that or increase the possibility of
doing so John so can you think of anything that can be done that would help mitigate some of her concerns if there's some signage or or you know I mean it's an opportunity to try to improve the situation for her if there's something we can think of that is fair I mean I'm putting my Engineers asking the
engineers to see if there's something that can be done to help us as some I do see that there's a sign of utility poll I'm not sure which based on the survey immediately adjacent to our driveway on which we could mount a one-way an additional one-way um traffic
sign notifying anyone exiting our driveway of stre being one way what's there now is there a drive-thru driveway now are there curb cuts on both streets yes I'll refer you to the uh survey by
um Mr mcgonagal that was submitted as part of the application who shows the unpaved driveway uh off of Pearl Street ma'am I'm not an engineer okay I'm just D attorney and mostly a notetaker but I've been here for 10 years and having cars avoid back out onto streets like
Franklin is kind of a big deal to the engineering people so that's going to be a tough sell for you to to get them to close one side and make people back out on the Franklin but I'm trying to think of ways and and you live there so maybe you can think of ways that help it's an opportunity for your work with your neighbors to try to make that situation
better so everyone's open to ideas to make that better because they probably have people that are going to be in danger as well on the streets so okay what can we do well first may I say that we have been in that home going on S
years now the number of contractors and I have to say including the contractors honestly now who are working on 519 go down the street the wrong way there was a I have pictures there was a car parked
a van parked yesterday going went down Pearl Street the wrong way parked on a No Parking Street we couldn't even get out of our driveway I had to ask them to please move so my
husband could get to an appointment and I was told I'll move and I said do you realize this is a oneway street you're going the wrong way on a oneway street and you're also parked on a No Parking Street for seven years I have fought
this battle and it never ends it's sad people go the wrong way I cannot tell you how many people go the wrong way if visitors whoever are going to come to that home they're going to take that
shortcut they're going to go down Corgi turn right on Pearl the wrong way and go into that driveway the wrong way and I don't want to be the recipient again of someone coming head-to-head with me in a car it's a narrow it's an
Alleyway I I no one it it seems in the past seven years I've been fighting this battle and no one can do anything about it everyone goes the wrong way and then even if they then turn around and go out Pearl the right way then they make a
left and go down Corgi the wrong way if the driveway was made this sounds crazy I you can't enforce it but if the driveway was made one way and you only entered and you only exited onto Corgi would that make that problem any better
worse I don't know if if people were to abide by that but the problem is no one wants to abide by it Pearl Pearl Pearl I'm sorry Pearl if it just exited onto pearls you couldn't go down you couldn't get into that driveway from Pearl if they abide by it but they AB by no
offense I've had the chief of police out there what what do you do other than having someone stand there and say here you go here's your ticket here's your ticket here's your ticket I mean someone's going to get hurt there I mean
all I I can respond that the only thing I think we can do right is to advise any contractors on site sternly not to do those things that are being complained about but short of that I just to your point it's it's a traffic Enforcement issue is what it sounds like more than anything I'm not sure how we can alleviate it or this development
otherwise exacerbates it that's a public that's a public road that the the board's heard your concerns they'll they'll put it in their deliberations they could the driveway can you show that to council you want to show them to the no no no give them to me thank you you have
to show them to the to the other side first and then that's what she wants to give to the board oh when it comes out are there is it multiple copies or multiple pictures it's multiple pictures all right let me just say I just want to know if you have any objection to them that's all that I
want them okay six seven photographs okay I'll mark the seven photographs as 01 through 07 and then I'll pass them down so everyone sees them okay do you want to say anything about the oh they have things said on them okay
John I think that we could work out uh at least I think your one-way sign is a good start I think we could configure the driveway so it promotes the turn in the proper direction well I had the same thought but what would promote the one way out
would also promote the one way in the wrong way um frankly I I think it's signage is the best we're going to be able to do on our property and perhaps there's additional signage that the city can undertake at the intersection of GG Street and PE Street that's a condition
we're not creating or exasperating yeah it's I mean the complaint is valid it's you know we can only control what you're doing on your site um and make ensure that you're complying um you know obviously it's a compliance issue with the with the what
what is described into the record um but I was just brainstorming to try and figure out a solution well clearly any of of our driveway users are going to be hit in the face with the oneway sign as they're actually in the driveway right I
mean that it's hard to think of anything more impactful than that right it's a it's a reminder it's a daily reminder when you exit your driveway and again just remember that we're reducing the volume of vehicles are going to be using that by three units down to one unit so we are doing a lot
to yeah I mean just stacking cars along the house the back out on Franklin is not a have you if talk to the city manager if I may Justin Riggins um came out a week ago Tuesday okay with Chief
Deacon fhaw they added additional one-way signs and unfortunately I was told people are likely you know they put an additional one-way sign on the top of the street
sign for Corgi and Pearl and we have one directly across at the end of pearl they put another one on Corgi and I was told this is what we're doing but you know
people just don't abide by them there any consolation I live on Windsor and every 10th car is going the wrong way it's I was the uh I was the leaone to the bike and pedestrian Safety Committee in this city and I can tell you um we
probably have a hundred res residents with the exact same similar stories and I have them too um it and the only thing you really can do is you know give our city managers the best shot at it and
get the police involved in it and it if I have it doesn't you know it doesn't always I understand solve the problem because people just do what they want to do then maybe what I'll do honestly for everyone wrong way car I see I will take license plates and call
the police department right and why not why not thank you all right sir do you swear or affirm a testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth St to God I do please state your name spell my name is Ken Holland
