This one just wants to go backwards. I'm glad I didn't have that one. What else can happen to me this week? Where's that? testing. Have you been reading all the bench stuff? All the bench
bruha. They're taking the benches off the boardwalk that have the plaques on them. No. Geez, there's all kinds of complaints going on. Yeah. People put memorial plaques on the benches while they're taking all the
benches off and you have to spend $2,500 for a new bench to put the plaque back on or you can take the plaque home. We started 6 o'clock. In compliance with the Open Public
Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of 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.
Please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Mrs. Wernner here. Mr. Venudo here. Mr. Lewin here. Mrs. Notch. Miss Sheen. Mr. Walsh here. Mr. Zexer here. Mr. Jagger here. M Miss Stevenson here. Thank you.
Okay. We have a resolution for Theodore and Patricia Andurko, 8:15 Columbia Avenue. Someone would make a motion. No. Second. Mr. Lewin motions. Mr. Venudo seconds.
Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Abstain. Mr. Zexer. Yes. Mr. Jagger. Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Venudo? Yes. Mrs. Wernner? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Next we have the minutes of the
August 28th, 2025 meeting. Can we have a motion? Make the motion. Second. Mr. Zexer motions. Mr. Ledwin seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Mr. Zexer. Yes. Mr. Joerger.
Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Venudo? Yes. Mrs. Wernner? Yes. Thank you. Okay. As far as our applications, we are switching them up a little bit and having Greg and Shannon Reich come
first. Just make sure you turn your microphones on. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone. I'm Andrew Kadine on behalf of the applicants, Greg and Shannon Rich, in this application involving property at 1249 Washington
Street. That property is an existing and significantly undersized lot in the R2 zoning district. Currently, the property is the site of a two family or duplex dwelling and this is not a conforming use in the R2 zone. The R2 only permits
singles and certainly it's well above the density in terms of number of dwelling units per square foot that's permitted in the code. The riches proposed to renovate the home uh converting it back to a single family eliminating that non-conforming use along with significant architectural and
aesthetic improvements to what is a contributing structure in the park district. Uh however to do that they're requesting several variances and I just want to outline those briefly. Uh first lot area width and frontage. These are all pre-existing conditions that arise from the undersized nature of the lot.
Second floor area ratio primarily for a new foyer and entrance way which Miss Fine will go over. Uh the uh next is the uh front yard and total sideyard setbacks for what is effectively infilled development along the existing setback lines. And again, we'll go over
that with the architecturals. In other words, the house won't be any closer to the front yard. It won't be any closer to the sideyard, but there will be some infill within those existing setbacks uh and lot coverage, which is improving and being uh further mitigated by storm
water management system uh but will still be non-conforming. Uh to my left is uh John Halbruner, our project engineer. Uh to my right is Mr. Rich as well as Miss Fine, the project architect. if we can have them sworn. Uh Mr. Rich is just going to make a brief statement and then we'll go to the
architecturals. Okay. If everyone will raise your right hand, we'll also swear in our board engineer to each of you swear or truth all truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you, Mr. Rich. Um Greg Rich, uh sorry my wife Shannon
could not be here. She's a back to school night, so we're splitting duties tonight. Um, we appreciate your time and consideration at 1249 Washington Street and hope you share uh our enthusiasm for this project. Uh, we originally bought the property in 1999 from the Chart
family and lived in it full-time until 2015, at which time we moved to Upper Township and rented out both units in the house. During the 15 years we lived there, the rental unit helped us realize um our dream of living in Kate May. Uh we raised our two kids in it who
attended Star of the Sea and Cape May City Elementary School. During our time living there, we learned a lot about the property, including its its historical contributing designation, uh its modifications made over a century, including uh sort of a hodgepodge of
additions and rehabs, uh its history as a dentist office in town. Um our goal today, however, with two kids at near college age is to modernize it, move back into town. We aim to bring the property into the future as a single family home with an eye towards
modernizing it while being respectful respectful of its character, history, and contributing designation. I thank you for each of you and your time and your volunteerism on the zoning board. All right. Thank you. Tip. Um Pam, if
you want to go over your plans, if you would. I know Miss Fine and uh Mr. Hbrer have been before the board before. We offer them as experts in their respective architectural Yes. and um engineering fields. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. So, I'll start with the SU1 sheet
which are the existing plans. I'll run through those quickly and uh we'll flip it over to the SU2. You can see the elevations and then I'll show you what we're proposing. So, the SU1 sheet shows the existing site plan and all three floors and an attic plan. Existing site
plan, you'll see where it's positioned on the lot. We're really tight to the left side uh property line and the front stairs are too close to the front property line as well. Um along the right side we have some decks, some steps that you'll see uh will be
replaced with um other forms of architecture. And then along the back we have an existing deck uh which is also too close to the back uh property line. So we have a full basement. Um it's the ceiling is too low, so it doesn't
technically count as floor area. Um but downstairs we have office, bathroom, a bedroom, uh utility room, crawl space, um mostly mechanicals and things like that. Um laundry room and such. On the
first floor, we have the existing living room, kitchen, uh dining area. There's two bedrooms with a bathroom um uh and stairs. Uh we have a powder room and like I said, rear deck, side deck, and a
uh small front landing. Uh this area in the front is actually the entrance to this unit. Uh we have a side uh right side entrance off of that front enclosed porch um and the uh landing off to the right. This unit also has a second entry
which puts you into this dining area. Um, it's basically it's it enters into a very awkward location. Um, so we wanted to fix that for for this level. Give it a true entry, something that is appealing from the street, something that enhances its architectural
appearance. As said, we had a duplex. So, the second floor is the start of the uh second unit. You would then go up the uh side stair. We have a uh scissor stair brings you up to the side deck. Second unit has
a living room in the middle. Uh you basically enter in that living room. You're walking into a spiral stair. Um there's a couple there's a bedroom on the left. Um dining room towards the back, kitchen towards the far back. Uh small bathroom. And then if you continue
up that spiral stair, it brings you to an attic. So the top of the attic, um the peak is 6'8. Uh, so everything next to or alongside of that peak tends to be very low. It's a very steep roof, which you'll see in the elevations. So there's
not a lot of room. You really can't use that for much other than an attic. Um, but to be clear, it's habitable space. It it technically is, but only a sliver. So um, it's it's very small area of habitable space. Um, so these are the
existing plans. I'll jump to the elevations. you'll see uh how the roof line works. We have this witch's hat on the side, which we're proposing to keep. Um but again, it's a very awkward layout. I don't think the 2D um drawings really
portray what it looks like from the street. I think these photos are really good at telling you what this house looks like. Um so Mr. Katnese is passing along some some photographs. The
top two photographs are this is exhibit photos existing at the top and proposed uh rendering at the bottom. Yeah. So the top two photographs are what exists there today. Uh the left
side you'll see uh taken from an angle. the uh right side top corner is basically facing forward from the street. Um it's a very unbalanced feel from the front. So what we're proposing
is additions along the right side and then some minor alterations along the back, but you'll see the rendering along the bottom. It looks like a completely different house. So, we really aimed to balance what is there with what we're proposing um and make it truly appear
historical in nature. Miss Fine, Miss Keenan just indicated that the board didn't receive S2. So, let's SU2. Let's mark that as exhibit A2. Sure. And um I mean you've gone over them and explained them, but um
but but I apologize. I don't know why they didn't get to you. Okay. And and please leave that SU2. Sure, we'll do. Thank you. Yep. Okay. So, I will jump to P1. So, these show the proposed changes. Um, basically
uh what we're proposing on the site plan are a few modifications which I think actually improve uh the zoning and make the house more compliant. Uh so, the big one is obviously the use. So, we're changing it from a duplex to a single family home. So, now it is compliant. uh
it's a compliant use in this district. Um as highlighted before we have a lot of nonconformities but there existing non-conformities. It comes with the site comes with the property, the size of the property, the shape of the property. Uh so those we just have to work with. Um
but what we did improve on are the front yard. Uh we went from 10 foot six which were the two steps along the front. Um they they basically uh extended past the front wall of the house. So, we've removed those steps and we're proposing
new steps which pull back into the house. You'll see that shown on the uh proposed first floor plan. They align with that front wall. So, that's why we have a an improvement in that front yard setback distance. So, we went from 10'6
to 12'4. Uh the sideyard on the left side, we're staying at 247. What I'll do, Miss Fine, I'm sorry to cut you off. Sure. If you would focus on the design because I know Okay. Sure. As well. So if focus on the modifications and perhaps uh the variances that are uh
triggered by uh your design such as F. Okay. Sure. To show where that shows up, but then we'll John will handle this the sideyards and stuff. Got it. Got it. Okay. So, um so I'll touch on the floor plans. Um again, we'll just stick with this uh front entry here. We recess the front stairs
uh to align with the front wall of the house. Uh we're proposing a new covered porch along the right side, which you can see in that rendering. Um that brings you into a new uh formal foyer space. So it works a lot better than bringing you into the kitchen or
bringing you into the dining room as it does right now. So this new foyer bumpout on the right side weights down that that right side and balances that whole front appearance of the house. Um, and is that foyer really the the the
bulk or maybe even all of the increase in floor area ratio that proposing? It is. Um, there are a few minor changes along the back geometries, but they um they basically out, you know, they outweigh each other. So, uh they cancel
each other out. So, what we're proposing in the back, we pulled uh some of the back wall of the master suite in. So, it's further back as you'll see in the um the rear yard setback, but we added slightly more space on the second floor.
So, those kind of um counteract each other, but this foyer space really is what we're asking for for the floor area ratio. It gives you an an entry. It gives you something to see from the street, a front door, a welcoming space. Um so, yeah. So, that's really where the
floor ratio stems from. Thanks. And how many square feet is the increase in the flare ratio? Uh so my calculations we went from uh 292 which is 45.2% to 2197
which is 47.5%. Um so that was feet you want to do the 105. And how many square feet is the foyer? the foyer uh 7 foot 8 by 12 foot6 interior.
So it's it yeah I think it supports the testimony which is yes this FA F variant is effectively basically yeah the bulk of it is carried by the foyer. I appreciate the clarification.
Yeah. And so, um, so just touching back on the design, uh, what we did in the back of the house was we basically came up with a new layout for the existing bedroom. Uh, we are not adding any bedrooms. So, we're just rearranging how they're configured. So, this back area,
we have a master bedroom, a bathroom, a walk-in closet. Uh, we have a shower. Um, basically where the shower is where it is today. Uh we're proposing a side landing um AC unit platform and that basically sums up the first floor
changes. Second floor, we're keeping the um the footprint of it the same. Um we just rearranged basically interior spaces, same number of bedrooms throughout the whole house. Um bathroom renovations. We do have a new stair
tower which brings you up to that attic. So we removed that spiral stair. So that was nothing but a hazard. So we wanted a true stair to get you up to that level. So we're proposing a bump up. And you can see just slightly in the rendering behind where that foyer bumpout is,
there's a small um shed dormer which gives you the height that you need to get up to the top of the stairs. Uh it's basically a safety safety reason that we're doing that. So uh there's a deck access stair. Uh we'll have access into the existing attic. I know it's not
really shown on the plan, but we'll have uh a doorway through that wall to give you access there. Uh the plans also bear this out, but there are also a number of exterior improvements such as replacing the existing I guess asbestous shingle
siding. Uh what are some of the treatments the board can expect to see? And uh has uh and and I understand this has been through HPC, correct? Yes. Yes, we it was a couple of years ago. Um but we did get HPC approval. It was conceptual uh what we're uh
proposing wood siding uh metal raised standing seam roof um all new roof shingles um so really just bringing it back into uh appearing historical um you know contributing more to the historical
nature of this area and how does fixing what is sort of the chopped off side of that house contribute to its historic character as well I think I think the render ing really does speak volumes. Um, just having that front porch there and then continuing
that same roof slope, that same wraparound nature, um, really completes this house. I I feel like it it was there. If I could see back to how this house would have been designed, should have been designed, that piece is there. So, I feel like that is a missing puzzle
piece to this house. We need something on that right side, a front door to pull you in from the street and uh and be welcoming. Got it. And to to be clear, the front yard setback is solely to wrap that porch. Yes. You know, in line with the existing front yard.
