WEBVTT METADATA Video-Count: 1 Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=JsjWh0Ts02o NOTE MEETING SECTIONS: Part 1 (Video ID: JsjWh0Ts02o): - 00:01:56: Initial Setup, Testing, and Informal Discussion on Project - 00:05:23: Meeting Call to Order, Pledge, and Roll Call - 00:06:16: Resolution 04-23-206 and March 26 Minutes Approval - 00:07:30: Announcement of Application Adjournments and Renotices - 00:09:11: Introduction of Applicant: New Jersey Prime Real Estate - 00:09:46: Additional HPC Approval Exhibits and Witness Swearing In - 00:11:44: Background on Property: 1507 Yacht Avenue, Condition - 00:15:23: Engineer Introduction, Oath and Pre-Existing Conditions - 00:21:36: Board Member Questions and Discussion on Parking Impact - 00:32:29: Existing Bathroom, Grading of the Property, Concerns - 00:39:24: Engineer Report Summary: Use Variance, Flood Protection - 00:47:19: Reports from Shade Tree, Public Works, and State - 00:49:22: Closing Public Comment, Motion and Conditions Discussion - 00:52:30: Detailed Conditions of Approval; Grading and Bathroom - 00:53:50: Motion and Vote, Followed by Motion for Payment - 00:55:45: Open House Announcement and Motion to Adjourn Part: 1 1 00:01:56.560 --> 00:05:01.680 testing. Testing. closing in the bottom of a building, right? >> Are we against that? >> It's Do we want it to be up in the air? >> No, their their engineer >> is sometimes difficult. So, I'm hoping 2 00:05:01.680 --> 00:05:23.360 he he doesn't say much. might have to work real hard this >> but anything can happen. >> Ready, Rich? >> I'm ready, sir. >> In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of 3 00:05:23.360 --> 00:05:39.600 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. I aliance to the flag of the United 4 00:05:39.600 --> 00:06:00.000 States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mrs. Wernner, Mr. Venudo >> here, >> Mr. Lewin >> here, >> Mrs. Not 5 00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:16.319 >> here. >> Miss Sheen >> here. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Mr. Zexer >> here. >> Mr. Jagger >> here. >> Miss Stevenson >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. First we need a motion to adopt resolution 04 23206 6 00:06:16.319 --> 00:06:33.039 Mark at 1604 Maryland Avenue block 1187 lots two. >> I'll make a resolution. >> Motion. >> Do we have a second? I'll second. >> Thank you. Mr. Zexer motions. Mrs. Notch 7 00:06:33.039 --> 00:06:49.199 seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. >> Abstain. >> Miss Stevenson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next, we would need a motion to 8 00:06:49.199 --> 00:07:06.000 adopt the minutes from March 26, 2026. >> So move. >> Second. >> Motion by Mr. Lewin, seconded by Miss She and Mr. Mr. Lewen, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> yes. >> Miss Sheen, >> yes. >> Mr. Zexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Joerger, >> abstain. >> Miss Stevenson, >> yes. 9 00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:30.800 >> Mr. Venudo, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> We have a couple of applications that are not going to be heard tonight. So, I'm just going to announce their adjournment so that they do not need to renotice. Well, with an exception. So, the first one is 420 Perry Street LLC, 10 00:07:30.800 --> 00:07:47.599 420 and 422 West Perry Street, block 1031, lots. That application will not be heard tonight. It is being adjourned at the applicant's request and the chairman approved that uh adjournment. 11 00:07:47.599 --> 00:08:04.960 The matter will be heard on June 25th, 2026. uh at this location at this time at six o'clock. Uh so anyone who wishes to be heard on that application should appear at that time because there'll be no further notice. Uh the other application 12 00:08:04.960 --> 00:08:23.280 which is Michael Mortimer 4446 4448 West Perry Street block 1031 lot 34 and 5.01 01, which is a minor subdivision of variance relief, is a property that was actually within 200 feet of West Kate May. And due to some 13 00:08:23.280 --> 00:08:40.479 miscommunications, they did not notice uh the homes that are within 200 feet of in West Cape May. So, they're going to have to uh renotice at least those persons. They're not going to re notice all 200 feet uh people of 200 feet. They're going to renotice those folks or 14 00:08:40.479 --> 00:08:57.600 they're going to notice those folks. So, uh, that application, uh, will be heard as well on June 25th, 2026. Um, there will be no further notice except as I've just indicated. So, if you wish to be heard on that application, that will be heard on June 25th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Those are the 15 00:08:57.600 --> 00:09:11.200 announcements for the applications. I turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Our first application and only application is uh New Jersey Prime Real Estate LLC, 16 00:09:11.200 --> 00:09:28.160 1507 Yacht Avenue, block 1160, lots 8 8.01 and 9. Please come forward, introduce yourselves if you if you will. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Ron Gellzunus on behalf of the applicant if if we may. Uh we're waiting for our uh 17 00:09:28.160 --> 00:09:46.000 engineer Arthur Chu. Um he's given us an TA of five after six which is right about now. So if we could have just a few minutes. >> Do you want to do your little introduction? >> I could but it won't take that long. >> Go ahead. 18 00:09:46.000 --> 00:10:32.440 >> I believe I >> I do have an exhibit I'll hand out though in the interim. What is the exhibit? >> This is an additional HPC approval. It's just 19 00:10:33.839 --> 00:11:11.279 >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Did we put a number on it or >> I marked it as A1? >> A1. Thank you. I accept an A1 which is an HPC approval 20 00:11:11.279 --> 00:11:29.680 in addition to the one already in the file. >> Why' they approve it twice? >> We just came back for >> some changes or something >> twice. You got the HPC. >> So will you please raise your right hand every and uh 21 00:11:29.680 --> 00:11:44.640 you know swear affirm that everything you're about to state is truth all truth and nothing but the truth. So you got I do too. >> Oh, Mr. Hurles also has been sworn in. >> So, you went >> Please sit on your microphone. 