live at 710 CGI Street sir please St your name and spell it addad is Holland like the country h o l l a n d which first I live at 710 Corgi street I'm going to make you famous and put your name in The Resolution I want to make sure I do it right okay so your
first name is is Kevin or Ken Ken Ken oh you want me to spell my first name okay no that one's easy I just didn't hear it because you talked while I was talking thank you right so it's Ken Holland 710 Corgi Street got it sir go ahead thank you so I've been living at this home uh
710 cord Street May with my wife Janet Holland for 3 years plus and we are full-time residents um first of all I applaud the party for the improvements on the property it's great it's been an eyes sore for years all good stuff and appreciate the zoning board's variances
and looking at different options the question I have is why at this point do a pull through driveway what's the purpose of a pull through driveway when you already have adequate parking for four six up to eight cars from what I've seen pull in that lot because it's a very congested
area as uh Miss Howard just stated not only do you have no sidewalks on Pearl Street it's an Alleyway it's even smaller than Page Street and you they're all feeder roads in addition Pearl Street is a road from Columbia Jefferson
and all the streets Beyond coming into town so comes through there it they pass through and on top of that Miss Howard didn't mention there's horses and Buggies on that street almost every night multiple times during the summer when I come in off of Franklin to go to
my own property I have to come down Franklin even though I live on I have to come down Franklin make a left on an Alleyway called paage Street which hasn't been in the news tonight at all make another left on Pearl Street and then make a sharp right into my driveway
on Pearl Street the point of the point of the matter is it's a very congested area so again property improvements great adding a pull through Lane creates basically another Alleyway and we know how it is with construction workers we
know how it is with residents in the area can you imagine with tenants I believe the house will be used for rental purposes I'm not sure I'll leave that to the party but can you imagine with the tenants that we currently see making a loop around that area and the loop means they're coming down Pearl
Street making a left an illegal left turn onto uh onto uh cgy street right in front of the post office and going up to Franklin I don't have pictures but I see it every day and I will tell you my final part on the way over here tonight
I don't know who owns it I don't know if it was a construction worker a black jeep pulled out front front words onto Pearl Street went up to CGI and made a left down the one-way Street going to Franklin which it goes the opposite direction
just on the way over here a black jeep made a left and left and I believe Jane's pictures will will show that and I would like to enter into the evidence other picture to show some of this this will be I guess O2 or
8 uh well that's I'm going to call this uh H1 because you're different I and that's that's a picture of the Jeep but more importantly it shows the congestion just today in that area so I just wanted the group to know that there's a little
bit more and I don't know why additional a pass through Lane needs to be added to pick up additional parking spots the comment was made by the board I believe someone said well you can't back up on the Franklin there are dozens of driveways on Franklin the whole street
it's a lot safer to back up on two Street when you're driving slow a few miles an hour then when you're going forward like a little bit of a racetrack going 10 miles an hour hour just a humble opinion of a of a non- zoning Board member happen to be a member of the the bike and pedestrian committee and this is a concern that was stated
earlier thank you just respond can I want I wanted to just say something um as the board engineer so um while it's it's great to know what are the existing traffic situations and and sort of things that
are occurring over in that neighborhood um we can't hold this applicant responsible for those violations their traffic violations um what we can do what the board can do is only require them to
provide the safest design that we can that we can make them do um in this case as as the engineer we always want to promote pull out parking instead of backing up parking it is always safer it is not conflicting with traffic it is
always a more difficult maneuver to back out and avoid traffic as if as opposed to pulling out straightforward so um I don't see I think this is a safer design than if we were to block it off on Pearl
Street I concur is there anybody else in the public within 200 feet anybody Beyond 200 feet that'd like to speak we'll close it to the public then is there any discussion by the
board anybody else have any questions any okay the motion I'd recommend being made but how you vote is up to you oh wait are we including any additional conditions related to the parking uh yes the one-way sign is going to be installed at the driveway exit onto
Pearl Street you okay so um I'm going to add to the engineers uh conditions condition third condition 14 A1 way ass sign
will be installed where is it being installed on the property or on the for the driveway exit onto Pearl Street well I should be within the Pearl Street right away but right next to our
driveway it'll be most effective there than on our property be facing in towards their driveway that when you're exctly sure you go the right way yeah well everyone know what this means if I right a oneway sign will be
installed for the driveway exit on the right of way facing the property right fine okay um okay so the motion recommend the motion I'd recommend be made but how you vote is up to you but we always put it in the
positive so that yes is affirmance no is a projection is's a motion to Grant variances 1 through four on page three of the engineers Report with waivers for was waivers four 22 23 26 27 32 and
33 and conditions 1 through 13 on pages five and six of the engineers report adding number 14 which is the oneway sign will be installed for the driveway exit in the right of way face and facing the property that's motion to recommend being made
how V is up to you go ahead and again remember three you require three yeses for the project to be approved because two to two is a no someone like to make that motion I will make that
motion second Mr uh Mr Jagger motions Mr Zer seconds Mr Lewin yes yes Mr Zer yes Mr Jagger yes Mr Walsh yes thank you thank you very much thank you thank you thank
you next we have to pay some bills someone like to make a motion to pay huris planning and Engineering so move I'll second what's that Mr joerger that was yes thank you so motion by Mr Lewin
seconded by Mr joer Mr Lewin yes Mr zexer yes Mr joer yes Mr Walsh yes thank you and to pay King bnes LLC I'll make the motion then I'll second
that Mr Z are motions Mr Jagger seconds Mr Lewin yes Mr zexer yes Mr Jagger yes Mr Walsh yes thank you and I think that's it that's all I have motion to adjourn so move so move
all in favor I thank you everyone and have a good night chair right thank you you did it good you take good