Yes. And like I said, we're not going any closer than what is there. We're actually pulling it back slightly if you count the existing stairs that we're removing. So um it it comes into compliance uh more. So I think that's all the questions I have
unless the board has any. I just have one. A couple of times you've mentioned historical um contributing. I think you said have you gone to HPC or do you need to go to HBC? We did. We did. It was a couple of years ago. Um, so we're right on the end of uh
Okay. I didn't see it as part of the package. The uh the application package I believe included in it a copy of the the approval from HPC. I didn't leave through that's got so I didn't bother to go through it's in there. That's fine. I thought you guys read um it's just conceptual though. So we still
have to go back for final. Always is. They won't give you a final until we sign off. Correct. Correct. Okay. question about the in that conceptual approval. The HBC was concerned about the excessive height of the new tower and you agreed to revise
it to lower to existing gable roof line. Could you show me what that is? So they their issue was here. This Oh, okay. Okay. I thought it was I thought it was the witch. No, the witches hat is existing. So we're maintaining that. Um we didn't have a rendering though. So I'm hoping
when we go back to HBC, we show them the rendering. It looks a lot more prominent in the 2D drawings than it actually does in true form. So, we're hoping that they're going to be agreeable to that. So, what I see there now, it's going to be lower than that drawing.
It's going to be This is what we're adding here. The witch's hat is staying. So, that is the the um you know, true height of the building. What we're proposing is this bumpout pier, which is basically just a small gable. They want it down to the same height.
Yeah. So the the issue was that that height um at the the existing ridge we only have about 6' 6 6' 7 of height and that I guess that that was going to be the reason it's a foot higher.
Yeah. Okay. And that will be lower. It was it was slightly lower in this than I believe what we were proposing in the HBC. So you you want us to approve it with it higher? Yeah. Yeah. You're going to go back to HBC and try to convince them to keep it higher. But
if they keep it lower, you don't want to have to come back here. Yes. For the higher anyway. Revised already once. Yes. Yeah. Just wasn't brought all the way down to the ridge. Right. Got it. Right. So if they say no, then you have to come back here again. No. No. Okay.
The worst thing that happens is they're going to go lower, not higher. They're going to have a smaller envelope. Correct. So what was the reason for it being higher? Is it purely aesthetics or aesthetics? It's for functionality. So at the top of the stairs, we're trying to give a true
7 foot ceiling so that it meets building code for egress basically so that you can use that top of the stairs go out to the back deck that's going onto uh the rear of the home. So it's for safety really.
Otherwise, we'd be working with uh this slope. So when you reach the top of the stairs, you're probably only gonna have about a five foot height, which doesn't work currently. When you walk into that space, you're bent over. Yeah. Currently,
so you get to the top of the spiral steps and there's really only talking to the micro. I'm sorry. Talking to the microphone. Just Sorry, that's okay. There's about a foot wide where it's at full height. It comes right off the roof comes right off the side. So basically
the whole space is very limited. Uh the roof height is it's tight. Well, you'll explain that to them and if it doesn't go your way, you always have the right to appeal. All right. Yes. Any other questions before we get to Mr. Hurn?
Thanks. Good. Thank you. Sure enough. Um Miss Fine did a good job describing the architecture, so I won't recap that. Um it's probably worth beginning the discussion in terms of existing conditions recognizing the non-conformity conditions that exist
today. Um first of all I don't think it was mentioned the house was built orig 1910. So the fact that there are nonconformities with regards to today's current ordinance is not particularly surprising. This ordinance didn't exist then. But there are a total of 12
conditions today that are not consistent or compliant with what the ordinance would require for new construction. First of all, though, I know we've heard already, the use is currently a two family use duplex in a zone that for residential purposes only permits a
single family home. For context, the density that the zone would in anticipate requiring a minimum 7,500 square feet for one lot would translate to 5.8 units per acre. Density is usually
expressed in acres. And I recognize the ordinance doesn't have a density requirement, but I'm use this for comparison purposes. The zone anticipates residential density on the order of 5.8 units per acre. What exists there today is 18.8 8 over 350% more
than what the zone um was designed for. There's also a rear yard setback non-conforming condition. Actually, let me back up. I uh I'm going out of my order and I'd rather not get disorganized. So, use the size of the
lot in terms of lot area, lot width and lot frontage, all are non-conforming. Again, the lot area speaks to that density discussion I just did where the zone would normally anticipate 5.8 units per acre the existing density is on the
order of 18.8 8 the lot width and frontage where 45 ft exists 60 feet I'm sorry where there are 60 feet required let me make that clear where 45 ft exist 60 ft is the minimum front yard setback today is 10.5 ft
measured to the steps where 25 ft is required in the zone the sideyard setback on the south side that would be the left side if you're facing the house from the street 2.76 feet exists where 5t is the minimum in the zone
The aggregate sideyard setback where the zone requires 15 feet in the present condition is 13.42 feet. The rear yard setback where the zone requires 25 ft only 15.17T exists today.
The 11th or ninth item on my list, lot coverage. Where 40% is the maximum permitted in the zone, the lot coverage today is 52.6%. Floria ratio which you would heard some discussion about where 40% is the
maximum presently it's 45.2%. Now we are in fact kind of grandfathered because it predates the the um the time for that becoming applicable but nonetheless in terms of today's ordinance requirement for newer construction 40% would be the
maximum permitted or presently at 45.2. Next, we have three parking spaces present today. All stacked three in a row on the north side. Again, right side facing from the street based on RSIS for the three-bedroom unit
and a two-bedroom unit. A total of four parking spaces would be required. So, just the sheer number, four would be required. Today, we have three. The other non-conforming condition regarding parking is their configuration. You can't have parking spaces stacked when
it would require the owner of a car in one unit to move for the owner of another unit. Stack spaces are fine so long as they belong to the same unit. So, there's our total of 12 conditions that are not compliant with today's zoning ordinance.
I think Pam did a nice job describing the proposed conditions. So with that, I'll probably jump in right into what I see as being some of the benefits um of this and then conclude with a conversation about the variances and the justification for that. Before I do
that, I just want to for contextual purposes recognize that we are in the R2 zone. The all the properties surrounding us are also in the R2 zone and except for John the Barber Shop across the street, they're all residential, all predominantly single family homes. So
for contextual purposes, we are in a single family district with single family homes. What this project does to benefit the community is severalfold. First of all,
we are going to take of the 12 non-conforming conditions, we're going to take five of them and eliminate them. We're going to take three additional ones that aren't compliant today, but make them more compliant. So in terms of the five conditions where
the non-conformities are eliminated and this is should be underscored the use we're taking the two family use and we're turning into a single doing so again this is not an ordinance requirement but it's good for context we're reducing the density on this site
by half we're taking it from 18.8 units per acre down to 9.4 four units per acre, which is a lot closer to the zone of 5 units per acre. Our rear yard setback, which is non-conforming, is now made fully
conforming. The number of parking spaces, which was non-conforming, is now made fully conforming. The stack parking conflict that exists today is eliminated. So, there's five non-conforming conditions that are completely eliminated by the uh
proposed development. three additional ones that are reduced in terms of the non-conformity maybe made more conforming. We have our front yard setback which is improved. It's taking from 10.5 ft to 12.4 ft. Our aggregate
sideyard setback is slightly improved taking from 135 in to 137 in. And probably more significantly, the lot coverage is made more conforming. We're presently at 52.6% 6%. We're
reducing that to 47.9% for context. 40% is the maximum permitted. But in addition to that, we are introducing a storm water management system that's going to mitigate the storm water impacts for the entire site, let alone just the o overage of uh the coverage from what the ordinance would
permit. So, we're enhancing the storm water conditions in the area. And lastly, I'll let Pam's rendering speak for itself. the there are significant architectural enhancements and the streetscape is enhanced and we are contributing to the well-being of the
neighborhood by restoring a contributing historic home. So those are all very positive benefits that the community is going to recognize if this were granted this evening. With that, I think it's time to start talking about the variances that we're required to seek in order to realize all
those benefits that I just described. Thank you. There are four existing non-conforming conditions all related to the uh existing conditions and lot size that will remain unchanged by this development. The three relating specifically to the lot size that being
lot area, lot width and lot frontage. Um we needed the variance to allow that to continue. Similarly, the sideyard setback on the south side which is at 2.76 feet when five feet the minimum dates the existing building. We're
proposing to maintain the building in that location. So that requires a variance to continue that existing non-conforming condition unchanged. As I mentioned before, there are three non-conforming conditions that are made better. The front yard setback is improved. The aggregate sideyard setback
is slightly improved and lock coverage is made non-conforming. We ask one new variance that relating to floria ratio. The floor ratio is related to 105 square feet which is attributable directly to the side entry foyer which
you've heard Miss Fine testify as how much it creates a much more balanced and aesthetic effect. So those are the variances that we seek here this evening. They're going to be advanced under several different criteria. First of all, that the floor eratia variance is a Dvariance
in which the board must consider that there to be special reasons. The planning industry has recognized that special reasons can be directly correlated to purposes of the municipalities law that are being advanced. And let me back up for a
second. I'm going to talk slight briefly about Dvarianes. I'm going to talk about C1 hardship variances. I'm going to talk about C2, the flexible benefits outweigh the detriment variances. I'm going to address the positive criteria for all those first because the negative criteria I believe applies equally to all for the sake of brevity. I'm not
going to go through the negative criteria repeatedly three times. So in terms of the positive criteria for the D variance for the fer ratio I'm going to identify one two three four five six different purposes of the language law that my opinion are being advanced by
the granting of that fer ratio variance and in doing so satisfy the special reasons obligation of the applicant. I'll refer to them by the sub paragraph number within the miscellaneous law for those like to follow along. Uh first of all, sub paragraph a purpose of
miscellaneous law is to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of lands in a manner which promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Again, we're preserving the character of the neighborhood by restoring this to a single family home and restoring it back to its historical context.
Sub paragraph C is which is to provide adequate light air and open space. The coverage reduction and I'm sorry the front yard setback component of this being made more conforming certainly promotes that purpose to promote the establishment of
appropriate population densities and concentrations that contribute to the well-being. Again, we are reducing the density to a well, we're reducing the density to be the permitted use of a single family home and eliminating nearly twice the density that would
otherwise be permitted. We are and I forget the paragraph letter because I my notes are now jumbled. Um, we are actually improving the protection against flooding by the introduction of the coverage and reduction and the storm water management features. I believe
that was subp paragraph B. Thank I think. Yes. Yeah. Um so so far I've got A, B, and C all being covered as well as sub paragraph E which is I'm sorry the promotion of population densities. Sub paragraph H to
encourage the location and design transportation routes which promote the free flow of traffic. We're taking non-conforming parking or making it conforming. Sub paragraph I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design arrangement. And finally
sub paragraph J to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts. This application checks each of those boxes. I think any one of those would be special reasons enough to grant the flurry ratio variance. All of them combined make this a very easy decision in my humble opinion.
In terms of variances that I think are being or should be advanced under the C1 criteria, this relates to the lot area, lot width, lot frontage, and the existing sideyard setback. And John, that C1 is the hardship standard because the lot is the size it is, right? Nothing can be done about it.
You know, the the board may grant such a variance by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape. Um, and by reason of exceptional situations uniquely affecting the property and the structure legally existing thereon. So again, the unusual lot area width and
frontage, the conditions that we have no control over, we can't increase. And quite frankly, to say you couldn't convert this duplex to a single family home would render this property virtually useless and you would render into utility. Um so that would certainly result in an undue hardship upon the
applicant should that occur. So, in my opinion, the C1 variance applies to the lot area, lot width, lot frontage, and the sideyard setback, leaving us with the final three variances for front yard setback, aggregate sideyard setback, and lot
coverage. Those, I believe, are being advanced under the C2 criteria with the benefits outweigh the detriments. Right out of the gate, all three of those conditions, while not made conforming, they've been made more conforming. So certainly there's an inherent benefit to
that. So in addition to the positive criteria of making those more conforming, I'm going to reintroduce without repeating them all all the benefits of the advancement and purposes of the municipal land that
are advanced by this application which apply equally to the C2 criteria. So with that I think the positive criteria for each of the variances under the D1 and C2 are clearly established leaving us with the need to demonstrate now the negative criteria which as we all know
is a two-prong approach. First we must demonstrate that the variance um cannot should not be granted if it will result in a substantial detriment to the public good. When we look at each of the variances that we're seeking, I fail to see how anything rises to the level of a
detriment, let alone a substantial detriment. So, in my opinion, the first prong of the negative criteria is overwhelmingly addressed. The second prong is to make sure that there's no substantial or impairment to the zone plan, also known as zoning ordinance.