22 00:11:44.640 --> 00:12:01.440 >> You went May May of uh 2021. That's the one you're holding in your hand. And then you had additional approval of December of uh 2023, which was included in the application. So, >> what's this gentleman's name? >> Oh, John Dia uh Deep Propolo. Yeah, 23 00:12:01.440 --> 00:12:19.360 >> he's he's the principal of NJ Prime Real Estate LLC, 100% owner. >> Can you spell that for me real quick, sir? >> D is in David. I P is in Paul. I E T R O P O L O. 24 00:12:19.360 --> 00:12:39.760 >> And you're the principal of the applicant prime New Jersey Prime Real Estate? >> Yes, sir. >> Why did you get a second HPC approval? Um ah um building construction. Somebody was 25 00:12:39.760 --> 00:12:56.000 unsure cuz this the first one says conceptual but says approved. So they said they'd rather send it in and have it say final. >> Okay. >> So Mr. 26 00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:12.959 >> The first is the first is conceptual. The second is final. That's important. >> Are both um are both these expired? >> Well, the work's already done. So, >> okay. >> Yeah. Uh but I Mr. Dia Patrol understands that he may probably will be 27 00:13:12.959 --> 00:13:29.200 required to go back to HPC as a condition of this approval. So, okay. So, um property, as you're now aware, is 1507 Yacht Avenue. This this property contains a 10-unit apartment building uh with five boat slips that is elevated on 28 00:13:29.200 --> 00:13:45.920 pilings with parking underneath. The property was purchased by the applicant April of 2021 with the intent to renovate it. Uh as it was in very uh poor condition and was on the market uh uh for sale for for quite some time. As 29 00:13:45.920 --> 00:14:01.600 we've just went through, I've handed out the May uh 2021 H uh PC approval, the original one shortly after uh it would property was purchased and then the additional approval which was required for clarification in December of 2023. 30 00:14:01.600 --> 00:14:16.880 Uh that is attached to the application as is as an exhibit. The approval was for replacing all doors, siding, trim, and adding three new garage doors on on the bay side and five garage doors on the street side, effectively enclosing 31 00:14:16.880 --> 00:14:33.760 the ground floor area. Construction on the garage doors was stopped sometime thereafter uh in the beginning of 2024 and the applicant was notified that in closing of the ground level required a use variance uh because this was a a 32 00:14:33.760 --> 00:14:51.120 expansion of a non-conforming use or structure as multif family buildings are not permitted in the R5 zone and enclosing the ground floor was determined to be an expansion of the structure. The proposal uh this evening is to seek approval to complete the work 33 00:14:51.120 --> 00:15:05.839 of appro of enclosing the ground floor and installing the garage doors. All other conditions on the site are pre-existing. Uh but this application uh goes a long way to uh clean them up as best as 34 00:15:05.839 --> 00:15:23.839 possible. Uh we already have Mr. uh John Diet Trapo sworn in as the property owner. We have here this evening Mr. Arthur Chu, our project engineer from Arthur Chu Consulting LLC if he's ready to um take his place here. We can have him 35 00:15:23.839 --> 00:15:40.800 sworn in and go ahead. >> Did you step out of the microphone? Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, all truth, nothing but truth. >> I do. >> Can you turn that on, please? The mic. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. All right. While you're setting 36 00:15:40.800 --> 00:15:56.959 up, maybe you just want to put your uh qualifications briefly on the record. >> Uh I'm a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. I'm also a professional planner. I was here last month. >> And you were recognized as an expert on that occasion. >> I was, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, we'll recognize you. >> Thank you, sir. 37 00:15:56.959 --> 00:16:12.880 >> Okay. When you're ready, you get set up. You can take us through um what the preexisting conditions were. Uh what work was done and and what the proposal is this evening. So, uh, as you're aware, it's a 10-unit, uh, condo 38 00:16:12.880 --> 00:16:28.399 building that has a shell parking lot. The entire site is 100% impervious coverage. The proposal, uh, is to enclose the lower levels. The neighbors are very supportive of this. They've actually complained that they want they 39 00:16:28.399 --> 00:16:43.920 don't want to see the open storage underneath. They'd like to see it enclosed. It's underneath the building. That's acts as a storage place. There's two storage rooms underneath. Can you pick up your mic? >> Thanks. >> Sure. >> Excellent. >> We want you to carry the mic if you're 40 00:16:43.920 --> 00:16:58.720 >> Okay. >> Sure. It's uh there's storage room back left and back right of the building. They park under the building right now and then out into the front. We've uh 41 00:16:58.720 --> 00:17:15.520 the parking that occurs there right now doesn't necessarily conform with uh the ordinances. We uh slotted everything together to make it work as to comply with the ordinances. We do not make they can fit more on there as they do just 42 00:17:15.520 --> 00:17:31.440 freelancing as opposed to actually designating out the spots because we have to have a certain size and some of the cars are smaller, etc. Regardless, we uh showed out the parking spots that are there and then we showed pre and post and there's no change from pre and 43 00:17:31.440 --> 00:17:47.360 post. Is there anything I'm missing there? >> Uh, well, the um we're here for an expansion of the structure. So, has the footprint of the structure changed at all or has that been expanded? >> No, it has not. The the only thing that 44 00:17:47.360 --> 00:18:03.520 is, I guess, expanding or of the non-conforming uses, you now have securable lockable storage underneath the building. It was an it's an elevated structure with parking underneath. And so, they're expanding the storage area. Right now, it was two smaller rooms. Those two smaller rooms are going to 45 00:18:03.520 --> 00:18:20.720 remain, but they're going to have now enclosure around with garage doors. So, it's going to clean up and beautify to make the neighborhood look nicer. >> So, the the standard