testing. Testing. That clock is not right. >> It's pretty close. No, it's pretty close. Yeah, it's pretty close. >> How are you? Hey. >> Oh, warm. I like
questions. 57. You want to pretty much next door. Beautiful. You can't be like, "Oh my god, Thank you. Everybody ready?
>> Yes. >> In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. If any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state
so at this time. >> Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge 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. Wernner >> here. >> Mr. Venudo >> here. >> Mr. Lewin >> here. >> Mrs. Notch >> here. >> Miss Sheen >> here. >> Mr. Walsh >> here. >> Mr. Zexer >> here. >> Mr. Jagger >> here. >> Miss Stevenson.
>> Okay. Our first resolution is for Greg and Shannon Reich, 1249 Washington Street. May we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. Okay, >> I'll second. >> I'm sorry. Who made the motion? >> Mr. Zetsker.
>> Okay. >> And Mrs. Notch second. Mr. Zexer motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Abstain. >> Miss Sheen. >> Abstain. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Our second resolution is for um the Cape May Marina LLC. >> Can we have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> Second.
>> Mr. Venudo motions. Mr. Lewin seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Abstain. >> Miss Sheen. >> Abstain. >> Mrs. Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Wernner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Our next resolution is for
the Kate May Paddle Club. >> We have that. >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> So, is that Mr. Zexer motions? Mr. Lewin, second. >> Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> abstain. >> Miss Sheen, >> abstain.
>> Mr. Walsh, >> yes. >> Mr. Zaxer, >> yes. >> Mr. Bonudo, >> yes. >> Mrs. Werner, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next, we need a motion to approve the minutes of our September 25th meeting. I'll make the motion. >> I'll second.
>> Mrs. Notch motions. Mr. Venudo seconds. >> Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> abstain. >> Miss Sheen, >> abstain. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Bonudo, >> yes. >> Mrs. Werner, >> yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Our first application tonight is for Kenneth Cornu, 1350 Texas Avenue. He's setting up. I have some handouts. Mark these exhibit A1 and A2. Just two photos. What do you want me to call, Mr. Muzza?
>> Uh, A1 is an aerial photograph of the subject property. A2 is a street view of the subject property. Actually, is a third one. A3 also a street view of the subject property. I can't call them both street
view. So, just give me a little >> A2 is a street view. >> A2 is a street view and A3 is another street view. Just a little bit different. Um uh >> closer further. Just give me some word that
>> closer A8 a A3 is closer to the harbor. >> Okay, that's fine. >> And A2 is farther away from the harbor. Okay. All right. Do you want to swear anybody in >> black? I'm going to swear you in also swear in
a board engineer. Do each of you swear affirm to give the truth the truth of God. >> I do. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Anthony Monzo representing the applicant. Anthony Monzo from Monzo Cat Dales
representing the applicant Ken Corno. Um Ken Corno and his wife are the owners of the subject property at 1350 Texas Avenue. It's the last home at the end of Texas Avenue. As you can see from exhibit A1,
uh it's on a basically a tripleiz lot um and has ample space on each side on the harbor side as well as on the side uh of the adjoining property. And at the rear of the property, it looks like a road, but it's actually an internal road, private road that's part
of Harbor Cove. I think it's Harbor Lane. Um so, um along Harbor Lane, that's considered the rear yard of the subject property. Um, Mr. and Mrs. Cornoo could not be here tonight. Uh, their daughter's getting married and tonight is the
rehearsal dinner and they wanted to be here but they can't. So, um, Mr. Blackman and I think we can cover um all the issues and we've spoken at len with length with him in terms of issues that may come up. Uh so what what the applicant is trying
to do with this property is even though it's a large home um it is not really functional for living. This was built by someone previously who built it with entertainment in mind. Had large entertainment areas but not really
functional bedrooms and other areas that people would want as a permanent living space. Mr. Corno and his wife intend to retire here. Um, and they want a house that they can use. They want an exercise room. They want room for their family, for their grandchildren. So, what
they're doing rather than, you know, try to retrofit this home or even build a new one, they want to just add on to it. So, what they want to do is add on on top of the garage and then extend to the I guess I would call it the west toward
away from the harbor. And it conforms with respect to uh lot size. um obviously lot coverage, floor area ratio, height. So it meets just about all of the bulk standards. Uh the only issue we have is when it was initially
uh built, it was built closer to the rear yard than the zoning permits. So the prior owner got a rear yard setback. And the preference was to do that because they wanted to preserve space on on either side of it plus more space in
the front. And because of Harbor Lane behind it, it really was an impediment. Was not an impediment to properties that were directly behind it. There's about 40 feet from the back of the property to the next property line on the other side of Harbor Lane.
So, um, what we're asking for tonight are two variances. One is the expansion over the garage. uh because it's in the setback, it's about 17.7 feet from the rear yard uh
property line and 30 ft is required. So that triggers a a variance for rear yard setback. The existing setback, by the way, is about 14 1/2 ft. So this second and third addition over the garage is going to be in a little further from the
garage line and also the rest of the house. So it'll be about 17.7 ft from the property line. So that triggers um a a rear yard setback variance. It's basically it's an expansion, a vertical expansion of a non-conforming structure.
Also um the extension goes away from the garage that is fully conforming the new addition. Uh but again because this project was approved by variance even the extension that may otherwise fully conform to all zoning
standards would trigger the variance under the I think it's 573 um of the zoning code which basically says if you're expanding um a on a non-conforming lot or where there's a non-conforming structure anything you do
would require variance if the nonconformity was created by variance. So, we have that situation here. Um, so as you can see by the photo, um, it's a very large lot and you can see the rear yard which is separated separates the
rear yard. There's Harbor Lane before you hit you reach any of the other properties. Uh, the other two photos are just a view of this property from the front yard. And you can see the large sideyard um between this property and
the next neighbor. and also um more so with the with the aerial. You can see the large area that is between this house and the harbor. And so this even though it's a large home, it's a triple lot. And we think that all the standards
for relief under both the C1 hardship and the C2 balancing test can be met. So with that background, I want to have Mr. Blackman explain the project and also you know get into some of the details about what's existing and why this expansion is preferred by this
particular applicant. Yeah. Mr. Blackman, >> would you introduce um Mr. Blackman? >> I'm sorry. Jerry Blackman is is a licensed architect. He's testified before this board before. If you want to put his credentials on the record, we can do that. If you want to if some of the board members are
>> a licensed architect in New Jersey. >> Yes, I am. >> Do you need anything else? >> No. It's fine. >> You accept him as >> Yes. That's good. Thank you. >> Okay. Um the the project also includes some renovations to the the existing
home. The existing home is three stories. It was um constructed with uh ephus on the as exterior cladding. Um some of the windows are leaky. It has a clay tile roof which is very heavy which has
caused some cracking for ceilings inside the home. Um, so there are some renovations that are that are planned as well as the the building additions. There is a one-story well there's a one-story garage, but there is actually a second and third floor above the
garage. It just doesn't take up the whole footprint of the garage. Um, at the second floor it's a bedroom. At the third floor it's also a bedroom. And there is a coupula in the middle of the of the roof above the garage as well at the second floor. Um, so we are
proposing to demolish the Koopa, remove the roof of the garage, remove the two existing bedrooms that are above the garage currently and build an expansion at the second floor and also at the third floor. Uh, the second floor would contain,
excuse me, more living space as well as bedrooms. Um, they also have three birds which they inherited. Um, so they actually have a room for cages for the birds as well on the second floor. Um, the third floor is the master suite
above the garage. The third floor is the master suite, you know, with closets, bathroom, master bedroom. And then the western edition, um, we'll be building storage areas, additional garage, bedrooms on the second floor, and there is a partial third floor on that side of
the building, which will have another bedroom. Um the existing home has five bedrooms now which will be expanding to eight. Uh we do provide all the required parking on the site for eight bedrooms. Um there'd be no parking in the street.
Sorry. As Mr. Monzo said, the house was originally designed as a vacation home. It had very little storage inside. The bedrooms were were small, especially the master. Um, so our clients Ken and Carrie Coru, they have a large family.
They wanted to make sure that um that they could accommodate their family, their children, their grandchildren and such. Um, as well as suit their needs for making this their retirement home. Uh, so providing an an indoor gym was an important facet to them. Um, providing
more storage, you know, was an important facet to them. closet space was was they had very small closets in the existing home. So, we are expanding closet closet space as well. Um the addition to
the west is is fully conforming to the zoning ordinance. It meets the all the setback requirements and building height. Uh the addition over the garage is it meets building height and it it has a it has need for a setback variance
because we while we are expanding on top of the existing footprint of the garage, the existing garage doesn't conform to the rear yard setback. Um we do have an an odd lot in that there are streets on two sides and I guess also a bit odd as
well. Um, as you go to the east along the bay, uh, there's a large area that is preserved for fuse that is, um, I believe by easement, um, we can't develop that portion of the lot. Um, the only portions of the lot that we had for
development were above the garage, um, and to the west side. So, we I believe we were careful in citing the building addition on the west side, made sure that we conformed to the to the setbacks. um expansion of the garage was necessary in that with the
garage at being only one story, if you were at a second floor or a third floor, the existing portion of the house, you'd have to walk downstairs to the ground floor, walk through the garage to get to the addition on the west, um which we thought would would be a bit odd, you know, so we we decided to sort of infill
on top of the roof of the garage with with living space and be able to provide that connection from one part of the house to the to the other. Um, >> so what you're saying is that it wouldn't really work from an architectural standpoint to just add on to the garage without
building over the garage as well. >> Right. Yeah. Function functionally as well as aesthetically. I think if you had a a three-story existing house to the east and a two partial three building addition to the west and only the existing one-story
garage in between, I think it would look a little odd. Um so aesthetically as well as as functionally we felt like it was a good a good plan to develop over top of the garage. Um we can we can provide all the parking on site as I as I indicated to can manage all of our
storm water runoff on the site. Um our sideyard setbacks of course are are much they're they're in excess of what the minimum requirement is. Uh we do have a front yard that is non-conforming to the
existing house. Uh we're not um changing, exasperating, modifying that that portion of the house. So that existing setbacks and existing nonconformity. The the lot coverage uh we are complying
with and I believe we're at 29.9%. While we are increasing the lot coverage by building the building addition, um it only it added about three or three and a half% to the existing lot coverage and
it's under the 30% that's required by maximum requirement by ordinance. What about floor area ratio? Where does it >> floor floor area ratio? Well, we comply. Uh whereas 0.5 is requirement, we're at 0.27, 27, you know, so we're well under,
even though it's a large house, the floor area ratio requirement. >> Um, >> yeah. So, >> let's uh let's take the variances, Mr. Blackman. Let's first take the expansion to the west. >> And in your opinion, would this qualify
>> under the undue hardship C1 criteria? And and if so, can you explain why? >> Sure. um that the the home was built with with variance relief before our clients purchased the home in in 2017. Even though the expansion is fully
conforming because the previous owner had obtained variance relief in order to construct the home, anything that we would do to the home in terms of an addition um requires us to apply to this board for for variance relief um under the
ordinance. Um, so I believe that that would classify as a as a hardship, you know, in that there really isn't anything you could do to the home except renovate it um without obtaining variance relief. >> What about the expansion over the
garage? Is that would that in your opinion also qualify for C1 hardship relief? >> We we feel like it it it would. Um we do have an existing non-conforming setback, you know, which was um from the previous
owners, you know, that our current clients inherited. Um in order to to build over top of the garage, you there wouldn't be much room left on top of the garage if we conform to the 30-yard uh rear yard setback. Um I think
all you would really get is maybe like a corridor to connect one part of the house to the next part of the house. um you know, which wouldn't really doesn't serve their their their program. Um in that the you know, the existing
garage wall that we're extending up um is an existing nonconformity on the first floor, the second and the third floor. I guess it it exasperates the the nature of the the variance that the board had reviewed back in 1998
>> with um with both issues both variances would can you articulate any purposes of zoning that would be advanced by the grant? Yeah, in in our in our opinion, um we feel that we have, you know,
guided the appropriate use or development of of lands in the state in a manner that would um still continue to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. It's a multigenerational um use of the property that's
anticipated u for the homeowner and and their family. And I guess given the different different oddities with the site, um you know, we feel that we we did actually thoughtfully come up with an addition
that served their needs, but maintained um most of the zoning ordinance other other than setbacks. Sorry, getting over a cold. Um any other purposes or zoning need? >> Yes, we we feel that we're we're providing sufficient space in
appropriate locations for a variety of of of uses. You know, in this case, it's private. Um we do have a a large area that's to the east which we're not able to develop, but it maintains views for some of the homes that are along Harbor
Cove. Um we are promoting in our opinion anyway um a desirable visual environment by you know creative development techniques by you know utilizing what what is available to us on the lot that um in our opinion
offers the least impact to the site and the neighbors. >> Can you um touch on the negative criteria? Do you see any substantial detriment to the public good or any substantial impairment the intent and purpose of the zone plan? >> No, I think in this instance we're
talking about infill development of a single family home on a single lot that has a couple of oddities. Um we don't feel that there's detriment to the public good. Um we don't feel that there's impairment of the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Um, you know,
we're the zoning plan and any any impairment is is fairly minor and that given some of the benefits we think, you know, aesthetically and and good planning um outweigh those what we feel are minor detriments.