Again, every non-conforming condition that is we have any control over has been made better. the use has been converted to a conforming use. How can any of this be considered to be a substantial detriment to the impairment of the zone plan and zoning ordinance?
So for those reasons, I believe the negative criteria has adequately been addressed. The positive criteria and the special reasons are overwhelmingly strong in this case and I believe the requested variances may and frankly should be granted. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hurner?
Mr. Hurner, um this is a Dvarian but it's a ratio which is sort of that goofy Coventry square kind of analysis. Uh so can I just have you explain that whether you believe the lot can accommodate the flare ratio that's been proposed in your application? Absolutely.
The context of the flurry ratio to size the size of the lot. First of all, can it accommodate? Absolutely. We're doing so without exceeding or we're actually reducing lot coverage on the lot. The aggregate sideyard setback is made no worse than it is at its current
condition. Um so the balancing of the architectural benefit to it um certainly help counteract that. So can a lot accommodate it in my opinion? Absolutely. And this for the the fact that it's a foyer instead of a bedroom or a bigger
kitchen and all that stuff. This isn't really a like a a lot more living space so to speak. It's more of like an entryway. Yes, Mr. King. You're absolutely right. Thank you for bringing that up. There's five bedrooms that exist today. Five bedrooms will exist in the proposed condition. five bedrooms within a single family home, which is certainly less
intense than five bedrooms associated with two different dwellings. And thank you, sir. You said, and I might have Mr. that it's going to eliminate the stack parking. No, the stack parking will exist, but the conflict between stack parking being
required between two different units that eliminated. We only have one unit. Yeah, the stack parking rules will exist. Same three spaces stacked on the north side. We have Mr. You absolutely may. Good evening
everyone. I'd like to summarize my August 11th, 2025 review memorandum for this application. Once again, it's located in the R2 low medium density residential district. As Mr. Hal Bruner indicated, the only permitted residential units that are allowed as a
permitted use are single family dwellings. um they are eliminating a duplex use, a non-conforming duplex use and converting that structure into a conforming use of a single family dwelling. That is always viewed as a
benefit from a planning perspective. Uh you heard testimony with regards to the improvements that are proposed. Um just note that there is a brick paver driveway, a storm water system, a new shed, an outdoor shower that are all proposed. Um so that those are some of
the site improvements that are that weren't discussed uh roll into the completeness review. Uh there were three checklist items that I felt should be provided as conditions of approval. Um 18 being the approval signature spaces
be provided on the grading and drainage plan. Uh, under item 31 and 33 are interrelated and they relate to my concerns for safety and backing out of that driveway onto Washington Street. I want to make sure that the sight clear sight triangles required for driveways
are shown on the plan and a landscaping plan should be provided for that front area just to verify that there's no landscaping that's proposed that's that exceeds the m the maximum heights that are permitted within those sight triangles. So um that those item number
31 and 33 should both be provided as a condition of approval also and based on that I recommend deeming the application complete. Uh once again this is located in the R2 district. They are eliminating a two family use and proposing a single family
dwelling. Uh this is a non-conforming expan excuse me expansion of a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The lot is non-conforming with regards to lot size. Uh 7,500 square foot is
required in the district where 4,622 square foot exists and the lot width and lot frontage are also uh sub substandard. 60 foot is required in the R2 district where 45 foot for both lot
width and lot frontage are existing. Um those are not not being changed in any way. However, there is an expansion of that structure on that lot um that necessitates additional variances. Uh the structure itself is
being modified with regards to the front yard setback. Uh there is a setback requirement of 25 ft from Washington Street. 10.5 ft exists that is being pulled back. The new improvements fall within the setback. U so there's a
variance required and that new setback will be 12.33 feet with regards to the sideyard setback. Um once again Mr. Howuner pointed out and Miss Fine also pointed out that the
structure itself is unbalanced and shifted way to the left side as viewed from the street. Um on that left side there's a 2.58 foot setback that's existing. And there's no that's not being changed. Um the sideyard setback on the other side is
being increased from 10.83 ft to 11 ft. Uh creating a total we have a total requirement in that district of 15 ft. Um so that total is being increased from 13.42 feet to 13.58 feet to the new
improvements. Um that requires a variance but it is being is an improved condition. lot coverage. Uh the maximum permitted in the R2 district is 40%. 52.6%
exists. They're reducing that coverage to 47.9% and also providing a stormwater system to mitigate the coverage above and beyond what's permitted. Um so that's a positive aspect of this project.
Uh floor area ratio 0.40 40 is the maximum permitted for single family dwellings. 0.452 exists in the current state and they're proposing 0.475 and you heard testimony that that is mostly uh
centered that increase is centered around that foyer, the new foyer, the entry foyer um and is not creating any additional bedrooms or you know um driving density at all. Um it should be noted that the rear yard
setback is being ma brought into conformity. Another positive aspect and the parking situation is being brought into conformity. Um there are five bedrooms that requires three parking spaces in accordance with the RSIS. Uh there was a
question or a little dialogue with regards to the stack parking spaces. Three those three three parking spaces are permitted to be stacked in accordance with the RSIS. So, it's a conforming situation. Um, what they were talking about was elimination of the
jockeying of the cars that would be required if you have those cars being parked from two different units. So, they're not being controlled by the same family. Um, one uh one thing in to note is the accessory
shed. I requested that they provide information with regards to uh the height to make sure that that complies. So that should be provided as a condition of approval. If you note in the bottom of the table on page three, um there's information required
and I think that's the summary of all the variances that are required. I did not take any I did not have any issues with Mr. Hal Bruner's testimony with regards to the positive and negative aspects of that.
Um, so I'll roll into general view review general re review comments on page five of six. Uh, they should all be conditions of approval. Uh, I talked about item number one is providing the signature spaces for on the grading
plan. The item number two is our standard condition that they should uh, revise the zoning table to reflect the comments in the review memorandum. Three is the proposed shed height must be provided and comply with the requirements. Four is my concern with the backing out
onto Washington Street. So, we would ask that the uh clear sight triangle be added to the plan with the appropriate notes to ensure that there's no planting or anything permitted in that clear sight triangle that would obscure sight as you back out onto Washington Street.
Five is our review of the proposed storm water system. It is proposed to accommodate the 25-year design storm. We found that design was acceptable. Um item six is our standard condition that they have to comply with chapter 525 with the minimum storm water management
and grading requirements both during and after construction. Uh seven is our recommendation of them providing the landscaping plan um particularly in the area of the site triangle. Eight is our standard
condition that that we will evaluate sidewalk after construction and that sidewalk sh any sidewalk found to be in poor condition um shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the board engineer. Nine is our standard uh condition that
they have to post escrow and that the certificate of occupancy is tied to an acceptable inspection. 10 is compliance with the requirements of the Sha Tree Commission, Fire Department, public works department. We did receive reviews from the fire
department. They recommended approval dated 9225 with no comments. Public works recommended approval with no comments dated 9225. We also did receive I received um the notice of conceptual
approval from the Cape May HPC dated 1016 2023. I'm I'm surprised that that wasn't in your package, but we will ultimately require that they get final approval from the HPC. All of these other approvals that are listed are our standard conditions that
we um recommend be provided as conditions of approval. And that is a summary of my report. And I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. Uh to be clear, we didn't get shade tree comments, so that goes away. There are no recommendations and that would not
make its way into the final resolution. Is that true, Karen? Okay. Yes. No shade tree report was received. Yeah. I didn't have one in my package. So, no problem. I I just don't want something to pop up later and we're not hearing. There's still regulations about trees and stuff you have to comply with. There's a tree in the front of the house
that won't be disturbed, right? That crepe myrtle. I'm not sure. I'm not I was talking about the street. The street tree. Oh, no. No. That's street tree. That belongs to the city. Don't hurt it. Don't hurt it. Don't hurt the city. No questions. Um, at this time, we'll
open it up to anyone within 200 ft. Anyone beyond 200 ft? Close to the public. Unless the board has discussion, the motion I'd recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. And we're going
to do it all in one motion. It's a single project and all the benefits were described together. Remember, you need five out of seven um in order to succeed on this application. So, as you vote, keep that in mind. If you're going to vote against it, that's your prerogative. But since there were no objectives, please be careful to
articulate your reasoning so I have something to put in the resolution as a basis for the rejection. The motion I recommend being made is in the affirmative. How you vote is up to you. It's a motion to grant the variances 1 through 7 as outlined by the board
engineer on page three of his report subject to the conditions 183133 on page two and 1 through 14 on pages five and six. That's the motion. I'll make the motion as stated by Rich.
I'll second. Okay. Mr. Venuda motions. Mr. Jagger seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes, Mr. Walsh. Yes, Mr. Zexer. Yes, Mr. Joerger. Yes, Miss Stevenson. Yes, Mr. Venudo.
Yes, Mrs. Werner. Yes. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. Say it's very attractive. Thank you. So, are you related to Eric? I'm not. You're not. What's that?
Yeah, we have the Where? Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh, that's good. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's right. I It was familiar to me, but it's nice to meet you. Oh, Greg, you're Are you in Are you Oh. Oh. Oh, Greg. It's not Greg. Oh, Jesus. I'm sorry, Greg. Sorry. I didn't
put it together. I was thinking I the whole time thinking I I know that. Oh, that's crazy. Nice to see you. No, no, I remember because she helped me with that nice old lady. What's her name? That's still alive. That's right. I remember talking to you
about that. Yeah, we got her. We got her in line. Good. It was nice to see you. Nice. Okay. Okay. Our next application is the Cape May Marina LLC and the Kate May Paddle
Club being heard together like we did before. Correct. Correct. Yes. Same whatever parameters we set last time. This time we get how we did it. Exactly. Uh good evening board uh members, chair, Mr. Harles, Mr. King. My
name is William Kaufman. I'm an attorney with the firm of Nemad Davis and Goldstein Township appearing here this evening on behalf of SP Kate May Marina LLC and Kate May Paddle Club which is a New Jersey nonprofit corporation.
Typically you would see Mr. Scarro here. Uh he is uh unfortunately out of town on a family matter. Uh on behalf of the applicants or the appellants however I do have um Mr. Dickinson and uh our professional Mr. Shulu is here. When we
were last here, we left off um in the midst of was a legal argument and since then we've provided the board with a memorandum that more articulated the particular issue. Uh excuse me, can you just bring that mic a
little closer, please? Thank you very much. Since the last time we were here, um we've articulated that legal position and a legal memorandum which I hope everyone has had the opportunity to review. Um it is our position that in this
particular matter uh that the zoning permits that were applied for were denied u on the basis of site plan considerations. And as we've uh stated in our September 17th uh memorandum,
we do not think that from a legal perspective uh a zoning permit can be denied on grounds on any grounds other than use grounds. Uh that is to say when an applicant prevent uh presents an application for a zoning permit to the
zoning official one question is raised and that question is is the proposed use permitted in this zone. If the answer is yes the zoning permit is issued. That's not to say that site plan approval will not be required. That's not to say that
the that the applicant would not be entitled to apply to the planning board for a site plan waiver. Similar similarly, there are a lot of permits that may be required before a construction permit is issued. That could be a caffer permit, it could be a
DOT permit, it could be any number of permits. And when you go get to your construction permit, you have to satisfy the construction official that you've got all those permits. And one of those prior approvals that you have to satisfy the construction official with is the
zoning uh permit, the the zoning approval. because uh the construction official uh you don't want your construction official issuing a construction permit for a use that's not permitted in the particular location.
