testing. testing. I just Yeah. If they lose that, I'm going to be like, "Wait a minute." If they lose, you know, if it's if it's four to two and they lose, I'm going to be like, "Oh, years
five years ago. and another woman. Sarah, we're we're always outpowered, but never not really outvoted, but this is now the problem. You haven't been there in a while. You
last time? I don't remember. Uh, I missed one for the wedding in St. Louis. So, maybe that was the last that was the last. Oh, that's right. That was the last I was at my I was at my cousin's wedding. My daughter was in the wedding, actually. Um, yeah, you're in St. Louis.
Yep. Sounds like it was eventful, too. Well, I was glad I wasn't here. It sound like a lot went on. I was like, "Oh, gez, I missed a good one. Good one. I missed maybe one a year. That was the right one. That was the one. You picked the right one." Yeah. My my partner's the attorney for the upper township
boards and he appears all the time before board. So, he knows this stuff, too. You may have different ways of doing it, but he knows a lot. Oh, yeah. He did a great job. But yeah, it was just very we do it. I do his board once in a while, too.
And it makes us feel good because he knows I know how to do it, too. So, it's hard to get young people willing to go. Not willing, like they'll go, they'll do what I tell them to do, but they're not happy about going out at night. Like, they really Yeah.
If I asked them to come watch a meeting, they would do it if I absolutely made them. But like their minds don't work that way. That generation is like five o'clock at night. Yeah. Yeah. Or six. What I find is
they like they like work city hours. like they they go in Turn on your microphones. 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. Have the pledge of allegiance. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mrs. Werner here. Mr. Venudo, Mr. Lewin, Mrs. Notch here, Miss Sheen
here, Mr. Walsh here, Mr. Zexer here, Mr. Jagger, Miss Stevenson here. Thank you. KR. We have a resolution for John and Joan Dempsey, 665 U Street.
Can we have a motion? I make the motion. I'll second. Michigan motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mrs. Notch. Yes. Miss Sheen. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Zexer. Abstain. Miss Stevenson. Yes. Mrs.
Werner. Abstain. Thank you. We have a resolution for Martin and Valerie Carlin, 1102 Lafayette Street. Make the motion. I'll second. Michigan. Oh, I'm sorry. Michigan motions. Miss Stevenson, did you second?
Yes. Yes. Thank you. Mrs. Notch, abstain. Miss Sheen, yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Zexer, abstain. Miss Sheen, uh, Miss Stevenson, yes. Mrs. Werner abstain.
Thank you. Next resolution is for Matthew and Ann Low, 1443 Delaware Avenue. Need a motion. Make a motion. I'll second. Michigan motions. Mrs. Notch seconds.
Mrs. Notch. Yes. Miss Sheen, yes. Mr. Walsh, yes. Mr. Zexer, abstain. Miss Stevenson, yes. Mrs. Wernner, abstain. Thank you. Okay, we have the minutes of the May 22nd meeting. We need a motion. I'll
make the motion. I'll second. Mrs. Notch motions. Miss Sheen seconds. Mrs. Notch. Yes. Miss Sheen, yes. Mr. Walsh, yes. Mr. Zexer, Miss Stevenson, yes. Mrs. Werner, abstain. Thank you.
Okay. Our first application tonight is for Gary and Miriam Waxman at 931 Corgi Street, Block 1093. Good evening, Madame Chair. My name is Ron Gelzunus, appearing on behalf of Gary and Marian Waxman to my left.
Property is 931 Corgi Street. Proposal this evening to seek approval for the replacement of an accessory shed that was demolished and replaced. our witness this evening to my right, Mr. John Hbruner, our engineer from the Highland Group. Uh, Mr. Waxman and uh, Miriam
Waxman. If we could have them sworn in, please. We're also going to swear in our board engineer. Do each of you swear affirm tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth. So, you got John, if you could just briefly uh, place your credentials on the record. Sure. I'm uh, licensed in New Jersey as
both an engineer and an architect. I've been uh practicing both professions in this area for roughly 30 years. Um I've been providing testimony before this board and similar boards throughout KB Atlantic County for that entire tenure.
Um I've been before this board probably I don't want to guess how many times but quite a few times. It's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um John why don't you take us through a little bit of history of the property current conditions and and the proposal. So, we're dealing with
a property is 931 Corgi Street. It's one property removed from Madison Avenue on the uh west side of Corgi Street. It's got a property dimensions that are roughly 50 ft wide by 115 ft deep, total lot area of 5,965
square ft. It's developed with two principal buildings. Um though one would look at it, you might think it's a principal and accessory building. Um, more traditionally, towards the front of the property is a two-story single family home. And towards the rear of the
property is a building that uh currently houses a um apartment on both the first and second floor. It was at one time a garage with an apartment above it. Now, you may note um I just mentioned that that rear building has two one-bedroom apartments. The plans that you were
provided mistakenly called that a single family home. Um, after the application was made, I became aware that there are actually two one-bedroom apartments within that dwelling. So, I apologize for any confusion that may arise from that mistake. Uh, there'll be a couple
adjustments to the zoning conformance schedule as a result of that. But, in its current condition, um, there is the single family home, which is two stories on the front of the property and the back of the building, a former garage type building, has two apartments, one on the first floor, one on the second floor.
Um there's also a shed that's in the right rear corner of the property. That shed is in the process now of being reconstructed. Um the process was halted once it was recognized that the application that we're here this evening
for was required to continue. Um there's four parking spaces that are accessed on the south side of the property. Two stack spaces of two. And there's concrete sidewalks that connect the front of the building and run along
the back to the rear building and the rear of the front building. Um the history behind this building is was originally constructed circa 1860. So this is certainly not a new building. Um permit history available within the city
records demonstrates back in 1967 there were three total units on this property, three living units. Although the arrangement was different at that time in 1967, the front building was two units and the back what I'll call the garage building was one unit.
In 1970, there was a permit issued to construct the garage portion of the rear building into a second unit. So since 1970, at 1970, there were four units associated with this property. Two in the front, two in the back.
Back in 1984, the house in the front was converted to a single family home, but the two apartments in the rear remained, and that was evidenced by a uh DCA Bureau of Housing permit as well as a construction permit with the city.
Sometime in the 1970s or earlier, there was a metal shed in the same local that the existing shed we're looking to rebuild now is situated. In 1984, I'm sorry, 1989, that shed, which was metal at the time,
was replaced with a new wooden shed. That wooden shed, fast forward to today's time, was in very poor condition, and the applicant began its replacement um and was in the process of nearing completion of that replacement when it became recognized that uh this
should not have been done without an application for this board, which brings us here this evening. In total, the development that we are seeking your approval for will be to continue and finish the reconstruction of the shed and essentially the same location as has been since the 1960s.
To construct a fully conforming in terms of location outdoor shower attached to the right rear building of the main building. and then to take a lot of the concrete sidewalk that exists on the property both from the front sidewalk to the front door of the main building as well as sidewalks in the rear part of
the building remove the concrete replace the brick papers that's the sum total of the physical visible improvements that we are proposing this evening collateral to that and at the recommendation of Mr. Purless. We're also going to be introducing some underground recharge to
offset some of the lot coverage that despite the changes we're making remains slightly more than what the ordinance permits. So in total, reconstructed shed the same place it's been for decades, construct a new fully conforming outdoor shower,
replace concrete paving with sidewalk, and do some underground recharge is the improvements for which we're proposing to do as part of this application. There are no proposed changes to the landscaping and no proposed changes to the parking
configuration. Now, I I mentioned the zoning conformance schedule, which is the top right corner of the sheet in front of you, will require some revisions to address what I now recognize as the um mislabeled use of the rear building.
Instead of it being two single family homes, the the existing and proposed useful will continue to be one single family home and a building with two apartments. The only other part of the zoning permit schedule that will change because of that would be the parking requirements.
Presently, that schedule shows four parking spaces required for proposed and existing. What's actually required with having two one-bedroom apartments is a total of five parking spaces, but we only provide the four. We're not we don't really have
the ability to expand to a fifth conforming parking space. So, we're going to need to increase the variances that we're seeking this evening to include um continuation or re approval, if you will, of the non-conforming parking spaces where five is required,
four exist. Can you bring that mic a little closer? We have auxiliary air here and I really am having a hard time. Is that better now? Not really. Okay. Just maybe move the microphone a little like pull it down or something. Let's start over from the beginning.
Absolutely. Can I ask a question? Yes. You know, I I go by Mr.'s report and I usually incorporate that into the resolution. So, as much as your zoning schedule is interesting, I'm more concerned with getting the right thing in the resolution. Gotcha. Rich, please
turn on your mic at this time. Yes, they have a microphone. If we could try to correct at this time or make sure that Craig's uh report is correct in terms of the parking because when I look at his, it says 2 + 1.8 = 3 as the required existing for proposed for conforming.
But was that with not another unit? It's going to be 2 + 1.8 plus 1.8. So there's 1.8 spaces required for each one of those apartments in the rear. All right. And I'm not an engineer, but because at the 5.6 rounds down rounds down. Okay.
Even if you're 5.999, it still would the RSI says it rounds down to the nearest whole number. All right. So the resolution, if it's approved, it's going to say 2 + 1.8 + 1.8 equals 5. Correct. In the five total
required where four are existing. Okay. So that's an existing non-conforming situation. All right. Thank you. So that's an additional variance on the p on the list. I believe it's probably this board's practice when you have that
non-conforming condition with this used to seek that variance. Am I correct with that expansion? I would put the um yeah I always I know some people want to put it just call it an existing non-conformity. I always give you the variance because then you have the variance for it. So sometimes attorneys
argue with me about that. But I'm like, "All right, but why not get the variance?" The code says if you're making changes to the site, uh, use, etc., then it triggers a reconsideration of the parking and therefore the the board has typically
required that parking variance to be granted with everything else. So, I was going to put that as non-conforming and hopefully you'll okay succeed. So with that there the variances that are necessary in order for us to uh be able to construct the improvements that I
just described include a use variance because we're dealing with a non-conforming use in so far as we have two principal buildings on the lot. And there is a very um technical interpretation to say that
that which we are doing could be considered an intensification or expansion of that non-conforming use. And I'll speak a little bit further about that in a moment. But the we're seeking the use variance to allow the expansion of a non-conforming use. We are additionally seeking the variance
for the non-conforming lot size. You heard me mentioned earlier that the existing lot size is 5,965 square ft. The zone requires 6,250 ft. Third variance requires for lot
coverage. The zone permits a maximum of 45%. In its current condition, 59% exists. Through the replacement of the sidewalk with pavers, we're reducing that coverage down to 55.5%. A lot of numbers. Let me go through them
again. 45 is permitted, 59 exist, 55.5 is proposed. So, we're dealing with a slight reduction. We're making it more conforming, albeit not conforming, thus triggering the need for lot coverage variance. The shed itself where rear yard setback
of 5ts required, we're proposing 1.52 feet. Uh that's to the asbuilt under construction shed location which is virtually the same as the original pre-existing shed at 1.71 ft. So regard setback dimension of the shed. And lastly, we're getting highly technical
again. A variance from 525-73D for a non-conforming structure on non-conforming lot. Are any questions about the variances we're seeking before I start getting into the proofs for them? Uh yes, the the the 1.71 to 1.52. What's causing
that? Is this shed bigger or is there an overhang? And what is that? No, it's a good question. Thank you. The shed is the same size. It's 8 by 12 shed. Um what was the shed? 8 ft by 12t. 8 by what? 12 one two 12 because the previous shed was 8 by 10
according to your document. The The permit that you got in the city 2000 was 8 by 10. The survey that I'm looking at shows the shed dimensions at 8.0 by 12.1.
