I think he's aware of you. >> He wouldn't be coming in daylight like that if he was aware of me. >> Yeah, they drive you crazy. >> Are you hunting one particular animal? >> Yeah. >> How much time you have left?
>> Bow season ends the last day of November. >> Oh, is that your bow hunting? >> Is it like you draw back or is it like Oh, you're doing real like bow and arrow. >> Oh, yeah. real bow and arrow. >> Wow. >> It's not easy. That's the hard part is >> and even if you can see him actually
>> even if you see him, then you still have to >> without him knowing or hearing you or seeing you, you still have to draw the boat. >> That's the That's the tricky part. >> It's not like crossbow thing or something. >> My son's fun with the crossbow because he's new to it.
>> I'm like, you learn how to this first. >> You any good with that? >> Yeah. They're with 50 yards. >> Pretty spot. >> That's That's honey. That's a little more. >> My wife kept her maiden name. So she's
so long it doesn't she So she was gonna just go J. It has been such a problem every time we see I think we solved that other issue right
>> the other applicant she had written >> what's that >> just withdrawing like the appeal should be Bruce agreed with Yeah. Okay.
>> Not too long. >> I just put it aside. I had a feeling that's what was going to happen, but >> I spent some money of of the escro. So, >> I I talked walked them through it. I was like, I don't write this up even
>> testing everything and stuff like that. You can't travel. >> You have to keep everything. is coming. He's not here. So, I'm just letting you know we have
six trying I'll check your email. In compliance with the Open Public's Meeting Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. If any member has reason to believe that this meeting is being held in violation of
this act, they should state so at this time. >> Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. I pledge to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation
indivisible with all. >> All right, Mrs. Wernern Mr. Venudo >> here >> Mr. Lewin >> Mrs. Notch >> here >> Miss Sheen >> here >> Mr. Walsh >> here >> Mr. Zexer
Mr. Jagger Miss Stevenson >> here >> thank you. >> Okay we need a motion to adopt resolution 1120 2025. Kenneth Corno
350 or 1350 Texas Avenue block 1172 lots one. So I'll make a motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay. So Mrs. Notch motions. Miss Sheen
seconds. Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Abstain. >> Mr. Bernudo. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We will need a motion to adopt
resolution 1120 2025 Paul Grana 314 Clyhorn Place block 1031 lots 63 and 64. >> Can we have a second? >> Michigan motions. Mrs. Notch seconds.
Mrs. Notch >> abstain. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. Miss Stevenson >> abstain. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And we'll need a motion to adopt
resolution 1120 2025 McFarland Associates LLC 112 Madison Avenue block 1096 lots 89 and 10. >> I make the motion. >> I'll second.
>> Miss motions. Mr. Walsh seconds. Mrs. Notch. Yes, >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes, >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes, >> Miss Stevenson. >> Abstain, >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. I'll be uh we'll need a motion to adopt
the minutes from October 23rd, 2025. >> Motion. >> I'll second. >> Michigan motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. Yes, >> Miss Stevenson. >> Abstain, >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Our first application is Allan and Amanda Fiser, 1013 Stockton Avenue, block 1096, lots 13. Come up, please, and introduce
yourselves. Good evening board members. My name is Lindsay Nukem from the law firm of Monzo Cadones Dales. here on behalf of the applicants Alan and Amanda Fiser in connection with the conversion of their two family dwelling to a single family dwelling at 1013 Stockton Avenue. The
property is located in the RS district which permits both single and two family dwellings. Um with me is Christina Amy. She's a licensed architect who will provide testimony tonight regarding the conversion which triggers two variances. Again, the variances are required not because they're uh uh exterior changes
to the property, but because the bulk standards for the single family and um the two family dwellings in the zone are different. Um as such, uh bulk standards for lot coverage and sideyard setback are greater in single family um and require variance relief tonight. There
are also pre-existing conditions for lot area and parking um which the parking we are actually proposing to make better and the lot area is obviously proposed to remain the same. Um Miss Amy will testify that uh we did review your engineers review memo which indicated
that four parking spaces are required. We proposed three on the plan but I believe we can actually fit a fourth um which Miss Amy will uh testify to tonight. Um uh also we understand that the driveway encroaches slightly onto the neighbors property. Um it's our
understanding that there has been an agreement for an easement to be granted the form of which will be provided to Mr. King if you would like him to review it. Um and can be a condition of approval. Um I don't know. Rich, do you want to swear? Christina, >> I will. I also swear in our board engineer Carless. Do each of you swear
affirm to tell the truth all truth and nothing but the truth of the odd. >> Yes, >> I do. Christina, have you testified before this board? >> I have. Yes. >> Okay. Um and do you are her credentials on the record? Would you like her to put them on to qualify as an expert? >> She's an expert architect. She's been here a number of times.
>> Got it. Okay. Um Christina, can you explain the plan specifically as it relates to the conversion of the property and the new driveway that's proposed? >> Yes. So the existing structure which is uh just over a hundred years old um exists um on the property uh closer to
the uh sideyard setbacks than is required for a single family. So we're converting uh a two family. Currently the first and second floor are one unit and there is a uh large uh exterior stair accessing a third unit on the
third floor. Currently, what we're proposing is to remove that large exterior stair and create a single family dwelling. Sorry. Um, and in doing so, the existing house, as we discussed, the bulk requirements for
a two family are uh less stringent than they are for a single family. Um, so the existing non-conformities of the house, we're not expanding the house at all. We're just converting internally, removing the stair again in this back corner, creating just a a simple stair
entry into the house, an AC platform. Um, the existing driveway uh straddles the property line on the left side of the property going back to a detached garage, which we're not making any ch proposing any changes to. There's also a slight
encroachment of the neighbor's driveway on the right side of the property. What we're proposing to do because the parking requirements um aren't being met by the current driveway um is to uh remove the asphalt
that's there, replace it with a permeable pa, which would then only count towards 50%. But then create parking spaces back here. Sorry, I have a really sore throat. So, um, in doing so, we have a parking space in the garage. We propose to, um,
I'm also showing on this drawing here, um, a fourth space. So, we would not be requesting the parking variance. Um, so we would meet that fourth. Can you see that? I couldn't >> I don't think we got this, did we? >> No. >> No.