Otherwise, you could end up having a use in a location that's not permitted. And there's case law to suggest that in those situations, the municipality may be stopped from enforcing its zoning uh ordinances if there's been substantial
reliance on the construction permit. So that's the threshold issue. Uh and on that particular issue, uh we don't think that we need to present any testimony. Uh we do believe that uh we've uh laid out our legal argument in that regard
and um on that issue. I'll I'll defer to Mr. King. Can I ask you one question before I get my thoughts on the on that legal argument? Sure. What's the difference? Like so like pretend like do my I kind of think in flowcharts which I don't claim is
perfect but it's the best I could do. So let's say we have a flowchart here. We have this decision and we say we agree with you. Uh the zoning permit um should not have been denied. The zoning permit should have been granted. What do you do next? Well, at that juncture, we go to the
construction official and we say, "Here's our zoning permit." We apply for a construction permit. the the the construction official at that point is going going to look at probably three things. Number one, he's going to he or she's going to look at the plans um to determine whether they comply with the
uniform construction code. They're going to look at do you need site plan approval or a site plan waiver uh for this and they're going to look at the zoning permit which you've just indicated would be in hand. So the construction official at that juncture
may issue the construction of permit if he or she is satisfied uh that site plan approval is not required or could deny the permit. And now if the if the let me just and that follow this through. So I just want to understand it. So the construction official says you
need a site plan approval. Correct. So you're going to go to planning board and get a site plan approval. Well there's two options at that point in time. Number one is, and this goes to what I was just going to say, if the permit were to be denied on UCCC grounds, then that appeal would go to
the construction board of appeals. If it's denied on site plan grounds, um, then there's authorities to suggest that that appeal, if an appeal is taken, would come here. The other option, of course, is to just apply to the planning board for site
plan approval or a waiver. And we've done that before on this property. We've received site plan waiverss from the planning board and in fact our last time that anything happened at this property we have we don't don't confuse my flowchart. Okay. So if we agree with you and we say no
zoning permit the zoning permit should have been granted. You're going to go to some other person in our in our municipality and ask them. I guess it's a construction official and he's going to decide whether you need site plan approval. You very well may
agree with our zoning official. Probably will say you need site plan and then you go to the then you're going to go to the planning board for a site plan. Correct. Okay. And if we say we don't agree with you and we say he did the right thing by denying your zoning permit and saying you need site plan approval, you're
going to go and get site plan approval. Well, at that creating case law here, what are we doing? Well, at that juncture though, we can't make the application to the construction official because we don't have the zoning permit. Wait, what? At that juncture, if you if
you agree with the zoning official, we can't even make the application to the construction official because we don't have the zoning permit. We need the zoning permit to at least be able to make the application to the construction official on your flowchart. All right. It doesn't it's if it if it
makes sense to you and your client, that's fine. seems very ciruitous to me. But here's my analysis of the brief. Um my personal opinion is I'm not persuaded that um a zoning official has to issue a
zoning permit when he believes site plan is required. Um I don't know that he can deny the permit, but I'm not sure he can issue the permit. And here's the difference. And I know there's a case that sort of says something different, but I don't know what their ordinance is. I only know our ordinance and we
don't overrule ordinances and we don't um declare them in violation of the MLU. We kind of follow our ordinances. Section 417-3 applicability of requirements, exemptions, waiver of requirements. That says, by the way, we've all agreed and you just said it,
that a zoning permit is a required permit. So this says, "No development shall take place within the city, nor shall any land be cleared, altered, nor shall any water course be diverted, nor shall any parking areas, accessory, or otherwise, or blah blah blah be
constructed, installed, or enlarged. Nor shall any building permit, certificate of occupancy, or other required permit be issued with respect to any such structure, land, or parking area except in accordance with an approval of such development granted pursuant to this
chapter." And that's a site plan chapter. So what that tells me is no required permit should be issued until there is compliance with the site plan chapter. And in this case, the zoning permits a required permit.
And as I read this ordinance, that zoning permit cannot be issued until there's compliance with our site plan chapter. And I rely on section 417-3, which I just read. As to whether it's the zoning official or the construction official who's to determine whether you
need site plan, I rely upon the definition of zoning officer in her ordinance which says the zoning officer shall be appointed by the city manager and perform all the duties of the office of zoning as prescribed under New Jersey municipal land use law
uh 55D and chapter 59 land use procedures. Chapter 310 license and permits. Chapter 417 site plan review. Uh so in my view he did he's he's doing his job and it would be confusing to everyone involved if the officer who's
charged with reviewing site plan review issues a permit that says everything is good with zoning when in fact you still need a site plan. So I I just I think he's the guy that's supposed to look out for that and whether that's a issuing a permit that you know putting on the
permit granted but needs sight plan um or denied needs site plan I don't view a huge difference in that and I do think our ordinance prevents him from issuing that permit sending it out into the world without having complied with site plan.
think that's what that means when it says he just shouldn't be issuing required permits if you haven't gotten site plan approval. So, I think he's doing the best he can in saying deny site plan approval. Could he say granted but need
site plan approval? Maybe, but he shouldn't issue the permit. So, I I think you need site plan. Well, well, actually, he thinks you need site plan. Now, you could certainly argue to this board that he made an error that in exercising his duties as
zoning officer, which includes site plan review, he perhaps should not have said you needed site plan. And you can argue that and the board will consider it. And if you're successful, then you don't even need site plan. You're you're done. If the board says you need site plan, then you got to go to another board,
which is why I'm kind of thinking you're kind of doing this the hard way, but I'm glad to give you a day in court. So, but here here's here's the the one thing um where I would disagree with you, Mr. King. There's nothing in the Kate May
ordinances. The Katemate ordinances are unclear on the issue of whether a zoning permit is required as a predicate to a construction permit. There's nowhere in your ordinances does it say that. Unlike some other towns where I was just looking yesterday at a Harbor Township's
ordinances, it's clear. There's no question about Kate May's ordinances do not say you need a zoning permit to get a construction permit. We applied for that out of caution in case that's how the ordinances are interpreted.
So that there there's one thing. And then the second thing I would say is yes, you were correct. The thing to do if the use is permitted is to and you think site plan approval is needed. the thing to do is to issue the zoning permit and stayed on it, but site plan
approval is needed. That's a big difference than denying it and saying site plan approval is permitted. That's a huge difference. If he denied it without reasons, that would concern me because then that might mean that he concluded your use was permitted. He denied it and told you he thinks you need site plan approval and
you know we can quibble over whether it should be granted but I I just can't get around the fact that it says you're not supposed to issue a permit issue any required permit until you have site plan. So I think he's call between rock and place. I don't want to debate it all night.
I'm not going to decide if I'm wrong judge who is it now Shepard will tell me I'm wrong but just see if he needs site plan. Well, here's here's my then my question is this. When you look at the denials in this case,
the question you have to ask is, is the proposed use permitted? Not whether site plan is permitted. Is the proposed use permitted? And you can't tell you can't answer that question from the face of the denials. You cannot answer that question. And that's the purpose of the
zoning permit is to tell the world whether or not that use is permitted. I think our zoning official, I give him enough credit that if he denied you because the use wasn't permitted, he would have written that on there. Well, he denied you because you need site plan use, but he didn't do that. And so, we're
speculating at that point. But we'll call Mr. Do you want us to revisit it with him and see if he thinks you need a use variance and then you can apply for one of those two? Because I think you're kind of in good shape here. You don't he doesn't say that. I I I I got he does. Yeah. There's no statement as to the use on on the
revisit that with him and have him do that. Now, so then it remains an open question whether it's a permitted use and this board will decide that too as part of the application. So if if the board's pleasure is to hear the testimony, we'll we'll take the testimony. Well, I mean, I don't vote. I mean, so
that's my opinion on it. If the board thinks that he did something wrong in terms of what you've just argued, they can vote on that, too. I mean, I just give them my best my best my best guess based on my common sense and reading this ordinance.
So, I mean, if the board says, you know what, we think Bill Mr. Coffman's argument is right, that's okay. They don't have to agree with Well, we should shouldn't we do that now rather than take the testimony? Okay. Yes. So, the question before the board, the
motion I'd make is a motion, the question before the board is whether your zoning official was proper in not issuing zoning permit because you believe slave plan review was necessary. Yes means you agree with
the zoning official. No means you disagree with them on that issue. So, if someone can make that motion, we can vote and then we'll move on to the next thing. Everybody understand that? If you vote yes, you're deciding that the zoning you're agreeing with my analysis and
that the zoning officer uh did the right thing by not issuing the permit because he thought it needed site plan approval. We vote no. Then you believe he should have granted the zoning permit and left it to the construction official to decide if site plan approval was necessary.
I'll make that motion. Second. Okay. Uh I don't know who motioned. M Oh, Mr. Walsh. Motion and Mr. Zexer. Seconded. Thank you, Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes.
Mr. Zexer. Yes. Mr. Jagger. Uh, I'm not sure about this, but um I I'm be before I vote. Yeah. I I'm I'm just really unclear as to what exactly
we're doing right now. Here's the gist. Your your zoning officer believed that when he received an application for a zoning permit, I he felt it needed site plan approval. That part I So he denied he denied the permit saying
you need site plan approval. But there's there appeared to be a question of law. There's a question of law which which is being interpreted two different ways and so we are being asked to make a determination of the law right now. Uh yes.
Yes. Okay. Interpreting your ordinance right now and that's one of the powers that you have. So you're and the outcome for the applicant is I can't discern a significant outcome for them. Uh, but their view is that if
we decide that they didn't need a zoning permit, then they can just go to the construction official and find out from him if they need site plan approval. That's what I get out of their argument. Okay. So,
I'll I can vote yes. Miss Stevenson, yes. Mr. Venudo. Yes. Mrs. Werner. Yes. Okay. So, that resolves the legal issue. So, we can move forward then.
Uh, now you're going to what's your next position is whether or not you need a use variance. No. Whether or not that we are entitled to a site plan uh exemption. So, that the denial based on a requirement of site plan approval was
incorrect. Okay. Mr. Hurles, is that what you understand the issue to be? I didn't know it was an exemption. I thought they didn't need it, but I thought they thought they didn't need it. Yeah, I I play the part Mr. Hurles is going to handle. I I I it was my job to mess up the legal part. He's doing the other part.
All right. You're saying you're So, you're saying you So, there Let me to dive into the site plan. Chapter 417, site plan review. Rich just read uh
le section A of chapter 417-3 and that was the applicability of requirements, exemptions and waiver of requirements. Paragraph B has exemptions. It says site plan approval shall not be required for any of the following and it takes you
through different. So for instance, item number one says detached single family dwellings, structures designed for occupancy by two families or accessory uses thereto permitted as of right under applicable zoning districts. Obviously it's not that. So it's not
exempt from that. The construction of a parking area for less than three vehicles. It's not that any structure or use for which a site plan review application was approved by the planning board prior to the effective date of this. That's a grandfathering clause.
It's not that. So four is a proposed development not involving a change in use and not affecting existing circulation, drainage, building arrangements, landscaping, buffering, lighting, and other considerations of site plan review. Um I believe that you
know that's that if if it met those that criteria, it would be exempt. I believe that the considerations of site plan review that are applicable to this would be parking, possibly loading review, you're you have liquor deliveries, um
building arrangements were certainly being changed, uh building access, uh is there adequate lighting for that? There is roof proposed roof surfaces. um is runoff being affect affected. Uh the
parking and circulation the proposed entryway is now bigger and expanded into the asphalt area. Um so there should be a review whether the parking and circulation is being affected. Um there are also prior approvals with this. Um
the most recent one being a conversion of the a thirdf flooror bar and dining third uh area into a motel. Um that that required site plan approval. Um I' I see that the change in these building
arrangements very similar to that. So I take the position that it would not be exempt from site plan approval. And we take the position that it would be exempt under the precise paragraph that Mr. um just cite it and Mr. Shou will
testify to that. Absolutely. Okay. But first, I'd just like to call Mr. Dickinson for a couple questions. U I think we need both individuals sworn. Yeah. Mr. You remain on the road in your
do each of you um each of you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of God. Yes, sir. Yes. All right. Thank you. Uh let me start with you, Mr. Dickinson. Um, you're employed by the uh SP uh Kate May Marina. Is that correct?
Correct. And in what capacity? Uh, I am the manager. I oversee Kate May Marina, KMA Paddle Club operations for the marina and the paddle club membership and food and beverage. And the paddle club occupies uh the
first two floors of the building that's on site. Is that correct? Correct. And there's on adjacent to the existing building there's a swimming pool. Is that correct? Yes. And is that for use by the paddle club members? Yes.
And prior to uh the premises becoming licensed by the governing body for the service of alcoholic beverages. Was that area outside used for uh food and beverage service and uh in connection with the uh battle club members?
Yes. And how long has that condition been existing? Since 2013. Okay. And you're you're aware of the uh proposal to Well, let me back up. With regard to the ground floor of the
existing building that the power club uses as its uh clubhouse, what's going on on the interior of that building? Uh currently currently it is for storage and the food and beverage operation that currently happens outside.
So there's some food and beverage preparation in there. Correct. Okay. And there's storage facilities for uh food items. Yes. There's storage facilities for non-alcoholic beverages. Yes. There's storage facilities for alcoholic beverages. Is that correct? Correct.