Yeah. On the lower left by the shed permits in 2017 and it said the shed permit was for an 8 by10 shed. The shed that was there done measured by survey was 8.2 ft by 12.1 ft or 12.2 feet
actually. Yeah. On page uh underneath shed, this right here shows that the permit for 8 byt shed. Okay. In terms of the what was there? I tell what was physically there has been
there since 1984 was an 8 ft by 12t shed. Did it have an overhang on it? Overhang the old one. Maybe they included the overhang when they did it. Couple inches maybe sides. It's in virt
needs to have their mic on and if you could speak into the mic it would be really helpful. It's a it's a 8x10 versus 8 x 12. Well, it was never it was definitely not 8 by10. It was 8 by 12. It's in exactly it's in virtually the same footprint. I don't know what permit you're you're speaking of. Is that for
the Is that for the 2017 construction shed that you got the permit for? We we never got a permit for that for that any shed. We never we bought the property in November 30th of 2017. It had the old shed. We
dealt with the shed until uh a few months ago when we attempted to replace it. Yeah. This was a zoning checklist shed 1127 2017 and was for a shed. Yeah.
So it was a permit for a shed, a zoning compliance checklist. Who applied? Yeah. I Who would have who would have applied for that permit? Do you know? I don't know. You You put the papers together. I don't know where they came from. Well, that that was from the city
record. Uh but it was not 8 by10. I mean, unless you know who the signature is. Was that Luvito? Okay. Yeah, that he was the zoning officer at one time. Was a 1992 survey. I mean, you can't even read that. I
can't read it. Well, I can't speak as to who applied for the permit then. It certainly was not the current applicant. And the shed the shed that was there at the time the applicant purchased the property and it was when it was surveyed was 8 by 12.
And that is the same dimension as the shed that is in the process of being replaced that we're here this evening for. And the setback is within uh several inches of the location that it was when the applicants took ownership of the property. Where's the document
that you're what's the document you're referring to? So I can put this in these notes. You go shed permits. The next page over that says shed 1127 2017. It's a uh zoning compliance checklist.
checklist that's in the file in the construction office along with dozens of dozens of other documents indicating the shed apartments and the permit history that Mr.
Well, it's going back here. It says shed shed rear 8.2. Well, on the next page there's a plan with a shed on it. Can you look at that, Mr. Hurner? And I know you do everything electronic. You should probably actually Can you look at it on your electronic if you
have it? Because I want you to blow it up. Let me see. You'll see why in a second. It's the second It's the like the third or fourth page ex exhibit E on Mr. Galzunus' packet. Yeah, I don't have his packet electronically, but I have copies of those per You have a copy of of the
survey from 1992 because the shed's on that survey and it's got dimensions on it, but I can't read it. Yeah, it's not legible. No, unfortunately I do not have the electron. I'm doing the the two finger thing trying to blow it up on a piece of paper, but it's not working. No, I I've
got documents here, but I don't have that particular All right. Well, anyway, I bought it. Is that Do you think that's Thank you. See if you think that's 8 by 10 or 8 by 12 right here. Okay. 92 survey and that's a zoning
compliance. The zoning the zoning compliance checklist is not the permit for the shed. No, it's somebody just saying that this complies with zoning and they may have just said 8 by10 even though it was 8 by 12. I thought it was the permit for the shed, but it's not. It's just a zoning checklist. So, it's just someone walking around
and they may have just eyeballed at 8 by10 and it's 8 by 12. Yeah, it's not it's not based on anything official like a survey, right? Well, when I look at the proportions of the shed shown in the 19
92 92 survey to the proportions of the shed that I'm looking at in the survey prepared by my company in 2022, they look the same. It goes to like the middle of the steps kind of. Exactly. Yeah. That's I say I mean I just at
first I thought machine you were you were looking at a permit for the shed not only because that's what they were putting under. That's why I'm not saying what you're saying is wrong or anything. I'm just saying that it's just someone writing notes in on the zoning compliance checklist. It's not a permit. It's not like they put in a got a permit
for an 8 by10 shed and put an 8 x 12 up. That's not what that's showing. So, no. So, that document there's a 92 survey that is has the shed on it and the shed. It looks like it's an 8 by12. All right. Well, yeah, it's it's the weight that that document should be given as you indicate that zoning compliance
certificate and the survey is the document that certified by a licensed surveyor and that on its face based on what Mr. Hal Bruner is saying is consistent with uh the survey that was done recently. I only care because I'm
not totally convinced this is an expansion of non-confirming use. If it went from 8 by 10 to 8 by 12, then it is. Um if if it's 8 by1 12 and then it's still an 8 by1 12 then I'm still not clear what the expansion non-conforming use is. I don't consider an overhang an expansion of a non-conforming use. So um
that's the only reason this has any meaning to me at all. And and Mr. King along those lines. Yeah. If you were expanding one of the units, one of the dwelling units, absolutely. That's an expansion. I think putting a big a bigger shed on a something that has three principal uses on it is an expansion. Otherwise, people would like
if you were putting a if there was nothing there and now you were putting in a shed, I would say that that's an intensification of the use of the lot. So, I think it is. But look, this is not that important. I to me that survey is the better evidence of what was there for the last 20 years. And it sounds
like to me it's been an 8 by12 shed for the last 20 years. But I I don't know. And can you go over uh the reason why it set back closer to the fence? versus one by the couple of inches that it is. It's an overhang. Overhang. Okay.
Thank you. I couldn't remember what he said. That's what I was saying. More modern shed with probably an overhang. It's just built better. Okay. My guess. Says we're on the shed. Well, and quite transparently, the shed was being reconstructed without benefit of a survey stakeout. So, when you demolish a shed, you put it back what you think's
the same location, you could be off by a couple of inches and you'd never even be aware of it. Yeah. That 1.7 verse 1.52, that's 0.2 two feet, which is less than three inches. Yeah. So, that's what we're talking about. I I personally, unless someone has pretty clear evidence
that this was an 8 by10 instead of an 8 by12, I don't think this is an expansion of a non-conforming use. That's my legal opinion. If you were proposing the same setback was 1.7 and proposed 1.7, you'd still need the variance. Correct.
Um I don't know. I I don't know if replacing a shed is a I'm just saying it's no matter what. I don't Well, I I'd have to read or someone read our non-conforming use non-conforming structure ordinance and presumably that says if you totally replace it, you have to get a variance.
So, yes, they need a variance, but it's, you know, I wouldn't want to be in superior court defending that one. That issue I could defend. But if they're replacing an 8 by12 shed with an 8 by12 shed and we say that's an expansion of non-confirming
use and they lose, I would have a very difficult day in court. The I looked at it a little different because the plan say new replacement shed. So they're replacing a shed and expanded concrete apron. How was that
expanding like that? So the expansion to me was the expanded concrete apron. The concrete paving around the shed. Okay. So that's getting wider was was larger than it was originally. And and and Rich, I looked at it
the lock coverage went down 4%. I I because they're they're mitigating it with removal of some concrete, but under in the section for the R3 zone, which I believe this is in. Um, our accessory uses include
residential accessory uses subject to section 5255, which controls our sheds, our outuildings, our patios, our surfaces. expansion of a non-conforming use. Not every expansion is an expansion of a
non-conforming use. The the law of non-conforming uses is that there has to be an intensification that justifies a Dvariance. So the fact that you have a let's say you have a dance hall and it's a non-conforming use and instead of operating five days a week and operating
six days a week, you're you're you're using it more intensely, but that may not require a devariance. So an expanding a non-conforming structure is not a devariance. So the fact that there's a little more structure isn't an expansion of a non-conforming use. So a
bigger patio doesn't necessarily mean that the accessory use is being used more. They could put So I'm just saying that on expansion of a knife from use, it's a question of degree. All right. So yeah, generally if you have a dance hall and you make the dance hall bigger, that's probably an
expansion of a use. But it it there's a there's a fuzzy area there on expansion and not performing uses because uses aren't stagnant things. They flux over time. So, right, they don't trigger it every single time. So, that's why I'm saying like to me the fact that there's
a little bit larger of a patio and an overhang that's not expanding the use. It's just the structure is a little a little different, a little bigger. Okay. Well, how much of the concrete is being expanded? If you refer to the plan before you,
you'll see the paving limits shown around the shed originally by the diagram in the lower left corner and that shown around it now on the upper right hand corner. It's I'm sorry. Can you say it again? I I have a hard time hearing everything. They look virtually the same. So that that my my follow-up question was how how much bigger are
they getting? Um it just says expanded. It doesn't say how big how much it's expanded. If you were to look on the um Can you move your mic closer, please? If you were to look at the street side of the shed, you'll see that there's about
a foot and a half of concrete beyond the limit of the shed that's not there originally. There's also the sidewalk paving between the shed and the stairs. There's not there originally. There's some paving there now. It's sidewalk
pavement essentially has been expanded. I don't it I'm looking at the survey by your by the Highland group by Tom Pendergrass and it looks to me like there are those areas exist. So in the
way that you're showing it on the proposed section, what's the date of the survey you're looking at? Uh this is survey dated uh initially issued 1725. Okay. Yes, sir. If you look at the here's the source of confusion. Okay.