>> No. So, the plan that uh was submitted showed three parking spaces in response to your engineers letter that indicated that four were required. Miss Amy created a plan that showed a fourth, so it does need to be entered as >> and I do have an exhibit already the exact same page, just not on the board. >> Thank you very much.
>> You're welcome. >> Um, so we can accommodate a fourth parking space and therefore meet the requirement of the four parking spaces for the number of bedrooms in the proposed single family layout. Um,
>> we're gonna mark that plan as exhibit A. The thing you're handing I I handed it to I'm sorry that as a yes in the record. So we and it's the a new plan with four parking spaces, right? >> Correct. >> Correct. Thank you.
>> Um again the lot area um is um existing. We we don't have the opportunity to change it. So that's an existing non-conformity. Uh the lot width um actually becomes conforming because as a single family only 50T wide is required.
Whereas for the duplex use was 60. Um we also the lot front edge is the exact same thing as the width. Um the uh again the rear yard setback is unchanged. That's compliant. The sideyard setbacks are unchanged. They're
existing non-conforming. 4T minimum 12 total. We have 4.4 and 5.6 for 10 total. The building height is unchanged. the um floor area ratio is unchanged and the lot coverage um the existing is 61%
which was complying for a duplex um that's not compliant for a single family only 45 is permitted and we are reducing it however we're not meeting the 45 because of where the driveway is and where we can accommodate the parking it is also
>> pause you real quick can you just explain that the double asterct on the flare ratio I'm not sure I did Is this 658 is required and this is existing FA is the requirement what's ex is the requirement. >> So the code says the floor area ratio is
what it is as of a certain date and it's grandfathered in. >> Okay. So that's why it says required is what it is now. >> Right. >> Thank you. Sorry just need if you needed it's odd to see a number like that in the required. Just want to make sure you get a fire.
>> Correct. Yeah, there is a provision for homes over a certain age. >> Um, >> it is right in front of the garage. So, >> so we have just driveway here. Here's the current three. And then a fourth car
could certainly fit there. We would have shown that originally. However, the way the RSIs is published uh wasn't indicative that it would be needed there, but we can accommodate that fourth spot.
Um, and as I was saying about the lot coverage, uh, we did reduce it with those permeable pavers, but we couldn't get it down to that 45%. So, we're proposing the, uh, 58.8%. with that.
So again, we're not expanding the house uh envelope at all. We are reducing with removing that stair, providing a pvious paper driveway to accommodate the parking. >> Um I think you kind of just did it. Uh but obviously the variances that are
requested are as uh a C1 variance uh which is a hardship variance. Can you explain the standard and briefly how we how we meet it in this case? >> Uh sure. for reason of exceptional narratives, shallowess or shape of a specific piece of property. Uh which in this case um the location of the
existing house on the existing property um is pre-existing and it is a historic structure. We have very limited ability to make any changes in that regard even if the client wanted to. um with uh extraordinary and exceptional uh situation uniquely affecting a specific
piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon. The strict application of any regulation pursuing article eight of this act would resil peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the developer such property grant upon an application or an appeal relating to such property a
variance from such strict application of such regulation as to relieve such difficulties or hardship. Again, that is an existing historic structure. um its proximity to those sidelines. Um you know don't give any feasibility to
uh make it comply with those regulations. >> Um and as to the negative criteria, there's no substantial detriment to the public good or impairment of the intent and purpose of the zoning plan. Correct. >> Correct. Um and if anything, uh by providing the required parking is actually helping the surrounding
neighborhood by not needing the street parking. And we're also um lowering the lot coverage from what currently exists there. >> Correct. >> Um and the use is one that is already permitted in the zone. Correct. >> It is a permitted in the zone and it is less dense as a single family than it is a duplex. >> Um so the hardship is that it's a
lawfully existing building um on a lot uh that's obviously already developed. Um so we need to work within those restrictions. >> Correct. >> Um and as to the C2 criteria, uh there are several purposes of zoning that are advanced I believe. if you want to elaborate on them for the board.
>> Sure. Um so uh there are several purposes it's advanced to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of lands of the state um in a manner which will promote public self health, safety, morals and general welfare. It's promoting multi-gener multi-generational
use of the property for the homeowner and his family. um providing suffic sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses. Open space um again that that large stair being uh removed is
contributing to the o open air, light and space um albeit it's primarily towards its neighbor to promote a desirable visual environment uh through uh good civic design and arrangement and promote conservation of historic sites and districts. So in your opinion uh the
variances can also be granted under the C C2 criteria. Correct. >> Yes. >> Um and you have reviewed the board uh engineers review memo and don't take exception to any of the comments contained therein. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um that's really all we have and obviously we're available to answer any
questions. >> I just have a question about the garage. Is there any living space above the garage? >> Um I don't believe so. I believe actually it's a a open um ceiling joist with stuff like
slid into it. I'd have to review my >> It looks like there's a second floor. >> Again, I don't it's it's not a finished space. There's no drywall or heating or water like that. >> I was only asking that because I noticed that the shower is attached to the garage.
>> The the garage is exposed studs even inside. There's no um finishes at all. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The easement on the driveway >> in the blueprint here, it says to be provided. Do you have an easement for that now? Because without that easement,
you have no parking. >> It's it's an existing driveway. >> Um it was actually from what I've been told it was those that house and the house on either side of it were built together for three sisters. So, I'm guessing there was no formal easement ever proposed, but I know that is
something that is currently being worked on. Um, and again, that that driveway exists in that place right now. >> I have confirmation from our client that there has been a verbal agreement as to the easement form. Frankly, they were waiting on the document from my office which is complete for review, but we
understand that it will be a condition of your approval. This is Yes. condition of your approval. If they can't get the the easement approval, they would have to realign the driveway totally onto their lot, which would drive up lot coverage, and they would have to come back to you.