And the entire first floor is licensed. Is that correct? Correct. The entire pool deck area is licensed. Is that correct? Correct. The second floor of the building is licensed. Is that correct? Correct. Is there any alcoholic beverage storage on the second floor? No.
And the premises have been licensed since 2024. Is that correct? Yes. Explain what license we're talking about? Beverage license. The ABC license. The club license. The the in your packet you have the resolution from the governing body which
issued a club license in 2024. Um, and with regard to the ground floor, are you familiar with the proposed uh plan to convert a portion of it to a member dining area? Yes.
If that uh conversion took place, is there would anything be going on on the interior that is not already going on on the exterior? No. I have no other questions. And Mr. concern. Can you ask that last question again or
just tell me what it was again? Nothing will be going on. Is there is there anything that is will anything be occurring on the interior that is not already occurring on the exterior pool deck area
in terms of food and beverage service? No. this addition what it's what we see now that's there that's coming out into the parking lot right that's not going to the pool no I think that can best probably be
addressed by Mr. Schula I'll I'll take I'll take you through the existing conditions okay and he can ask Mr. Can can I just ask a question because there there's something that's troubling me. Normally, this board would only have jurisdiction
over site plan review if it's not a permitted use and then they would determine whether a waiver or exemption would be appropriate. In this case, we're probably looking at a permitted use in which the planning
board would make that determination. So, like I didn't know that we were going to be making this determination as to whether it was exempt or not tonight. So, I'm I'm just a little Yeah, I I admit I was a little baffled
at the beginning, too. I think I asked that question like immediately. I'm like, is that what we're doing tonight? And that's why I looked at you like we're doing an exemption. I I thought I didn't think we decided exemptions. I mean, I I thought if that's my that's the legal argument I'm
making. Well, no, you haven't made that yet, but you can make it now. What I'm What if he are the zoning official says there's something happening here that triggers site plan and we think he's right about that whether there's an exam. So that you kind of like went to
the second paragraph of this and that's where I got lost. I thought we were going to be talking about the first paragraph of the Hold on a second. I thought we were talking about um whether or not section A was triggered
um whether this was a kind of thing that site plan is necessary and our zoning officer thought it was and I I mean I you are doing the things that are in the first paragraph. Whether or not there's
an exemption, I wasn't sure that that's something that we do. I mean, that I don't know. I mean, Craig, I'm I'm looking for help on that. I I Typically, an an applicant will submit a site plan application and they will ask
for either a waiver of the requirements or determine whether it's exempt. Um, so I I something I don't believe that I've never seen this situation where the zoning board is making this
determination. So that's that's why I'm puzzled. Yeah. I I did not until now I did not and it may be my fault, but I did not perceive that the argument was that there was an applicable exemption. Well, and and that's and that's the legal argument that because the denials
the the the language on the denial of the zoning permits said site plan site plan approval required and we're saying no you Mr. zoning official, we're exempt from site plan approval for what we're doing.
And and that's why you get back to the only thing that should be decided in the context of an application for a zoning permit is is the use permitted. what you're proposing to do the interior dining area for members and
the porch roof. Is that permitted under your zoning ordinance chapter 525? That's my thought. The reason I can't get there intellectually is someone has to decide if it needs site plan. So if someone comes in and says, "Yeah, I'm putting a a pool in my backyard. Do I need site
plan?" The answer is no. It's a single family residence. Okay? So someone has to make that determination. I've always thought it's the zoning officer because it's in the definition of things he's supposed to do. He does site plan. It's in there. Well, we can't appeal his denial to the
planning board. We have to appeal it here. Say that again. We can't appeal his decision to the planning board. We have to appeal it to you. Right. But if your if your issue with his decision is that there was an implicable exemption, I guess Craig and I are just asking now, who decides if
there is an exemption that applies? Is that the is that the planning board or is that the zoning board? And I'm thinking it might be the zoning board because I think it's exactly this that someone has to decide if you need site plan or you don't. If you need it, then the planning board
does that. They do site plan review. But the decision whether the the analysis whether the administrative official properly determine that you need site plan site plan that really might be here like we might be in the right place. I understand why Craig's asking the question and I'm thinking about it, but
some administrative official has to make that decision. I mean, you go in and whether it's construction or zoning, our ordinance seems to say it's zoning says site plan. Let me look at the site plan. Oh, yeah. You are a I mean, if somebody hundreds of people come in and
ask for an attached single family dwelling, they come in and ask for a permit for that and they go through zoning and zoning says, "Oh, it's a single family dwelling." They look at this, they look at the site plan ordinance and they say, "Yeah, that doesn't apply to that." And they move through the process. So I guess someone has to
I think I understand it better now after talking. So inherent in his decision saying it needed site plan approval is him finding that it wasn't exempt. Yeah, that's it. That's what I think. Right. That's why I paused in the beginning. So Okay. So
So all right. I'm sorry everybody for the confusion. We're we're back on track now. So, it's the board's view and and maybe we're wrong. Someone will tell us we're wrong. Okay. But I think someone either you think it's the construction official, which I don't agree with, and
I think it's the zoning official because the zoning officials duties include section 417. Some human in our office, not a board, some human has to decide if site plan review is required. One of our humans did that. Zoning officer. You
think it shouldn't have been him. I think it should have been. I don't know who's right. Now you've someone's saying well that human did something wrong. We're appealing the decision by the administrative official that comes to us. If we say he did the right thing and
you need site plan review then you go to the planning board and they do site plan review. So for now we are deciding whether we think this exemption three applies or doesn't apply. Four. Four. I'm sorry. Four. Four. Four. It's a shorter one. Yeah. Four.
Mr. Hurles believes that the exemption doesn't apply. He believes that this does affect circulation, building arrangement, landscaping, and lighting, and that he believes the planning board should review those
things, giving the changes that they're making. They are now going to put on the record reasons why they don't think so. And this gentleman has just explained their operations in a way to show you that what they're doing before is what they're doing now. The part that I wasn't clear on and why I stopped you at
the end and I may misunderstand. I thought the changes that were being made was where was a bunch of counters and stuff were being put in was a foyer type area out into the exit of the building. And when he testified that they're doing the same thing inside as they did at the pool, I think the real question is are
they doing the same thing in the foyer that they did before? That's the question I think he has. And Mr. Schuler will address that. But he doesn't know. Sure he does. But he's the guy. So why does Mr. Shulo know he knows what they did inside and at the pool but only
Mr. Schulo knows what they did inside and on the foyer. He's been in Mr. Schul has been associated with this property for years and has intimate knowledge of the operations at this point. It's even beyond that. I think we're we're threshold question. First I want to say this board is completely capable
of making this decision. I understand what you're saying Craig about you're not sure. I just wanted to make sure we were doing the right thing. Absolutely. And let's, you know, in that exemption, the part that I think is critically important that everybody needs to understand isn't that things aren't going to look different or that
they're going to feel a little better. It's whether or not programmatically things change to a point where it trigger site plan issues such as mentioned circulation, lighting, landscaping, things like that. I want to make it very clear and Mr. King, you said when we were here last month, one of the things that you weren't sure about is, you know, you're you're adding seats, you're adding a bar that adds
parking, things like that. You said it's just off the cuff. It wasn't, you know, determination. I want to make sure it's clear. This has always been permitted as a club. It's been on that plan from what's that 2006 2007 uh before my time with the project even. At that time there were three floors. It was marina
club and office. Mr. Hurles you heard uh earlier say that a couple years ago we were in at the planning board to take one of those floors. Before you go any further, Mr. Schul, let's just get his credentials on the record. Oh yes, I'm sorry. Yeah. Sorry.
I think I know you. Well, what is his expertise in this? Mr. Shul, state your name for the record, please. We'll go through that exercise. Sure. Sorry. Jason Shulo, S C I L L O, professional engineer and planner licensed in the state of New Jersey. And you've testified in front of the
both land use boards in the city of Kate May many, many times. Is that correct? Planning board more than zoning, but yes. And you've testified in front of land use boards throughout South Jersey many times. Is that correct? Yes. and been accepted as both a licensed uh New Jersey planner and professional engineer
numerous times. Is that correct? Yes. At SE be accepted as both uh as an expert in both fields. Both fields engineering and planning, right? Engineering and planning. He is an expert at that. Thank you.
I I didn't mean to cut you off by you proceeding. The last thing I wrote down was at that time it was three floors of marina, club, and office. And then you were talking about my comments about parking being impacted. Yeah, you were saying saying that might trigger site plans. So, so let's let's go back to your initial involvement. When did you initially
become involved with this property and in what capacity? So, it's kind of an unfortunate situation. The previous consultant that was working um on the project passed away um and I started working on the job or on the site and other ones that
Scarbor owns in 2018. So, seven years now. And can you you were telling the board you were telling the board about the uh approvals for this property and if you want to uh refer to the approved site plan to
orient the board. Sure. Maybe that would be helpful as well. Sure. And that'll answer the question too raised about where things are. So, is this part of the application? Identify this. This is Take one of these mics. Sorry. Would you just identify this because this was not submitted in our packet, but this is the approved site plan for
the property. Is that correct? It is. Yes. And it's So, we want to uh mark this, Mr. King. Sure. And this was when it was Spicer's Creek um was the name of the development when it was originally approved dating back as mentioned since I think 2006, 2007.
This site plan from 2013. Um it was the second sheet of a set signed as part of the site plan approval back then. And the site you'll see has on the edge here where Lafayette comes down, there's the cross street that goes that's called Roseman's Lane that comes into the site. All the single family homes are in front
of it. This section here on the left of the sheet to the north side of the site is where the um existing clubhouse marinist office um building exists. You'll see that little uh oddball shape there. That's the pool. This is the deck out front. That's the parking area associated with the marina that goes off
into the water to the left. So with regard to what's going on on the interior of the building floor by floor, can you tell us um what the existing conditions are there? Sure. So originally it was three floors of clubhouse and office
and uh in 2022 we came into the planning board to take that third floor and convert it to what we were calling and the ordinance calls a motel. That's a transient uh unit for excuse me for short-term rental with people that arrive by boat. That's been in place
since then. It's been operating um at that time. The third floor be came out of what was office and clubhouse and became that separate use. So we went to the zoning or planning board, excuse me, for that additional use which was permitted to be added to the site. What we proposed today is a use that
continues and it's always been permitted. It's just now changing in configuration aesthetically generally. So incidentally that with the uh boat and Mr. brought that up that planning board application you actually received site plan waiver. Is that correct? We did. It was a waiver and the reason
for that is it didn't create a parking demand because it was for patrons arriving by vessel um not by car. So with regard to what is proposed now on the first floor, can you take us through that? Sure. So this this floor was most
recently used for storage. Um and the club license that was mentioned that the governing body issued had a statement in it that we had to come or had to get permits required for fit out of that space to be what we show here. It was contemplated at that time that it was going to be done this way that we
were going to have improvements. Governing body recognized that and said just make sure you go get permits. It didn't say we had to go get site plan approval. It just said proper permits for planning and zoning. So that was when the application was made for the zoning department and the denial arrived. So this space that's here and
um forgive me for not knowing the exact square footage, but it's relatively small and Josh you might know it. It's I want to say it's like 14 by 30. It's like less than 500 square feet I think um that this space is occupying with what we're calling member seating and
there's a small member bar here. Now you heard Josh mention that nothing's going to change as far as the way it operates. So that's the threshold question. Is is the use permitted? We said yes. Everybody agrees with that. Does it create site plan considerations related to parking, circulation, those other items that are mentioned? This doesn't draw additional parking. There is no
parking requirement actually for the club specifically. The original approval was granted with parking based on the marina operation and the number of slips. That doesn't change. What's also critically important to understand is this is the same club area as is outside. It's just now we're making sure that if there's weather events or it's
stinking hot in the summer, they have someplace to go. We're not increasing anything related to the parking demand. First, because there is no parking demand. Second, because the club membership is not changing. It's the same people that have been here since probably the last 5 years at least, 2013 when we started. So, there is no parking
consideration. There is no circulation change. That's that's the reason that we were really, frankly, confused by the denial. We understand that the zoning officer maybe is being cautious and saying I think maybe something is needed. It wasn't because I think that it was absolutely confirmed that it was
needed. We believe it's not similar to what happened with the boat. That was a different situation because again it didn't require parking but it was introducing a use that wasn't on the site before. Although permitted it wasn't in the approval. This has been in the approval since the beginning. Nothing's changing regarding that.