I'm comparing to what the conditions were before the shed was reconstructed. Gotcha. The So this survey is reflecting the reconstruction, this beginning of the reconstruction, correct? And the placing of that pad. Got it. You will see no difference between that and the
variance plan. We're looking to legalize what is shown on that survey. On the variance plan, you'll see an older survey repaired by us. Gotcha. And there's where you'll see the very minor differences. Okay. In the paving differences. Understood. So, John, the the expanded pad that appears to be
right in the front of the shed, sort of a step to the entrance way into the shed. That's correct. Serving a functional purpose. And also, there's additional uh paved pathway. Correct. It's the walkway. It's not walkway. The shed has nothing to do with the shed
itself. And and that's as Mr. Harles points out, that's all been mitigated by actually reducing the overall lot coverage from what We started with correct. A lot coverage is being reduced primarily
because we are substituting pavers for the concrete and the ordinance allows for a 50% reduction for lot coverage when you use pavers instead of concrete. And let's not lose sight of the the benefits which you enumerated initially
about beautifying uh increasing the uh visual appearance of it by removing lots of concrete uh which nobody likes and replacing that with the pvious pavers. Correct. That's a benefit arising from this this whole process
here. Yes, there's are there are other benefits as well, but that is certainly a benefit to the neighborhood and the community by using the pavers. um instead of the concrete, particularly those in the front. And and I don't want to lose sight of in addition to that, we have uh some drainage uh plans or
infrastructure that's going to be constructed to address that as well. Correct. None of which would be happening if we weren't here this evening because of just the mishap with um replacing this shed instead of going through a more laborious effort of
reconstructing it in place, which they could have done. Correct. Correct. other aesthetic benefits result from the fact you had a dilapidated fallen down shed. That was what was there. And to have one a newly constructed shed
designed and approved by the HPC certainly is an a enhancement to the overall neighborhood and I think advances one of the purposes of miscellaneous law in terms of promoting general welfare. Was it approved by the HPC? Because I I saw in the book it was just
conceptual approval. Well, yeah. So there that as as we know they're always conceptual and then you have to go back right you haven't gone back then. No we can't go back until we finish with this board hopefully with a um well I thought you could go before this board but
before you go before this board HPC will not grant the final approval on any application that requires a variance before this board. They will not hear it. Okay. Could can you just clarify with the concrete around the shed there? It's just if I'm looking at it, the shed
it's to the right there's a concrete and in the front there's none in the back or to the left of it. Correct. Today there is some behind it and to the left that was not there in the pre-construction condition. So wait, I'm sorry. I just
need to clarify. Right. Is there now concrete behind the shed? Yes, there is a concrete walkway behind the shed today. And that goes to this the fence. Why I'm saying is because I didn't think we could put right to the property line concrete. That was You can't That's an
existing non-conforming situation. Oh, so it's okay. It's existing. I'm I'm trying to figure out what's existing. That's not Yeah, the plans were a little It's a little tricky with the graphics, but but that Mr. Sheen is right there. There is a
prohibition on putting concrete right up against if it's imperous surfaces as for patios or sidewalks within 5 ft of the property line. And we've talked about that on other applications. Um that is
an existing nonconforming situation. So where they're proposing the additional is not within that 5 ft. So it wouldn't trigger trigger that. So, I just couldn't tell which was there and which one was the graphics on this are very difficult because of the shading and
there's a lot of lines that with the shed and the uh and this and the the delineation of the of the uh actual concrete surface. Um so I like I said I was confused a little bit about it too. Okay. So, the front of it concrete was
there, correct? In front of the shed. The concrete that is now between the shed and the wood patio that is newly created. Okay. Because it has dots. So, that's why I thought it was there before.
And then to the right was new. Sure. Sure. You have to. Yeah. We just we kind of just fleshed that out. the so there the only new concrete surface is in front is between the the new
replacement shed and the grade deck that's shown on the plan and it's 1 foot by 8 foot in width not the 2.3 ft to the right no the 2.3 ft on the right was already there okay so it's just it's
just that one by 8 foot new because it has the dots That's why I was thinking it was from before. No, like the graphics are a little tricky. So, I agree. Um I think we've clarified it though. It's that one by 8 foot Okay. section is the only new
concrete and and that would be Mr. Waxman's testimony. Okay. He's telling me that in a sidebar here. What's his testimony? It is Mr. Waxman. You're you're testifying in the shortest explanation possible. One one foot by 8 foot was added in
front of the shed. That's the That's the purpose of that for support. Okay. Essentially and the cement on the property line is pre-existing. Pre-existing. Thank you. So this conversation we the expansion the total expansion we have here is a 1
foot by 8 foot cement area that's for support and some overhang. Correct. Okay. In my legal opinion that is not an expansion of a non-conforming use. It doesn't intensify the use. is an expansion of a structure. Um, but the expansion of a structure is not
automatically an expansion of a non-conforming use. So, uh, it's not being so I don't think this is an expansion of non-confirming use. We can vote on it since it's called for, but I if they lose that vote, I I'm just
telling you there's expansions of non-conforming use. The idea is there's a a use and a structure are different things. you have a non-conforming use and a non-conforming structure. Most of the time when you have a non-conforming use and you're making the structure bigger, you're intensifying the use.
Like if you have a dance hall, there's a case about a dance hall. And a dance hall is an illegal a non-conforming use. And you make the room bigger, so there's more dancing going on. That expands the non-conforming use. That's an intensification of the use. Adding a
foot for support of a shed and having an overhang on it does not make the use more intense. It's just a different shaped structure. No. Now, if they put a big if there was no patio in front of the second principal use, the the the
living area in the back and they put a big patio in front of that so that all the people that were staying in the unit in the back were now going to sit outside, that might be an expansion, non-conforming use, because now the living area is sort of pulled outward and there's going to be more activity in the back. That I would say is expansion
non-conforming use. an overhang and some footers for a a nice woodshed uh is a footings for a woodshed is not an expansion of a non-conforming use in my humble legal opinion. So if we can get on to the other proofs that we need to
put on this put the use discussion to bed for the again transparently. Does the addition of an outdoor shower constitute in your opinion an expansion of a non-conforming use? Because we proposing that shower or they replacing a shower. The outdoor shower is a new enclosure. Where on the principal
structure? On the principal structure. Correct. I I just I I don't want to walk away here without that being I was going to ask I I don't know. I mean in my opinion it's not but my opinion is not the legal
one. inside. We took them is an outdoor shower structure in use. It's a permitted accessory structure in the zone. It's an accessory. It's the way the ordinance says is that's an accessory use that's permitted in accordance with that that section
that governs those accessory uses for single family and two family dwellings. So, uh it co it covers sheds, patios, porches, other outuildings, uh outdoor showers. Adding a usable outdoor shower
is an expansion of the Okay, so usees on the table. So, you had a vote on use. Well, for the shower, I didn't I didn't steer you in this direction, by the way. Um the application requested a use variant. So, is there an existing shower
now? There the enclosure is new. The shower fixture has been on the wall, but there's been but but we're putting we are putting in the clos that changes it, John. That that changes there. You're back to Mr. King's analysis. Yes. I don't believe this is an expansion of N. If there was a shower there and now you're closing it in, that
is just the structure. That is not that is not expansion. I Mr. King, I think that's clear. Property is being used exactly the same way as it was. That's clear. Sorry. Your your analysis is clear. I've actually litigated this issue before about enclosing porches and and and expanding a use and expanding
intensity use. There's a lot of case law out there about that. You are right on point, Mr. King. Six member with six members present. I am not going to require my legal opinion. You guys make decisions. I don't make decisions. My legal opinion particularly with only six members voting and they need five is that this is not an expansion of a
non-confirmed use and they don't need a Dvarian. That's my opinion. If someone moves to vote on it, then that's I don't make those decisions. Can I ask a question about the shed? Um, what's the height of the shed? Less than 10 ft. I don't know the exact number,
but I promise you it's less than 10 ft. And this is where it was hard because I didn't know if it was going to be a two-story shed or, you know, because you said we changing it or we didn't know what the size was before. The shed, if you visited the site, the shed that you see there today is the shed that is
looking to be completed. Uh it's it's 75% or better complete. Um that is just just so you know, we get people come in with sheds and all of a sudden there's plumbing going to them and everything else. So I was just making sure that this is just a shed. Just a shed. It is just a shed and it is much less than the
maximum 10 ft that is uh peritted for shed. Mr. Waxman, any any possibility there's plumbing in there or heating or anything in that shed? No plumbing, no heating, no electric. It's to store lawn equipment, our beach chairs, umbrellas,
you know, bicycles, things. And while you're testifying, sir, how do you use the two back apartments? Uh, for friends and family. Do you rent them? No. Have you ever rented them? When we bought the property, there were two tenants. So, we we bought it subject
to the lease. Lease expired. They moved out. We rehab both units and the family use them for your your personal use. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, I think borrowing a decision by the board that a use variance is required, the variance relief we're seeking this evening is pretty simple
and limited. We have a non-conforming lot size. We have a non-conforming lot coverage which is being made better. We are matching a non-conforming rear yard set back to the shed and potentially the
non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot relief from 73-d of your ordinance parking and added to that now the non-conforming addition where five parking spaces are required for our proposed before before we get
into that so my report when I did my report I we had a conforming parking situation. Um so my analysis reflects that. Um typically when we have parking shortage, we look at the plan and see if
we can fit additional parking on there. Um you know, that type of analysis is usually done. Um I haven't heard anything. Are the four spaces adequate to park the uses that are on site? Do you have any parking issues?
So I Okay, Mr. Waxman. No, no parking issues at all. And like you, Craig, when I see non-conforming parking, I quickly look, is there a way to make this conforming? The site cannot accommodate a fifth parking space in a conforming manner because we're we can only get two
cars wide, right? There's no no additional width which means we're theoretically three theoretically you could do three deep on and move the fence back but now you're pack but then but there's the balancing of they're already over on lot coverage so now
we're driving lot coverage is the additional parking space worth the you know increase in lot coverage and that's the balancing test I think the board has but I mean I'm looking at this and I think it could be engineered that you could provide additional parking spot
but the lot coverage is going to be driven higher. Well, they because so they could remove the concrete and put papers where the where the driveway is. That's and that's a recommendation that you can meet. You can make too and I I was going to mention that too because they've reduced it from 45 to 55.5%.
Now, they've done pavers in the rear um which is beautiful for the rear yard. Do we want to have them do that in the front yard and further mitigate the lot coverage? Well, I have we've we've you know that's that that's a recommendation that the board can agree to do a discharging system. Yes, they have agreed to
mitigate the lock coverage with the pavers then I mean they're going to make them do a lot coverage and pavers. I mean it's it's up to the board. I mean you mitigation and pavers. I don't I haven't done the math on it but you may be able to get a conforming lot coverage if you were to con convert the concrete
driveway in the front yard to pavers. But if they did that, would you still require them to do this? No, I would not. The recommendation for the the stormwater system is because it is over. So, if they were to do the pavers in the front and create a conforming lot
coverage situation, u maybe po more palatable to the board and, you know, and may enhance the, you know, the benefits to the public with now you're beautifying the streetscape along Corgi Street um and m and still mitigating
storm water. So, that And then I have a question, Craig, about the uh back Well, let's let's something new. Let's let's talk. But no, it it is about this. It's about Okay. It it has to do with the second floor deck being covered, right? Is the second floor deck has a roof over
it. So, if the pavers are underneath of it, that wouldn't count, would it? Not those. No, but I mean, okay. I I I believe that's excluded in their calculation, but because they're redoing the entire PA surface in that area, I don't think that they're they would cut
it off underneath the deck. Okay, that's reason surface. I mean, visually, I wouldn't do that if I was it was I was making those renovations. Yeah, I didn't know if that was part of the calculation. That's why I was asking. It is within the applicant's long-term plans to replace the driveway with
pavers. They're deferring that for economic reasons in the future. They've been undergoing since 2018 a progression of restoration improvements to the property. Um so it is in the long-term plans, but
financially they're looking to defer that until they can recoup the cost of this current project. Well, the stormwater system has an expense to it. So that the trade-off is uh a beautiful PA driveway in the front, eliminate my recommendation for the stormwater system
and do all pavers. Probably make it conforming lot coverage. You know, I don't know what that area is, but but it's going to get a lot closer to conforming if not conforming. Um so that's up to the board. How would that change? Would that change your parking
at all? No, I unless you're unless you're recommending that they provide the fifth space, but I haven't heard anything that I mean, if if if his he's controlling that for his family and he knows that he doesn't have a parking situation, you know, I I don't I
wouldn't re make that recommendation unless he would want the the fifth spot unless you unless you would want that fifth parking spot. Okay. Right. Yeah. back out.