for uh granting relief to expand a non-conforming use is can the site accommodate the proposed 46 00:18:20.720 --> 00:18:36.880 expansion? And is there any increase in intensity of use on the property resulting from doing what you described as in in closing? >> There's no increase in intensity. It's going to be used exactly the same way. It's going to be a benefit to the neighborhood. The neighbors are going to 47 00:18:36.880 --> 00:18:51.440 appreciate it because now it's going to make everything look nicer. They don't have to look at an open house on stilts. They're going to look at an enclosed building like most of the other structures in and around Cape May. The the other thing that's being uh done is 48 00:18:51.440 --> 00:19:08.880 it's all shell parking lot. uh there's a desire to uh pave surfaces to make it more a concrete and pave surface. So while the shells are considered impervious in the ordinance, they're also what going to be added is going to 49 00:19:08.880 --> 00:19:24.880 be impervious, but there's not going to be shells running all over the place now. >> So you it's generally in your opinion an an improvement of the site as it existed before as a result of coming in this for this application. Yes, it's a beautifification of the property that will help the whole neighborhood and the 50 00:19:24.880 --> 00:19:39.840 whole community as a whole. When you drive into Kate May, you can see the structure. >> So, your your opinion is that in terms of special reasons to make it more uh visually pleasing, closing that area and concealing at least some of the cars that are parked on the property and 51 00:19:39.840 --> 00:19:56.799 storage will will be an improvement for for the neighborhood. >> Yes, that's a true statement. And then do you see any detriment um to the neighborhood to the public good resulting from the the enclo enclosing the space? >> I I do not see any uh negative to the 52 00:19:56.799 --> 00:20:14.160 neighborhood. It as we illustrated the parking pre and the parking post are exactly the same. The the only only thing changing is beautifification. So there's no negative to the neighborhood as a whole. >> Uh and then in terms of impairing the zoning ordinance or the zone plan. So 53 00:20:14.160 --> 00:20:31.280 when when we have a non-conforming use and you can't get rid of it, um it it's the goal to try to make the non-conforming uses, I guess, sort of die out or change or come conforming at some point in the future. But when you can't do that, um the next best alternative is to make them as 54 00:20:31.280 --> 00:20:47.679 conforming as you can or better improve the site as best you can. >> Correct. the there's no changes in the site from for most people looking at it, they would say this is all this is improving everything. There's nothing that's 55 00:20:47.679 --> 00:21:04.799 making it worse or out more out of the ordinance and they're trying to get everything more in conformity. You as a community, you don't want those shell parking lots, you want the paved surfaces. So, it it's you're working towards those uh desires. So by by by 56 00:21:04.799 --> 00:21:20.559 bettering the nonconformity, you're >> moving towards conformity. >> Moving towards it or making the conditions better. So you're not you're not offending the zone plan in zoning, >> right? It's a 10-unit building. They're not making it one unit. It's 10unit building. It's they're not making it 11 57 00:21:20.559 --> 00:21:36.640 units. It's still going to be a 10-unit building. >> Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Chu? >> I have a question. Um, before this was enclosed, there used to be more parking that used to go all the way through, but now, um, you're adding in storage. So, you're actually taking 58 00:21:36.640 --> 00:21:51.760 away parking. >> There's no parking being taken away as it's shown on, uh, this plan, it shows exactly the number of parking spots that you can uh, >> because I I I believe, right, the storage here is still um 2x4. So, it 59 00:21:51.760 --> 00:22:07.520 used to be parking. It used to go through here >> to drive all the way through. We I I'm >> Is there a discrepancy in the >> Those storage areas were pre-existing? >> The pre there's pre-existing on the outside. She's pointing to areas in the middle where there's 60 00:22:07.520 --> 00:22:24.159 >> right here. That storage that storage I because I just drove by. It looks like there's 2x4s in there. So, it's being built that storage area. At one time, it was all I just happened to years ago drop off my son who was going there. So I remember that there was a park that 61 00:22:24.159 --> 00:22:39.760 went all the way towards the front of it the building or the back of the building >> if if I may. Um so this is one of the be behind the scenes uh initial reviews that I went back and forth with the applicant, the engineer. 62 00:22:39.760 --> 00:22:55.440 Um when they initially submitted the architectural plans and the site plan, they were cannibalizing spaces 8, 10, and 12 and showed enclosed storage only for those spaces. >> The plans have been revised now and 63 00:22:55.440 --> 00:23:13.440 allow for those spaces 8, 10, and 12 that exist to remain. Um so that would be a condition of approval that those park those spaces have to be accessible. So whatever improvements that they have, crossmembers, 2x4s, supports, whatever 64 00:23:13.440 --> 00:23:30.559 would have to be removed and there has to be access to spaces 8, 10, and 12. >> Okay, I got I got to find those 8, 10, and 12. >> So Craig, does that go along with what you said in five here where there's um paving surfaces all but three spaces? 