>> I don't have any additional testimony. We can take board questions and then Mr. >> Anyone from the board have any questions? Please make sure your microphones are on. I just have a question um about the number of bedrooms.
>> Yeah, >> it's you said it's going to eight bedrooms. >> That's correct. >> Does that include the the bird's bedroom? >> No. No, it doesn't include the bird room. It's eight without the bird room. >> Okay. Is there a reason why the bird room isn't considered a bedroom?
>> Uh because the birds are going to be living in there. I guess they have they're they're likely to outlive our clients, the birds. Um, I mean technically I guess it it could be considered a bedroom. It'll also be used for >> you have sufficient parking for a ninth bedroom. >> We do. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. We're in excess of of the parking that's required. >> Okay. >> Um, it'll also be used as sort of a craft room as well for carry. >> I'd like to ask about the lack of sidewalk along Harbor Cove. where the sidewalk is. >> Yeah.
>> That pretty much gives this shield that you don't see this house. >> Yep. >> That is city property or is that the applicant's property? Is there property run out to the curb? >> No. >> Shouldn't Right. >> Do you want me on Texas Avenue? Should I
wait? >> No, not on that. >> I can weigh in on that because there I have a review comment that directly related to that. Um, so my recommendation is so sidewalk is required and there is a city rightaway there and yes, you are correct. There is
a pattern of sidewalk along Texas Avenue that terminates right at their property line. Um, so there is also a row of mature trees that is directly in line. If you were to have them install sidewalk, they would have to rip out all of those trees along the entire property
frontage. >> I'm I'm concerned. My concern is the mass of this house is going to be in front of the neighbors on the across the street. There's no denying this is going to be probably the biggest house in town and they're going to be looking at the back of this house. Like I'm sitting here
now. It's 40t across if that buffer removes. But then also why should they not have sidewalks? The rest of the city has sidewalks. >> I'm not sure I understand. >> Yeah. I I thought you were asking me a question about sidewalk. You you seem to be asking about buffering. >> Well, if the sidewalk goes through, if
the city requires sidewalk, then that buffering is going to go away. >> My recommendation is for this board to grant relief of that sidewalk, but have the applicant put an ADA ramp in so that it can connect to the Harbor View Park. There's an ADA ramp directly across the
street from that. I I included a photo in the um in my review that that shows that. Um, so they would provide a crosswalk there with an ADA ramp um that would link up all the sidewalk. >> Okay.
>> And I think the benefits of preserving those trees mitigates some of the massing there as felt on the Harbor Park side. I >> I think there may be some confusion between sidewalks along Harbor Lane and sidewalks along Texas Avenue. >> And I I think you may have been referring to Harbor Lane. Yeah, talk
about >> Harbor. So, okay. So, Texas, that that was the Texas Avenue comment. Now, I'll switch to Harbor Lane because I also have comment with regards to that. So, they didn't mention it, but if you look at Harbor Cove, um, and if you've driven down Harbor Cove near that culde-sac and
the the turnaround, there is a well landscaped strip that runs along the side of Harbor View Lane or Harbor Cove and this property. So, um, there's not sidewalk required on both sides of the street.
>> Oh, there's not sidewalk. >> There's not. The residential site improvement standards does not require that. So, I >> landscape is staying. >> Yeah, that that landscape is not under their control. I believe it's under the control of the HOA for Harbor Cove. Um, so that would not be going away.
>> And I believe you also asked if if the property came up to the curb line. It it does not >> because it's HOA. >> It's short of the curb line. Yeah, they have a they have a that's actually um a strip of land maintained by the HOA.
>> Also, um I'm sorry. >> That's okay. >> I read the Shade Tree Commission recommendations. They do not want any of those trees along Texas Avenue removed to get to Craig's comment regarding the sidewalk. >> Were you okay with that sidewalk recommendation? >> Yes, that's fine.
>> Okay. Yes. >> How about you are removing two trees? >> One. Yeah. Yeah, there there's a sycamore tree that's being removed where the addition is built. I think that's the only one. >> I I see two on the map. >> Mr. Monzo, can you bring your mic closer, please? Thank you. We are making a recording.
>> Okay. >> There. >> There was one in the footprint and there was one outside. The one outside the footprint, you have a two for one replacement requirement. >> Yeah. >> And I called that out in my review. >> Yeah. There was one that was just outside the footprint that likely during
construction would be >> okay. >> Would be a problem. But there was one in the footprint that was certainly being removed. >> So did we do they have to mention they're going to put those trees back at two for one or where they're going to put them or that doesn't >> Right. They have to provide a plan to my
approval that shows that they're going to do provide the two for one replacement. >> Okay. Right. >> Let's have Mr. Herurles's report and then if there's any other questions we >> I've got I got through half my report. >> Okay. Um, I'd like to summarize my
August 11th, 2025 uh review memorandum. Good uh good evening everyone by the way. Um this Craig Hurles, the board engineer. Um so you've heard testimony from the applicant indicating what they're proposing to do. I'm not going to rehash that. Um once again, this site
previously received variance approval back in 1999 and that those approval was um um set forth in resolution 6-9-95. Um, you've heard testimony from the applicant indicating what they're proposing to do. So, I'm going to roll
right into the completeness checklist items. Item number 12, they did not have a certified property list when I reviewed this. They have since provided that. So, that's no longer an issue. So, item number 12 has been addressed. Item number 19 is topography and item number
28 are design calculations. They showed a storm water system to be provided, but they have to back that up with that with the existing topography and the stormwater calculations. So, both of those items can be provided as a condition of approval. And then finally, they've asked for a waiver from the
landscaping plan. We don't need a full landscaping plan. We just need to see that tree replacement plan. Um, so I did support that waiver request and recommended deeming the application complete. With regards to the zoning review and the variances, um there's two typos in
my report. Um they mentioned they they kind of mentioned them already. Um the existing building setback line along Texas Avenue um is an existing non-conforming situation is not being worsened or affected by this development, but 18.54T
exists where where 25 foot is required. I show conforming, but that's really an existing nonconformity. And then finally the under the rear yard where it's boldface 30foot is the requirement. They're requesting a variance 14.92
is what exists. They're infilling and having a vertical expansion. The measurement to the new improvements is 17.5 where 30 foot is is required. But the 14.92 in the top of that should be existing non-conforming. It's not being
affected, but it's the existing condition. So, there are in my in my opinion, there's one variance that's really required. Um, and that's from the rear yard setback. That's item number one on page three of
six. Um, the zoning review is the part of the section that says if they got a variance before and they they're affect they're changing something, they have to come back for your review. I don't I don't view it as a a variance because we're addressing the variance in item
number one, but it's just saying they can't creep the development after you guys give variance approval. In my opinion, that's okay. Um, under general review comments, I've asked that the zoning table be revised
to reflect the comments in my report. Item number two, I talked about the storm water requirements, but they owe us the design calculations for review and then our standard condition that they have to comply with chapter 525, which is the minimum stormwater management and grading requirements both
during and after construction. Um, three we already talked about, which is the two for one replacement. So, they're required to provide that information on the plan um to and make sure they're complying with the code. Uh four is my sidewalk recommendation.
So and they've agreed to that. So essentially they're going to be ride providing the ADA ramp at the terminus of the sidewalk along Texas Avenue and that will connect into the sidewalk ADA terminus on uh Harbor View Park.
Uh we've asked for construction details under item number five on page five. Um six is our standard condition that they have to u provide the inspection escrow and the certificate of occupancy of the improvements is not to be issued until
they they're acceptable. Item number seven is compliance with the sha tree commission fire department and public works department. We did receive reviews from the fire department dated 9225. They recommended approval with no
comments. Public Works Department recommended approval dated 9225 with no comments. And finally, the Shade Tree Commission, as Mr. Monzo indicated, um they asked for the protection of the trees inside the uh front yard fence, the trees outside the front yard fence,
tall evergreens, the cypress trees along the back property line. Is there any issue with complying with those requirements? >> No. >> Okay. So, that the protection of those trees should be shown on that plan also. Uh under item number eight, um
compliance with all other state, county, and local approvals. Uh this is in close proximity to the waterfront. So we just indicated that New Jersey D approval may be required, but that's incumbent on the the applicant to address that. Um nine isformational. This is not located in
the historic district. 10, they have to comply with all applicable affordable housing requirements. And then finally, should the board grant approval, they're required to revise the plans consistent with the board's conditions and submit those for review and approval.
Happy to answer any questions the board has. >> Great. >> Yes. >> I presume when you say the ADA, it's on both sides of the street. >> There's a there's an ADA compliant ramp on the Harbor View side. >> There is. >> Yes. You can see it in the picture. This
this is a color picture here. >> Okay. >> So, there won't there will be one on the other side that mirrors that. >> All right. >> Any other comments or questions? >> If not, we'll open it to anyone here within 200 feet of the property.
Anyone beyond 200 feet closed to the public? Unless there's more discussion, the vote the motion I'd recommend being made is a motion to grant variances one and two on page three of the engineers report with
the waiverss described by the board engineers report numbers 12. Number 33 is the waiver with conditions 12, 19, 28, and 1 through 11. Uh, but with number four, the
applicant has agreed to do the ADA accessible ramp as indicated by the by the board engineer and to comply with the shade tree commission letter dated 911 25. That's the motion to recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. If you're going to vote against it, please
articulate your reasons carefully because there is no opposition. So, I need you to create the record in opposition. Okay. >> Okay. Would somebody like to make that motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Mr. Venuda motions. Miss Sheen seconds.
Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Naj. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> Going to turn the meeting over to our
vice chair as I need to uh sit in the audience for the next one. I'm within 200 feet. >> Okay. Our next application is Paul Greta 314 Clagghorn Place block 1031 lot 63 and 64 seeking variance relief and
hardship and substantial benefit. >> Good evening uh members of the board. For the record, my name is Michael Floyd. I'm an attorney with Archer and Grinder appearing on behalf of the applicant Paul Grena who has submitted an application for bulk variance approval uh related to a privacy fence
on his property located at 314 Clyorn Place and identified as block 1031 lot 63 and 64 on the city's official tax maps. Uh Mr. Gren here as a fact witness this evening uh to talk about this
existing fence and why we're seeking u variance relief. We also have Lance Langraph Jr., a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey with his AICP designation who will provide planning testimony in support of the requested variances.
Um, just one other housekeeping matter. We do have two exhibits that we will be referencing this evening and I'll be just describing these. Uh, this is the ASBO plan that was submitted with our initial application submission. Um, I wasn't sure if everyone would have it in front of them, so we did mark it as
exhibit A1. That's the exact exhibit. That's the exact copy that was submitted with the original application. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. >> And then we're also submitting uh exhibit A2 which are a series of eight photographs showing um various sections
of the fence in the rear yard uh to help explain uh this fence. It's construction on top of a brick retaining wall. um and to show how it benefits the property in terms of privacy, especially with the surrounding uses. Uh when you look on
the asbelt plan, it does appear that this is a >> that was part of the application. >> It it does appear that it is a corner lot. Uh but in fact, it is not a corner lot. It it does have a street address of Clyorn Place 314, but it does not have
direct frontage on KART Lane. The reason being is that there is a driveway coming off of Kart to the MUA facility in the rear of the property and that's one of the reasons we're asking for the fence height relief uh this evening.
>> Excuse me. Did you say you have a planner here? >> Yes, we do. >> Can you give the name again because I don't see it in the application? >> Sure. Lance Landraph L is a Nancy. D G R Af Jr.
D G R A T H Jr. >> Actually just gave me his business. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> But if there's no further questions at this time, I just have a few questions for Paul uh before we bring up Lance.
>> Okay. Everyone in our board engineer remains under oath. Mr. Lans, you're in the audience, but I'll I'll raise your right hand. Sorry. Please raise your right hand. Do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth. So help your God. >> I do. >> Thank you both. Okay, sir. >> So, Paul, you've had a chance to look at
the application that was submitted, correct? >> Correct. >> And this is your home. You're very familiar with the home. Uh you have a temporary certificate of occupancy. Is that correct? >> Correct. And one of the items we have to address is a fence that was installed uh
slightly above the maximum allowed fence site and slightly different than what was put on the uh construction permit plans that were originally submitted. Correct. >> Correct. >> And those plans originally showed a twoft high brick retaining wall uh with
a 4ft cedar privacy fence on top. Correct. >> Correct. Uh, and we now have a retaining wall that's roughly one foot depending on the surrounding grade with a 5 foot high um, cedar privacy fence. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> So, instead of a two-ft fence and a four, excuse me, a two-ft wall and a 4ft fence, we have roughly a one-t wall and a five foot fence. Correct. >> Correct. >> And the intention was not to exceed the maximum height of six feet. Correct. >> Absolutely. >> All right. So just very briefly in your
own words, can you just explain to the board what happened? Why are we here this evening? And why do we exceed uh in certain places the maximum height of the fence? And it varies depending on the grade around the property. It's anywhere from 6 feet to maybe 6' 3 in 6'4 in. But
if you could just talk us through that briefly. >> Uh correct. So the U wall and fence combination was the original plan submitted. The wall material initially was ledge stone. We did choose to upgrade it to a brick wall to comply with the new standards. Um the wall
construction I really can't speak to other than the mason a licensed mason put the wall in during the time of construction. Um there were a lot of difficulties with grading and flooding and things like this. But the end result was that we ended up with a wall that was too short. So the question was how
do we maintain our sixoot buffer? As you can probably see from some of the pictures we sent around, we do have a a municipal uh county building behind us um that is unsightly, I suppose, and has lights on often and sometimes through
the night. So, we wanted a buffer. Um so, we wanted to maintain our sixoot buffer. So, we installed a 5-ft cedar fence um because the measurements we took seemed to comply. We had to order the fence early because of COVID. So, we ended up getting um this rumination So
that's how the fence there was no intention ever of exceeding um anything, but the the way the wall was constructed resulted in us proceeding with the 5-ft fence. And Paul, what I'd like to do right now is just turn to exhibit A2, the photographs. There's eight photographs. I'm just going to have Paul
walk through these quickly to tell us what we're looking at. And so Paul, this first photograph in exhibit A2, can you explain what the board members are looking at? >> This is the yard that faces uh what would be considered Congress Street. Um just >> and it's taken from your side of the
>> It's taken from our side. Sorry. Yes. >> And the second photograph, >> this is behind the garage between our rear of our garage and the MUA building >> from the inside. >> And then the third photograph. Can you describe that please?
>> This is several things. This is from the exterior of the rear of the home. This is a um a white board that is six foot um that one of us is holding. I can't tell who, but uh showing the ch the difference between six foot even and the
top of that fence. I thought this photograph was important because it's often times difficult to to imagine what uh an increase in the height of the fence does from an aesthetic point of view or for anyone passing by the property would they know that a fence variance height had been granted. Uh and
again this photograph was taken from the um the driveway to the MUA property in the rear. Switching to the fourth photograph, >> this is a view from our driveway sh u photograph toward the MUA building um
showing some other uh mechanisms. And um yes, >> and I would also note that you could see a fence on the MUA property that's higher than uh the fence on Paul's property. >> I think the next >> Sure. Do you agree with that? >> Absolutely. The next photo would be
better than I think >> Paul the next photo. The next photo is the new uh 8 foot MUA wooden fence uh that they put up uh within the past month or two. >> Yes, it is.
And then we'll go to page six. This is from the MUA driveway um shining toward the rear of our home showing landscaped um finished same same fence that you saw earlier. >> And then uh the second to last
photograph Paul, >> this is the side that faces Congress Street um showing the fence and our neighbors property. >> And the final photo >> one was from the front view. This is from the rear view.
>> And this photograph is taken from the neighbor's property. >> From the neighbor's property. >> So you can see the aesthetics on both side of the property line. >> Whose stones are they? >> Whose stones? >> The neighbors. >> The neighbors.
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. That last photograph is on the from the neighbor's side of the property to show how the fence looks from his uh viewpoint. So again, I thought these photographs, we wanted to make sure the board understood the aesthetics, especially in the rear of the property. Uh granted,
this is an unusual request because the applicant did try to comply with the uh ordinance and code requirements. Uh but again, when that um uh brick wall was installed, uh it was installed lower than expected when the grading came in
uh per the approved plans. Uh so again, we're asking for really a dimminimous variance for the increase uh in the overall height of the fence and an acknowledgement that uh it's a five foot high fence on top of an approximately one foot high retaining wall depending
on the grading around the property. >> That's I take I take kind of issue with that after reviewing the aselt grading plant. Um there's a series of shots along the perimeter of that of the wall on that the Asbelt grading plan. Almost
all of them are approximately 1.5 ft. So in my report I referred to the fence height as being 6 and 1/2 ft um because we're measuring from ground to the top of the fence. Um, no, I couldn't find anywhere where it's it shows a
difference of one foot between the top of the retaining wall and the the bottom elevation. >> Sorry, just >> I don't understand the last point. Can you say that again? >> I said I couldn't I couldn't find any series of elevations that show one foot
difference between the top of the retaining wall and the bottom grade of the wall. So he's making a representation that that retaining wall is one foot high. The the grading plan the asbill grading plan shows it's approximately one foot five 1.5 ft.
>> So what they're looking for is a 6 inch variance at most. >> 1.5. Well, yeah. I'm sorry. No, they're asking for So they're asking for five foot in addition to 1.5. That's a total of 6.5 where 4
foot is the maximum permit. No, >> they tell me six was the maximum. >> Well, in front yard so in front yards >> four. >> So, and we'll have our our our planner Lance Landcraft address that. But, >> well, I just want to make sure we're
talking about apples, you know, the same apples here. >> No, no, no. It's important. I want to make sure that the record is clear. So, >> but I I mean I mean I can go around and and do the math on this, but it Yeah, it's approximately 1.5 ft >> for the average height of the retaining
wall. Yeah, I would say >> disagree with that. >> Okay. >> A microphone. >> Sorry, we'll have Lance come take a moment. I don't I'm I'm not >> No, I just you're saying you you mentioned it before it was one foot and you're saying it again at one foot. I I believe it's 1.5 ft.
>> And if I miss I was hopefully I said it was approximately one ft because the grading does change around this retaining wall around the property. So I wasn't trying to >> I'm not I'm not saying that this is the end all beall, but I just want to be accurate. the board the board may find that 1.5 feet is too much and one foot
is appropriate. So I I can't tell you. >> Understood. And and just I think what's important for everyone to understand is that originally it was supposed to be a twoft high retaining wall and when it was constructed by the mason it came in less than two feet
>> approximately 1 foot one and a half ft but it came in less than the two feet >> with the 5ft high fence on top of it is what creates that differential now six feet and we'll have Lance speak to the um the maximum height allowed in in the rear yard. >> All right. Can I just ask your client
two questions? >> Yes. >> Okay. First, I want to make sure this comes out clear in that when you were when you had this fence that you said something about I had to order this fence before COVID. Did you order the fence before the wall was built?