>> Understood. >> Any other questions? >> Craig, would you like to give your review? >> Certainly. I would like to summarize my October 1st, 2025 review memorandum for this application. Uh this is an application located at 1013 Stockton
Avenue which is in the RS residential seasonal district. Uh we've heard testimony from the applicants indicating that they're converting this existing two family dwelling to a proposed single family detached dwelling. Um so that
lessens the intensity of the use with regards to the number of units that there are. Um there's still the same amount of bedrooms I believe. Is that is that correct? There's seven bedrooms proposed. I think
there were were there seven initially. >> Yes, that's true. >> Okay. All right. So, uh with regards to completeness review, um there were one, two, three, four, five, six items um on the checklist for C and D variances that
have to be addressed. Item 19, um we've requested that the topography be provided for the enlarged driveway. Um there's a drainage system that's required when you enlarge the driveway. Um it's triggered. So that should be a condition of approval. Item number 26,
we supported a waiver from providing um the utility and covert drain pipe information. Um I don't believe there's any on the site. Um item number 27 is showing the existing utilities and proposed utility layouts. Um we have
some comments with regards to that but we felt that that should be waved. Item 28 should be a condition of approval and that's the requirement to provide the requisite drainage calculations that support the drainage design. 32 is uh
the easement that we kind of just discussed. We recognize that the driveway is partially on the adjoining lot. So therefore, an easement needs to be provided to address that to formally address that. I know this has been going this been utilized like that forever. Uh
but when we get an opportunity to legalize this, we should do that. So that should be a condition of approval. And then finally, they requested a waiver from providing a landscaping plan. It doesn't look to like to me that the landscaping is being changed by this application. So therefore, we supported
the waiver and recommended deeming the application complete. With regards to the variance review on page three of five in the zoning table, so um the residential seasonal district permits the widest array of residential
uses within the city um out of any other zoning district. Um each specific residential use has its own zoning menu. So when you change uses the menu changes and in this case when we change from the
the single family what was it uh the two family dwelling to the single family dwelling the requirements got a little more conservative in a couple of areas and that's what's driving the variances. So uh for lot size the requirement for a single family dwelling is 6250
ft where 5250 ft exists. Sideyard setback requirement is eight feet uh where 4.4 foot exists on one side and 5.6 foot exists on the other. Lot coverage um the um Mrs. Amy
indicated that the 61% that exists right now would is conforming in the current condition. That's correct. That zone that use allows up to 70% for that. that drops down to 45% when you change
it to a single family dwelling. So therefore, we created a non-conforming situation by the change of use. However, they've mitigated um the lot coverage that's existing from 61% to 58.8% by providing pvious pavers. Um so that's
a better situation than what exists. And then finally, the parking. I identify it as being a variance in my report, but you heard testimony from them indicating that they will provide the fourth parking space on site. So therefore, that makes that a conforming
situation. So those are the variances that you'll be considering. Uh my general review comments start on page four or five and these should be conditions of approval. So we would just ask that the zoning table be updated to reflect the comments in the review memorandum and update the variances that
are being requested and granted if if that so becomes the case. Uh with regards to item number two, uh we ask for construction details that have to be provided to demonstrate that the perv the pavers are indeed pvious and meet
the uh 50% lot coverage credit. Item number three is uh our request and requirement request that they comply with the requirement to provide a drainage plan designed in accordance with the code. Um so that should be a condition of approval. Um and that
dovetales into item number four which is the minimum storm water management and grading requirements of the code that those items have to be complied with both during and after construction. Five uh is just asking them to revise the plan notes but now we have four
parking spaces so that plan notes should be revised accordingly. Uh six is the requirement to provide the driveway access easement and provide that for review and approval by the board engineer and attorney. Seven is our standard condition that we
evaluate the sidewalk after construction and any uh unsuitable sidewalk should be replaced satisfaction of the board engineer. Number eight is the standard requirement that they have to provide the inspection escrow and the certificate of occupancy is tied to the
acceptable um acceptance of that of those improvements. Nine is the standard condition that they comply with the requirements of the shady tree commission, the fire department and public works department. We received, excuse me, we received
reviews from the fire department dated 10925. They recommended approval with no comments. Item uh the public works department recommended approval dated 10325 with no comments. The shade tree
commission recommended approval with the following conditions. The sh the single street tree, the honeyloust construction barrier should be installed. In the event of sidewalk replacement or repair, new sidewalk must be bowed towards the house to protect the street tree root
system. Is that acceptable? Okay. So, that's summary of those reports. This project is located in the historic district. HPC approval is required.
We we have not final because that has to be after this meeting, but we have the conceptual approval. >> Okay. So, evidence of final approval is required. >> Uh item number 12, they're required to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements. And then finally, should the board grant approval, they're required to submit
revised plans that address the conditions set by the board um to the board engineer for review and approval. And that's a summary of my report. I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. No questions. Okay.
>> All right. This time we'd like to open up the meeting to the public. Anyone within 200 ft that would like to comment? Anyone beyond 200 feet would like to comment? Okay. Okay, since we have no takers,
we'll close it to the public and >> Okay. Um, the applicant is uh requesting you consider the C1 and C2 standard, although I think the C1 standard is more applicable because we're dealing with existing structures that aren't changing on the exterior.
Um, so I would I believe we should consider this under the C1 standard, which is the hardship standard, which isn't just the size and shape of the lot, but also the existing structures. In this instance, it's a 100-y old building and they're not really changing it. So the motion I recommend being made
is a motion to grant the variances one through four on page three of the engineers report subject to the conditions outlined by the board engineer uh including waiverss for items 26 27 and 33 on page two and conditions 19 28 32
and 1 through 13 on pages four and five with the letter dated 10725. five for the Cape May Tree Commission and the easement that you're going to send me to look at when you get it. >> Just to correct you, Rich, you you
mentioned there's four variances. We struck one, so it's one through three. >> We struck the parking variance. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> You're comfortable. All those parking variance, those parking spots are conforming, Craig? >> Yes. >> All right. Fine. We'll strike that one. >> Just like to make sure you have everything you need. So,
>> okay. So, that's the motion I recommend. Yes. >> I just have a question. What did you say you were waving? What uh for completeness review? or 20. >> Uh, my notes reflect and they could be wrong. Craig will correct me. I thought there were waiverss on 26, 27,
and 33. >> Correct. >> And I thought 19, 28, and 32 were conditions. >> That's right. I thought you said you were waving 19. That's all. >> Okay. Well, maybe I said it wrong. That's not >> Thank you. >> All right. So, that's the motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you.
>> I make the motion. Second >> machine motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> M. And thank you for your elacrity
there. Just kidding. It was a very uh fast and tight presentation. >> I know. >> I thought >> Mrs. Stevenson. Is it still Mrs. Stevenson >> right now? >> Okay. I I heard the good news. So I just wanted to know that we are calling you by the right name.