65 00:23:30.559 --> 00:23:46.640 >> Yeah. So um so I had a question and Mr. Chu just put it on the record um because his plan doesn't show what the surfacing was. So I had questions with regard to what surfacing would be prop proposed >> um existing. It's all clamshell. It's 66 00:23:46.640 --> 00:24:02.720 all considered impervious. They're now proposing concrete surfacing. Um I've made a recommendation also on top of comment number five is that so right now what they're proposing they're showing that concrete paving stopping at 67 00:24:02.720 --> 00:24:18.559 the rightway line. Now, there's space between the rightway line and the edge of paving there. So, it would go concrete, a strip of of um crushed clamshells, and then paving. That doesn't make sense to me. It should they 68 00:24:18.559 --> 00:24:34.960 should run the concrete all the way out to the edge of pavement so that those turning movements don't push those >> uh clamshells all over the roadway. That's typical. >> The owner is willing to to do that. So, >> just we're hesitant to show improvements within the public right away. 69 00:24:34.960 --> 00:24:49.600 >> Well, we're recommending it and we're you're certainly able to do that. >> Okay. >> Um >> and there's John has no issue with doing that. So, he'll definitely connect it and uh a curb can be installed there that meets city ordinances if that's what you'd want. 70 00:24:49.600 --> 00:25:06.400 >> I think there is curbing there. There may be. So, we would we would ask that that be provided on typically the curbing runs all the way down Yacht Avenue. Last time I checked and I thought I saw it on this project. Um, it's been a while since I went out there and inspected it since the initial 71 00:25:06.400 --> 00:25:22.240 >> existing conditions photos are showing. >> Yeah, I think >> pressed curbing. >> There's the pressed curbing that runs the entire length of Yacht Avenue on that straightaway. So, I I would just ask you to bring that concrete out and match that. >> The applicant has no issue with doing that. 72 00:25:22.240 --> 00:25:37.360 >> Okay. Can can I just get clarification here because I was a little late getting my other map out. >> So the one plan does not show 8, 10, and 12. >> The initial plan that was submitted did 73 00:25:37.360 --> 00:25:54.559 not show it showed 8, 10, and 12 being cannibalized by an enclosed storage area that was meant to like, you know, support the boats or or right the home above it. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're now back to this one. >> So, then now there I believe there's 74 00:25:54.559 --> 00:26:09.279 been revised architecture plans that I think that I reviewed that show that those spaces 8, 10, and 12 are going to be remaining. >> Okay. Because the plans that I'm looking at here does did not show that. >> Okay. They that might be an older plan. >> Okay. That's what they gave us. Yeah, we 75 00:26:09.279 --> 00:26:26.480 submit the revised plans after you >> the RWA architecture plans dated 416204 revised to 410 2025. >> Okay, we don't have the 410 2025. >> Yeah, that's I believe they're the ones 76 00:26:26.480 --> 00:26:51.120 that >> Yeah, this is what I have here. >> 41625. Okay. >> I don't have I just have storage. >> We worked through this process with Craig and we were very specific in that 77 00:26:51.120 --> 00:27:08.960 the last set that we were submitted uh did conform and align with this plan. >> Yeah. My biggest issue was there's already a parking issue on Yacht Avenue and that the fact that they were cannibalizing spaces and making the parking situation worse. I did not 78 00:27:08.960 --> 00:27:25.919 support and therefore we went through a back and forth until they decided to revise the plan so that there were no spaces being lost. >> And Mr. Mr. Harles, you were you were even kind enough to provide some uh street photographs, right, >> from Google Maps of the property before 79 00:27:25.919 --> 00:27:42.400 the purchase, showing correct >> showing the parking underneath. So, we brought it back to that is the way that it was. So, >> yeah. And and I agree with their testimony from a from a you know, holistic looking out at this project from existing to proposed conditions 80 00:27:42.400 --> 00:27:58.720 there in the existing condition. There are a lot of existing nonconformities that relate to the parking. Um, and they're all listed as variances in my report. The number of spaces, the parking surface, they're addressing that. Uh, the parking they're they're addressing the parking surface for the 81 00:27:58.720 --> 00:28:14.320 most part. There are some spaces that aren't being surfaced with concrete. Um, parking setbacks are there. You can't park in the front yard setback. You can't park in a sideyard setback. Those are existing conditions. Um the parking buffers, there's no buffer out there. Um 82 00:28:14.320 --> 00:28:30.559 and by the way, anytime anyone plants anything on Yacht Avenue, the saltwater kills it because of the constant flooding and inundation with salt water there. So um you know that that is non-existent. And then finally, all of those spaces are backout parking spaces. 83 00:28:30.559 --> 00:28:45.840 We do not permit that for the entire width of a property. That's an existing condition. However, you know, it's my opinion that that's been functioning. I'm not aware of any, you know, traffic safety issues there. Um, and I think the 84 00:28:45.840 --> 00:29:02.640 benefit of having adequate or more adequate on-site parking is better than saying, uh, no, you can't back out park anymore. So, that that that's kind of where I came um, you know, made my engineering decisions with regards to this project. 85 00:29:02.640 --> 00:29:18.960 No, I I I was looking for those three other parking spots for this plan. >> I just have one other question, >> excuse me, >> for this existing space over here. Um I see is this a bathroom that's being added? >> It was that was existing. It was just 86 00:29:18.960 --> 00:29:34.559 updated. >> So there's a bathroom there, >> correct? >> Okay. Because it doesn't really show this on the plan. It just says a sink. >> Storage. >> Well, yeah. These this plan just says storage. This one says sink and just says sink. 87 00:29:34.559 --> 00:29:54.640 >> So my plan is based off of the survey that the surveyor provided and he likely did not have access to the interior. The the surveyor marked those rooms and called them storage. The architect >> I guess my concern is is it is it storage or is it another bedroom? 