>> Before it was completed, >> right? Yes. >> Yes. >> So, at the time you ordered the fence, you thought you were ordering a fence for a brick brick wall that would be one foot that would be two feet high. I don't recall. Sorry. It's three years ago. >> Okay. So,
okay. I'll admit that I did speak to your attorney earlier today and I thought what he explained to me was that you had a one and a half foot fence. Oh, I sorry that a one and a half foot wall and that you wanted it to be a total of six feet. So, your choices were
to order a fence that was uh either four feet or five feet because >> correct >> fences come in total foots. >> Correct. and you got the five- foot because you wanted to make sure you got at least to the six foot high because you had the MUA behind you. That's what I understand. I didn't understand your testimony today, but that's what I
understood in my discussions and that sounded very persuasive and clear to me when I heard it. So, I want to make sure it's it's heard again tonight. So, that you your choices were when you had a 1/2t wall to either order a 4ft fence that would give you five and a half feet or a five foot fence that would give you
six and a half feet. And because you wanted to make sure you had the a fullsize six foot at least covering the MUA, you got the five- foot fence. That's how I understood it, but I didn't hear that tonight. >> I have the time frame. >> Sorry. Do you agree with that or do you disagree with >> No, I don't remember when the fence was
ordered to be honest with you. So, but obviously it must have been that we knew the wall was going to be less than what we originally intended it to be, which is why the 5ft fence would have come up. So, and and so I didn't think it was important to talk about why some of the problems we had with construction with
the retaining wall, but maybe just briefly, Paul, and I know not the specific date, but can you describe some of the issues that happened with the retaining wall and drainage and having to pump water out and everything else when it was being constructed? >> Yeah, there was a lot of problems with
with the wall. The wall started um in 23 uh November of 23 and actually didn't finish till May of 24. It was over six months. It was flooded out many times where we had to pay to have the water pumped out of it. The gentleman that did it had a lot of personal issues
unfortunately. Um so there was a lot of consternation. He came back to the construction office um on his own at least twice to review the grading issues because he was trying to determine where the base of the wall would be because in his opinion he was paid for a twoft wall
and that's what we're getting. even though the majority well a lot of it not the majority is underground u and brickfaced I might add um so that's what I can tell you with regards to the problems the problems persisted he ended up being fired to put it in perspective
and now we're left with this so the wall was already I guess either mostly in or predominantly in to let us know to show us that we're going to have to adjust the wood >> and you and you knew that the wall was going to be substantially less than two foot required because of the grading that was necessary >> correct
>> so I we thought Paul thought that the wall was going to be approximately um one foot depending on the grading around the perimeter of the property and they wanted to be able to maximize the height of the fence per code which is why they
ordered the 5ft fence on top of what they thought was going to be a roughly 12t high retaining wall because so much of it was below grade. >> Okay. And how much did you spend on the wall and fence that exists now? What does that mean? >> I have no idea. >> Wall doesn't matter. How much did you
spend on the fence? >> I don't know. >> Okay. >> I mean, it's a cedar fence and it's a brick wall and it's a blue stone cap. So, I spent a lot of money. >> Okay. >> If I don't know if you want a number, I could look it up, I suppose, but I don't know that number. >> May I ask why you're asking that
question? >> Because sometimes the expense of making a change on a relatively small deviation can be a basis for hardship variance. So, I'm asking you the expense to come into compliance. >> Well, I think the expense to come into
compliance would be really extraordinary in terms of having to rebuild a wall to bring it up to two feet. That's going to require regrading the entire property where there's already an existing single family home, detached garage, a swimming pool, decking. So, um, making changes to
the grade around the perimeter of the retaining wall is is it's not possible, I think, and I'll defer to the board engineer, but based upon the distance between the >> You don't have room. >> You there's no room. We'd be pushing storm water onto the adjoining property, which they can't do. So,
>> okay. >> Can you can you clarify one thing for me because the graphics on your asbelt grading plan are unclear and it's been a while since I've been out. Does the fence run along the entire
length of the retaining wall wherever it is? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. Does it terminate at the face of the house? >> Yes. And Lance Landraph will testify to that where its current termination is near the porch on uh if you're looking at the Asbelt plan on the left side of the house.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure that when you if the board approves this that they were going to approve because forward in the front of the house you're you're only allowed to have a four foot high fence to the rear you're allowed to have a six foot high fence. >> Yes. So so and I thought it would be best for Lance to testify to
>> it's an important issue. We appreciate >> Yeah. I just want to make sure that you're Yes. >> clarify that with the board. Yes. Thank you. >> All right. So Craig now that now I'm confused because it is what I thought it was. It's a It's a fence that's permitted to be six feet. That is six feet six inches. >> So, the way the ordinance reads, it
says, "Fences may be constructed to six feet in height when located in the rear. Solid fences or walls located in any required yard area may not exceed 4t in height." >> Okay. So, is this in the front yard or in the rear yard? >> That's that's what my question was. And they said they're going to clarify that.
>> Okay. What's that, >> Craig? Is it the sideyard that faces >> this? I mean I say how >> so the way the way that we determine front and rear is rearward of the house >> for the rear end >> right so the front yard is between the
building face and the rightaway line so you can't have a six foot high fence go any forward of the building face >> okay so that's that was that's why I asked that question so you know I just want to I'm trying to qualify and
quantify what's being asked for and and it does not and Lance has actually visited the property. He was there just a couple of hours ago. So, he'll speak to his uh visit to the property and what the existing improvements are, where they tie into the house to show that it's in the rear yard. >> Can I just one clarifying question? When
was this um fence built? >> When was the fence installed, Paul? >> After the wall, you mean? >> Could you're saying you you're there in May 2024? >> Uh the retaining wall started in November of 23. The wooden fence was
installed June of 24. >> June of 24. Okay. I guess I'm not understanding how do you not have HPC approval for this? >> We have materials approval for this. >> Okay. Could I have the denial letter from the HPC? That's what I
>> That's for That's for a different issue. There was a um a separate issue denial from the ATC for a portion of the I'll call it the the faux black iron a row iron fence surrounding the pool. Uh that denial was not related to the perimeter
uh theater privacy fence. >> Paul, is that correct? >> Correct. >> Along those same lines, the HBC report says that they wanted a 5 foot high limitation on the fence. The HBC they also said that all fencings would
comply with height requirements but the HBC says that they were looking for a five foot fence. >> In the HBC report it says five foot just >> correct but Paul when when you were before the HBC I think now three years ago um the plan showed a uh the two foot
high retaining wall. Correct. >> Two foot retaining 4ft fence six foot total. So they they the HPC knew that there was going to be a an approximately two foot high retaining wall with the uh cedar privacy fence on top not to exceed
the maximum height allowed. >> They also asked for picket top solid board picket top. >> They did not change the fence. We showed them the picture. >> This this is what you put in your application. Supposed to be a picket fence. We
>> we don't enforce the HPC and don't and we and we don't uh and we require all other approvals. So if they are violating the HPC the HPC someone have to deal with that. >> So I just want to make clear though uh Rich that we're not trying this
application isn't for us to go against the HPC. >> Right. Yeah. I don't want >> Right. That's my my point because if they were denied >> I thought an appeal of any decision of the HPC to my knowledge. No, we're we're we're we're simply asking for the height variance for the fence.
>> Okay. So then you're going to go back to the HPC. >> Yeah. If if this does not comply with an HPC condition, we would have to go back to the HPC. That's correct. >> Okay. Because this letter is dated October 24. October 21st, 2024 the denial. So that that it's not clear in that October 2024 letter and Paul will
correct me if I'm wrong because I did not represent it before the HPC, but that application to the HPC that was denied that generated that October 2024 letter was not related to the perimeter fence that that we are dealing with this evening before the board.
>> There's a second fence >> there. There's an interior fence around the pool in the backyard. >> Okay. And it was a question whether that fence had to be cedar wood or whether it could be the um I call it a black faux red iron. That was the the denial from the HPC. So apologies for the confusion,
but it that October 2024 letter denial is not related to the perimeter effect. >> Just so we're clear to put a point on it, nothing we're doing here, even if we grant the variance, is intended to uh alter any prior decision of the HPC. >> Understood? >> Okay. If you if you want us to change
something they did, you have to file an appeal of that to us. Okay, >> understood. >> All right. Fine. So, everyone can just they're not really offering HBC compliance as a purpose of zoning anyway. So, it's just not something that should be a critical analysis in our in
our review. But I I I just at present it's my understanding that what you're seeking is a 6 inch variance for the height of the fence. >> Correct. assuming that we come to the conclusion that it is in the rear yard,
which it sounds like Craig isn't strongly disagreeing at the moment and the professional is going to tell us that it's in the rear yard. That's what we're dealing with tonight. >> Correct. >> Okay. And even if they hadn't built it, you might want to give some thought to whether or not a 6-inch higher fence next to the MUA building would be an
appropriate variance to grant in the abstract, even if they hadn't already built it. So, there's two things going on here. They're claiming purposes of zoning by having a fence that is a little higher, but since they're on the near the MUA building that apparently
has a higher fence there as well, um that they might be entitled to that variance under the C2 standard and under the C1 standard, they're arguing a hardship because they've already built the fence and it was unintentional due to something that having to do with the Masons. and Lance will be putting all
the that testimony on the record in support of the requested variance, but I thought it was important for Paul to come up first as a fact witness to talk about the history and how we got here. >> Yeah, I it's just important that it's not a one and a half foot variance, it's a six inch variance. I just want to make sure that we're all on that page. So,
maybe we should hear from >> Yeah, I can't uh Rich, I just don't know if I agree with you until we hear from >> I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just telling you what Craig has said so far and there >> I've asked for more information. I have a planner that's going to that's going >> and that the planner is going to provide
testimony. If you don't find the testimony credible, you can reject it. >> And if if there's no further questions for Paul, we can bring up Lance now to start his his his planning testimony. >> Yep. >> You may do that. >> Thank you. Thank you, Paul. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, board. Good evening. >> Lance, you've already been sworn. Um, but just for the record, can you um put your qualifications, experience, and education and licenses on the record? >> Sure. So, I have a degree from Bloomsburg University uh in urban
regional planning from 1986. Uh I've been practicing 30 plus 36 years now. Um started out my career in Kay County, actually with Lower Township as their grants coordinator and zoning officer many, many years ago. Um, if you guys remember Harry McVey, he was the
planning director there long time ago. So, um, I'm currently licensed as a planner. Also have my AICP certification. I currently sit as a director of planning at the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority in Atlantic City. Um, also elected official in my town of Ventner City. So, I sit on
their planning board as a commissioner. Um, sit as the planner for the city of Brigintine for the last 28 years and continuing that. represented Mullica Township, Northfield, uh, Port Republic for a little bit, um, prepared master plans, land use regulations for the city
of Brigantine and the tourism district in Atlantic City as well as Mullica Township. >> I would ask that Lance be recognized as an expert in the field of planning in New Jersey. >> Yes, we would. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Lance. You've heard um all of Paul's testimony about the the wall and the fence and the height. Um you've also
heard uh questions regarding um the fence and whether it's in the rear yard or the sideyard, right? If you can just go through your your uh testimony and your proof, but specifically answer those questions as well. >> Yeah. First one just to talk about where the fence is located. The the first
exhibit was A2 the first sheet there that is looking in the from the rear yard to the front of the property and you can see the fence down the lefth hand side and then it has an L a 90°ree that comes back to the house. that is midway between the front of the house and what is actually the back corner you
see of the home is actually a porch. It doesn't have a foundation. It's it's a an enclosed kind of a porch. So that the fence ends at the back of what is considered the main principal structure because it ends at the back of the foundation of the home. The front of the
house is about 10 or 15 feet forward towards the street. So the fence is in a rear yard by your definition. and it is behind the face of the home. So that is a rear yard fence. Um I agree with Craig. Anything in front of the home, Mr. Hurles, I should say. We
>> We all know each other. >> We're friends. >> We all know each other. I follow him on Facebook all his fishing excursion. So um jealous. Uh if this was in front of the home, then it would have to be limited to a 4ft high fence. I absolutely agree with that. But we are
behind that fa that front face by I'm going to say maybe 12 feet or so. I paced it off. I'm going to say 10 or 12 feet behind the face of the building. So, it is in what's considered under your ordinance a rear yard. Um the same for the other the other sides of the
home that goes back towards the MUA facility. That is definitely the rear yard of the property. So, I I think it does fall under your rear yard. Uh 6 foot permitted height. Um with that regard, I don't know if there's any questions on that at all. Just I want to get that solved first
before we go into anything else. on the Kart Lane lane side. There's no issue either. >> No. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That that's definitively in the rear. >> That picture showed the pool side. >> It It did. >> I I just want to make sure. >> Yeah. If you look at where the the third picture where he's holding the the six
foot high stake, that's actually not a front yard there, that is actually a a lot that is owned by the city of Kate May, >> right? >> That divides the this property from the driveway for the MUA. >> If you look at the survey, >> it shows that understand that. I just
want to make sure that >> when you get granted your approvals that you're not going to have any issues with the the zoning official to make sure that you know I just want to make sure that you're asking for what you need. >> Yep. Absolutely. So, in in defense of that actually the the plan
>> Why is it hard for us to understand this? Isn't there a plan that shows where the fence is on the plan? >> No, it's very difficult. >> It is difficult to read. Give us a land graph and have him draw on it where the fence is and then we have an exhibit that tells us where the fence is. >> Half hour to find out where a fence is about a fence. >> Copy. >> Sure. I got one here
>> cuz I drew an estimate of mine. But >> I have I have a larger version of it. >> Oh, do you? Larger would be better because this is >> the graphics on this plan don't show the fence very well. >> So, we'll take a crayon and just draw where the fence is on a >> I have a red pen. I don't carry crayons with me anymore. I I try to stop that
after >> one stops here, but I don't know what side that where. >> All right. So the it starts at roughly that the back corner by Kart Lane. There's a large concrete monument there. This is very narrow, but you can see runs along there along the back and it
says flagstone wall. And on top of that flag stone wall is the fence. >> Yeah. But the flag stone wall goes all extends all the way out to the right away. >> It does. So it does continue for grading purposes. >> Yeah. So that's why that's why I'm having a hard time on that side. I don't
know where the fence stops cuz it shows >> you see where 5.39 is there. >> Yes, >> it stops right there. >> Let's just draw the picture and then show it to >> just draw it and submit it as exhibit, please. >> And then as long as as long as your fence is where that exhibit shows and Mr. says that that exhibit shows it in
the rear yard, then you got what you got. >> It comes all the way down. >> We mark this as exhibit A3. >> We're going to mark A4 with the red >> this side. This is where the picture illustrated. So I know it goes different than A3. It's got a red line. Is >> there any extension fence along here? >> A1 was the original survey. So the A2 were the photographs.