Incidentally, the KMA ordinances uh allow for a private club to have a dining a member dining area. Oh, it's expected. Yes, absolutely. And sorry, I can I ask you a question? Can you s I don't mean going through a list.
Can you just point out at least for me because I'm stuck taking notes. It the denial says construction of a roof above existing landing with half walls and counters. There's two two denials. There's two. That's one. That's that'll be a different We're doing I thought we were doing them together.
We are. That That'll be the next sheet. Can I ask Do we have this drawing in our packet? Yes, you do. Yeah, we do. Okay. I have a question with regards to that drawing. What is in those spaces now? Are there new walls being constructed?
What what tell me what is physically changing in that from existing to proposed? It's storage currently and the uh food storage and the um all the gray is existing conditions with no
changes at all. The food storage area is getting um freezer upgrades and some you know existing sopetic getting modified. There's a new door being added here and then this space is being fit out with um you know little banquet kind of like a
booth seating and then this bar. Okay. out exterior has no changes. The access points are exactly the same. I just going to point out one of the one of the exemptions says a proposed development not involving a change in use and not affecting existing
circulation drainage building arrangements. My opinion is that's a change in building arrangements. Uh that's intended to be exterior work that there's no way this board or not I'm saying this respectfully. That's for this that's for this board. No board has jurisdiction over the interior of a space. It's only for use.
That's the way it's always been. We're not creating any additional parking. We're not creating any circulation issues. I understand that there's, you know, questions and we're happy to answer them, but the reality is this is exactly what this was always contemplated to be. We're just now getting building permits to finish it. It's part of the club.
I I I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You I'd love to agree with you. You can disagree with me. I think that building arrangements has to do with buildings on a site being arranged in a different way. I I as if there are multiple buildings. I don't know that changing rooms inside a building is a sight plan consideration
unless it affects where you exit the building and goes out into a parking lot or something. Well, it does affect Okay, that that could be different. I'm I'm agreeing with them generally that site plan approval and the next drawing will show you how that's connected to the new
All right, then that's the that's I think it has to be an exterior has to go out into the outside for it to matter much. Still, going back to the I'm trying to focus on the So, you got the second den. Apparently, we're going to talk about this one. So, I'm going to talk about this one. That's fine. I didn't know which one we're talking about. We're talk about this one.
It says for special condition because we're doing an appeal. So, we're supposed to look at what the guy below did and decide if he made an error. That's that's kind of how this works. So, I'm going to I got to keep it simple for me to understand it. I'm going to go back and go what he said what he said and then we'll decide if he was mistaken. He said per special conditions
of resolution the interior licensed areas of the club shall be used solely as storage areas for alcoholic beverages. Club now seek permission to use as bar and dining area. This change will affect circulation parking and other considerations of a site plan.
Now, I will tell you that if I commented about parking before, it's because I kind of follow the rules sort of. And our our our expert, right, our zoning official says that he thinks that changing it from storage area to a bar
and dining area has an impact on parking. As a general rule, that would make sense to me. a bar and a dining area would require more parking than a storage area unless it's a a uh you know like a FedEx building or something. So
where's his error? Okay, on that this is I'm I'm glad you're bringing it up because this focus right. All right. So the last line in that is an opinion just to be clear. Well, he's entitled to those the first Oh, no. First I'm not saying he's not. Just making sure it's clear. First part of that is more or less u
copying out of the resolution that's in the special condition that's mentioned is in the governing body resolution that issued the liquor license. So I mentioned that early on in the beginning of this that the governing body doesn't make a decision on whether or not zoning and planning and building permits are needed. What it says is go get proper permits from planning,
zoning, building, whatever else is needed. It doesn't say you need to go get a site plan approval. That's not their place. So when the way it was interpreted and the way that that was written up, it said it the belief of the zoning officer was that it would, as you just mentioned, affect circulation, parking, things like that. Want to make sure it's clear there's no parking
demand associated with this use. It's already permitted at the site. There's no change. Even if there's a belief that, hey, there's more space. Maybe somebody else would show up that doesn't show up today. Quite frankly, there's no zoning requirement for us to do anything different. Even if we tripled the size of this, even if we made the whole building the club, it's permitted to be
the club. There is no separate parking demand in the ordinance for it. The approval from back the first sheet I showed you from 2013 had the entire thing as a clubhouse office and marina support. None of that's changing. It's just the interior configuration is getting modified. So again, even if
there's a belief that additional parking may get generated in practicality, which we don't believe that it will because again it's controlled by the actual licensed premises and the club function, the ordinance doesn't require additional parking for any additional space. So, can I make sure I understand what you're saying?
Yeah. And I want to play into what I said. So, you're saying that the approval and use of this is the whole building being a club. So, the maximum amount of parking required for that use is already cooked into this project.
That's the way the original approval was issued. Correct. The fact that the summit fell into disuse and was used as storage. Well, to be clear, it wasn't. Third floor was the club. Second floor is offices. The first floor at the time was for storage. The third floor is no longer a club because it got taken out
for the motel that Craig mentioned that had a parking demand. If you believe there's a parking demand associated with that, that's now gone. So when this project was first approved, the first floor was storage. No, the whole No, the whole building was approved for the club. We used it as storage.
That's what I'm saying. Yeah. So the approval though was the whole thing being used as a club. Yes. So the parking is cooked in there. I was saying that at some point instead of using it Well, I mean, I guess clubs need storage, too. So, you had a storage area inside your club and now that storage
area is being used for club stuff. That doesn't change the parking because the old parking was all club building and now it's all club building. So, there's no effect on parking. That's the argument. Yep. Okay. And I want to add to it too. So, let's say everybody believes that practically
people need parking and they use this space. All three floors were permitted to be this. As I mentioned, the third floor is now taken out to be the motel. The motel is associated with transient boers. So, there's a slip that gets used. I mentioned that the parking demand that's required for this overall
marina support use is based on number of slips. Technically, the number of slips generates then a number of parking spaces because of cars coming to use the slips. One of those slips is now out of the mix because there's no car associated with it. So, we actually have more parking available than we did in the original approval by adding that
use. It's only6 spaces, but there is a change. It's been a reduction in the demand, but that's an argument that goes to quality. So, I mean, I what I'm saying there's no change that would trigger a need to evaluate parking is what I'm getting at is from a zoning
perspective. The use is permitted. The use has been permitted. The approval stands from 2013 that had the whole building approved for this. We're just making an interior modification of an approved use. That's what we're doing. And and a club is permitted to also be a bar. It's the same use. Well, the club
is Yeah, it's a bar restaurant. It's defined by the liquor license as But when it was approved the first time, yeah, it was Kate May Paddle Club. It's mentioned in all the resolutions is Kate May Paddle Club. We were approved for parking. A a bar has the same parking
requirements as a club. Well, no. The difference between the two is a bar is open to the public. That's different. This is a club. It's private. It doesn't just anyone from the street can't just show up and come in and drink here. So, it's not really a bar, per se. It has a bar in it just like you have a bar in your basement maybe, but it's
not. Your house isn't a barn. Follow what I mean? How many members do you have? We have approximately 180 families uh membership. All the members live in the in the uh development. No, it's a mix. So, so you have to say that
most of them some are driving in to the club. Well, or arriving parking. I mean, most of them are are boat owners. Yeah. The marina patrons also a lot of them are are the are the majority. How many members you say you have in the club? We have approximately 180 families. Is that correct, Josh?
Correct. And membership is on an annual basis, just so the board understands. So it's sort of like your Phillies season tickets. You renew on an annual basis. There's a waiting list and if you don't renew, then your membership gets offered
to the first person on the waiting list. And it's been 180 families and will remain that with this. It's open to members and guests too, right? The members guest. It's the Yeah, the lensure is similar to like an Elks Lodge but a lot smaller version of it. So yeah,
if the if the parking if the parking is based on the number of slips and then you can open up the club to not just slip owners. How is that not an impact on the parking? It's it's always been this approval. I I
don't know why the original approval was issued the way valid question that No, it is parking concern but it's it's a zoning question, not a practical question. So the feeling of thinking more parking might be needed doesn't matter. Just be frank and I'm not saying it disrespectfully. The zoning doesn't require more parking for it.
You're in Kate May now. Parking doesn't matter. I'm I said the the it's the reality of it though. The zoning of that Let me say it differently is Let me say it differently. No matter how big we make this space, it doesn't increase the parking demand from an ordinance perspective. There's no
variance needed. There's no approval required. It can't be denied based on someone's feeling that more parking would be needed. We know because the membership hasn't changed in the last seven, eight years. The parking demand is not going to change. It's going to be the same as it is today. We're just now providing a small space inside to get
out of the weather. That's all this really is. Do you worry about the the intensity of the use that you have for the building? No. And then think of it this way. Can I you say no? No. I saw like in in 2022
when you uh applied for the uh we have to go investigate all of the past approvals varants which I've not done in this regard. You know I guess this is you because you were you were uh made a presentation right in the planning board. Yeah, you know, the third floor was intended
for a clubhouse, but the homeowners association believe the property could be used as an accessory to the marina slips with a transient use as a three-bedroom residential unit. It will only be used as a transient unit by marina customers utilizing existing
boat slips in the marina. He, which is you, believes this is a better alternative and may be less intense than events that might be in the clubhouse that could hold up to 120 people. So, you're saying that to get the uh motel
because it would be less intense for from the clubhouse, but seems like you're adding intensity with what you're doing now. More above and beyond what the club this was already here. It was already approved for this. We just didn't utilize it the same way. It's been approved this way.
Okay. Um, I'm not the I don't understand the part about there's no parking requirement. Can you just go back when you first received this approval for this project, a clubhouse requires no parking or is that
a zone thing or did you get not addition like how did it how did what made it not need parking for the building? I wasn't involved in the 2013 approval directly, but from reading the information based on the plans and the chart that's on the front of the sheet
and the resolutions at the time, the parking that was required for the entire project, not the single family, they were done separate, part of the same approval, but a separate parking requirement. But for the marina itself, all of it was baked into the number of slips. And I think the reason behind that is when originally marinas were
approved by D, they had a parking requirement. D had one and it carried over into all the local municipalities zoning ordinances. In the early 2000s, the D removed that requirement because they realized it was ownorous. It was too much and that the amount of parking that marinas actually demand, you know,
on off big peak days, maybe it's different, but on an average basis, they don't need the same amount. It carried over in Kate May's ordinance stays there. It's in other places, too. The reality is that 62 or 6 whatever it was that was permitted and approved at the time that it was done in 2013 included
the rest of the marina support use including paddle club. Kate paddle club was named directly in the ordin or in the resolution. So it's always been in that parking requirement. What I'm saying is was that a variance or was there no parking requirement? No, it it's just it was compliant. It was that was the parking requirement at
the time they went in for the approval. That's what the C6 zone has in it. And you're saying that no matter they could triple the size of this and no one could say anything about parking because it's not a public bar and restaurant. It's a club. It's the the intensity of the club and use of the club is governed by the amount of
members that we permit to be in the club. It's not it's not a silly thing to say. I get it. Okay. No. And to answer the question that you started to ask before, are you concerned about you know how it would function? So think about how this is going to go. The reason that we create these clubs of which we have three now, the reason we
do them is for the exclusivity. We don't want people to have to fight for parking and come to a restaurant as they normally would or a bar and not be able to find a seat or find a place to park. If we allow quote unquote allow more people than what we can accommodate, it actually degrades the activity. It makes
the program not work. It makes people not want to come and not pay thousands of dollars a year to be part of this private club. So to answer your question directly, we know it's not going to be an issue because we won't let it be an issue. It's self-p policing in that way. And this is why it's so unique. That's why we have these.