88 00:29:54.640 --> 00:30:11.200 Another room. >> It's definitely not a bedroom. >> Yeah. didn't know there was it's it everything was approved like when we did just renovations everything is basically exactly >> Can you get your mic I can't hear you with all the papers >> we renovated it of existing there was a 89 00:30:11.200 --> 00:30:26.240 bathroom down there um and everything was approved permitwise that we just renovated it no space >> I I know you just gestured with your hand to your three- ring binder that contains all of your permits and 90 00:30:26.240 --> 00:30:43.520 inspections and John am I right to Inspectors have been >> Can we get the mics up? I have a hard time hearing when you guys are facing this way and I'm on this side. >> So, John, it's safe to say the inspectors have been out there all over this place multiple multiple times and inspected each of the units and you have 91 00:30:43.520 --> 00:31:03.360 all of those permits and inspection reports in your three ring. Okay. >> Okay. So, when was the bathroom permitted? Um I would say a little after May 1st >> of last year. 92 00:31:03.360 --> 00:31:24.720 >> No uh 21. >> So this was uh this was issued 101521. So every unit was renovated. Each one has its own um permit. Well, I understand the units were renovated, but this is in the this is in the uh 93 00:31:24.720 --> 00:31:41.360 >> lower level, which is not considered a a unit, right? Because there's only 10 units in the row at the top. >> So, then we did a we then we did a house permit that included all that as well, >> right? So, the construction office is never going to issue you a permit to construct a bathroom at grade below base 94 00:31:41.360 --> 00:31:57.279 flat elevation. Correct. And they're out there, they know that bathroom is there, your inspectors. >> Yes, sir. So, it's a pre-existing condition. >> Yeah, >> you can't I got to >> I'm only saying it's pre-existing, but I didn't see it on the survey. So, that's why I'm asking 95 00:31:57.279 --> 00:32:12.559 >> Right. We're not surveys don't show >> what we do tonight gives you approval for that bathroom. >> So, if it's there, it's there. If it's not, it's not. >> Right. That's that my experience. That's the construction office that they let you >> endorsing it. We're not prohibiting it. 96 00:32:12.559 --> 00:32:29.200 We're just saying that's for the construction office to figure out. for our zoning approvals. We're not issuing a variance for a bathroom or anything. So, we'll just >> Okay, >> we'll just say that we we've not nothing we do is endorsing its existence. Okay. >> So, yeah, it look, it's not the worst 97 00:32:29.200 --> 00:32:45.440 thing in the world either. It's a big property. There's a lot of people out there. There's five boat slips. >> It's not the worst thing in the world to have access to a bathroom on the property. >> I get Are you for variance for that bathroom? No, you can't give a variance for that bathroom because you can't it's it's below 98 00:32:45.440 --> 00:33:02.559 >> it's below base flood elevation. >> Just say okay. >> All right. Well, correct. You can give a variance for it, but instruction I would add it. >> Did you notice >> there's uh every >> Let it go. >> He wants to do 99 00:33:02.559 --> 00:33:23.279 >> that's that's Mr. King telling me to travel. I file I do follow his his most >> it's a good idea. >> I was passing around the latest version of the >> uh can I ask a question then? Um 100 00:33:23.279 --> 00:33:39.200 the we're going from clamshells to concrete. My question is will there be any grading of that property before that's done >> or are you going to require it which 101 00:33:39.200 --> 00:33:56.240 >> on the plan uh there are noted grades to get everything to pitch out to the street with any of the proposed that's being added. >> Okay. >> I mean and I'm what I'm asking about is the adjacent property. >> Are we sure that we're not going to have 102 00:33:56.240 --> 00:34:12.639 runoff? Because I, you know, I know clamshells are considered impervious. Don't tell me that, you know, the water doesn't flow faster over concrete than it does over clamshells and the adjacent property >> would be a concern because the last 103 00:34:12.639 --> 00:34:28.079 thing they can afford is more water on their property. >> I I agree with you 100% on that. What the ordinance says and what actually happens are, you know, two different things. Right. The the grading provided here on all the concrete surfaces. I just provided proposed grades for the 104 00:34:28.079 --> 00:34:44.720 concrete and it directs the water from the property directly to the street. So, it's not going to go to >> I would actually reverse that. It should be directed towards the bulkhead so it can flow out. >> You're in a title flood area. You're not required to provide volume storage for your storm water systems, but the 105 00:34:44.720 --> 00:35:01.119 grading should go back from from the street to the back in this case. I know the ordinance says that it should go the other way, but not for a a street that has a bulk I mean a property that's situated on a bulkhead. >> Okay. I was just following the ordinance. >> No, I I understand. So, sometimes when 106 00:35:01.119 --> 00:35:16.960 you follow the ordinance, it doesn't necessarily >> It'll make sense. >> Can I just get some help? >> Am I doing anything in your letter about >> No, I I will handle that as a as a condition of approval. And >> No, no. Am I doing anything in the condition? Is it >> No, there's it's not a comment in there. I just That was the first time I heard 107 00:35:16.960 --> 00:35:39.599 that statement. Okay. So for number six, the applicant must comply with the minimum storm water management and grading requirements both during construction. Do you want me to put in there? It will be graded towards the >> from the street through the waterway. >> This thing's already built. Is that a 108 00:35:39.599 --> 00:35:55.359 problem? the the concrete surfacing is not >> the outside site has not >> it's all it's all clamshell >> correct I'm just looking at it now to make >> the pad underneath is 109 00:35:55.359 --> 00:36:12.000 >> yeah how's that graded the pad underneath does it grade out to the street >> um yeah there's sure a slight pitch of >> so that concrete pad's been constructed >> underneath the building >> only underneath the building only underneath the building and I think 110 00:36:12.000 --> 00:36:26.800 >> closed. So was it >> that may have been existing that was existing >> that's a typical driveway but the the the pad the parking pad that's between the face of the building and the structure should be graded so that the water goes back towards the the waterway 111 00:36:26.800 --> 00:36:42.000 >> right there's no reason to put it on there's no runoff from inside because it's >> so I would just ask that Mr. should revise his plan to show