>> Okay, perfect. >> You couldn't put the fence on top. >> That's that that clarifies everything. We're good. >> Okay, there you go. >> We're good. >> Say that. Okay, so exhibit exhibit A4. Is it four? >> I think it's three. >> Okay. Exhibit A3.
>> He's permitted to have a 6 foot high fence in all the areas that he's >> is the final as built with. There's no >> a red line depicting the location of the fence >> and we're going to give it >> No, we're going to give it to the
secretary. >> So, as long as you build where that red line is, then you are in the rear yard. It can be six feet high. So, we have a 6 inch variance on the fence. >> Perfect. >> All right. >> The the photo on that side verifies that. >> Thank you.
>> All right. We know where the fence is now. >> Pass that around. Okay. You want me to go through my >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, um the current zoning, Mr. Floyd has gone through some of that already. The initial design of the fence was, as we've discussed, a two-ft high brick wall. We believe the
the brick is actually two feet, but most of it is buried or a good portion of it is buried uh with a 4ft solid wooden fence on top of that brick wall. Maximum permitted height is 6 feet from grade in the rear yard as as we've just discussed. This fence is only proposed where we
believe it is in the rear yard as as discussed in A3 and and sketched in on A3. Um fence is behind the principal structure and is considered in the rear yard. Just to clarify that I had the same thing in my notes as well. Proposed what we're
proposing there is to keep the just over six foot up to 6.5 feet of of fence grading of the site altered the wall height and a maximum height of the brick wall was just 14 in not the two foot that was originally designed on top of the brick wall. The 5ft high solid wood
fence was installed. portions of that fence and the wall combination still meets the maximum height of six feet but a good portion of it is over that six foot. It is 6.5 6' 3 in 4 in in some places. Uh it's our understanding that the combination of
materials the wood and brick wall was permitted to be a maximum 6 foot in height both on the sideyard and the rear yard really really the rear yards here under the approvals and the building permits that received. So, they did get permits for a six- foot high combination
of materials, wall and fence. Um, so they did get permission to put it where it's located. It's just because of the final grading of the site, you know, would have been nice if the grading was a little half inch, half foot more higher on the outside of the wall because on the inside it's at 5T. The
inside grading is right at the top of that retaining wall. So, where we measure it from is the outside though and that's the issue. That's where we create the six foot five inches. >> Where does it say that? >> Um >> I'm not if you don't know the answer without looking up. >> I don't know that it says it anywhere. >> You measure on the I actually had a
lawsuit over whether you measure the inside or the outside and it was a pool case. >> I guess you would at its highest point. >> Okay. >> You you would measure it at its highest point. So that would be from the outside because the reason for the retaining wall is they had to fill the inside of that area several feet. I didn't look at
the plans originally, but the inside is at the top of that retaining wall. You don't see and I don't think there's are there any pictures that Yeah, the the one right after the um the sixoot stick picture that is from the inside. You can see the grass level right at the base of
the of the the fence, the wooden fence. The grass is right there. So on the inside, you don't see much of this retaining wall. >> The grade before you were with a war story, but ours was a pool and the outside of the fence the inside of the fence was had to be I don't know what a pool requires 48 inches,
>> right? The outside of the fence is only 43 inches. So, we were they were fighting over whether or not they had a a fence high enough for a pool to protect a pool. And >> right >> if it's small, it was the idea was to keep people out or in to keep them out. So, the outside was the right measurement. At least
>> half the people thought so. The other half didn't. So, I was curious if our ordinance actually said you measure on the inside or the outside. >> I don't know. Your ordinance defines that. >> All right. Well, I guess we'll assume it's the outside. Yeah. Since that's the one that requires the >> It's a conservative way to do it right now for this application. >> This one. on the outside.
>> All right, go ahead. >> So, just to be clear, so the inside of the fence is actually five feet and the outside is the 6.5 in in most of the areas. Um, existing grade if they would have grade could have graded the outside a little
bit higher, but we had to match what the neighbors had. You couldn't really grade that. And you see the one neighbor actually put in a a French drain there to help his own drainage against that wall. So, that one photograph does show that that stone area that the neighbor put in up against the wall. >> Um, that was installed by the neighbor
and it seems to be working very well. The area was was dry when I was there. Um, the fence does require variance as Mr. Hurles indicated under 525-57E3 where we do exceed the 6 foot uh height
in the rear yard. So, in and I look at this both ways. It could be a a hardship variance or a posit or a C2 type variance. I'll put on the the hardship variance first. Requesting a bulk variance to permit fencing in the rear yard that exceeds the minimum height permitted in the zoning ordinance. Uh
the applicant proposes a 6'.5 foot 6.5 ft high fence uh to provide buffering, privacy, and safety. The 5-ft solid fence is located on top of the brick wall that ranges in height from 1 foot to 16 in depending on the grade around the outside of the fence.
style of the fence that was approved is what we we used. We used the same materials, the wood on top of the the brick wall. Um we just did the proportions different because the brick wall ended up being shorter. So we added a 5ft fence instead of a 4 foot. Still
thinking we had six foot to work with and then the measurements came back and it was just, you know, for the most part of it I think it's less than 6 and 1/2 ft, but there are spots that are that are 6.5 ft in in in depth. I think some of it uh I stood next to it. I'm 6'2.
There's some of it that is right at my height and there's some of you know an inch or two taller. Um the six foot six total fence height fence acts as a direct line of sight buffer for the pool, the rear yard of the home and into the county's MUA facility. It is a pumping station for
the MUA. Um there's photographs of that shown in exhibit A2. >> Are we doing the C1 standard still? >> Yes. Going through that. Well, I'm I'm kind of describing the whole thing. The C1's are coming in a second. I'll get there. >> I thought I thought you were doing C1, but they sound like C2s.
>> I'm putting everything on describing what was done and then I'll get >> I'm trying to take accurate notes so it just gets confusing. >> I can hand you these when I'm done. >> That'll be good. You're taking You're doing the C2. Go ahead. >> Um kind of describing what was done in in in in u
in defense of of both sides. So, so C1, the hardship, the Atkins property's unique elevation change and requirements. The construction in a flood zone requires the structure and the and the property to be elevated. Um, they did that. The site is elevated two plus feet around the surrounding
property. U above the surrounding property to meet the flood elevation requirements and the standard grading of the site. As I said, interior to the wall, the retaining wall, we are level with the top of that wall. um the adjacent parcels are lower than the subject site,
creating a need for the retaining wall at the fence's base. This creates a unique scenario specific to these adjacent parcels where the grading on the site needed that retaining wall and we have to measure from that outside. In my opinion, that's the appropriate location to measure from to assist with the elevation change. We we built that
wall and now the the height is a little off from what was anticipated. Hardship variance. uh to to define what that is. The board may by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowess or shape or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features or by reason of extraordinary and exceptional
situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property where the strict application of any regulation would be an exceptional peculiar hardship or difficulty for the applicant. So that's under the C1 type variance. It's my opinion that that approval requested under the C1 could is warranted.
uh the C2 type if the board members don't agree with that or your professionals don't agree with that the C2 would be the more flexible C we used to call it the flexible C uh the purposes of zoning variance so I think purpose A to provide uh public health safety morals and general welfare allows
the appropriate screening from the adjoining property and into our property as well you want to screen your pool from from neighboring sites and the county MUA building it's not an attractive structure they have lighting on that property 24/7 well at night it runs. It was there today. It was on today when I was there. So, the light is
on all the time. Um, also allows for sight security on our property and allows for sight safety surrounding the pool. Purpose G to provide sufficient space in appropriate location. We're in a residential zone. We're allowed to have a six-foot um fence in our rear
yard. We just exceed that by a half a foot in some locations again due to some grading issues that we've had on the property. So, I I think purpose G purpose of the fence is locate an appropriate location. that's allowed to be in a rear yard uh to provide the needed screening. That's where the bulk of our screening is needed. I will say
this that the the adjoining property to the right of of the of the site. It's their driveway, so it's also not a great area to have looking out of your backyard. So, this fence provides a buffer to the neighbor's driveway as well and not just the MUA facility. Uh the height for the most part, we we
think only only not the entire fence is 6'5. There are pieces of it that are 61, 62. You can see by the photograph that it's about four inches taller there. So that's just under that 6 foot five um um request for the variance and purpose eye
to promote a desirable visual environment. We believe the fencing is aesthetically pleasing. It it meets the intent of what the HPC was asking for. The materials are the same just the proportions are a little different. We have less than a two-ft brick wall visible. Um we think we did pay for a
two-ft brick wall but most of that is buried by the grading. Um we provide the the buffer that's required for that's needed for the MUA facility and the fencing uh particular benefit is additional buffers to the rear of the property and the public utility use. We also have to show the negative criteria.
Uh no variance may be granted without showing that such relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan or ordinance. Um, in defense of that, there'll be limited or no off-site impacts. To see a 6ft
difference in in a in a 6ft high fence, you can see it by exhibit uh what'll say 8 >> 823 >> three. >> Um, it's literally 6 in taller by hand. Uh, the impact of surrounding properties is is beneficial to both in our opinion.