>> Oh, do you want me to change it? Do you want Okay. You >> got married. >> Okay. >> Congratulations. >> What's your What will your new last name be? >> That's a pretty name. >> What's What? >> Nothing wrong with Stevens.
Which one's this? >> All right. >> Our next application will be Mark at 1604 Maryland Avenue, block 1187, lots two. Okay.
>> All right. Good evening, members of the board. Uh, my name is Steve Morris of the Morris Law Firm. And I'm here with me tonight is my client, Mark Aten, and Arthur Chu, our engineer. I anticipate soliciting testimony from both of these gentlemen, primarily Mr. Chu, but also to a lesser extent, Mr. Aken. So, um I
don't know if it's the pleasure of the board to have them sworn in as a matter of housekeeping. If >> I can have you both sworn in and our board engineer remains under oath. Please raise your right hand. Do each of you swear affirm to tell the truth all truth and another with the truth of God. >> I do. I do. >> Thank you. >> And I would I would profer to this board
that Mr. Chu has appeared um on on more than one occasion, but I'm happy to vader him so he can establish his credentials before the board so as to testify as an expert. >> Oh, just just give us your basics so I get it in my notes. Uh, my name is Arthur Chu. I'm a professional engineer.
My office is in Lynwood, New Jersey. I've been a professional engineer for almost 20 years, I guess. >> Are you a planner as well, just so you know? >> I am a professional planner. I'm a certified flood plan manager and certified public works manager. >> I'm going to go with engineering planner. That's
>> That's good enough. Yeah. >> Yes, we will accept. >> Thank you, Mr. King. Uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, as indicated, we're here on the application of 1604 Maryland Avenue, identified as block 1187, lot 2. It's
located in the R1PW zone. Um, Mark and his wife Patrice, who could not be here tonight, are the owners of a beautiful home on 16004 Maryland Avenue. And I'm going to provide the board with just a brief background about the the current status of the property as to how it arrived where we are today. And then I'll turn
it over to Mr. shoe to explain the variance relief that we have before us this evening. Um, this is a happy story because while it is a beautiful home, the Aikens are looking to to add a couple bedrooms because their family's growing. Um, I understand that Mr. Akin and his wife welcomed the birth of their
first grandchild this January and they were lucky enough to uh to wed their daughter this this summer. So, um, that will this will hopefully ensure that uh many future generations of of Atkins to come will be able to enjoy enjoy Kate May. So, um, within your package, I included
what's entitled an application narrative. Um, and that is kind of walked the board through, um, the background of the property and the relief that we're seeking here tonight. There are a series of attachments on there that you're free to peruse as I discuss kind of how the property came to be. So, before Mr. and Mrs. Akin
purchased the property, um, it was owned by Michael and Regina Broen. Uh, when it was built originally, it was maxed out on density, or rather lot coverage. Um, I understand that Mr. or Mrs. broen. Um they had some accessibility issues. So they came before this board uh I believe
it was 199899 and they asked for variance relief relative to lot coverage so that they could construct a garage in the back corner of the property that could house um the vehicle that that accommodated the individual with with some I guess disabilities or or accessibility issues.
So the board was um was kind enough to grant that relief back in 1998 and increased the lot coverage from the 30% that it was it was developed to 36 I believe it's 36.8%. So, in preparing for this application,
um, we did not believe that there was any other variance relief necessary because the enclosure of the front porch, which is the the the relief we're seeking here tonight, would not have the impact of increasing the lot coverage. So, during our preparation, we discovered that the numbers weren't
meshing up. Mr. Chu was getting a number that was higher than the board had previously approved. Um, we came to determine after the fact that is because after the prior owner got variance approval and built the garage in the rear of the property and it was presumably inspected and approved by the
city, they installed an outdoor shower connected to that garage prior to selling the property to Mr. and Mrs. Aken. So, um, it it was about 30 years delayed when we learned that the shower wasn't necessarily supposed to be here. And so that explains the discrepancy in
the lot coverage between what was approved by your board back in 1998 and the the extra percentage and a half that comes before you here this evening. Um so we're seeking a host of variance relief. But with that I would turn it over to uh to Mr. Chu to to give you some of the technical information and
exactly what sections of relief we're seeking uh from the city code here this evening. So, the uh the shower we're looking at is on the side of the garage, and what we're proposing to do is put a recharge trench uh adjacent to the
shower that will not only take in the uh roof uh the roof drains from the garage, but it will also take in the drain from the shower. So, we're taking the existing condition where the water just runs off. It goes predominantly in the
ground. There is no runoff extraneous, but we're really going to direct it and catch it and put it into a designed stone water uh stone trench. And that's basically the gist of it. So, we're even going to reduce the amount of runoff by capturing all the roof runoff from the garage uh that is in the immediate area.
There's no impacts to landscaping aside from the grass in the area. And that is the extent of this variance and what we're proposing to do to fix it. And Arthur, I know that you were not the architect that designed the plans, but um can you can you just basically tell us what what is happening on the front
of the property, that's the construction, and and why does it not have any impact on the lot coverage? >> So, the uh front of the house has uh a two levels of porch. There's an upper level porch and a lower level porch. The lower level porch already counts as
imperous coverage and building coverage because it's covered on the top. They're uh proposing to enclose the lower level porch and add bedrooms into that area. >> They're closing in the lower or the upper >> on the lower. The upper is going to remain open
>> and that's not going to have the increase of of changing the the building footprint or anything in that regard. >> There's no change in in the building mass building footprint. uh there is uh I think a change in the uh floor area ratio which was calculated by the
architect but that does not go over the uh permitted allowance and >> Mr. Chu, in your professional opinion, would you in consider the the slight increase in the the lot coverage occasion by way of kind of the discovery that the outdoor shower counted to it? Is that dimminimous in nature in your
professional opinion? It >> it's very dimminimous and uh the proposed solution is not only going to resolve the issue from the uh extra impervious coverage, but we're going to go above and beyond and capture the roof drains of the garage and eliminate more
runoff. So that way we're going to even reduce the amount of runoff from the precondition of what was permitted in 1998. >> Is there anything else that this proposed development would would trigger as far as variance relief or additional approvals? >> No. If if they uh if the Aikens decided
to demo the garage, not the garage, but the uh the shower on the garage, there would be no real need to be for this board. There's no variances needed. It's a 100% compliant and meets all regulations of uh the city of Kate May
as for the bulk setbacks and all uh zoning regulations. >> Did you ever consider that demo in the shower? >> Yeah, to you know not have the the building uh accepted. We would certainly
do that. But we would love to keep the shower as it is if it's if at all possible. And I understand, Mr. Chairman, uh in doing our preparation for for tonight's presentation to this board, um we learned that sort of the genesis, or at least my understanding of the genesis
for uh the preclusion of outdoor showers being tied to accessory structures was was grounded in a a fear or concern that they would be then converted into habitable space because you've got half the utilities already there. Um so in that regard, Mark, can what do you kind of have to tell the board? Um what's in
your garage? Our garage is a lot of beach chairs, bicycles, kayaks. Uh there's no living space. There's no loft to it. Strictly an open garage with a lot of stuff in it. >> And you have no plans to make another space.