that and he can do that. >> It's not already built the pad underneath it, is it? >> It is. >> That is I I I don't think we can do that 112 00:36:42.000 --> 00:36:59.920 by looking at these grades. >> Well, I I'll work with Mr. Ch to come up with something that does not direct the water out onto the street. >> Okay. I'm just pointing out that it's going to be enclosed. >> So, what is it direct? >> So, it's no different than any other driveway. All I mean a any garage under 113 00:36:59.920 --> 00:37:35.040 a structure is graded from the back of the structure to the front. >> Okay, you'll do it. >> Yeah. Yeah, we'll work with it. >> We'll figure it out. >> Mhm. >> Other questions? I guess they're trying to figure You just have to grade it up and then 114 00:37:35.040 --> 00:37:54.400 back. >> Okay, we another Mr. Ledwin has a question. >> I have a question for you. You indicated that the uh neighbors and the residents are in favor of this. Do you have any evidential matter to be able to prove that? >> Uh nothing that we can bring before the 115 00:37:54.400 --> 00:38:09.920 board. just from comments which would be hearsay because you can't say what somebody else said but those were the >> I understand that but you could have had testimony from residents >> you mentioned that >> I did mention it I I it was mentioned 116 00:38:09.920 --> 00:38:27.839 but I know John went out and talked to the neighbors asking them to come out and no one's here so >> yeah I think most um most concern on that street is that nobody do anything that stops flood waters from going back 117 00:38:27.839 --> 00:38:43.680 into the creek. >> Mhm. >> And so if if the as long as the doors don't make that an additional problem or or slow the flow of water off that street back into the creek, then I think the neighbors 118 00:38:43.680 --> 00:38:59.359 can appreciate the appearance for sure. But uh please, you know, don't do anything to to mess with the water receding. And I think that's that's what Craig is going to work with. Mr. >> Chu, there is certainly an engineering 119 00:38:59.359 --> 00:39:17.480 solution to grading that whether if we have to put a slotted grade in so that collects the water and and getting it to the back, we will do that. But we will not discharge water onto Yacht Avenue and we will allow it to flow freely to the back. >> Great. 120 00:39:24.800 --> 00:39:41.520 If there are no more questions, Craig. Okay. I touched on quite a few things in my report already. Uh, so I will summarize my report dated March 23rd, 2026. Um, this is an application for use variance as well as other C variances. 121 00:39:41.520 --> 00:39:58.160 Um, it is also an application for site plan approval. Um the board should note that anytime we have um a multif family dwelling of more than three or more units, it it triggers site plan review. 122 00:39:58.160 --> 00:40:13.520 So in this case, we have a 10-unit multif family dwelling. They're making modifications to it. Obviously, they're, you know, paving. Um so it brings into consideration site plan approval and review. Um, so those are the approvals that 123 00:40:13.520 --> 00:40:30.320 would be necessary. Um, with regards to completeness review, um, under item number 20 of the checklist for CND variances, I did recommend that the flood information be provided on the plan. Um, and they asked for a waiver from providing a landscaping plan. I 124 00:40:30.320 --> 00:40:46.640 didn't see any problem with it. Um, my experience with Yacht Avenue is this the frequent flooding kills off all vegetation for the most part. So therefore, I didn't see a problem with granting that waiver. Um, so I'll move on to the zoning review um on the bottom 125 00:40:46.640 --> 00:41:03.599 of page two and continuing on to page three. Uh, once again, they need a use variance. It's a multif family uh 10-unit dwelling is existing and they're proposing restoration of that or renovations and restoration of that. It's located in the R5 medium high 126 00:41:03.599 --> 00:41:20.240 density residential district and the Harbor overlay district. That is not a permitted use. So any expansion requires a use variance. Um it also a non-conforming lot. So the lot size per unit um is 2500 square feet per unit. Um 127 00:41:20.240 --> 00:41:36.400 and uh the total lot area is 900 is that right? 953.2 ft. So it's it's substandard. >> Uh that's an existing condition not being changed. Um they didn't >> it's per unit. Okay, that makes better 128 00:41:36.400 --> 00:41:53.200 sense. Um, excuse me. Uh, they didn't provide building height information, but I don't believe there's any change to the building height lot coverage. Um, 60% is the maximum permitted in that zone, and we're at 100% and they're proposing 100% 129 00:41:53.200 --> 00:42:09.599 even with the perving the paving because the clamshells are considered impervious in that district. Uh the floor area ratio information was not provided but we did request that that be provided on the plan as a condition of approval. Um and they have to demonstrate compliance 130 00:42:09.599 --> 00:42:27.119 and no change no increase of that. Um the parking is substandard based on uh the parking calculation is based on the number of units and also for the boat boat slips. So based on the total use of the site, 21 spaces are required, 14 131 00:42:27.119 --> 00:42:45.040 exist and 14 will be proposed um as part of the site improvements. With regards to parking setbacks, there are uh parking is not permitted within the front yard setback of 10 ft. So you'll see on the plan um spaces 1, three, and five are all within that. Um 132 00:42:45.040 --> 00:43:00.480 and there's a setback of 8.35 ft proposed to that. So that's an existing condition that will be continued and improved or not improved but the improvements will formalize that. Um backout parking is not permitted. I 133 00:43:00.480 --> 00:43:18.079 talked about that. That is an existing condition condition that will be continued. And then finally the 5- foot landscape buffer is required but is not proposed. Um there's none existing. Um that's an existing condition. I didn't take exception to that. So those is a 134 00:43:18.079 --> 00:43:33.599 summary. That's a summary of all the variances that are required. I'll move on to my general review comments. Um under item number one, I asked for the first floor