Provide safety measures to protect the pool on the site and the fencing will provide buffering to off-site public facilities. The most impacted neighbor we understand is not objection objecting to the fence. Uh they're immediately adjacent to the property. Uh the impact of the surrounding properties in our
opinion is very limited. The relief requested is not a substantial impairment. We're very minor uh differentiation from your your requirements. Uh the 6 in or less is not significant in my opinion on a on a 6ft tall structure. Um,
and for all those reasons, I think the six foot high fence uh will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. >> Thank you, >> that's all I have. >> Okay, any questions? >> Did you ever consider putting a 4ft
fence rather than a 5ft fence above that to make sure that you were within the sixoot level? >> So, you'd have to ask that of of the of the applicant. I think he answered that when he order when he said he looked at the four and it would not give him the appropriate buffer to the MUA to the rear of the property. Um, a 4ft fence
would have from the inside would have come up to me just about less than chest high. >> A 4 foot above the retaining wall, >> right? But from the understand from the inside of the property, the grade is at the top of that retaining wall. So from
the inside of the property, the fence is 5T >> as as as built. So a 4 foot high fence would have not given him any any buffer to any of the surrounding properties, specifically the MUA facility.
>> Yeah. I mean, it is a privacy fence. >> It is a privacy fence. I'd like to hear what the neighbors if there's any neighbors here to say. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But the the impact because you made a comment about only a side only a driveway across on the right from the right side of the property and I know
the people that live there have been there for a long time and they might not be happy about this. >> Okay. It's my understanding that they have no issue with it. So, >> right. >> Um Kart Lane is the sideyard, right? And
then Clagghorn is the front on the top of the paper. Right. >> So Clagghorn is the front and Kart. We don't front on Kmart Lane, >> right? That's the side. >> Correct. >> Correct. We have no fencing along that property. >> Right. Okay. Just Yep. >> I'm just trying to get
>> No, I'm I'm open to the questions. >> And right now you said there there is a pool there. Yes, ma'am. >> And then there's a garage behind the pool. >> And there's no fence around the pool. >> No, there is a fence around the pool.
Does comply with the UCCC and the city code requirements. Uh the denial from the HPC was the material of a portion of that fence around the pool. Uh but the the pool fence is compliant with construction code. >> Okay. Now, my my question wasn't really towards that. It was just the fact that
you're putting this whole fence in. And I just want to make sure there was no other fence in between that. >> There was an aluminum rod iron fence, right? That's kind of two different types of fence. It looks like a row iron fence, but it's aluminum around the pool area cuz it cuz it is open to that
driveway. If you didn't have a fence, you would need a fence around the pool. And they do have that. >> Okay. >> And that is a 4 foot. >> You can see right through it. It's it's the old row iron style aluminum fence. >> My question, I guess, is to Craig. When
they say rear yard versus like when it says sideyard, at what point does the fence when it comes off of the side become part of the front yard or the rear yard? Is it
>> So your definition of front yard setback is between the rightway line and the face of the structure. >> So it's the face because I >> Right. So >> that's your definition of front yard. So it couldn't be level with the house or that would be considered the front of
the yard of the yard. Correct. >> I believe it has to be to the rear of that. >> Right. And that's my I guess my point is >> that it is >> my point is how many feet considers it to be the rear? Do they just have to go back a foot or two to be off of the
front of the house? >> I'm going to tell you what the language says. >> Okay. Fences may be constructed to six feet in height when located in the rear. >> Okay. Why I'm asking this is because we had that house on Beluda whatever
whatever front backyard or was issue and that I think we had they had stated that it had to be from the back of the house for it to be the rear of the house. >> What are we talking about? Vendo. That one. >> I'd be in trouble.
>> What? Yeah, >> right. That was a that was a corner lot >> that had that was two front yards. >> Had two front yards and it went all the way to the curb in the front yard. >> There was no rear yard issue on that one. >> Okay. I was just trying to figure out
when it became >> when it gets past the front of the house. >> Just from the front of the house, it can go right to the side of the house. >> It's complicated definition, but when it goes into the front yard, it's in the front yard. >> 12. >> So when it goes past the front of the house, then you're in a front yard. >> Okay. I I'm just trying to know if there was >> I know. I just trying to keep it very simple. When it's past the front of the
house, it's in the front yard. >> That's what it all is. Is what it says. >> Okay. >> When it's not in the front yard, it's not in the front. When it's not in the front yard, it's okay. >> Any other questions? >> Craig, are you ready to do your review?
>> Sure. I'd like to quickly summarize my August 1st, 2025 review memorandum. With regards to completeness, they've requested a waiver from item 13. I supported that. Item number 18, which is we become record holders should the board approve this. So, we ask for the
approval signature blocks be added to the plan as a condition of approval. Uh the bulkan area review that I did on page 204 really relates to the property has no bearing on this application really in regards to the fence height is the var the only variance that's being
requested. So the requirement is under section 52557E3 and that that whole section is in contained in that first paragraph on page three or four. Um they are proposing a 6 and a half approximately 6
and 1/2. It's it jogs a little bit but on average it's 6 and 1/2 ft high fence where the maximum permitted is six feet. Okay, that's the variance. Uh with regards to conditions of approval, that should be general review comments. Uh
one through six. Items one through three are more recordkeeping. Uh that should just be cleaning up the plans. We become record keepers. We want to have a good record of what variances that were granted tonight. Item number four, five,
and six are our standard conditions. We And just with regards to the other review memos that we received, the fire department recommended approval dated 9225 with no comments. Public works department recommended approval dated
9225. No comments. Shade tree commission recommended approval indicating no trees are involved. And that was dated 9 Whoops. No date. It was received September 10, 2025.
How's that? Um, so those and then there was mention of the HPC ultimately required to comply with the HPC approval. I think that's um Rich's opinion on that. >> What was my opinion? >> That ultimately they have to comply with the HPC approval. We're not undoing any
of their approval. >> Yeah, but it's not it's not just my opinion. The applicant understands that we are not overruuling the HPC. >> Understood. Okay. So, I don't want to be just my opinion. I want they acknowledge that. So, that's just how it is.
>> Gotcha. That's why you're the attorney and make sure the language is correct. >> Right. No, I I just careful about my opinions. >> Okay. Um, so that was a summary. I'm happy to answer any questions the board has, but other than that, um, you've heard testimony with regards to the C1 and C2 criteria in regards to the
variance, and you can weigh that accordingly. I'm still confused about I'm I'm confused about the location of the the front of the house. They're saying it's on Clagghorn. >> So the So the location of the front of the house, >> right?
>> It's located on Clagghorn Place. >> There's no there's no frontage on Kport Lane because there's an actual lot, a very narrow lot that runs in between here. So >> So they're saying they're facing >> Clagghorn is the front of the property. >> Okay. >> So these are that's a front yard. You
have two sides and opposite Clagghorn is a rear yard. >> Okay. So, this is >> Okay. >> So, this is the side >> and they've demonstrated through testimony and Mr. Langraph's uh diagram on on this plan that that fence is located rearward of the face of that
property of the face of that structure. >> It is. >> So, >> so we're dealing with the pre-existing fence that you have up now, not not one you're going to put on the other side of the house. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Are there any more questions for Greg?
>> I just want to make sure that the fact that there is a HC from >> Correct. We will comply with any HPC requirements. Okay. At this point, we'd like to open it up to anyone within 200 feet.
You can go up to the podium and state your name and address. That it name and address. >> When you come to the podium, please uh please state your name, spell your name, and then say your address, and then I will swear you in. Bill Conrad, CO N R A
D 347 Congress Street. >> 347 what? >> Congress Street. >> Congress. Okay. We hadn't heard that one yet. >> Are you within 200 feet? >> I'm sorry. >> Are you within 200 feet? Are you within 200 feet of the Did Did you get a notice in the mail?
>> I didn't measure it, but I'm right around the corner from the propert. >> If you got something in the mail, then you're within 200 feet. Okay. >> I did get a >> Pardon me. Is that microphone on? >> Yes, it is. >> There you go. Okay, good. >> Can't hear me. >> Now I can. Yes. >> All right, sir. Please raise your right
hand. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sub. >> All right. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. >> I'd just like to say that I have seen the fence, and I have no problem with it. I think the improvements that uh Mr.
ground made to this property have been fantastic and I have no issue with this fence at all and I think that it should be granted. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else within 200 ft? Okay, sir. Please uh state your name,
spell your last name, then give me your address, and then I'll swear you in. >> Martin Van Walsome. Van space w is in Mary. 329 Congress Street. I am the person that is abudding the fence in
question along the one property line. We share the property line that most of the largest run of the fence is on. Uh it is my French drain that uh you were noting in the pictures because we had some flooding that was occurring um in between my garage and the uh and the
retaining wall that was built. The um French train has taken care of it 100%. It is it has been a terrific addition to uh to our adjoining yards. Um my wife is watching at home and she and I both object Mr. Langrath to your description
of our driveway. We think our driveway is actually very pretty. It's a Jersey whitest stone driveway. And >> it is. Sorry. I apologize. >> I just said looking at a driveway. So >> um they say that good fences make good
neighbors. Um the u the Mr. Greta and Mr. Clansancy have been great neighbors. Uh we have a terrific relationship. Um the fence doesn't isn't necessary for them to be good neighbors to us. I watched them suffer through the
building of that wall the entire time. I we live in our home roughly I'm there about 70% of the time. So, um I witnessed from day one the mason was completely unprepared to deal with the groundwater situation which is only about 20 inches below grade. Um we
actually had to revise our drainage system, Mr. if you remember at all um our property because the drainage system couldn't use a 12-in pipe. It would have been half full with water all the time. Um when the mason showed up and started
to um to dig the trench, they ran into groundwater and they were trying to use a Home Depot pump to get the water out of there and I told them that was never going to work. Um Mr. Gran and Mr. Clancy eventually had to bring in an entire crew of people to pump those
drains out, including piping and um and a lot of equipment that was necessary, much of it on my property. Um but we understood the situation and uh we worked it out. The um the mason also in the process of digging that trench severed half the root structure of a
beautiful, healthy, mature maple tree that we then had to take down. And um it was uh promised to us that that that wouldn't happen and it was the very first thing that they did. Um so when Mr. Grenice says that they fired this Mason um they fired this Mason for very
good reason. Um the Mason is the reason reason that the that the Gren Mr. Grena and Mr. Clansancy ran into such problems because he never did anything that he was supposed to do. It took a tremendously long time to build this very simple retaining wall. So, um the
the resulting field decision that was made to put the five- foot fence um to deal specifically with the variance that's being issued, you can see I'm 6'5. A 6'6 fence is actually terrific for me because it allows me to not see um whether Mr. Grant or Mr. Clancy are
entertaining anybody at their pool as I'm doing my endless yard work down here. Um I actually like the fence at the height that it's at. Um, Miss Notch, to to answer your question, a 4-ft fence would be a detriment in my opinion on top of this wall because it would allow
us to fully fully see everything that's going on in the Granite Clansy's backyard. So, I'm very happy that they chose the 5-ft fence on top of the one and one to one and a half foot retaining wall. Um, it's a pretty fence. Um, we it is providing a tremendous amount of
privacy. Uh we have absolutely no objection to it whatsoever and we think it is it is been a huge um benefit to the neighborhood to have this fence from a privacy perspective. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else within 200
feet? Anyone beyond 200 ft? No. All right. We'll close it to the public. your motion. >> The motion I'd recommend being made, but how you vote up is up to you. Is a motion to grant the variance or for the fence height
set forth on page Oh, there it is. Little one on the top of page three, the engineers report subject to the conditions outlined in the in the engineers report. Um, and with the caveat that nothing we've done here has overruled anything the HBC has done. And
if they need to approve this fence, then you have to get that approval. Um, but um, that's the motion I'd recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. >> I make the motion. >> I make the motion.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Mission motions. Mr. Zexer seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes, >> Mrs. Notch. >> No, >> Miss Sh. >> Reason just just so they're on the record because
>> the reason because it exceeds the six foot, you know, it could have been before you even did finished it. It should have been We've had this before where people come and then they beg for forgiveness after they when it's done. But the height is supposed to be six
feet and it's more than six. >> Thank you. I I'm supposed to have reasons yes and no. So, I just want to write them down. I got it. Thank you. Okay. Miss Sheen, >> yes. >> Mr. Walsh, >> yes. >> Mr. Zexer, >> yes.