So, it's I I imagine it's hard for the opinion to decide now which one of those is preferable. You want to make a condition that they have to pick one. They can either do the pavers or do the or do the discharge system and then confirm it with Greg once they you final analysis.
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that because they may do the same. It's better to do the Mr. Mr. if they um decide down the road to change to pavers and they don't put it in this resolution, would they have to come back
because they're changing an approved plan and that makes uh the zoning officer No, they wouldn't have to come back. Okay. Yeah. I wouldn't think switching from concrete to papavers would trigger the need for it's not a site plan. Okay. So, does that solve this problem? Can we just give them the
choice or the does the board feel strongly in one way or the other? Oh yeah, that's the other thing. Is there any preference to what the board would like? No. No. Okay. There's So it doesn't seem like the board has
any preference and we would leave that open-ended. We'll give you the choice. You can either do the pavers or the discharge system. They're going to do the discharge system now. Um but Mr. Waxman, you're you I'm going to give you the choice. You may do the math on the discharge system and then realize it's not that
if it doesn't if it's impractical because of the cost of the discharge system, we'd put it into we would put it into the pavers gladly for the driveway. Why not give yourself give yourself the choice. So if you bring it into terms of lot coverage, you don't need to do the discharge system.
That's fine. That's acceptable. Certainly. Okay. So I'll make I'll write that. And I and I'm I apologize because I don't usually Pearl Harbor were the applicants at the meeting, but this was something new that came up and I didn't know that there was a parking situation, but that that's
part of the normal analysis that I go through for the board and make those recommendations usually to applicants before they even get here. So that's why it's kind of a little clunky right now. So anyway, so is everybody okay to let Craig do his
No, I think John has to put the proofs on. I I interrupted him before he did that. Are you ready? Y I'm ready. Okay, John, pick up right where you left off. All right. Okay. Well, uh the use is off the table, so I'll omit all testimony regarding the use. And what we're
dealing with now then are several C1 variances. Again, lot size, lot coverage, which is being improved, shedard setback, and a non-conforming structure, a non-conforming lot, and now also parking. All of these are conditions that are not being increased
or exasperated. We're basically putting back what's there. Um, in terms of the lot size, lot, there's nothing we can do to gain more lot. There's not available land around us, so we certainly can't do anything with that. Um, the lot coverage, we're doing
what we can. We're making it better. Um, the shed and rear yard setback is preserving what's been there historically. And again, the non-conforming structure or non-conforming use is nothing that we can control. So all of those I think fall very squarely under the C1 variants where the board by reason of exceptional
narrowness, shallness, shape or exceptional topographic conditions or physical features or by reason of extraordinary exceptional situations uniquely affecting a specific piece of property and the structures legally existing thereon. and I'll underscore
that part may grant uh the relief where the strict application of that would be an unusual or peculiar hardship upon the applicant and again these are all existing conditions in order to force compliance would mean loss of utility um
in terms of loss of use of the shed um forcing compliant parking would be impractical um and again we have nothing no ability with which to increase the lot size. So all these are advanced under the C1 criteria which satisfies the positive portion of that obligation.
In terms of the negative, that's a two-prong test. The first is we have to demonstrate that the variance can be should not be granted if it presents a substantial detriment to the public good or if it'll impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. Again, these
conditions have existed on this property for decades. Those which we can't approve, we are there. How can this possibly be a impairment or detriment to the public good? And the second problem with the negative criteria is that there could be no substantial impairment to the zone plan
on the zoning ordinance. Again, we're not doing anything to increase the or the intensity of the use or the structures. So there certainly is no substantial impairment to the zone plans. So for those reasons, I believe both the positive and the negative criteria have been adequately addressed
for the granting of the requested relief. And and along with the the the benefits that you testified to earlier, um you're pretty much saying, you know, there's no substantial detriment here, but benefits substantially outweigh uh the the detriment. Yeah, actually we're
bringing in part of the C2 criteria. Now, I think there are several benefits. certainly the preservation of the historic character of the neighborhood by restoring a dilapidated shed, not to mention the collateral ongoing renovations that the applicant has been
doing since 2018 of the property. Um the replacement of concrete with pavers is certainly consistent with the intent of the HPC in the desert district that it's in. and either through the further reduction in lot coverage or the introduction of the storm water recharge
system, we're going to be um securing safety from flood uh which is another public benefit. So, you're right, Ron, there are positives that come from this that introduce elements of C2 criteria as well as a C1. And as you indicated, this is just one part of an ongoing
renovation for many years. And it's it's not the end. And I think Mr. Waxman, you you you do have plans to uh further improve the property. Could you tell us, you know, what your end goal, what your you know, this thing is going to look like at the end of this process been at
for tell us how how long now. Well, the house wasn't really livable when we bought it at the end of 17. So, uh we met John in maybe late 17, early 18. So, we've uh enjoyed the relationship for seven years. Um,
as far as what we want to do, we want to get rid of um all the concrete and cement basically whatever we can. Um, you know, everywhere you've discussed, we want to uh beautify it. We do want to plant some gardens eventually. So, we
will we will have to do some landscaping um and possibly plant um a tree or two um on the property and just, you know, make make it cozy. And I think it, you know, attractive. We wanted we wanted to be maybe get rid of eventually that
chain link fence and replace that with Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. Yeah. There's a lot of a I think the the origin of this is because it was a multif family use. Uh these fences, you know, chain link fences were put up decades ago. They're they're very unattractive. Uh so we we we want to
replace those with wood. Uh we've taken that to the HBC already as well. So you're not you're not done with the project then. This is a work in progress and this is a part of that process. It is. Thank you. Y I have a question. What is the size of
the outdoor shower? The size of the outdoor shower 4x4. 4x4 foot by 4 foot memory. So it's mentioned on Yes. with your name. 4 foot by 4 foot. Oh, okay. That's the screen. Now, did you get um HPC approval for the
outsource shower or conceptual approval of the outdoor shower? Yes. Okay. In fact, I believe the HPC approval also in Did it also reference uh replacing the chain link fence with a wood fence? Is my memory bad on? Yes. Yes. And uh
beautify the shed with matching wood siding that matches the house. Yep. It's all that was exhibit um C second page. Proposed work consists of removing and replacing an accessory shed, replacing front entrance door,
adding three wooden screen doors, removing old chain link fence, and replacing with wood, repair cement, and replace cement with pavers, wooden shower enclosure. HBC approved demolition of the accessory shed on September 16th, 2024 after review and consideration of the criteria for
demolition under historic design standards. HPC voted unanimously in favor of conceptual approval for the plan with the following conditions to be addressed in connection with any final approval. One, submittal of revised cut sheet plan for the proposed replacement
shed to depict final design with siding to match principal structure consistent with historic design standards. Can But can you tell me what the uh screen is that's going around the shed? The screen that's going around the shed. It's just a screen. It's just yellow.
Oh, I thought I said I thought it read screen. You may have mentioned uh we around the shower. You mean Oh, so we're placing some doors. If that's the screen there. No, I thought it said screen around the shed or around the shower. Around the shower and it's a wood fence
essentially. It's a cedar fence. Just a just a regular Correct. Correct. No roof on it or anything? No roof. No, it complies with the the ordinance. Correct. Not not more than six feet tall. There is no roof on it. It is the shed itself in terms of complying with the accessory requirements for an
outdoor shower is fully complete. Yeah. Again, if we had gotten more measurements than 4x4, it would help. I'm sorry. We didn't get any design things for the shower or for the shed. Submit it. Just an outline.