>> No, we don't. >> Of course. >> And in fact, the water that services the shower that's run directly from the house, right? Not >> correct. It's not. The water itself is not attached to the garage. They must have just ran underground and ran some pipes up and built a shower and attached
the, you know, the structure to the garage. >> So, you mentioned that you're improving that you're putting in a trench to get capture drainage from the garage and from the shower. Um, and you said that that advance. Can you just say, and I must say it
doesn't, I just want you to say it out loud. Which purpose of zoning does that advance? Uh well, it's general benefit of the neighborhood, but uh because we're reducing the amount of runoff to the neighborhood. So, uh but all the improvements proposed here to something
in D-2. Is it is there there's one related to flood, right, Craig? >> Secure from flood. >> Yeah, >> I think it's letter B. >> I'm going to say it's B. >> Advanced purpose of zoning B. >> Okay. It's also we're maintaining the character of the neighborhood by maintaining an existing structure and
not demoing the structure and building a new structure. Uh so it's nothing's changing from the average person going around. You're just going to see an enclosed ground floor, but the bulk mass, we're not changing the blocking light, air, open space, or any of those.
>> I mean, if the shower didn't have a roof and didn't have and had a slated floor, it might not even cut the law coverage. So, I mean, right, Craig? I mean, >> say that again. >> If you have a garage that doesn't have a roof and doesn't and has a a wood crate floor, is that that covering lot coverage >> in a garage?
>> In a shower, if I >> shower? No. Um, >> hey, well, I'm sorry. 50%. >> Because it's it's pvious. >> So, this is like this could be like half. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It's really minor. >> And for purposes of the record, there is there's like a slotted roof and like
angled angled boards. And Mr. Aken, just advised me there there are pavers down there. it. There are some benefits to what they're proposing to do. The existing shower is non-conforming because it's not permitted to be attached to an accessory structure. It's supposed to be attached to the principal
structure. Um, it also is supposed to have a drainage system attached to it. There is none there now. They're bettering that situation. Not only are they bettering that just for the shower, they're now accommodating the additional coverage for the garage which which
mitigates um the coverage that they're over the 30% that's permitted. So those are all beneficial thing aspects to this. >> Thank you. And and for purposes of the record, the the sections of the code from which we are seeking variance relief are 52573E
and that was occasioned by way of the prior variance relief that was granted to the owners before Mr. and Mrs. Aken. Um because they got the variance relief, any additional changes to the property have to come before this board. Uh section 52514B2, that's that that dimminimous increase in
lot coverage that Mr. Chu spoke about. and then 5255A C6 which is the uh the presence of the outdoor shower being adjacent to an accessory structure and not principal structure. Um Mr. Chief, for purposes of the record, um what is the standard by which the board is to consider these
variance uh variances requested? >> Uh they're supposed to weigh the positive and negative criteria. Uh we already went over the positive, how it's benefiting the neighborhood as a whole, plus the other issues I outlined. and uh the negative there's no negative impact to the adjacent properties. We're
actually improving situations. This is a condition that's existed for 30 years and there's been no negative impact to the neighborhood and we're just bettering this situation as is. And um before I turn it over to the board for any questions and Mr. Herurles for his report, um we did request a waiver from
a landscaping plan. Um so I included a certification from Mr. Aken therein. There will need to be some slight pruning of trees to accommodate the the closing in of the porch. But as we said, the footprint is not increasing. So to the extent that there was a branch that went into the open air porch, that would
have to be pruned. But um Mr. Akin has has certified and will represent to this board that um no more pruning than is absolutely necessary will be done. >> There won't be removal of any species. So the the same number of landscaping species that are there will remain just
pruning. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, so with that, members of the board, I thank you for your time. Uh, and I'll turn it over to the board for any questions or any comments from the board engineer. >> Okay. Do we have any uh questions for the applicant? >> Okay. No questions, Craig. So, if you
would be so kind. >> So, this is an application at 1604 Maryland Avenue, which is in the R1 Low Density Residential District. the applicant is requesting variances as well as um this is triggered under the zoning review. So whenever there's
an application that's been granted by um an application that's been granted by this board um the code says that you have the opportunity to review it again to make sure that the conditions um of the original variances have not changed
substantially um by whatever is proposed now. Um, so, uh, you've heard testimony indicating what they're proposing to do. The porch improvements, they do increase the floor area ratio, um, and create
habitable space. Um, but that does not trigger any variances themselves. Those additions are all within the required setbacks um, and the floor area ratio is not being exceeded. So, um, it's that is a conforming addition. Um the variances
that are really being triggered here is to address existing non-conforming situations that they want to legalize. Um and that's rel they all relate to the shower. Um so I'm just going to roll right back into my completeness review. Um under on page two, there was one
waiver that was requested from the landscaping plan. You've just heard testimony indicating that they're not removing any um material and there's only pruning that's necessary to um address the u front porch addition.
Therefore, we did recommend deeming it complete. Um on page three of six, I review the variances that are required. one the lot coverage 30% 36.9% is what resolution 10-14-98
permitted. Um and what they've found out is that 37.78% exists on the site. Um so they want to legalize that. Okay. Um the other nonconformities relate to the shower
uh structure itself, the accessory structure. Um there's a maximum height of six foot. Um part of that structure is 7 foot4 in. That's non-conforming. The width of the structure is not permitted to be wider than 6 foot. Um
6'2 in exists and it has to be attached to the main building whereas this one is attached to an accessory structure. Those are the three nonconformities that exist with regards to that. So those are the variances that you should be considering.