That's why site plan approval is required in these cases because then a resolution can be adopted that sets forth the fact that you can't just have unlimited members in your club. That
would affect negatively affect parking. I mean, well, that's what the 2013 resolution did. That's we're not changing it. That's what we're getting to. It's already been approved. It's just a lot of time has passed. That's so like I said, I was not prepared to have these
arguments and I've done no research on the 2013 and you know that's a long time ago and I I was I was the engineer at the time when it was approved. I can't recall how that how that parking was assessed. Well, it's it's in the resolution. Well,
let's let's go though to the the other question about the outside the resolution. I've read all the resolutions applicable to this organization. Let me do you have let me let me point out to you uh on page three of the resolution 22 it talks
about if there the boats are only for the residential and it talks about uh oh that's for the boatell from 22 yeah otherwise parking would would be required as well as potential use application all right so let's characterize that
properly so in 2022 we submitted an application to the planning board to allow the boatel use the C6 section of the ordinance The C6 zone permits hotels specifically because they don't have a parking demand because they don't bring people driving in. It's from boats. So that context of that was if we were to propose a three unit bedroom or
three-bedroom unit that wasn't a motel, just a typical short-term rental, it would have a parking demand associated with it because that point it's a residential unit. That's not what we were proposing. So that's what that clarifies. The or the resolution I mentioned that says that the club itself doesn't have additional parking demand is 2013 from the original approval. So
you have 180 members in the club and and all those members would be bringing their boats in. That's a mix. The the members the demographic is some Marina patrons, some people that live in the residential nearby, some that walk in from other parts of Kate May and a handful that we believe drive. Tell
me if I'm wrong. I went down and counted the spaces twice, three times. I think you have 33 parking spaces on the second. Is that correct? No. No. There's uh it'sundred Yes, they're including the residential.
Oh, you're including that uh for the Yeah, the approval had No, no, no. The approval had I don't have that sheet. Let me Shoot. I should have brought that first one. Um it's on the cover sheet of the the site plans that were approved. So So
your property includes not only the paddle club and the main club, but it you're including all of the residential. No, we don't use any of the residential parking. It's not included in the in the approval. Where is all this? The um
All right. So, there's street spaces here on Roseman's Lane that are part of it. There are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 plus 28 13. So, 10 38 13. There's these up here.
And that's four, five, 9, 10, 8, 13, 17. 7, two, three. So, all of these spaces that are out here, there's some behind the structures, this these ones here that are angled. So, to be clear, each of the residential units had enough parking within the unit itself between the driveway and the garages. Everything else that's surface
parking was attributed to the overall use of the club and the marina. So, they park all through this area. That's the 130ome spaces or whatever it is. It's been this way since even before it was when it was Cape May Marina, before even Spicer Creek was done. So, prior to
2013, I disagree with I'd like to have more evidence of that. I've gone down there and looked at it and this along here is all Where are you pointing, sir? And you're you're Yeah. parallel with this. So, you have
these spaces, these spaces, there's angled spaces here. Well, that's the part that's directly adjacent to the bulkhead. But all of these other spaces were built as part of this project and attributed to the marina. We're not evaluating the site plan. We're just determining whether what
they're proposing to do requires a site plan or not. So, I I don't think it's appropriate to be talking about specific spaces and whatever unless they're being affected by, you know, whatever improvements, but yeah, we have to be careful. This is an
approved project, okay? So, they don't you don't get another bite at the apple with the whole project, right? That's what they're trying to avoid. And I I understand that they're adding alcohol to their clubhouse and making some improvements in the clubhouse.
All I'm trying to understand is they're saying it has no impact on parking. Generally, when you take storage space and make it into a bar anywhere else in our universe here, that would be a parking question, right? Because storage area and if it were open to the public, yeah,
we'd agree. Yeah. Um well whether or not you open it to the public. I mean it may be that that area generates one level of parking as a storage area and another level when you serve alcohol. So there may be three spaces in front of that. Not everybody can walk the whole distance of that development. Okay. People probably drive over. Are there
parking spaces near this thing near this clubhouse? Yeah. Well, if no one drives to it, why do you need parking spaces? So someone's driving there. So you know if it's a storage area and now it becomes a bar that that will impact the number of cars that go there. So it's a site, you know. So, so I'm just trying to understand the
parking I'm not trying to behave have a parking variance or anything. Ju, just so you understand, let me ask Mr. Dickinson a couple questions on the alcoholic beverage. The uh paddle club obtained its club license from the governing body in 2004.
Correct. 2024, I'm sorry. Correct. 2020 24. Prior to that, you testified earlier that club members would utilize the pool deck area for uh food and beverage service.
Correct. Since 2013, correct? Prior to 2024, did club members bring alcoholic beverages to the club? Correct. And did the club provide storage facilities for each individual family
members uh alcoholic beverage? In other words, they were there storage lockers for each member's me membership. Yes. For the storage of alcoholic beverages. Correct. Correct. And when you got the club license, that was eliminated. Correct. Correct.
So, there's really been no change with regard to the service of alcoholic beverages or the uh the availability of alcoholic beverages on the premises. Correct. Correct. Thank you. Going back to Mr. SH you've
discussed parking a lot. Uh but one of the couple of the other things in the exemption paragraph that Mr. Hurles uh took a look at and that we're looking at um is building arrangements. Um on site there's more than the club building. Is
that correct in terms of buildings? Oh yeah, absolutely. Is what you're proposing on the interior going to affect the arrangements of the existing on-site buildings? No. Is what you're proposing on the interior going to affect the existing landscaping plan?
No. Is what you're proposing on the interior going to uh affect uh any of the buffering requirements that's shown on the approved site plan that you have before us? No. Is what you're proposing on the interior going to affect any of the exterior lighting conditions or lighting
requirements of that approved plan? They are not. And do you have an opinion as to whether or not uh we meet the exemption that Mr. Hurles discussed? We absolutely do. Yes, we have no sight plan impacts. Okay. Can you take us to your next sheet?
Yeah. And this was also submitted as part of the application package. This is the um exterior porch and roof plan for the paddle club. So this can you tell us what's uh I mean well first of all going going back to the interior. Where's the
entrance and exit to the exterior pool deck? All right. So, when All right, when you look at there's a couple entrances. So, the parking lot that we were just discussing is generally on this side of the site. The marina is up to the top of the sheet. This walkway here that comes onto the
porch or this set of steps that exists, there's a porch that goes up into the building. There's also foyer that comes out onto the, you know, pool area deck that's over here. There's also exterior connection on the deck to get outside. So you have two sets of steps from the parking lot side here and up here.
So the area that's not changing the area that's labeled porch next to the area that's labeled seating. That's the area that we're going to talk about next. Yes. And that exists as a porch. It's paved and it has the porch itself. The the docks are behind it. Paved with what?
Concrete. All right. So with regard to that concrete porch, can you explain to the board what's being proposed? So now the proposal is to add a roof over that porch area for weather
protection. So the footprint stays exactly as it was. We're just putting a roof over top of it. And does the addition of that roof affect parking? No. Does it affect vehicle uh
circulation on site? No. Does it affect building arrangements? It does not. Just appearance. Does it affect landscaping? No. Does it affect lighting? No. Does it affect buffering? To be clear, sight lighting, it does not. Say that again. It doesn't affect site lighting. Is it being lit?
It has the requirement under building code is the doors have to be lit and yes, it'll be lit. So, there's new lighting being proposed. Building lighting on the inside of the building, the outside of the building underneath the roof because it has to have light over the door.
That's there's already light there. Yeah, we're just now instead of it being mounted just on the building, there's accent lights underneath, but that's something that is normally considered and reviewed during site plan if it has an impact to the site and neighboring properties potentially. But it doesn't. It stays to make sure there's safe egress into
the building. That's a building code issue. And the lighting is there for that reason. That's I I know where you're what you're saying, but that's the reality. I'm sorry. You were going I'm sorry. Will adding the porch uh render the structure non-conforming in
any way? No. So, have you reached an opinion as to whether or not um we meet the exemption for site plan approval relative to the porch roof? Yes, we do not trigger site plan with the porch. just an aesthetic improvement
for weather protection on the outside of the building over a covered or I'm sorry, a paved porch area that exists currently. Are there tables and chairs on that porch? Now, no, there's going to be in the No, in the existing condition, it's just a it's an open porch area with no roof and no
tables. In the proposed condition, I'll have a roof and there's a small area of um counter bar space for people to sit down drinks on the little ledge. It's uh there's no seating. No, no seating. No, the first the first one I mean not I
don't vote so it doesn't matter. I was starting to find the first one pretty persuasive on this one. I'm just my qu I guess where I'm confused is you're adding a structure and in my experience we just had last night the planning board and they had to come in there putting a canvas cover
over a porch at a restaurant that was site plan approval. I mean once you start adding structures on commercial property that was just site plan no variances or anything. It was just for site plan. There were some variances but you don't just get the that's why they're there. Well no that no if it was just a variance they'd be here.
So um oh is it planning board? You're saying boards? Yeah. So I mean when you start putting structures on commercial properties I thought that was like an automatic site plan. You're saying that's not No. Not when it's architectural fenistration to cover a porch. No. if it if it created an issue was mentioned
with circulation or changed the access like if we took this door away and put it somewhere else. Is that new roofed area larger than the existing porch that's there that's shown on the survey? No, maybe the eaves hang a little bit. It looked a lot larger and it looked
like it's pushed closer into the asphalt parking area. If you look at the survey that was provided as part of this application like it I don't know which one you mean. certainly look bigger. And if you look on that plan that you have that you have right there, you can see the
So, go back go back to that plan, Jay. Well, this one here. Yeah. Light. There's a light outline of where the existing porch is on that plan. Yep. So, to me, it looked a lot smaller than what you're proposing.
All right. So, this this dash line here is the existing roof overhang that's there with the columns for it. That's what you see there. This is a concrete porch area that's already an existing stair up to it. It's paved. We're just putting a roof on top of it. And on this
plan that was approved in 2013, you can see the box for that area with the stairs on. That's the porch that we're the area we're talking about. And it's concrete, so you're not affecting lot coverage. Is that correct? No. No, we're not impacting. It's the
same set of steps cleaned up. It goes up onto that concrete. N got it. patio porch and that's what that's shown on that plan. So I guess you said you're adding a structure that doesn't have site plan implications. Yeah, absolutely. Yep. It's a roof overhang on a porch.
So I have no other questions of Mr. Shul. However, it looks like Mr. is about to have some. Craig, can I come up there with you and see what you're looking at? Which set of plans is this? Laser Fenwick. Yeah, that's that's that's a
set for the actual porch. See the steps right there? Right. This is the concrete. See? Move your finger right there. That's the limit of it. That's what that is. The way they do their plans with the color does get and that was also what I pointed out on that plan from 2013. It was the same
shown on that and it was actually existing at that time. We're I mean honestly we're not trying to pull any anything on you guys. No, I was just legitimately on the once again I did not review this as part of site plan review. So like I'm just I
have to ask questions now because we didn't have that opportunity. I'm glad you are. It's clarifying a lot of things that we didn't realize were see living at this. Well, not living at it, but being around the site, we take it as common knowledge. So, we appreciate the questions. And this is actually the first time this
board has seen this, right? Because it's been planning board ever since the beginning. So, we're happy to discuss. So, again, I have no other questions. Mr. Shul obviously he stands ready to answer any questions that any board members may have.
Do you believe the addition of the roof will affect drainage or landscaping? No, it's already paved and there's no landscaping on it. So, no, no impacted drainage and it's directly connected to the title water body anyway directly next to it. So, no. Okay. That's that's a normal consideration of
site plan review. you look at roof surfaces and whether it's focusing water in any in any direction um something that really just just because it's over a paved surface doesn't necessarily mean
that it's not going to change the runoff pattern. So I'm just we just had that in that thing the other night where the awning was awning was channeling water into a landscape area and the shade tree commission was worried about that. So that's a normal consideration of site plan review. Mr.
King, you were you were asking about off- streetet parking and Mr. Schulo indicated that there was no standard for a clubhouse. I want to read into the record under section 52549
off streetet parking standards letter C. It says number and location of required spaces. The following off- streetet parking spaces shall be provided and satisfactorily surfaced and maintained by the owner of the property for each building which after the date of this
chapter becomes effective is changed in use, expanded, erected, enlarged or altered for use for any of the following principal or accessory purposes. Um there there's a standard for auditorium, church, stadiums, theaters,
restaurant, tavern, or other places of public assembly. One could make a case that this could be a place of public assembly, I'm guessing. But if you don't find that effective or compelling, under number 12, the number of required
off- streetet parking spaces for all other uses shall be determined by the planning board as part of the site plan review procedure. It certainly encompasses that. Well, we don't disagree and it happened in 2013. That's the approved. We We've been
looking at the approved site plan. When there is a change in use, expanded, erected, enlarged, or altered for use, or any of the following principle or accessory purposes, you take a look at the parking. Change in use.
You look at the parking there. There's no change in use here. The the use is a clubhouse. The chapter 525 indicates that clubs are um entitled to a dining area for members. There's no
change in use here. So there's so we have the approved site plan. There's no change in use. and and and that's the crux of of what would be my closing is the denial of the application for the interior space
indicated site plan approval is required. If your position is that that's a uh determination or that's an appropriate uh basis for denial of a zoning permit application, then our position is as Mr.