>> Mr. Jagger. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bonuda. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your time this evening. >> Thank you. >> We come in trying to
>> keep fishing. He doesn't fishing. where he just hunts. He gave up on fishing. I I I never get any fishing reports from him. >> You been fishing? >> I saw something fishing. >> No, I'm chasing a big deer around the way. >> He's chasing a big deer around the That's what he's doing. >> So good. And maybe it's
heights. Who knows what it is? >> Okay. >> I think we have to talk to each other better. >> You have a you have a business relationship with him. >> I guess you're allowed to if you're not within
>> good neighbors. >> As a general rule, someone in the neighborhood >> is knowing someone and even knowing them well is not necessarily you don't have a financial and their application doesn't affect your property have to have a conflict
but if you're uncomfortable >> do we still have seven without you you're good >> yeah and it'll make an even number as well which I don't like so >> no it's fine >> every >> what's that >> yeah but he's the seventh voter isn't he
>> oh wait I'm not counting the chair >> three four well Then you're out. >> You got it. >> We have seven. It's fine. >> If you're uncomfortable, it's fine. >> Movie the seventh voter. >> Okay. Mr. Jagger, he he he is sitt >> he's friendly with the applicant. As I've explained in in towns, everybody
knows everybody. And if friendship was a reason to not vote, you we would never have a quorum. Um so if you don't have a financial information and you're not with a financial relationship and you're not within 200 feet as a general rule, I don't view that as a conflict. Um but um
and if we only had if that made six members instead of seven, I would say you should vote. But since we have um seven without you and you felt some discomfort, I would just as well have you uh uh not vote because that way it can't be questioned. Okay.
>> And if you want to go home early, you can. >> You can go home. >> You sealed the deal there. >> Uh oh, he's leaving. Okay. Our next application is U. McFarland Associates LLC,
112 Madison Avenue. >> Okay. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Anthony Monzo from Monzo Canon Stales representing the applicant, McFarland Associates LLC. Last time I was here on two applications, I think it was the
planning board. I was mistaken for Lud Dwire, >> but it was a compliment actually. He was an excellent land use attorney. >> I'm not sure I would say. >> Uh, so this is a um building on on Madison
Avenue. So, it's a a home that has, I believe, seven bedrooms, and there's also a small um one-bedroom apartment or two-bedroom, one-bedroom apartment, two stories in the back. It's a pre-existing non-conforming use. The home is in the historic districts and it's a
contributing building. Um, with me um on behalf of McFarland Associates is Rob Wilson, who's a principal. Um, you may remember his father, Bruce Wilson, who was a longtime Kate May person who um worked with the city for several years
on Soul Point. Um and also we have Chris Zender who's a licensed architect, planner, and engineer who will provide the testimony to support um the variances that we're seeking. You want to swear them in first and then I'll go through just my introduction on this.
>> Um if you you please raise your right hand and Mr. Hurles remains under oath. Each of you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. what you got? >> I do. >> So again, this property is a sevenbedroom historic building
contributing and the only um part of this project that is is is being done is is there's a second floor or maybe a third floor second floor porch that's it's a covered porch but it's open. They want to enclose it and make
it uh living space which increases uh gross floor area although it does not trigger a floor area ratio and because there are nonconformities with respect to use also with respect to lot size lot width lot frontage and it's
in the sideyard setback it triggers a host of variances. So, what we have is just a small enclosure of of a building with no expansion, just enclosing what's already there that's triggering these variances. And lastly, um there's an encroaching driveway onto an adjoining
property that's controlled again by the same applicant and there will be an easement to address that. But also, one of the parking spaces is partially on grass and Mr. Herurles in his report suggested that there be hard surface for all the parking. So there's an extension
of the stone driveway which slightly increases lot coverage. It's already over but so it's over a little bit more. So there'll be a lot coverage variance along with the other bulk variances and also the Dvariance which which is an expansion of a non-conforming use. So
with that background, I'd like to have first Mr. Wilson explain the project and give you some history and and what he's doing. >> Sure. Thank you. Um uh so uh the the house at 112 Madison Avenue has been in our family. My dad bought it back in '
86 and uh he passed away about two or three years ago and um I ended up buying it. It was actually my you know my dad being a lawyer and wanting no uh issues he put it in the trust and that so that's what uh McFarland Associates LLC
was in like a was a an LLC that was formed uh so that was out of his estate and kind of stuff like that. So so I ended up buying it. We we thought about selling the house. So I bought the house um two years ago for my siblings and we've uh been making improvements to the
house. Um uh we've um uh it was originally it's a 1905 house. It was built eightbedroom house and uh the houses you know teeny tiny closets you know uh and uh very you know small
bedrooms and had two bathrooms on the second floor, one bathroom on the third floor for an eightbedroom house it was originally. So so last year we did an improvement. We uh combined two of the bedrooms, so we made a master suite with a with a a
bathroom there. >> Excuse me, Mr. Wilson. Can you bring that mic closer? Everybody bring the mic close, please. Thank you. >> Y and um so we made that improvement. Um you know, but we've really brought the house back all the like we've resand refinished all the interior floors,
stripped the doors. Um, we really, um, you know, I I salvage all of the interior sconces and all that stuff. So, I'm, you know, I I I do appreciate, uh, the history in the house. Um, uh, so our goal is in this one is we have a a a
porch, which was uh an addition put on at some point in time. I can't tell you when it was put on. Um, it's at the back of the house. And um so we're we would like to enclose the second floor porch and turn it into a uh
another bathroom so that the another bedroom has a bathroom attached to it. Um it currently has a screen porch. The you know it's not really that well built. You know the screens fly out of it in the winter and um you know we retrieve them and we put them back in.
So I I think it will be an improvement on the appearance of the house. Um and uh as Mr. Monzo mentioned we have an adjacent lot also. My nieces actually have a garden on it there now. It's a and um and uh so we have no intention of
changing that. Um and I'm uh the trustee of that uh property also. >> And you did receive HBC approval for this? >> Yes, we have HPC approval. And uh ju just just for the record, HPC uh granted final approval not knowing
that a variance was required until he went for the permits and they indicated that because it's an increase in floor area, gross floor area, it triggers the variance. Um so otherwise it would have been a conceptual approval prior to getting zoning board approval. Uh I have
no further questions for Mr. Wilson. I'd like to go to Mr. Zender and I'd like him to put his credentials on the record and and ask the board to accept him as an expert. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Chris Zender. My professional address is 617 Stokes Road in Medford, New Jersey. Um I
graduated the New Jersey Institute of Technology in the year 2000. Remember that the 2000s. Um I've been practicing for as a licensed professional for about 21 years approximately. Um, I'm also a professional engineer and professional
planner licensed in nine states. I testify before historic boards, land use boards, um, dozens of time times a year in the state of New Jersey. Um, I last appeared in Cape May over the summer for the HPC
component of this application. >> Did you say you were an architect, planner, and engineer? >> Yes, all three. Uh, my licenses are all current and good standing with the state. Okay. >> Okay. >> Acceptable. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Zender, could you I should have gone
through this in my um introduction, but could you just go through the variances, identify them, and um >> Certainly. I'll uh I'll list the variances. Um first, we have the uh use variance, which uh is why we're before you tonight. Uh this is because we have the
nonconformity of a uh one-bedroom apartment that um pre-exists the ordinance change restricting that in the um RS district. Um with the proposed expansion as you heard uh we need to
come back because we are increasing living space. Um additionally we have a lot size variance. Uh the lot is a couple hundred square feet under the uh minimum requirements. We have um a lot
width variance. Uh the minimum lot width in this zone is 50 ft whereas the existing lot is 45 ft wide. We have a lot frontage variance of the same values 50 and 45. Uh we have a sideyard variance um
uh due to a bay window on the uh north side of the house I believe. And um we have a lot coverage variance. Uh 45% is the maximum lot coverage in this zone. The existing property had a 48.7%
lot coverage and we have increased that to 49.9 due to the uh parking requirements linked to the bedrooms and that includes the uh apartment behind based upon the RSIS standards.
So if we can focus on the use variance first, if you can um articulate the um standard for use variance and then go through the special reasons positive criteria um suit site suitability and negative criteria. >> Certainly uh so for the use variance we
have the expansion of a non-conforming use and we need to demonstrate a few items in order to justify the variance. Uh first we need to demonstrate special reason reasons which uh are the advancement of the purposes of zoning
known as positive criteria. Uh we need to satisfy the negative criteria uh which includes demonstrating no substantial detriment to the public good as well as no substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the city zoning laws. Um, finally, we need to
demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed development or project. >> Can you uh explain or identify some purposes of zoning that are advanced to satisfy the positive criteria? >> I'll list a few that uh are part of the
municipal land use law. Uh one of them item A out of there is the encouragement of municipal action to guide the appropriate use of development on all lands in the state in a manner which will promote public health, safety, morals and general welfare. Um this
promotes mult this project in specifically promotes multigener use of this property uh for the homeowner and his family. Um, next we'll move on to item G from the municipal land use law, which is the promotion of sufficient space in appropriate locations for a
variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, and industrial uh, uses and open space both public and private uh, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. Um, next item I would
be the promotion of desirable desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. And most importantly to the city of Cape May, item J is the promotion and conservation of historic sites and districts.
>> And what about the site suitability standard? you >> uh certainly in terms of suitability, this site, as you heard from the applicant and can certainly reference the city records. Uh this property has been developed since roughly 1905.