Uh with regards to my general review comments, they should be conditions of approval. Uh we've asked for some information with regards to um uh first floor elevations and flood damage information be added to the plan. Uh we've asked that the zoning table be
revised to reflect the comments in the review memor memorandum and indicate all required variances um that are being granted or or requested and being granted uh should be noted on the final compliance plan. Um three is just the
review of the storm water system. We found that that system is acceptable. Four is our stand, excuse me, our standard condition that they have to comply with minimum stormwater management and grading requirements both during and after construction. Five, we've requested the plan notes be
revised to indicate the parking calculations in accordance with the RSIS for seven bedrooms. There is a total of four parking spaces that are required. There are four parking spaces that are shown on the plan. So, that is a compliant situation.
Item number six, uh we've asked them to provide one street tree. Um the proposed street tree size and species must be added to the plan. Seven is our standard condition that we ask them that they replace the any sidewalk in port condition and that is
evaluated after construction. Item number eight is our standard condition that they have to provide the inspection escrow and that a certificate of occupancy is tied to the acceptance of those improvements. Nine is the applicant shall comply with the
requirements of the Shade Street Commission, fire department and public works department. We have received reviews from the fire department dated 11925. They recommended approval with no conditions. Public Works Department recommended approval with no conditions
dated 11125. And then the Shade Tree Commission uh recommended approval with the following condition that existing trees to be protected during construction. You've indicated that you will preserve those um and only prune where necessary.
Um that recommendation was dated 112025. Sorry. Where am I at here? Okay. Um, our standard condition that they comply with any and all other necessary state, county, local approvals. Uh,formational
purposes, this project is not located in the historic district. So, HPC approval is not required. Um, 12 is they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements. And then finally, should the board grant approval, um the applicant is 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. Happy to answer any questions that the board may have. >> HBC district,
>> not in the HBC HBC hearing and what they subitted. >> Have you gone to the HBC? >> We did not. This is uh this is one of the newer sections of town. >> Yeah, I my I do a map review whenever I get an application and I did not find
that it was in the HPC district. Server the night of the HTC hearing this other race was never mentioned. >> Eight of nine of what? >> Are you talking about the 1988
>> resolution? I think that refers to another application and the hearing on the broen one starts at the bottom. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for Craig? >> Okay.
All right. At this time, we'd like to open it up to the public for comment. Anyone within 200 ft? No. Anyone beyond 200 feet? No. All right. We'll now close it to the public. And Rich, would you like to
recommend the motion? >> Okay. The applicant has requested to be considered under the C C2 standard, which is appropriate. The purpose of zoning, outlining the positives outweighing the negatives without a substantial impact on the zone plan and zoning ordinance or on the neighbors. variances to seek and the variance I'd
recommend motion to recommend you make but how you vote is up to you is a motion to grant the variances one through five on page three of the engineers report with the waiver as indicated number 33 on page two and conditions 1 through
13 on pages five and six with the letter from the shade tree commission dated 11102 as condition that's the motion I recommend being made But how you vote is up to you. >> Would someone like to make the motion?
>> I'll second. >> Okay. Miss Sheen motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venuda. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, members of the
board. Have a great evening. We did not get our new date today, by the way. >> 2028. >> Take care. >> Okay. Our final application or number three is Timothy and Elizabeth Fall. Did I say that right?
>> Okay. 1 003 Lafayette Street, unit B, block 1061, lots 59 C2. >> Good evening board members. Lindsay Nukem from the law firm of Monzo Catise Dales here tonight on behalf
>> Excuse me. Can you bring that closure? I had I'm having a hard time with the recording. Okay. Thank you. >> Is that better? >> That's I hope so. Thank you. >> Yep. Uh Lindsay Nukem from the law firm of Monzo Cat Sales here on behalf of the applicants, Timothy um and Elizabeth
Fall. The property address is 10003 Lafayette Street, unit B. Uh the property is currently developed with a 2-unit semi- detached dwelling. The applicants own unit B, which is a uh two-bedroom unit. Um it is owned uh in a
condominium form of ownership uh with the adjacent unit. The applicant is convert proposing to convert attic space into an office. It's adding approximately 242 square ft. Uh because the property received a use variant for the two use variance for the two-unit
construction. Approval is required from the board for the addition of this interior space. The outside of the property won't change at all other than the addition of a window. Um and no other variance relief uh is required as a part of this application. All bulk variants uh all bulk standards are still
met. Um with that, uh Rich, uh we're going to have testimony from Paul and Beth if you'd like to swear them in. >> This council, before you begin, I just want to remind you that we have >> one, two, three, five voters and you need five.
>> Yes. Spoke about it out in the hallway and Miss False decided to proceed. Okay. I'm sorry people in sorry I got distracted by the five. >> Okay. >> Um if uh you'll please raise your right hand. Our engineer remains an oath and each of you s are affirmed. You tell the truth all truth and nothing but the
truth. So yeah. >> I do. >> Okay. Miss F, can you put your microphone on, please? >> There you go. >> Oh, sorry. >> Thank you. >> Um so Beth, can you confirm uh that you own unit B at this property? >> Yes, I do. And can you explain for the board uh what you'd like to construct
and why? >> Yes. So, my husband and I both work from Sorry, I'll move in. Is that better? Okay. My husband and I both work at home. So, we'd like to turn our attic into an office space right now. Um we
don't have room for both of us to be working very efficiently from the place. We try to come to Kate May as much as we can. Um, and my husband is usually working in the living room, which means if he has sensitive calls because we both work in technology and that
happens, um, I can't come downstairs. I can't use the kitchen or anything. Um, so we'd like to turn it into his office space. Um, and in terms of the changes from the exterior, there's not really going to be any change other than the addition of a window. Correct.