Schula testified that this is exempt from site plan approval. So, the denial should be reversed. Uh, same thing for the uh porch or or the roof over the porch. Shirley, can you help me with this? I get asked this question more
often than you might imagine about although it usually comes up in the context of whether there's an expansion of a non-conforming use. I admit that. But this introduction of alcohol service to a prior use. Okay. So, and I I don't
purport to know the answer. All right. And I'm not I don't vote. And I really part of me is like it's a club and they're having some alcohol in there. What's the big deal? I get that. Okay. But I always imagine if I live next door to it. Okay. And whether it's a a
clubhouse that is like where people go to knit, right? Okay. I didn't know such a thing existed. Or if it's a club Well, no, there are. I mean, there's there's plenty of clubs that aren't based on alcohol, believe it or not. There are club houses that are just general assembly places.
Yeah. Okay. And then there's ones that are bars. All right. So, you know, around the corner from me is is the VFW one down I live on Windsor, so it's down that way. Um, you know, that's a bar. That's what it is. It's a bar. It's not a clubhouse. It's a bar. Um, so, you know, is it a change in use
to go from a clubhouse that doesn't have a liquor license to a clubhouse that does? And if I live next door to it, I'd feel like they were doing something. make sure we understand. You heard previous testimony that it got licensed in a different form, but it's had liquor service. It's just the way that it was done is you had to bring your own. You
put it in a locker, then their bartenders serve it to you. There was always alcohol there. It's just now they can sell directly rather than members. But a resident turning into a bar would be different. I mean, you can Well, no, that's that's how it was, but it was approved that way as the club for that purpose. It's not a different use. It's just where they're they're buying
it from the paddle club rather than bringing their own and having them. So, so now so now you have liquor deliveries where the general where the club members were bringing their own and now you have liquor deliveries
from trucks. So can I there's loading considerations site plan review. I feel like there's a lot of confusion. We have a license since 2014. This happens as close as that door. There's a pool with a bar and a grill.
This room is right by the bar already that's existing and operating today. We take orders to the property for liquor and food already. So, you're already getting deliveries. Correct. And this happens at we call it the waterfall pool, which is the pool
that's within walking distance to this inside area. Part of this is to provide a space for our members when it rains so that instead of them sitting outside, they can go inside. Or if you're old like me and it's
blazing hot and you'd rather be inside. Correct. So, we're already selling alcohol to our members on site, which is at the outside bar and grill at the waterfall. Yeah.
Can this room be used for events for some? This room is This room is for members only. The the existing members guests for members and guests which currently we allow members and guests on site. Correct. Yes.
But it is not an an event space where I can contact the paddle club and book my daughter's wedding reception. Correct. Is that correct? You cannot do that. It's a member space for the existing members. We do not plan to expand membership. It is for the
members that are currently already part of the club. But there's no you can expand members if you wanted to. There's nothing that there's no there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Well, the bylaws indicate that the
membership is determined by the trustees and it can be changed residency. It can be anybody. Yeah. Well, you have to there's an application process. Is that correct? Correct, Mr. Dickinson. Um, so there's there's an application and the facilities
themselves restrict the membership roster. Is that fair to say? Correct. We've had a waiting list since 2013. Do you have to have a boat and use the marina facilities to be a member? No, but majority of the members are already on site, meaning they're either
homeowners or slip holders. So to conclude, we have made an application. We made an application uh each each of these uh entities SP Kate May Marina and Kate May Paddle Club made an application to the zoning official
for a zoning permit. In each case, the denial indicates site plan approval required. Um, you've heard the testimony. You've heard my legal arguments as to why we think that, uh, it's palpably unlawful to deny a zoning permit on site plan grounds. Uh, you've
already decided that issue. You've now heard Mr. Schuler's testimony and testimony from Mr. Dickinson regarding why we think, uh, we're exempt from site plan approval. Uh, and if we are indeed exempt from site plan approval, then we ask that you overturn the officials
decision and direct the issuance of a zoning permit. And if the uh and and if the zoning official, as Mr. King indicated, feels that we need site plan approval, he's free to put that on the zoning permit. I get it. I'm sorry. I'm
just I feel like we're doing planning board work here. Like they're asking this board to decide what is a planning board. Going back to the original issue. Yeah. And I'm just like the denial. I mean, it's no offense to these folks, but they don't do a lot of site plans, you I mean the other board that's all they do. So it's just really weird that
we're up here and fortunately have the same two professionals. Not that we're given great guidance but I mean the same two professionals on that board but but you know in terms of like seeing these all the time and all my all my memory is from that board you know in terms of these
that's why our position is that when you make an application for a zoning permit the issue is this is I'm not doing that again. You keep saying that it doesn't make any sense because some human has to decide if you need to go to the the planning board.
The planning board doesn't decide if you go to the planning board. So, it's either going to be the the zoning officer who's making that guess or the construction official. And both of them when they're wrong, at least on zoning issues, come here. Yes. Some human has to make that, but not in the context of a zoning permit. I
personally think the law should be, if you want to hear king on law, is if there's something going on a commercial site, then the zoning official should default to needing site plan approval and then you go to the zoning board and you find that if you have an exemption. That's what I think
the law should be. Maybe it is. I don't know. No one's asked me to look at that yet. But I'm telling you, I think that gentleman over there sees you guys expanding from outside to inside, putting up a new structure, okay? and all this stuff going on in a commercial site and he says that sounds site
planning to me then I think that should go to the to the zoning board and they should do all this analysis planning board well that that original position that the zoning permit should have said approved but you may need zoning or you may need planning board approval you may need site plan approval we can only appeal
that denial to you guys as a zoning board but but that's why we're here but let's say but but then who makes that decision no one's answered that question for me oh you mean if we disagree with findings in the zoning site plan. You said we might. Okay, well that's nice. But who says you do or you don't?
Mr. Coffin said Mr. Coffin's answered that for me twice in two meetings and both times he's saying official. Well, I guess it's the construction official. That's baffling to me since our ordinance says the zoning official does determine site plan and appeals to the construction official traditionally
either go to construction board of appeals or here. We're not and we're not arguing, just to be clear, we're not arguing or suggesting that the zoning official doesn't have the authority to enforce the site plan ordinance. That's that's not what we're arguing at all. I know
that, but someone's got to decide if you need site plan approval. And I don't know anybody better than the zoning official. I'm not smart enough to figure that out. All right. So, let's get to the end of this. So, your testimony is in. Our testimony is in. Okay. So, as I understand the issues, they're this and you're going to vote on them because they've come here and they've asked you. So, we're going to
vote. Their position is as to the one application and I got to do this technically. There's two different permits they're appealing from. Let me find the other one. I had it open
a minute ago. Okay. Try to bring some order of this for the appeal, I guess. Hold on. I'm sorry. I just got to find the actual denial. I will take help from
I'm in this pocket and I'm not seeing the denial. Which do you want first, Rich? I got them right here. I have them right here. Which do you want? Are they in your appeal packet though? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
[Applause] All right. Here. Thanks. Sorry, I I I just can't find it in your packet. All right, so there's one that says, "All right, so
number 25 says, per special conditions of resolution, the interior license areas of the club shall be used solely as storage areas for alcoholic beverages. Club now seeking permission to use as bar and dining area. This change will affect circulation, parking
and other considerations of a site plan. So this is the inside part, not the building outside, the inside part. And it's their position that when this project was approved, the whole building was a club.
A club is a use and the parking was designed for that whole club being used. And their position is nothing is changing in that regard. They're doing interior improvements under this denial and they don't believe that that affects
circulation, parking or other considerations of a site plan. Mr. is of the opinion that it does that the change that's going on in there from storage to an active bar
is of a nature that it may affect parking and there may be considerations of ingress and egress from the building in terms of degree and he believes that that's something that should be at least subject to site plan review is that
accurate Mur you want to add anything to that yes I just can't wrap my hands around the fact that we're adding a whole bunch of seats um that aren't there now. They could expand membership, but they're saying that it's restricted, but these
are these are things that are talked about during site plan review and end up in a in a resolution and are enforcable. Um, so I can't wrap my hands around the fact that this is not a substantive change that is not exempt from site plan
review. Okay. All right. So, you've heard um the positions of the parties. So, in essence, Mr. Hurles agrees with the zoning officer. So, he believes you should uh affirm the applicant. Um, I've
articulated their reasoning that all of their changes are internal and they don't believe this affects site issues like a site plan. So, that's their positions and their vote. Neither one of them sound irrational to me. So, um, the board's going to vote and then we're going to do the other one separate.
We're going to vote on them separate for you. Okay. Um, so on the one with the interior stuff that I just mentioned, number 25, I'd ask you to make a a vote to affirm the zoning officer. I'm not saying that. I'm not implying that's how you should vote. We always kind of make
it yes. So yes is that you affirm agree with the zoning officer. No is that you disagree with the zoning officer. Okay. So yes is agree. No is disagree. This is the interior. Yes. Okay. So this is the Kate May paddle club application. Correct. I'm calling it number 25. It's
application number ZA25-25. The other one is ZA25-26. So I'm technically distinguishing them on that basis. Okay. So, can someone make a motion so we can vote on that and move on with our lives? I'll make the motion.
I'll second. Miss Stevenson. Motions. Mr. Walsh. Seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Zexer. Yes. Mr. Jagger. No. Miss Stevenson?
Yes. Mr. Venudo? Yes. Mrs. Werner? Yes. Okay. So, as I understand it, that means you agree with the zoning officer. Your choices are to appeal that to the superior court or to go get site plan approval. There are two choices as I
waver. Yeah, I guess maybe there's something else, but okay. Um, it doesn't mean that you necessarily don't get approved for the site plan. Is there an exemption application for site plan? I don't know. It doesn't come in the
Well, to the planning board, obviously, but all right. We'll figure it out. Okay. Um the next one is for the roof structure. It's number 20 application number 26 for the roof structure and that is your zoning office concluded that site plan
approval is required. Um construction of a roof above existing landing with half walls and counters located at entrance to new proposed club bar and dining area. He's of the view that that structure and the additional seating and counters um at the entrance area are of
a nature that would uh require site plan review. The applicant um has argued, you should consider all their arguments, not just what I said, but they've argued that the placing a roof over an area that's already cemented does not implicate site plan analysis, that the
lights are on the interior of the structure and that therefore um this is not a site plan uh does not trigger site plan uh a site plan analysis. Your engineer feels differently. He believes that the review of how this impacts
drainage and L lighting and landscaping are things that need to be part of his review as part of a site plan. So therefore, he believes um site plan review is appropriate. Is that a fair summary? One clarification. Yes. Good. There are no seats on the porch. You
said seating and or whatever. It's just the on the porch. It's a ledge. What he says is your picture your picture shows seats there. Which one? I thought I did see some stuff there. Show seats. Yeah.
Oh, this corner here. The ledge isn't there. Yeah. Bar stool seat on both sides. And what else is corrected? I apologize. Wasn't on the architectural seating in that area for something. There's countertops. Yes. But there's seats. Okay. It's exactly what our zoning
officer said, okay? He said, let's listen to what he said. Construction of a roof above existing landing with half walls and counters. He didn't even he didn't say seats. He said half walls and counters located at entrance to new proposed club bar and dining area. So,
he's of the view, as I just said. I don't repeat it. Um, so there you go. So, we'll make a motion. Yes means you agree with the zoning officer. No means you disagree with the zoning officer. I'll make the motion. I'll second.
Mr. Zer motions. Mr. Bernudo seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Zexer. Yes. Mr. Jagger. On this one, I say yes. Miss Stevenson. Yes. Mr. Venuda?
Yes. Mrs. Werner? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. There's some stuff. You're going to hear it again now. You're going to be back here. You haven't heard the last of this, Mr.
For years. There's Thank you everyone for your patience on the legal apologize. I like him better when it's I promise you the appeals are more I was three years in the in the early years. payment. It's It's such a
Are you making a motion? You know, kind of I can't believe this. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Mr. Venuno. Motions to pay the bills. And Mr. Zexer seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mr. Walsh.
Yes. Mr. Zexer. Yes. Mr. Joerger. Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Bonudo? Yes. Mrs. Werner? Yes. Thank you. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? I'll make it. I'll make it. Second.
All in favor? Yes. Thank you everyone. Yes. Good night. This must be yours. Couldn't have done all this last week when I was in