Okay. Let's bring it home. It's been a little clunky for this one. I thought it was a little more simple than that. But anyway, uh my memo is dated April 17, 2025 for the property at 931 Corgi Street with Corgi Street, which is
located in the R3 medium density residential district. This is an application for C variances. Uh the applicant applied for a use variance, but Mr. King has given you the advice that that's no longer required. Um Mr. King uses my report as the basis for his
uh resolution. Um so the use was indic was originally indicated as two single family dwellings. That is incorrect. It is one single family dwelling plus two one-bedroom apartments and the proposed shed reconstruction and
outdoor shower improvements are the nature of this application. You've heard testimony from the applicants indicating what they are proposing and the the variances sought. Um I'll roll into my completeness review on page 206. Items
26, 27, and 33. We supported waiverss from item number five, which is the plans and elevation of the buildings or structures to be provided. Mrs. Sheen just kind of mentioned it, but there there was no review of the shed height
or the shower enclosure height because there was no plans or elevations provided for those. We would just ask that they verify that and I they put it on testimony, but as part of compliance, just verify that those are within and and below the maximum building or
structure heights for each one of those items. And then finally, item number, excuse me. Let me get a drink. Item number 28 is providing the design calculations for the storm water system that was recommended. Now, we gave them
a a choice. Either provide a storm water system. If they're providing that storm water system, that should be provided as a condition of approval. If they are not, then that should go away. Okay. with regards to our zoning review. Uh you've heard testimony with regards
to the app uh the variances that are required. I believe now if we're taking Mr. King's advice, the use variance is no longer required. Uh the chart in my uh the chart is wrong because we're still lo we're still indicating two
single family dwellings. So that should be revised on the applicant's plans. Um there is a variance necessary. This is an existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. There is a variance necessary for the existing undersized lot size 6,250
ft where 5,965 ft exists. Uh with regards to lot coverage, lot coverage is maximum in that district of 45% 59% exists. They're mitigating that with providing pavers and taking credit for the 50% reduction
in lot coverage. Um so 55.5% is proposed. If they mitigate and the concrete in the front that number will decrease. I don't know what that number is. Um but we've given them a choice either provide additional pvious pavers
which would further reduce that or provide a stormwater system. And then um the shed rear yard setback. So they're tore down the shed and are replacing that. Um, it is edged a little bit closer to the rear yard. 5-ft
setback is required. 1.71 ft existed before and 1.52 ft is proposed. And then finally, we we already talked about the parking. Uh, because of the use, uh, they are an existing non-conforming parking situation. Five are required,
four exist on site. Um, so that's a variance that's required for that. You've heard testimony from the applicant in support of those variances. Um I don't have any other uh comments to make regarding that. Um my general review comments begin on page five of
six. All of these should be conditions of approval unless we modify that in this um discussion. Item number one, construction details of the shed and shower must be provided and I just talked about that as one of the completeness items. And then you have to there's a drainage system that's
required for the outdoor shower. That has to be provided on the plan. So that design should be provided as a condition of approval. Item number two is our storm water review. This project is not considered major development. Um but we did recommend providing that grading and
drainage plan. Um and that we've given them the the choice. Uh so that should be provided as a condition of approval. Item number three runs with all applications that they have to comply with chapter 525 the minimum stormwater management and grading requirements both
during construction and after construction. Item four I think the applicant in his testimony verified that the existing landscaping is not being changed. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So there's no need for a landscaping plan. I would just ask that a note be provided on the
plan indicating that there's no changes to the landscaping. Five is our standard condition that they're going to replace any damaged sidewalk um before they receive a CO for the improvements. Item number six is our standard requirement. They have to
provide an inspection inspection escrow and the certificate of occupancy is tied to a satisfactory inspection of the improvements that are required by the board. Item seven is our standard condition to comply with the recommendations of the uh jurisdictional
Cape May Tree Commission, fire department and public works department. We received fire department recommendation of approval dated 42925. No comments. Public works recommended approval dated 52925
with no comments. And the Shade Tree Commission recommended approval with a condition. And I think the last uh item is the condition construction barrier should be used to protect the arborvite and modified construction barrier to protect the malberry tree. Is that can
that be provided on the plans? It's kind of pointless because there's no ground disturbance proposed. There's no no ground disturbance proposed whatsoever by application if there was extra those trees weren't identified on the plan. I don't I don't know the exact locations of those, but just make sure that we're
going you can put a note on the plan verifying compliance. Yep. And that's fine. The trees are still there. Yes. No trees were removed. No earth works taking place that could expose the trees to harm. That would be the reason
for putting protection around the trees, prevent that from happening. But this the construction activity does not put those at risk. Okay. What am I putting in the resolution? It's going to say that they'll compile the requirements of the state tree commission, but now they're saying they're not going to comply commission. I'm not saying he's
wrong. I'm just saying I don't want to put something in the resolution. It's not true. I think he agreed that he was going to put a note on the plan verifying that he would provide a construction barrier should be used to protect Arborvite and modified construction barrier to protect the malberry. Well, why don't I think I'm
going to put a note in the plan if this is agreeable that simply says that the measures will be taken to ensure the safety protection of those trees. I'm fine with that. Why can't we just put John? We can agree with with that condition because basically there is nothing going to
happen that's going to put them at risk. You construct a plywood fence barrier around the tree and leave it up for a day or two and take it down only if we need it. But you you don't need it. That's the point. It's why we're I don't if if the engineer is saying you don't need it. just say that those trees will
be protected and preserved. But I don't know. I I don't want to step on HP on on the shade tree because we go to them to get these recommendations. Now we're going to say, "Hey, as a board, we don't think you need them." Well, they're advisory to us. So, they make recommendations. In this case, they're
there's really no improvements that are disturbing the ground. So, the trees are in in my view, they're pretty safe. So, if so long as they're protecting those trees and at the end of this project, I'm going to go out there and evaluate and make sure the trees are still there. They're going to they're they're
complying with the recommendations of the Shay Tree Commission. Okay. All right. Okay. Moving on. Um, number eight, they have to comply with any and all other necessary state, county, local approvals. Nine, we've talked about it,
but they need to get final HPC approval. 10, they have to comply with any and all affordable housing requirements. And finally, number 11. Should the board grant approval, the plans have to be revised consistent with the conditions set forth by the board and submit the
requisite number of sets to the board engineer for compliance review. And that is a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. Okay, hearing none, I'm done. Nope. Sorry. Do um do they have to list what
the footing is underneath the shower? So there is there are drainage requirements for outdoor showers. Okay. So what I'm going to require is that they provide that drainage detail. We just recently just saw a plan from Mr. Halurner that had that. So I'm pretty
pretty sure I'm going to get the same detail that shows what how that's drained. That's why I was bringing that up because I remember we had one over extend deep filter line stone trench. Yeah. put the shower. So, long and short, we don't take any
exception um none to the uh conditions. If no one on the board has any further questions, we'll open it up to anyone in the public within 200 feet that wishes to say anything.
Beyond 200 ft, seeing none, we'll close to the public. Craig, I just have a quick question. Craig, with the shed, with the fact that there's concrete behind it, does that affect the person behind it with runoff
into their property like um I'm unaware. Um the grading only because I don't know if there's now an overhang that pushes it further over to them. This the grading that's shown on this plan shows that this lot is graded from back to front. Okay. It's got two and a half feet of fall for the back.
Yeah. So, this is this is not one that sheds water onto the adjoining properties. Yeah. Just try to make sure we don't start flooding neighbors properties. The motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. There's a motion to grant uh the variances listed on the engineers report
numbers, two, three, four, I guess five and six is parking and six is the parking that we just added. um which is four spots where five are
required subject to the um conditions outlined in numbers one through 11 on the engineers report page five and six but with number seven reading the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the fire department and public works department and will protect
the trees to the satisfaction of the board engineer that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you as I've applied before I I don't think a use variance is required. So the vote is a a majority although we have six. So I guess you still got you need four out of
six too for the application to pass. And the only condition that's in my report that's not in my report is the condition that they have the flexibility of going with pavers or a stormwater design. Let me let me read that what I wrote so everybody knows what's going to appear in the resolution. I don't like to
surprise anyone. As a condition of the approval, the applicant is putting in a discharge system. But if they bring the property into conformance with lot coverage by putting pavers in the driveway, they do not need to install the drainage system. That's correct. Do they have to get below a certain percentage?
Could you just said they just do the driveway? We're not sure whether compliance is achieved by that or not. Okay. You said that. Okay. I didn't hear that conformance with block coverage. Yeah. Yeah. Is that a condition? We're not sure sitting here nor can we be sure whether if we replace the entire driveway with
pavers whether that brings into compliance but I thought if we did that's close enough is it has to be in compliance for you to not have drainage correct that was my understanding the calculations that doesn't bring in compliance then then the decisions made one or the other either comply or ride
storm versus got it can we have that motion I'll make that motion Second. Okay. Mr. Walsh motions. Uh, Mr. Zexter seconds. Mrs. Notch. Yes.
Miss Sheen. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Zexer. Yes. Miss Stevenson. Yes. Mrs. Werner. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman, board members for a very thoroughly well examined application.
Yes. Good luck. And I'm sorry. Never again. Never again. You did call it. Never again. It's nice. That was clunky. No, I don't think
Okay. Oopsies. Our next application is Brian and Victoria O' Conor, 1226 Lafayette Street. Yes. Good evening, Madam Chair, board members. John Ammanhauser of the Dwiss Law Firm. here this evening on behalf of the applicants Brian and Victoria
Okconor. As indicated, subject property for this application is 1226 Lafayette Street, identified on the city's tax map as block 1129, lot 10. This property is in the R2 zoning district. Uh through the application before you tonight, the applicant is seeking relief pursuant to
the both the C1 and C2 criteria of section 70, the municipal land use law. Um the specific variance relief that's sought tonight relates to uh both two pre-existing non-conforming conditions on the site that we'll get into which will not be uh exacerbated in any way
through this application uh as well as variance relief related to u m minimum required building setback and um expansion of a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. Uh the development that's proposed
through the application specifically seeks construction of a second floor addition as well as a two-story cover front porch u to the existing dwelling. We're also seeking to um establish two legal off- streetet parking spaces. Um and through doing so uh with the
proposed paver use will be reducing lot coverage as Mr. Farnum will get into in a little bit more detail this evening. Uh with me tonight here I have the applicants Brian and Victoria Okconor to my left and the applicants uh architect Mr. Paul Farnon to my right. Uh I do intend to probably elicit testimony at
least a bit from everybody. So if I can have everyone sworn. Will each of you please raise your right hands. Our engineer remains under oath. You raise your right hands folks. Uh do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So you got you do. Thank you.
So Brian Victoria, just a couple questions to start. If you can tell the board when did you purchase this property? November November 2019. Okay. Now, since that time, how have you utilized the property? What's been your use of it?