>> Correct. >> And this space is currently an attic. Yeah, it's a unfinished attic space. Yeah, >> attic space. Okay. Um, unless anybody has any questions for Miss uh F. I'll move on to uh our expert Paul. >> Have you have you spoken to your other
owner in the cond association? >> I'm sorry, I should have noted that. Um, it we did not uh include a consent um with our application, although we certainly can as a condition of approval. The neighbors are actually scheduled on your agenda for next month
for the exact same project. So they obviously consent. Um but I can submit a written consent. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Um obviously Mr. Kates I know has testified before the board before. Do
you accept him as an expert? >> We do. >> Okay. Um Paul, can you review your the >> I just just from my notes, can you tell me exactly what your licenses are? what you sorry >> your expert in >> yeah professional engineer professional planner
>> Paul can you review uh your plan and the proposed use for the board >> yeah um so as noted we're on Lafayette it's an existing duplex it's uh next to the Datnik real real estate office and uh one property down from the school um
again the lot and the improvements are remaining completely unchanged um without the addition of another bedroom, there's no no need for additional parking. Uh therefore, we are making absolutely no changes to the site. Um
with the respect to the plans prepared by the architect, what we are proposing, um the second floor, uh the bathrooms are being modified. There's a a tub being removed and replacing with a
smaller shower to accommodate a spiral staircase up to the uh the loft on the third floor which is currently um open attic space and will be converted to conditioned uh habitable
space. Um and when we look at the bulk standards uh for the site, we are all compliant um and the floor area ratio still remains under almost under half of what is permitted on the site. Correct. >> Yes. So currently the the bulk standards the floor area ratio is the only
standard being changed. We're going from 24% up to 26% where 45%'s allowed. So, it is a bigger lot and even with the existence of a duplex, we're still well under what's permitted. >> Um, and all of the setback variances
obviously remain the same and are fully compliant. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, again, uh, because a use variance was obtained to construct this building originally and we are adding interior space, we need to reaffirm that use variance. Can you go through the,
uh, standard for the board as uh, as well as how we meet it? >> Yeah. So uh we need to meet the positive and negative criteria. Um with regard to the positive criteria, we feel that uh Z2 I think that's not the Z2.
>> Is it different? Z2. >> What? What are the What are the revision dates? >> It says 97. Here >> we have two revision dates. >> I have 917 >> is the latest one. That's that's what my package has.
>> And the date is 9:17 as well. So it appears as though in the application package somehow the one that I was given is noted as Z2 in the application it was Z3 but it is the same appeared to be the same sheet.
>> Could you use the one that matches the packet? Yeah, I can have it mounted on the board, but so Z3 or you want to mark this as >> I don't know. Uh, are you abandoning it? >> Sure. We'll abandon the other one and
use the one that was submitted. >> Okay. It hasn't made it in my notes yet, so it doesn't exist. So, what are we looking at now? We're looking at >> it says existing slashproposed four plans. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> With reference to Z3 that was in the
packet. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> And the Z. So you it has the existing layout of the first and second floor and the unconditioned off space. And then to the right is the proposed second and
proposed third floor layout. Um and we were talking about the use variance. So the standard for the use variance is showing uh special reasons sight suitability and the negative criteria criteria. >> We good? >> Craig and I were whispering. I'm sorry.
Go ahead. >> Are we Oh, sorry. I didn't know if it was. Can you uh run through that for the board, please? >> Yes. So with regard to site suitability and the positive criteria, uh given that the site itself is remaining unchanged, uh we are meeting all of the typical criteria for light air and open space,
appropriate population densities, um as well as sufficient space in appropriate locations. Um the key benefit to this application is enhancing the safety and general welfare of the inhabitants. Um the falls uh this expansion will allow them uh more space to enjoy their home,
quiet place to to work and do business um and you know create that separation that they need while working um in the house together. Um as to the site suitability um again the site is particularly suited given that the space is existing and currently
unused and it will have no impact on the existing zoning standards. Um it will increase the FAR but not beyond what's permitted. >> Um and in terms of the negative criteria, I presume that there is uh no negative uh substantial detriment or um
uh impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan given the fact that uh this is a residential unit that already exists and we're adding 200 interior square feet. >> That's correct. We could find no negative impact. >> Okay. Um so in your professional opinion, do you believe that this use
variance can be granted? Absolutely. >> Uh you also have reviewed um Craig's engineer review memo and don't take exception to any of the comments contained there in correct. >> No, I take no exceptions. And with regard to some of the waiverss, I think given the fact that nothing on the site
is changing, that's why we're seeking those waivers because there's no engineering design and no proposed exterior construction. Yes. >> Looks like it's it's noted as 3 ft wide, but it doesn't have the height on it.
Michigan, can you turn on your mic, please? Thank you. Thank you. >> I guess my question by that is um for it to be a livable space, it have to be a certain size window for because that's the only window in that area,
>> right? And I would assume, again, I didn't create the architecturals, but um I assume he'll meet building code and it would be an egress window. So, so then it could be a bedroom then with that window. Correct. >> There's no intent to use it as a bedroom.
>> No, it's going to be open doorway, >> but but it could be with this window. Correct. >> It could be livable space, >> right? >> So, it could be anything that is consistent with livable space, but what you heard Beth testify to was that it's planned to be an office. There's no door on the room. >> More importantly,
>> Craig has something to say. That was our whispering. So, >> sorry. I I was whispering back and forth because there was a the your next door neighbor is going to be here next month to ask for the same exact thing. Um
so taken together, you know, I look at this like always taking a conservative view. If that both of these were converted to bedrooms, it wouldn't increase the parking requirement at all. Um it also taking together you know it
increased the floor area ratio by 0.02 it's the next application is going to increase by 02 so it'll be 0.28 28 where 045 is required is the maximum permitted. So taken comprehensively um I I took more of that global view
because I reviewed them back to back and I I was surprised that they weren't scheduled on the same night but um I don't think there's any adverse impact from both of these being done together um from a parking standpoint, from a floor area standpoint.
>> That that was my concern was the parking. So that that's where I I was looking at that too, >> right? Okay. Because that was being that it's Lafayette Street, it's not like easy that you can >> um just create another parking spot if it was >> they have a large lot in front.
>> Yeah, they they do have >> we are lucky. Yeah, >> appreciate that. >> So m Mr. Kates mentioned sight suitability when you're not dealing with any other variances that are being triggered by this. It kind of
demonstrates that the site is suitable to accommodate this >> within the district. >> Thank you. >> And I believe Yeah, but yeah, we're not increasing the need for parking. >> Okay. >> Even though we do have additional space,
but that that is not the intent. >> Thank you. You're welcome. >> That's all we have. Obviously, we're available if the board has any questions. >> Not that has anything to do with the variances. How high will the ceiling be in there? Say the stud wall in the back is 5'5. So how how tall will the ceiling
be? >> Can I give you a very unofficial answer? >> Just from the street I look at it like >> it is quite tall up there when I go up. I mean I wasn't worried about that. My husband's 6'2 and I know it won't be any sort of problem with that. Is that >> there's a code for height for room,
right? Isn't there like building code? >> I believe it's six feet. So as long as it's >> that's really not our ball though that come that's relevant to us if they're trying to say it's not habitable space they're conceding it's habitable space. So once they do that we're treating it as habitable space and the building department will take care of all the
other stuff. >> Okay we get into that when they're saying it's not habitable then how tall is it this and that but they're saying it's >> okay. >> Any other questions? Correct.