Um there was an addition at some time decades ago that created this rear second level porch, but none of what we're proposing changes the fundamental uh use of the property, the character of the neighborhood, the mass or bulk of
the building. Uh we're simply enclosing um an underused enclosed porch to create 88 square ft of usable bathroom area for the family. Uh we uh as a testament to
the suitability the HPC as you heard did grant us not only preliminary but final approval. Um, so I think that further justifies the uh suitability standard >> and I guess the negative criteria would would fall into the same car type of
testimony with respect to the um impact on the public. But what about the zone plan and the and the zoning ordinance? Any any substantial detriment or impact? >> In my opinion, no. Uh, in this zone, the R um this is the RS. I just want to make
sure I got that correct. in the RS zone uh which is the residential seasonal um we are continuing to propose uh predominantly residential use. Uh even the apartment is a is a residential type of use. Um there's no change to that
pattern. Um at one time in this zone that apartment was a permitted use and we're looking to continue to operate it as it has operated without incidents. Uh we have the appropriate parking. It's behind the property. Um it's in a corner
that's fenced and um shoehorned in with garages from the neighboring properties. Um it's it's suitable in this unique application uh in terms of what we're proposing. >> So with respect to the um positive and negative criteria site suitability, do
you believe in your opinion that the standard for granting the use variance is met? >> I do. Uh I want to go through the bulk variances. I want to take all of them except lot coverage first and and I'm focusing on lot area, lot frontage, lot
width, and sideyard step back. Uh >> in your opinion, would these qualify for relief under the C1 hardship criteria? And if so, can you explain why? >> Yes, I I feel that these are the perfect example of why C1 exists. Uh we have a lawfully existing structure that was
built before the current um standards for zoning uh were enacted. Um due to the minor um project we're proposing here um these nonconformities have to be discussed at a board such as this. Um
and it triggers the bulk variances. Um however again there is no change or impact to the neighborhood as there hasn't been for decades by uh the continued use as proposed >> the um
under C2 balancing test would the same purposes of zoning that you spoke about for the use variance apply to these bulk variances as well? >> Yes. says the standard for a D variance is higher than for a C. Uh I feel comfortable uh stating that the uh from
a balancing point of view uh the same criteria the same the same supporting arguments are appropriate. >> Same with the negative criteria. >> Same with the negative criteria as well. Uh >> so lot area I guess is a little I'm sorry lot coverage is is at least in in
my view is really expansion of a nonconformity um can argue that the closing a screened in porch and making it a bathroom is an expansion but really it's the same footprint. There's really no but
technically I do agree with Craig floor area does not include a screened in port. So it's increasing floor area but it's not increasing the footprint of the building but lot area or lot coverage is being increased slightly. So you want to go through that under both the C1 and the C2 criteria
>> um under both criterias under flexible and hardship. >> Aren't you expanding because our engineer asked you to? >> That is correct. >> Okay. That's that's a that's kind of a purpose of zoning there. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean because we we counted bedrooms including the rental. Um there
are certain number of legal um conforming parking spaces required and we were able to we were able to demonstrate that we had I believe four of the five spaces and uh what the city engineer required was that we extended the stone driveway further uh to create
a conforming legal fifth. Um the construction of this driveway it's crushed peg gravel. Um, so in terms of what we are doing with lot coverage, we're going to be stripping away some top soil. There's no landscaping changes. There's no trees involved with
this. It's just lawn beyond where the driveway ends. We're going to strip away that top soil. Um, provide the crushed stone um to the city engineer satisfaction with the construction detail. Um, and there we go. That's our
extended driveway and that accounts for the um impervious coverage. But again, in terms of impairment of the zoning ordinance, we are uh we have to balance the fact that we're providing the required parking off street as per ordinance with the fact that we are going to um increase the lot coverage.
However, in terms of coverage, this is a pvious surface. um by your ordinance, half of that area is erased or credited, if you will, and we will provide to the engineer satisfaction um um any storm
water uh management requirements. >> Mr. King, could you turn on your microphone, please? Mr. King, >> thank you. >> Did I Did I say that much? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I see a one that's red there. I couldn't >> No, my my microphone is on and I've been doing my best to speak into it. The last
thing I may have mumbled, but I was just politely pointing out that our engineer asked them to do it so we don't have to spend too much time since parking is a purpose of zoning and you were advancing it at our engineer's request. So, >> thank you. >> But I'll say that more clearly into the microphone. >> I I see you have your backup there if you need it.
>> Yeah. What's that? >> I see I have your backup microphone. >> I need two microphones. >> I I have no further questions. So, we can entertain board questions and the engineers report. >> Does anyone have any question? You have a question? I have a question on the the additional
property that's out in the back. You said there's one bedroom or two bedrooms there. >> It's a it's a single bedroom. There's living space on the ground level and there's a stair that goes up to essentially one large open space that's utilized as a bedroom. >> Okay. And I I guess this is for the
engineer. This was approved back a while ago because it usually when they come with a pre-existing they say that it was built or it was changed over a certain time frame. >> I think it's existed in prior to zoning. >> Okay. >> So
>> I I I know that I've had these conversations with the applicant and as he testified his father purchased the property in ' 86 or ' 87 and it was already at that time which is 40 years ago a rental. >> Okay. That's all I wanted to know is, you know, when it was changed over.
>> Yeah. >> Cuz we try to keep people from >> building a garage and all of a sudden it becomes another >> another house. >> All right. Can we just have Do you agree with that, sir? >> I agree with that.
>> Okay. So, go ahead with Greg's report. >> Okay. Um, summarizing my September 30th, 2025 report. This project is located in the RS residential uh seasonal district. Um we're going to roll right into the completeness checklist. They've asked
from waivers from items number 19, 25, 28, and 33. I did support granting all of those waivers. Item number 32 um is providing an easement to contain the driveway
uh for the parking improvements. Right now, if you look at the plan, um it bows into adjoining lot seven. They own and control lot seven right now. So, it's a great idea at this point to get an easement there in case that's ever sold off so that we have an easement so that
those parking spaces will never go away and we'll protect those um and they will stay with this property. Okay. So, that that would be a condition of approval that they will provide that easement. Moving on to the just summarizing uh the variances you've heard testimony from
the applicant. There are so in the residential seasonal district single family dwellings are permitted use but in this case you're only allowed to have one single family dwelling on each lot. The cottage in the back consists con is considered a second single family
dwelling based on our definitions. So there are two single family dwellings on the lot that drives the non-conforming situation. Okay, it's an existing undersized lot just for one single family dwelling, but this lot has accommodated these two uses over
this period of time um since 1905. 19. Is that what you said? Okay. So, um the lot is under size 6,250 ft is the requirement in the zone where 5873.23
square feet exists. Lot width and lot frontage requirements are 50 feet where lot width is 45 feet and lot frontage is 47.48 feet. Those are all existing nonconformities. So the lot is small and it's narrow
with regards to the sideyard setback. So this is really the only the the variance that's being triggered by their proposed improvements. So, a sliver of them filling in and converting that open
porch into habitable space extends into the required 8 foot wide sideyard setback. So, there's a 6 foot wide a six foot setback proposed where 8 foot is required. And then finally, lot
coverage. So that lot coverage variance it's 45% is the maximum permitted in the district. They're slightly over as it exists right now at 48.7%. But my recommendation is is to park this. Let's make sure it's adequately
parked. They were they're deficient one parking spacing space in the existing condition. they're going to provide that >> the proposed improvements are not driving and in in you know creating a need for one additional space because
it's a a proposed bathroom. There's no additional bedrooms being proposed. Um so them being able to park this based on the existing conditions is a positive aspect of this application. Um the only negative is that that complying with my
recommendation increases the lot coverage. Now 49.9% in my opinion is not going to create storm water issues. They're providing it on a pvious surface. So therefore I believe that the potential negatives are
mitigated by the proposed parking surface. Okay. So um and then no that that takes care of that. I'm sorry. So that's a summary of the variances under the general review comments. Um these all should be conditions of approval. We've asked them to just update the
zoning table and reflect the comments of the review memo. Uh we've asked for some additional setback information under item number two. Three details the requirement to provide the easement um to the board attorney and board engineer for review and approval and then
eventually they have to provide evidence of filing that so that it runs with the property. Um, four, we've asked for the construction details of the extended parking surface. Five is our standard requirement. They'd have to comply with chapter 525, the
minimum stormwater management and grading requirements. >> Six, we would just like to verify that you are preserving the existing landscaping. >> Okay. So, that's supportive of not having them provide a landscaping plan. So, they will preserve all the existing
landscaping. Seven is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction to make sure that it's suitable and uh not damaged and uh any damaged sidewalk would have to be replaced. Eight is our standard condition that they have to provide
inspection escrow and tie the certificate of occupancy to the acceptance of improvements. Nine is compliance with the shade tree commission, fire department and public works department. We did receive reports from the fire department dated 10225
recommending approval. Public works recommended approval dated 10325 with none of those had e had any comments. The shade tree commission recommended approval with the following conditions. The project as proposed does not impact
the two street trees uh fronting Madison Avenue. The tree at the rear of the property should be protected by a construction barrier. just protect that tree and you would comply with that. Is there any issue with that? >> No. >> Okay. Um and then finally all of the
other conditions are standard conditions. Um it should be noted that um HPC appro final HPC approval is required. I guess you have to go back to them and just reaffirm that. Um and then
so that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. Excuse me. >> Um, if there's no questions from the board, we'll open it up to anyone within 200 feet.
Jules Roush, R a U 1010 New York Avenue. I did receive notice. I'm I guess technically within 200 feet because of my back property line and the proximity. I must congratulate the people that that are in control of the building. They put a lot a lot of effort to improve it,
particularly inside. I They went for a long time with a lot of improvements. We think that that what they've done to preserve that house is an asset and I certainly support their application. >> Thank you very much, >> sir. Two things, sir. >> Uh, can you please say your address
again? And then I want to have you >> 1010 New York Avenue. >> Okay. Sir, do you swear or affirm the testimony you just gave was the truth, told, and nothing but truth? Subd. >> I do. >> Thank you, sir. Okay. Anyone beyond 200 ft? Seeing no
one close to the public. No comments from the board of the application. Um the motion that I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you is a motion to grant the variances on page three of the engineers report. Um
they're going to vote on all the variances at once. This is a huge variance, so they will require five out of seven to approve the application. Um since they presented all of the positives al together, we're going to vote on the entire thing in one vote for
the project. But remember, five out of seven are required for this to be approved and it'll be subject to the conditions one through 13 outlined by the board engineer. That's the motion. I recommend to >> I'll make the motion.
>> Second. >> Mr. Venudo motions. Mrs. Naj seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Naj. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Awesome. Thank you. Congratulations. >> Thank you very much. Congrats. That's >> great. Uh, Mr. King, can I ask you a question? Yeah. >> In terms of resubmitting to the HPC, can I send them a letter >> for their weekly review?
>> We did. >> The Mr. Herurles, I think, recommended that we had to send it back to them. >> I You may have checked with the HBC. >> Okay, >> that's the best advice. >> Okay. >> I I I have his email and all of his contacts. I because there's there's been
no >> they didn't make any changes they wouldn't >> if there are I'll I'll reach out to them directly. I just >> Miss Keenan has an answer for you. >> So if you haven't if there are no changes to the approval >> then you don't have to go back. Okay. But don't let it expire either.
>> I I know that um Chris Jillian Schwarz did everything he could to nail us down at the at that meeting. And like I said, we are not changing it. This is the project. >> Oh, you're good to go then for that part. You have to wait for hours though. Our resolution >> or the board's resolution, I should say.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, we need a motion to approve the bills. >> I make a motion that we pay the bills. >> Second. >> Mr. Bonudo. Motions. Miss Sheen. Seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch.
>> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Wer. >> Yes. >> Thank you. and a motion to adjurnn. >> Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> I make the motion. >> All in favor? >> I I
>> Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> So I want to tell you may not be here in November because George is getting an operation that day >> and um I'm