Just for our pick up uh just for our own enjoyment, our family. Okay. So, you don't rent the property out? No, we do not. Any any intention to do that in the future? No. No. Okay. So that that noted, what what is the real intention behind your the proposed development that's that's
proposed in this application? Why you looking to do it? We just need more we need more bedrooms for our family. Okay. Any questions? The Okconor. That was bedroom. You need more bedrooms for your family. Space. More space. Okay. No, I I
thought you said bedrooms. That's that's all. Sorry. All right. So with that, Paul, if you can, can you give the board a general overview of the existing conditions on this site? Absolutely. So, um, as Mr. Amanhauser mentioned, we're discussing 1226 Lafayette Street. Uh, that's block
1129, lot 10. Um, it is a single family a one-story single family dwelling. Um, it accepting you as an expert architect. I was just going to, madam chair, would you? Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um,
yes. So, it's an existing one-story single family dwelling. Um, it exists on an undersized lot. Uh, what is required is 7500 square ft in that zone, the R2 zone. Um,
what is exists is 4,216 square ft. So, it's by a lot area, it's undersized. Moreover, um what is required from a lot frontage and lot width um perspective is 60 feet. What
exists is 40 ft. So, it's narrower uh than what is required. All of those um dimensions uh and that square footage obviously exists since the the the lot was originally created. Um those are
things that we can't really change uh to the property. It is in the Kate May uh historic district. It's non-contributing. We did already obtain conceptual approval from the HPC for this plan. Um
so again, one-story single family dwelling. It is on an undersized lot. Right now it's two bedrooms. It's a little over 800 square ft total, 833. Um what is proposed is a twostory single
family dwelling adding an additional two bedrooms uh bringing it up to a four bedroomedroom 1594 total square ft. So less than doubling um the gross floor
area. Um, aside from the increase in the habitable area, we are adding a twotory front porch or we're proposing we would like you to approve a twotory uh front porch. Um,
that is, I think, the major request and what will probably be the the primary talking point. Um but that in a nutshell um kind of describes what exists and what we hope to get to. What was that habitable square foot? Um again 1,00
what? Prop um proposed 1594. Thank you. So Paul, you mentioned a couple different uh pre-existing non-conformities. Uh minimum required lot size you indicated is an existing non-conforming condition as well as lot frontage and width. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Okay. And you mentioned
this lot is um surrounded by by privately owned lots. Correct. Correct. No way to to make this otherwise conform, right? That's correct. Okay. So, given that those are two pre-existing non-conforming conditions, um we'll talk a little bit later about
seeking those under C1 criteria. Um we also have a couple of additional variances we're seeking though, right? Namely, minimum required building setback to Lafayette Street, minimum required sideyard setbacks, right? And then u the the section 73 variance related to a non-conforming structure on
a non-conforming lot. Right. That's correct. And that last one I think is um by default just based on um what you mentioned a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. Um I I should mention other elements uh the other two
setbacks aside well primarily the sideyard setback really. Um though the same could be said for the front yard setback. If we were not um constructing or requesting to construct this two-story porch is that if we're adding a second
floor to this building, it will need a variance because it's within it's already within the 20 foot building setback line and uh the sideyard setback is already um less than that's what less than what is required. So let's talk about that a little bit Paul. Right. So
based on the chart that was provided by Mr. Hurles, the existing sideyard setbacks, right? There's a total of 12 1/2 ft. You have 2 and 1/2 ft on one side and 10 on the other. Right. Correct. Now what's proposed is exactly the same. Yet we need variance relief related for that related to that. Is that based on the vertical expansion of
the building? That's correct. Okay. So we're not we're not expanding the footprint outward of this structure on either side. Correct. Correct. Just up. Okay. All right. Now, in terms of the variance relief that we're requesting for building set back to Lafayette Street, that is in
fact being exacerbated. Would you agree with that? Yes. Okay. So, give the board a little detail as to exactly why it is that we're looking to to expand on that setback into into the front yard. So, um ultimately the whole structure is going
to be renovated. um adding the second floor. There's things inside the building that we need to account for. Um new staircase and things like that. Um in doing so, we've reconfigured the entire approach to the house as well,
really giving it a front facade. Right now, it's primary entrance is on the side actually. Um so the intention is to um enhance the curb appeal um match the neighborhood character um and
reconfigure reorient the building approach towards Lafayette Street. In doing so also in in an effort to enhance the aesthetic and the character of the of the property um we want to add this
exterior covered porch two stories. Uh we believe that's also in keeping with the aesthetic of the neighborhood as well. Um so adding that uh additional uh front or that front porch addition
exacerbates the already non-conforming front yard setback. Whereas 20 is required right now it's at um 19 and with the porch we're proposing 12 and a half. So Paul to when you get to that 12
and a half you talked about staying with before you go to that Sure. Did the HBC say anything about the twostory porch being a more being an appropriate historical feature uh did they like that? Oh yeah
absolutely. I'm sorry I maybe I misunderstood your question but uh yes we met with the HPC ahead of our conceptual meeting. uh we met with them their uh sub their review subcommittee on the Tuesday meetings to kind of several times to get to this point and
when we brought it to the board the commission for uh conceptual approval they were happy with it just kind of it wasn't it was no surprise to them at that point and Mr. The only I'm I'm looking at the uh condition for the conceptual approval. The only note that
relates to to that proposed front porch on both floors is that they want that proposed decking on the porch to avoid monolithic materials. They didn't want fiberglass. They'd rather see like mahogany. Correct. So that's exactly what they want. But other than that, they had no issue with the uh proposal. Correct.
Paul, I see it as 25 set. I apologize. So Paul, getting to where we're looking to go, the 12 and a half ft. You talked about wanting to stay within the existing character and make up of the neighborhood. So correct in saying that, are there other properties surrounding
this property that encroach into the front yard setback to the extent that we're looking to do here or roughly in that area? Yes, I would say within somewhat of a tolerance similar to what we are proposing here. Um just across
the street um there's a a recently renovated uh property. Very very nice um renovation. It's a cedar. I'm sure most people have driven past. It's uh sided in and stained cedar and black trim. Um
the stair of that I think it comes to about 13t 9 in away from the sidewalk. Now, I don't have the benefit of a survey, but I know the proximity of the stair to the sidewalk, it's got to be within that front yard. Similarly, if you move down Lafayette Street, um you
know, uh there's other very uh similar houses to the one I just mentioned, same style, same characteristic, single family with enclosed front porches that extend ex their enclosed front porches and their front stair extend into the
front yard setback. So it's not outside um you know the character of the neighborhood in my view. Okay. All right. Um now that said Paul so I'd mentioned early on in our application suggests we're seeking relief under both the C1 hardship criteria and the C2
substantial benefit test. So as it relates to the C1 criteria and the pre-existing non-conforming conditions for minimum lot size, minimum lot frontage and width. Is it your opinion, your professional opinion that that relief can be granted under the C1 criteria? I believe it can be,
especially considering specifically uh the lot area and the lot frontage and width. Those are two aspects of the property that cannot be changed. Okay. Now, um aside from that, uh would you also agree that the sideyard setback
condition that exists right now and our variance relief for it can also be granted under the C1 criteria? I believe so. Um, again, we're extending we're adding a second floor addition directly above the existing footprint. Um, and
that portion that does fall uh within the sideyard setback um is is going directly up. You know, I I don't see it as being um impact impactful in any way uh other than just being extended
vertically. Right. And we're 20 foot deficient in terms of minimum required frontage. Right. Correct. Assuming we had the additional 20 ft with this type of dwelling on the site, we'd conceivably be able to meet the setback. Right. Right. That's my view. Okay. Um now in addition to that, the other variance relief that we need uh for
minimum required building setback, we could throw sideyard setbacks into this discussion too. Uh but then the variance relief under section 73. Do you believe that those variances could also be granted under the C2 criteria, the substantial benefit test? I do believe so. Yes. All right. So when we consider
it under that criteria, what purposes of zoning is it your professional opinion that you believe would be promoted if the board were to grant this application? Um so I would say um again what I what I haven't mentioned yet is the property is in a flood zone. Um so
all improvements to the property within the flood zone will have to be compliant with um flood regulations. So just by way of the improvement um to the property, all new materials, all new construction will be safer. Um we're
also the new um habitable floor area, new gross floor area being added to the second floor also outside and above the flood plane. Um I believe we are providing adequate light and air air and open space. Um, we are not proposing a
enclosed front porch or a front edition off of, you know, um, an enclosed habitable floor area off the front of the building closer to Lafayette Street. It is an open, um, front porch, so it is allowing for light to pass by and air to
move through. Um, I think we're also promoting the establishment of uh, appropriate population densities and concentration. We're not in increasing the use of the property. Um, it is a single family property. It will remain a single family
property. Uh, I believe we are promoting the desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design. We're um enhancing the character of this house to uh fit more
with the surrounding context um without uh impacting negatively the the visual environment. I think our HPC conceptual approval um is an is attest to attest to that. Um,
and in terms of promoting the maximum practical recovery and recycling of recyclable materials from the municipal solid waste, we're using we're building on top of what is already there. We're not totally demolishing the existing house. So, um, by way of retaining an
existing structure, we're keeping a lot of materials out of landfills. So, Paul, all those positives, before we get to the negatives, I think there's another aspect to touch on. Uh, I mentioned it earlier. So, off streetet parking, we don't need a variance for that. We're already compliant with it. We're going to stay compliant with it.
Correct. That's correct. And I I'll I'll say get ahead of it a little bit. Um I know that we need to uh enhance how we've identified that on our drawings. It's not we we show um dimension strings along the the
driveway. Um, but we'll show exactly how the two blocks where the the cars would fit in that driveway. So that's a plus. So right now we have a concrete pad essentially for parking that exists, right? That's correct. What are we proposing to do to differ that change
it? Our proposal is to remove the concrete that exists on the owner's uh property and install new permeable paver strips which is kind of been I think common place
these days here um for this board and for the HBC people are less inclined to pour a new concrete driveway and and more so install these PA strips. So Paul, in doing that, what does that do to our lot coverage total? Does it, when
you consider the fact that we're going to put permeable papers in there, how does it affect lot coverage from what exists and was proposed? So, uh, do want to expand on this. Um, while we were looking at some of the, um, Mr.'s comments on specifically the the
driveway and other, uh, questions about it. We took another look at all of our calculations and determined that what we represented um in our uh zoning chart is actually the full coverage of of the
pavers. Whereas if we were to take the 50% credit it would be less. So our plan is to show that on our compliance set that um with the 50% uh credit the uh zoning the the zoning
coverage the lot coverage rather related to parking will actually decrease. Um this is also in uh it's immediately adjacent to another concrete strip that kind of leads um the property owners,
the Okconors and any visitor to the existing front door which is on the side. Some of that would be removed as well. In that whole balance, we're actually offsetting the increase of the front porch such that there would be no
increase in lot coverage. It would be actually 35% existing and 35% um proposed. Okay. Do did you calculate what the proposed coverage is going to be? Yes. And what
is that? The the proposed lot coverage. Yeah. So like 35 35% would be 35%. It'll be 35%. Correct. Okay. And again that was uh after we we're really looking into your questions about parking. Um that's when we really uh did a second
third take at it. Make sure we were accounting for that especially in relation to the easement aspect of it while we're taking this little dive into the parking. So the existing conditions is you really even can't even really
park on your very thin driveway that you share with the adjoining lot nine. Is there any easement cross an access easement between the two properties or anything like that? None that we could locate. Okay. So, you're bettering this situation by actually providing your parking on your site as opposed to
spilling over onto the adjoining site. Yes, correct. I I thought that that was the case and I so verify that. I I do have if Rich, if I can introduce this is as A1, I do have a photograph for the color photograph of the existing concrete block area. You can pass those
around. So, just to um give you a kind of quick narrative of about this picture is that there's a single curb cut. Thank you. There's a single curb cut from Lafayette
Street accessing two adjacent abuing concrete driveways. So, it's a shared driveway. It shared it's a shared curb cut. Correct. Yeah. But the driveway is the as far as we can tell the um control joint the center control joint of the
driveway is on the property line right off the line. So that will give the and that that's my next question is the adjoin the adjoining neighbor won't be Thank you sir. Thank you that that driveway will be accessible to the neighbor. Correct. Correct. If you
follow that joint. Correct. Right. Because we you're right. We're not proposing any um removal the existing curb cut. Thank you. That that clarifies a lot of the questions I had in my report. Great. All right. So, Paul, again, we don't need a variance related to parking, but is your professional opinion that bettering the situation
like we're doing is another positive aspect of this application? I would say so. Okay. Now, in addition to all the positive criteria you just put on the record, is it also your professional opinion that granting the requested relief we're asking for tonight by the board wouldn't amount to a substantial
detriment to the public good or the zone plan and the zoning ordinance? Um it it is my opinion that it would have um no substantial detriment to the public good or without substantially impairing the zone plan um or zoning ordinance. Um the
as I mentioned the proposed sec uh twotory floor uh twostory front porch addition um is in my view uh in keeping with the front porches that exist on
other uh structures within a stones throw. Um, so I don't I don't see it as kind of inhibiting or um hindering or impairing the intent of the zone plan. I think it would be in keeping with the context of the neighborhood. Uh,
especially as you see a lot of um new development or redevelopment um along Lafayette Street. Um, no. Is it also just to cut this is also an interior lot as well, right? This isn't a corner lot or anything like that. Correct. Correct. So visually, you know, in terms of sight
lines, um there's really no um impairment that could be, I think, uh perceived from a driver or a pedestrian or bicyclist. Um anybody on Lafayette Street, I think, will be able to easily
navigate past the house. Um so I don't believe, as I mentioned, I don't think there's any substantial detriment to the public good. I think everything um that we're doing is enhancing um enhancing the property uh
to the benefit of the community and to the neighborhood and to the historic district even though it's non-contributing. I think it will um yeah I think I think it will just make make the uh the streetscape a little bit nicer there. So Paul, just to I know you
went over this with the HPC, but but for the benefit of the zoning board too, in terms of the style of materials that exist and then what you're proposing here, can you talk a little bit about that differentiation? What are we proposing for finishes here? Sure. Um, so we're proposing for um, you know, new
uh, new materials obviously. Um but I think what one of you know the important thing that we're doing is we're removing a lot of well not a lot of all of the existing asbestous shingle siding which is also I mean as long as it's not
disturbed it's not really a a hazard. Um but you know when you have a chance to mitigate something like that um you know during a large project like this I think it's benefit to the property owner and
to the community that um you do that you remove those hazardous materials. So getting, you know, we're in we're providing new shiplap siding um horizontal that again is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and
the houses of of um that even that day um when the when that house was constructed. So it's not um no materials that are inconsistent with um the neighborhood. Okay. Um and Paul, you had
a chance to look at Mr.'s tell us his review letter before you testified this evening? Yes. I know he's going to get into it, but any objection as conditions of approval to recommendations in that letter? No. Okay. Anything else you'd like to add before we uh turn it over to the board? Um, no, I don't think so.