elevation um be provided on the plan and noted that they have to 135 00:43:33.599 --> 00:43:49.440 comply with the requirements of chapter 258, which is our flood damage protection code. Um so I the flood plan information has to be provided on there. um as well as the um the required uh first floor elevations. Um I talked 136 00:43:49.440 --> 00:44:06.160 about the building height under number two that should be added to the plan. Three, the zoning table should be resi revised consistent with the comments in my review memorandum. Four was me searching for what they were doing with the the new surfacing. So 137 00:44:06.160 --> 00:44:22.480 I've asked for construction details to be provided on the plan so that we we now know that it's going to be concrete surfacing. um the construction details if there's an engineering solution necessary for um the grading and drainage uh comment uh discussion that we had um those they should all should 138 00:44:22.480 --> 00:44:38.160 be also be included. Uh I already talked about item number five and the applicant agreed that the surfacing would be extended to the existing curb along Yacht Avenue. Um item number six we've already modified 139 00:44:38.160 --> 00:44:55.119 um that's they have to comply with chapter 525 the minimum storm water management and grading requirements and we've modified that to say that the lot is going to be graded so that it flows from the street to the waterway. Uh we've asked under item number seven 140 00:44:55.119 --> 00:45:10.319 to revise the parking notes to be consistent with the RSIS and my report. Uh under item number eight is our recommendation that they provide all construction details. Um and note that 141 00:45:10.319 --> 00:45:24.640 there is no pattern of sidewalk on Yacht Avenue. It's only a 33 foot wide rightway. It doesn't support a sidewalk and there's no other sidewalk on there. So therefore, we do not recommend sidewalk be provided for this site. Um 142 00:45:24.640 --> 00:45:41.520 items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 are our standard conditions. Nine deals with um acceptance of improvements and tying the certificate of occupancy issuance to that. 10 is providing the required uh performance guarantee and inspection 143 00:45:41.520 --> 00:46:00.160 escros as required. 11 is addressing the and complying with the requirements of the sha tree commission, fire department, and public works department. We did receive a fire department review dated 41326. There was a recommendation um to comply 144 00:46:00.160 --> 00:46:16.960 with the following conditions and they talk about carbon monoxide detection um and some other sprinkler system issues. Those are typically not uh considerations of of zoning review. Um 145 00:46:16.960 --> 00:46:32.800 but is the applicant willing to comply with those? when I ask that question. Okay. So that so that would be addressed >> like the carbon dioxide I don't see an issue but the sprinkle >> yeah that was just a recommendation for the sprinkler that's not by code >> smoke 146 00:46:32.800 --> 00:46:47.599 >> smoke protection. >> Yeah we typically don't get involved in those discussions that's between them and the construction office. If they're required to do it for that type of structure with the 10-unit multif family dwelling then they should be required to comply with that. Yes, I agree with 147 00:46:47.599 --> 00:47:03.599 that. It's required by construction. >> Whatever the code requires, >> but I don't see any issue with adding carbon dioxide detector. So, you can >> of course >> get this. >> Is there any issue with that, Rich? >> And we're handling that. >> I'm just writing, but we'll only conform 148 00:47:03.599 --> 00:47:19.119 to fire recommendations as per code. >> Okay. >> They can do with that. That's not really our job. >> Okay. Public works issued a recommended approval dated 41026 with no comments. The Shade Tree Commission recommended approval indicating there are no street 149 00:47:19.119 --> 00:47:37.760 trees at this location dated 417 2026. So, and then we did receive uh your supplement um exhibit A1 uh HPC approval. Um item 12 is they have to comply with 150 00:47:37.760 --> 00:47:54.319 any and all other state, county, and local approvals. Um, if there is D approval required for that, they're required to comply with that. Uh, I talked about HPC approval. So, they've provided evidence that they've gotten that. 151 00:47:54.319 --> 00:48:11.200 Item number 14 is complying with the any and all applicable affordable housing requirements. And finally, should the board grant approval, they're required to revise the plans consistent with the board's approval and submit six copies to the board engineer for review and approval. Sorry. 152 00:48:11.200 --> 00:48:28.559 >> Bless you. Um, that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. >> Um, I just have a quick question. I'm looking at the parking and it has five and six. It looks like are they going to be able to put a garage door between five and six or how is that is there no 153 00:48:28.559 --> 00:48:44.559 garage door for the parking? >> Five can be backed out to the edge of I mean we're we're gr the existing condition is that's how it's being parked now. So, um, the the fact that that num space number five could back 154 00:48:44.559 --> 00:49:01.359 out a little bit and still allow for the furnishing of a garage door. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we still have that spot there. That's all. >> Exactly. That won't be that that won't be impacted by the installation of a garage door. >> So, the number of spots 14 is what's 155 00:49:01.359 --> 00:49:22.319 going to be available >> at the end of the day. They're going to have to have 14 parking spaces before I will sign off on this project. >> Okay. Any more questions for Craig? No. >> All right. At this point, we would 156 00:49:22.319 --> 00:49:41.280 normally open it up to the public, but I see no one within or beyond 200 ft. My eyes are getting bad, but I I can see that. >> Um, so we will close we'll close uh 157 00:49:41.280 --> 00:49:57.520 close it to the public and ask Rich to explain a motion to be made. >> So the standard you're applying to this is first the C2 balancing standard for the bulk variances, all of which seem to 158 00:49:57.520 --> 00:50:14.000 have pre-existed. And then the