Turn this off. >> Okay. Um, I'd like to summarize my October 23rd, 2025 review memorandum for 1 13 Lafayette Street, unit B. So, you've heard testimony from the
applicant indicating this is a 242 square foot expansion uh conversion of attic space to an office. um expansion um results in expansion of a non-conforming use. This project is located in the R2 low medium density
residential district. Only single family dwellings are permitted residential use here. You have an existing non-conforming semi- detached dwelling. There's two units in that entire on that lot. Um with regards to the checklist
requirements um there were waivers asked from items number 27 28 31 and 33. For the reasons given in my review memorandum I did support granting those waivers and deeming the application complete. Um, on page three of four, um,
as you note, and I kind of alluded to this a little bit earlier in a comment, um, this is an expansion of a non-conforming semi- detached dwelling, but it does not create any other non-conformities with regards to bulk and area variances. Uh, parking is met,
floor ratio is met. Um, I thought you were I'm sorry, I heard an echo or something. Sorry. But anyway, um so there's only one variance. It's the expansion of the non-conforming use. No other bulkan area
criteria are triggered. Um so therefore, um like like I said, site suitability I believe is demonstrated because there are no other additional variances that are that are required. So um moving on to my general review comments, these
should be conditions of approval. Item number one, we just asked the zoning table should be revised to reflect the comments in this review memorandum. Um, two is our standard condition to address sidewalk. Um, we evaluate that after construction um and and um and ask the
applicant to reply repair any sidewalk in poor condition. Um, three is our requirement that they have to post the inspection escrow required and the CO is tied to the acceptance of those improvements.
Four is the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the shade tree commission, fire department and public works department. We received a review from the fire department dated 11725. They recommended approval with no comments. Public Works recommended
approval with no comments dated 111225 and the Shade Tree recommended approval with the following conditions. The Hackle Hackberry tree to rear right side of the structure needs to be protected
by a TPZ. Um so are is that acceptable? You will protect that tree. >> All right. And then finally um they have to comply with any and all required approvals. This project is located within within
the historic district. So we would need evidence of final HPC approval. Uh item number seven is they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements. And then finally, should the board grant approval, um the applicant is required to revise the
plans compliant with the comp conditions that the board set and submit the requisite number of sets to the board engineer for review and approval. >> Hey, uh Craig. Um number six says that it's within the historic district, but the improvements are in the interior, so
it doesn't appear the HPC approval is required. Is that >> That's my opinion. >> Okay. Well, that at the end of the day, we would just need the HPC to agree with that. >> Got it. Okay. All right. That was my opinion as well. I just Okay. >> I will chime in. Uh they're changing a window, adding a window, changing the s
changing a window. Any change to a window requires HPC approval, but they will probably do it in review. >> In review. Okay. >> You finished? >> Yes. >> All right. Any questions for Greg? No questions.
Okay. At this time, we'd like to open up to the public anyone within 200 ft. Beyond 200 ft, just a fan. Okay. All right. We'll close it off to the public. And Rich, if you would uh make
your motion recommendation. I would just say preliminarily the reason that um Craig and I had the conversation we had is that and this is a bit my policy but I've seen the board enough that I think it's become theirs that we don't go by what
the architect writes on the plan as to what the room is. Um if it can be a bedroom we consider it a bedroom. Um because these things have a life of their own. They change owners and it's our experience in Kate May that if there is a place that you can put a bedroom,
people make it a bedroom. So if you make a box and call it an office and it has a window and it can stand up in it, we're probably going to call it a bedroom and do the parking calculation. If it doesn't trigger parking, then everybody's well, if it turns into a bedroom, it's not the end of the world.
But if this um space um triggered heightened parking, you would probably would have had a problem with this application. In fact, until I verify that you didn't change the parking, I was very worried about the five vote thing because that's they take that very seriously. So, I'm not saying you're going to win now. I'm just saying that
that is a big deal. And for future reference, just presume that if you come to us with a space that you can someone could sleep in, it's a bedroom. And if they write library or office or >> bird room, >> study, that's nice. But it's a bedroom.
Okay. Particularly on upper floors, it just gets ridiculous. Okay. All right. All right. So, the motion I recommend you make, but how you vote is up to you, is a motion to uh grant the variance on page one, which is an expansion of a non-conforming use. I think that's what it it's permitted by
it's been permitted by a variance and they're expanding it. So, I think that still falls as a expansion of a non-conforming use, but the um applicant did provide site suit site suitability testimony as did the board engineer. So, either way um you're okay. So either uh
it has to have sight suitability which has been testified to due to the absence of variances and being so far below the F um and also not triggering any bulk variances and Mr. Hurles correctly in my opinion testified that that is a a sign that the site may be suitable for what
they're doing um also as an expansion of a non-conforming use. They're not changing the exterior uh at all and they're not triggering the additional bedroom. Otherwise, that would uh perhaps be a sign that it can't accommodate that expansion. That's why you would probably lose if you needed it
more parking. Okay? Because that's evidence it can't can accommodate it. Uh so uh the motion has a conditions and it's a waiver on page it's five waiver all the waivers on page two and the conditions on page four as outlined in
in the engineers report dated October 23 2025 there was condition of the written consent by the neighbor although we understand they're coming in with the same application uh and also uh the shade tree commission
um their letter dated 11725. I didn't say that already. So, that's the motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. This requires uh five out of five. So, um if you want to vote no, that's fine. Just give your reasons because they only put good reasons on the record. So, I need some negatives on
the record if you want to vote no. Okay. Thanks. >> Someone like to make the motion. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Walsh motions. Mrs. Not seconds. Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernudo. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Finally, we need to >> make a motion to adopt the payment of
the bills. >> I make a motion. I'll second. >> Michigan motions. Miss Stevenson seconds. Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venuda. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Thank you everyone. Have a great night. >> That was almost unfair. >> Is that right? That's 7:15.