The board has any questions. So, I have Mr. Forner. I have a question. Does is this house going to be raised up? No, it is not being lifted. No. Okay. Only because you said something about flood. That's why it does ex I appreciate you bringing that up. Um it is in the flood
zone. The existing first floor is actually above the flood plane. So where we are doing what qualifies as substantial improvement um we already meet the requirements. We already meet the requirements. In fact um the flood
elevation certificate specifically noted um the the the number of fl of flood vent openings that already exist. So, um, just wanted to make more make a point of, you know, new the new structure aside from the first the first
floor level of the front porch. Um, you know, all the other uh improvements are existing outside the flood plane as well. Um, and I can't remember when it has setbacks. Is that going from the curb line back?
I'm sorry. The the required setbacks of 25 is a minimum that starts at the street curb is from the property line. property line which is inside the sidewalk. Okay. On the other side of the sidewalk. Okay. One one of the issues I had with Mr. Farn's plans and there just wasn't
great detail with the improvements on the rightway of Lafayette Street. So, you really can't see it from this plan. It kind of just it's more of improvements shown in the interior of the lot. Um, one of the things I've asked for them to do is to provide that information on there. But the but the
rightaway line or the front property line is typically inside the sidewalk. Okay. That's where this that's where the setback is measured. Okay. I just want to make sure cuz I feel that when you're bringing it another 7 ft forward that it
does take away from the streetscape by moving this house because if you look down that street and that area that block there's very few houses are that far forward on that side of the street. So you want to touch on that because I think you went over it. Sure. So, I I would not disagree with you that on that
side of the street um the the houses that I mentioned earlier are on the opposite side of the street, right? And I think some of them are already pre-existing like they were they've been built there for years and absolutely. I I mean the one I know couple the older ones, they're not new construction,
right? They've been there. So, being this is new construction, you have the option of going forward or back because you do have that area in the backyard that you're not even touching to go back with. That wouldn't be a front porch though.
No, but they could move the whole house back and make, you know, the front porch the whole structure. Right now, your house is further out to me when I was looking is the furthest house out on both sides. you're further out than anybody else before you sight down. You're just No, I would
object to that. I don't think that's correct. Um but respectfully um but when it comes to you know enhancing
the historic district that we are in um the idea is to build a a structure or add to a structure that is in keeping with the general aesthetic of
the neighborhood context. Um, we believe that directly across the street that kind of condition exists. Um, so while it might not be a neighbor, a direct adjacent neighbor, it is it is a house that's been on Lafayette Street for
Right. And that like that's my point though that's pre-existing. This is you're creating it to go forward. Correct. So being that's new construction, you have we have that option to say no to it being moved forward because by moving forward, you're creating now the people on either
side of you. I'm just going to say the piece we're looking at to the right now they're going to be that far much further back, you're to me you're changing the streetscape by moving what is required of being 25 feet. Now you're only going
to be 12 feet. I just feel like you're affecting the the neighbors with air and space and that you're not going to let them, you know, have that option of being able to look down the street because they're going to be looking into the side. I mean, I think the plans are are lovely.
You know, I like that the porch styles. I just think that it's encroaching by moving it that much further forward than what it already is. Because right now, like Mr. Walsh was saying, it's already far close to the street. Now, you're moving another seven feet closer to the street.
So, I totally hear where you're coming from. Um, valid points. I'm not, you know, I don't mean to, uh, you know, be, you know, contest, um, and be argumentative. I would offer that um the
adjacent the immediately adjacent house to the north uh northwest is actually set back so much so that its front yard is the entirety of their property effectively. You know, the house is set all the way back. I don't know what
without the benefit of their survey, I couldn't tell you exactly how much, but it is significant. Is it almost like the inverse of what we correct? It ex is the exact inver Yeah, it's the exact inverse of what we're dealing with. So, um I think to Mr. King's point, um
the objective is for um the Okconors to construct a front porch. Um as I mentioned, we're not because we're in a flood zone, it is compliant and we don't need to lift the building. If we were lifting the building, maybe we could re
uh situate it. Yeah. Relocate it. Um but that's not the intention. That would be a significant undertaking in terms of constructibility and cost. and time. Um, when it comes to the rear yard, I think there's a lot to be said about what the Okconors are preserving back there. A
lot of open space for that neighbor that's actually adjacent. A lot of sun, air, light, and open space for that neighbor. Um, when it comes to the neighbor to the east, um, it's my opinion that this 7 foot increase in the
front yard is not would not cause a substantial detriment to that neighbor. Um, when they are exiting their house and they're leaving the property to go out of town, um, they're going to be turning in the direction of traffic,
right? And if they're moving left into town, I don't think that they're going to be um their their view is going to be obscured. Um I think the sight triangle actually that exists now um would be retained, right? Because you still you
have 12 1/2 ft of the sidewalk, then you'd have the sidewalk depth and anything to the outside of that, right? Correct. In terms of your distance to the street, correct? Okay. How are you going to deal I'm sorry. No, no, go ahead. How are you going to deal with the tree? The the tree we're going
the tree we're going to build we're going to build a plywood enclosure around the tree to make sure that is it is safe during all construction activities. The shade tree commissions as a condition of their approval branch like touching your house now it's so
you're going to have to cut off 25 foot of that tree. The tree will need to be pruned, I'm sure, as a as a product of of construction and and regular maintenance. And that's the property owner's responsibility as as the cities because it's on the city right away.
Yeah. So, you're going to have required be required to get a permit to have that tree pruned because that is a city's the city's tree, not yours. Understood. That would be a condition obviously, right, if this were to be approved.
with that. Yep. Which was not in was, you know, I I would just call attention to the fact that the shade tree commission just asked in their review that we protect the tree. So, um, we believe that that's
completely feasible and is exactly what we'll do. Yeah. I guess my issue is the fact that you have all this space in the back. It's that and but you're asking us to let you encroach that much further in the front when you do have if it was
already you know you're encroaching in the back in the front I could be maybe swayed to said okay we'll let you go in the front but the fact that you have all that space in the back so Paul touch and then but you're not letting but you're asking us to go further into the encroachment area.
You just touched on this but is it your professional thing? You understand what she's saying, but did you indicate on the record that it's your opinion that preserving the open space in the rear yard is actually a benefit to the neighbors by preserving their light air and open space? That is my that is my opinion. Why is that? Is that because of where their house is situated on their
lot? Yes. If we were to instead move this house back as opposed to forward, you know, practically thinking about this, is it your professional opinion that doing so would actually be detrimental to that neighbor? I think it would certainly be at a a greater
detriment to the neighbor for sure. Take away more of their light air and open space. Absolutely. No question. Especially when you consider like the trajectory of the sun, right? The sun is moving, you know, obviously um from east to west, but south of this our subject
property and um it actually goes front to back on these properties, right? I'm I'm But I'm saying I guess if we were to move this house back and we were to add a second floor to it, it would impede sunlight dramatically from
reaching that house that's set back all the way. Did you speak to your neighbors about this project? We we did. Just for the record. Go ahead. Yes. We uh discussed the uh
driveway. we discuss the uh popping up and you know they're we have a good relationship and I feel they're excited for us and none of them you don't recognize any of them here this evening objecting to this no quick question member of the public is
my daughter waiting for me to take I was wondering they're going it was a shed I you know I I'd also um offer that you know I in my opinion this is a very
modest request for redevelopment of this house. If we were to add an addition off the rear um it would more than likely also be two stories. Um it would that alone would impact light air and open
space in the rear of the property. It would also increase lot coverage. We're trying to mitigate the impact as much as feasibly possible. I think that's the goal for the OKConors. We took that as stride and um
you know came to this approach to adding a second floor over an existing footprint. And while we are adding uh an addition in the front yard, um it's I think collectively our view um that it's
in keeping with the the context of the neighborhood. Well, I think the whole the the the house to the south to the we're calling it the the north, but everyone would everyone else in the world would probably but the house that
is further into Kate may it's set back in a way that if they expanded in the rear, no one would be more disappointed than their neighbor because it would actually box them in. If if you if you look at if you if you look at the picture, if they expanded in the back, they would close off all of their light
air and open space. That's what he's That's what they're trying to Yeah. I mean, I'm just saying I I understand what you're saying, but the the idea is that the city made these ordinances that I'm right with you about whether or not you should grant advantage. I'm simply trying to put some visual context to
what he just said about the home in the rear being 50 feet or so off the street and that if they expanded in the rear, it would impact light, air, and open space more to their neighbor than it than does expanding in the front as to that neighbor on that side. That's what
they're pointing out. And I just I'm just trying to give you a visualization. Yeah. Well, I I do because I feel like the house next to him is complying with the 25 ft setback. Well, actually, right. So, that's where Well, I'm not sure that they're compliant with the rear setback, right?