other standard you're applying is for a Dvariance, but it's a Dvarian, which is expansion of a non-conforming use, which is whether or not the lot can accommodate the expansion proposed by the applicant. Although generally that has to do with uh things like drainage 159 00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:30.800 and parking. Um there can be other factors, but that's usually what that is. But in this instance, the parking seems to be the same as it was before. and they believe that that's offset by the aesthetic enhancement provided by the improvements being made. So, the 160 00:50:30.800 --> 00:50:47.200 motion I'd recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you, is a motion uh to grant a site plan preliminary and final as well as variances 1 through eight outlined by the engineers report on page 161 00:50:47.200 --> 00:51:03.280 three. Uh with the conditions that we discussed during the course of the ation which I will try to summarize but the record stands which is that there will be a um it'll extend the paving into the public right of way and 162 00:51:03.280 --> 00:51:21.280 curbing will be shown on the plan. Um the plan to be referenced is the 41025 plan which may not have been the plan that the members had but is the plan that Craig certainly reviewed and endorsed the applicant. that that's not the cor necessarily the 163 00:51:21.280 --> 00:51:38.640 correct there's a section on here that says um per engineering memo and it says 3626 so that's the most current >> okay I didn't hear that >> which which >> you are correct >> um which report are you talking about so 164 00:51:38.640 --> 00:51:55.599 I know >> I'm talking about the architect's plan I I don't know why he has two different areas of revision which is >> which is a little confusing So, um, >> is this on A101, one of two? >> A101, one of two. And there's a section 165 00:51:55.599 --> 00:52:10.800 at the top with revisions and then there's a lower section with other revisions, which is >> Does Craig agree he had that plan? >> Yes. >> And we agree the only difference between that plan and whatever other one is that the storage that was there that interfere with parking is removed and 166 00:52:10.800 --> 00:52:30.240 then we have the same parking that we have now as we have before. >> Yes. And so the date of that plan is March 6, 2026. >> Okay. All right. The other condition uh that I uh that was discussed. >> No, that's it. What I wrote with regard 167 00:52:30.240 --> 00:52:45.920 to the bathroom is that the board takes no position on the existing bathroom on the first floor, positive or negative, as no relief assault related to the bathroom. It will be on the interior and will be addressed by the construction office as it deems appropriate. I think I don't >> I was kind of doing a couple different 168 00:52:45.920 --> 00:53:02.319 things, but I think the one that was discussed with the board is to make sure that the lot the the paving is graded from Yacht Avenue to the >> Yeah, I hand wrote that one into the >> I just want to make sure that I did. No, I I didn't put it type. I hand wrote it. 169 00:53:02.319 --> 00:53:19.200 That's why I didn't say it. I'm sorry. It will be graded from the street to the waterway is what it says on number six on general view comments. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. any um that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you and again it was site plan for the right final need variances and the 170 00:53:19.200 --> 00:53:34.160 conditions that I outlined. >> Do they have to go back for HBC approval or not? >> I have no idea. Okay. >> Our or our our one of our conditions is always they need to get HBC approval. They seem to have conceptual and final >> but I I was a little I was a little 171 00:53:34.160 --> 00:53:50.400 fuzzy on that. Uh but whatever it is they need HBC approval and if that's it that's fine. They already have it. Great. That's our position. Just a standard condition that you have to have HBC approved, >> but if you already have it. >> Okay. >> All right. That's the motion I recommend 172 00:53:50.400 --> 00:54:05.760 you made. How you up to? >> Okay. Someone like to make the motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> Is she in motions? Mrs. N seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> No. >> Can you state your reasons to 173 00:54:05.760 --> 00:54:23.040 >> Yeah. I think there's too many inconsistencies, uh, Rich, from my point of view on the drawings and the, uh, information that's been given to us. >> Okay. >> Mrs. Notch, >> no. And I agree with Mr. Lick. 174 00:54:23.040 --> 00:54:37.440 >> Miss Sheen, >> yes. >> Mr. Zexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Jagger, >> yes. >> Miss Stevenson, >> yes. >> Mr. Venudo, >> yes. Thank you. >> Okay. The application passes by vote of 175 00:54:37.440 --> 00:55:09.280 5 to two. Um >> okay. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Board members. >> All right. >> I'm going to check and see if Mr. Walsh has said has the correct dates on it and if not I will get it from the attorney 176 00:55:09.280 --> 00:55:29.839 for the record of the city's record. >> Okay. We uh lastly would need a motion um for the payment of the bills. >> I'll make the motion. >> I make a motion. >> I'll make motion. Okay. >> I'm sorry I feel 177 00:55:29.839 --> 00:55:45.680 >> sorry. Miss Stevens motions. Mr. Jagger seconds. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> yes. >> Miss Sheen, >> yes. >> Mr. Zexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Joerger, >> yes. >> Miss Stevenson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernudo? >> Yes. 178 00:55:45.680 --> 00:56:01.440 >> Thank you. >> Uh, do we have a motion to Well, I should say one thing. There is an open house on May 20th. Uh if anybody wants to come uh we're working on the uh speech and the uh 179 00:56:01.440 --> 00:56:16.640 there's going to be a PowerPoint, but we only get two minutes. The planning board chair will speak and then the zoning board chair will speak. So I just I don't think we meet before then. So I thought I would just mention be great if you come if you're interested. 180 00:56:16.640 --> 00:56:32.119 >> Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> All in favor? I >> thank you everyone and have a good night. I'm sorry.