And and I would argue that they're not compliant with the front yard setback. And the house that's in the house that's more inconsistent with the neighborhood scheme is the one that's 50 feet off of the off of Lafayette. That's Well, it says, you don't think the White House is 25 ft back? The one that we shared the driveway with. Um, no, I don't think so.
I think it's probably within that. I mean, again, I without the benefit of the survey, I can't say for certain. Yeah. I mean I mean when I was driving by too I don't have but I felt was at least 5T or four feet back from I think you also have to then consider the overhang which would project beyond the
front face of the the building. Well they don't count overhangs. That's not how I understand it. I didn't we were going with the overhangs don't affect go over a foot or so. There is a so about two years ago new
ordinance says that you measure to the face of the structure and not the overhang. So it's less than a certain width. So that's Mr. Farn is correct. This is a pretty strange house.
One of one of the purposes of zoning is to allow municipal action to lessen the cost of development. So, we would we would always like an applicant just come in, demolish the building, and build a conforming structure, but when you're you're dealing with existing conforming
structures, you're kind of have to deal with where they're situated on the lot. And so, um I think the balancing test here is and and I've heard this term like mentioned from applicants all the time. Kate May is a city of porches,
front porches. So, you know, is it is it a worthwhile endeavor to have the applicant construct a new porch that, in my opinion, benefits the streetscape along Lafayette Street, providing a porch, providing something that's consistent with the historical
architecture there um by encroaching into that front yard setback. So, that that's kind of Yeah. Yeah. See, I see a bit of analysis. I feel that it it's a detriment to the streetscape by moving that much further forward because now you'll be the only house I would say
almost is like I don't think there's on the on the same side of the street there's probably hardly any houses are going to be that far up except for one that's almost to the corner of Sydney I think it is or
that's that's almost closer to it. Okay, that's then you'll vote accordingly. Quick question. I'm sorry. The premier shutters, there will be windows behind them, glass windows. Yes. Yes. And the windows were consideration of
the HPC, right? While we're on the uh Well, they actually added they requested we add more shutters. We Yeah, that was one of the Is your testimony complete? Yes, sure. Would you like me to go? Okay. Thank you. Um, I would like to summarize my May 14th, 2025 review
memorandum for this application at 1226 Lafayette Street, which is located in the R2 Lowmedium Density Residential District. You've heard testimony from the applicants indicating they're proposing a an addition to the existing single family dwelling, and that consists of essentially putting a second
story addition over the existing uh footprint as well as adding on a new covered front porch. uh the number of bedrooms that there's a two existing bedrooms and 833 square foot of habitable area that
exists and they're proposing a total of four bedrooms and 1594 square ft of habitable area proposed with regards to the completeness review. Um item number 16 I rec I supported a waiver from that. I don't see any problem with that. Item
number 19,25 and 28 um should all be provided as conditions of approval and they all relate to the driveway improvements. Um the design calculations that can be provided may actually verify that there's no storm water system
required but I can't tell you that right now. So that should remain a condition of approval. Item number 32, I think they addressed in um testimony there's no existing easements or cross access easements with the adjoining neighbor. Um they're going to show that the their
proposed driveway is going to support access to the adjoining property. Um so we've asked them to provide additional improvements on Lafayette Street. And finally, the landscaping plan. Should the board grant a uh in encroachment
into the front yard setback, the site is pretty well devoid of landscaping, uh we recommended a landscaping be prevent pre provided to buffer that encroachment um and enhance the uh neighborhood uh streetscape.
The variances that are required. So, this is an existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirements, lot width or lot frontage requirements. Uh, just the lot size requirement in
that district is 7,500 square ft. This exists at 4,216, excuse me, I got the hiccups. Uh, 4,216 square foot. Uh, the lot width and lot frontage requirements are 60 feet where
40 foot exists. So this is a narrow lot. Um the building setback line is proposed at 25 ft. I'm sorry. Existing requirement is 25 ft. The existing structure is 19 ft. The proposed new
front porch covered front porch is 12.5 ft set back from the front property line. the sideyard setback um will require be sideyard setback variance will be required because they're proposing a
vertical expansion. They're not going any closer to the side lot lines but the vertical expansion particularly on the left side of the house as looking from the street um 2.5 foot exists where 2.5 ft will be proposed that is a vertical
expansion. There are a couple of benefits that they're creating. Kate May has a minimum habitable floor area. This is a tiny house. It doesn't even meet the minimum requirements as it exists. So, they're bringing that into
conformity by proposing this expansion. Now, when we look at it, it's on this expansion is on an undersized lot. So, the planning analysis, are they overdeveloping the lot? They're meeting the floor area ratio requirement. So
0.38 is proposed. So that proposed floor area in relationship to the size of this lot is appropriate based on the zoning code. Um and we look for overdevelopment. Is the lot coverage conforming? Yes. 40% exists. I mean
sorry 40% is the maximum permitted. 38% exists and they're lessening that based on Mr. Farn's analysis at to 35%. So that's a change in my in my zoning table. They're adequately parking the lot. Um
so those are those are the benefits that they're proposing. Um they're widening they're now able to park entirely on their site is also a benefit. Um so that those are things that can be weighed with your analysis. I know um c certain board members have brought up concerns
with the encroachment into the front yard, but they should weigh those items appropriately. With regards to the general review comments, item number one is they have to conform with chapter 258, which is our flood damage protection code because this site is in
a flood zone. Item number two is our standard requirement that they provide uh revise the zoning table consistent with my report and any conditions that the board set. Uh they're listing their variances as existing non-conformities. They should be listed as variances. Uh
item number three is my recommendation to provide all proposed improvements on noted on the plan. Um, so then there needs to be construction details verifying that they're going to comply and that the pvious surf the the pvious paving surfaces do indeed meet the 50%
lot coverage credit. Item number four is this is our stormwater analysis which the development is not considered major development. Uh we ask that they comply with chapter 525 the minimum stormwater management and grading requirements both
during and after construction. This is a new driveway. So, we would ask that some topography be provided in the area disturbance where the driveway is going in. We don't need to see it anywhere else. Um, and the applicant may be able to demonstrate that there's not a
grading and drainage system that's or that a drainage system that's necessary um providing this additional information is provided, but um we're going to re we're recommending that a drainage system be provided until they provide that information indicating that it's
not. We ask for landscaping improvements in the front yard. So the landscaping plan should be provided. Six is our standard condition that they're going to we're evaluate the sidewalk condition prior to the issuance
of CO and replace any sidewalk in port condition. Seven is just our rehashing and showing that we need to see all of the improvements within the rightway and any um construction details that relate to improvements that are noted.
Eight is our standard condition that they have to provide the inspection escrow and the certificate of occupancy is tied to the acceptance of those improvements. Nine is compliance with the Shady Tree Commission, fire department and public works department. We received the reviews from the fire department
recommending approval with no comments 6525. Public works department recommended approval dated 6225 with no comments. and the shade tree recommended approval with the comment, please ensure the street tree in front of the property is protected from damage during
construction. I would make that a condition of approval as well as that they have to get permit for trimming that tree um to the satisfaction of the city. Uh item number 10, 11, uh 12 should all be conditions of
approval and that's all other state, county, local approvals as well as HPC approvals. 13 is our standard condition that they have to comply with the affordable housing requirements. 14 is their standard condition that should the board grant approval, they're
required to revise the plans consistent with the board's approvals and conditions and submit the requisite number of sets to the board engineer for approval. And that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has
Craig for the setback. There's how many? There's also that's from the inside of the sidewalk, right? So then you had the sidewalk and then you had the curb line, correct? After that 12 ft. Yes. So like another 5t or so. You see it on the
survey that's provided. Um, but the I'm I'm going to estimate that the front yards, the 19 foot measured to the existing structure, there's probably another three feet measured to the edge of the sidewalk and the sidewalk is probably 4 foot wide. Okay. So, you're
probably looking at another 10 ft to the curb line. Okay. So, you're probably it's probably set back 29 ft from the face of the curb. Okay. Thank you. In my estimation, that's approximate. I'm just making sure we're I'm including the what we're the other parts.
Um just want to make note that there is no one from the public here, so we're open and closed to the public. Well, Rich's daughter might want to taco cabalo. She's waiting for dinner.
Okay, we ready? Yes. The motion I'd recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you, is a motion for grant variances one, two, three, four, and five on page three of the engineer report.
subject to the conditions 1 through 14 as well as the completeness 1925 28 and 33 with the additional conditions that they comply with the May 29th 2025 state
commission letter and the permit to trim the city trail. That's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to and please articulate your reasoning for your votes. I make a motion. Michigan motions. Mrs. Notch seconds.
Mrs. Notch. [Music] Yes. I was a little concerned about this going forward toward Lafayette Street. Um, but I am pleased to see that the they are not increasing the bathrooms from usually you're having four bedrooms
and most people are making it four. So, it's it's two bed four bedrooms and two baths. So, thank you for that. So, I say yes, Miss Shan. Um, I think the the plans are really nice. I think it does add some character to Lapad Street. I'm voting
yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. I also was concerned the fact that there was a second porch that would be too much of a mass in front being that the tree is going to block most of that. That's why I asked about the tree in the beginning. The tree stays It takes your eye, you'll follow
the tree and maybe not be lost up going up the front. I vote yes. That was yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Zexer. I'm going to say yes. Uh I would agree with Mr. Walsh. I like the tree blocking the view of the porch from the front. I also like the streetscape that it creates
because Cape May is a city of porches. So, I'm I'm going to say yes. I think the project makes sense. Miss Stevenson. Um yes. It's a smaller lot with a smaller house and I like that they're bringing it into conformity with the habitable floor area and the porches
are open on the side so it mitigates a feeling of enclosure and they're adequately parking the lot and Laf Lafayette is tough with parking. So I think uh the benefits exceed the detriments of the expansion. Thank you Mrs. Wernner. Um voting yes also for the
reasons that have been expressed. I would say that because that tree is so close, you are going to try to trim it back, but the roots of that tree probably extend into the area that's going to be worked
on. So, I just take that into mind. It would be kind of criminal to lose that tree. Absolutely. Understood. Thank you. It's a It's a nice plan and looks good. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you.
Thanks. It's a great tree. Good. I'm I'm glad you like it because we're finding that people are getting rid of trees and not being careful. So, yes.
[Laughter] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Um, we have one more order of business, which is the payment of bills. If we could have a motion to approve the bills as included in your packet. We'll make
the motion. I'll second. Mrs. Notch motions. Miss Sheen seconds. Mrs. Notch. Yes. Miss Sheen. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Zexer. Yes. Miss Stevenson. Yes. Mrs. Werner. Yes. Thank you. So, thank you and good night. Motion to
all All in favor. Someone motion sound. Motion to adjurnn. Okay. Thank you. All in favor. Good night everyone. Okay. I'm never saying that again. You guys are telling you. Thanks for your patience.