Testing. Testing. In compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. If any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this
time. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Mrs. Werner Mr. Venudo here Mr. Lewin here Mrs. Notch here Miss Sheen here Mr. Walsh here Mr. Zexer Mr. Jagger here. Miss Stevenson here. Thank you.
Okay. First order of business. We'll need a motion to adopt uh our first resolution 522 2025 Matthew and Cara Crane 1026 New York Avenue block 1102. Do we have a motion? I make the
motion. I'll second. Miss Sheen motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin, abstain. Mrs. Notch, yes. Miss Sheen, yes. Mr. Walsh, abstain. Mr. Jagger, yes. Miss Sheen, uh, Miss
Stevenson, yes. Mr. Venudo, yes. Thank you. Okay, we'll need a motion to adopt our second resolution. 522 2022. Joseph and Gail Stevenson, 233 Kart Lane, block
1031, lots 3802 and 39. I make the motion. I'll second. Miss motions. Mr. Jagger seconds. Mr. Lewin, abstain. Mrs. Notch, yes. Miss Sheen, yes. Mr. Walsh, yes. Mr. Jagger,
yes. Miss Stevenson, abstain. Mr. Venudo, yes. Thank you. And we'll need a motion to adopt for our third resolution 522 2025 Jason and send
the cle 501 Hugh Street block 1049. I make the motion. No second. Miss motions. Mr. Jagger seconds. Mr. Lewin abstain. Mrs. Notch. Yes. Miss Sheen. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Jagger.
Yes. Yes, Miss Stevenson. Yes, Mr. Venudo. Yes. Thank you. Okay, we'll now need a motion to adopt u the minutes from April 24, 2025. I'll make the motion. I'll second.
Michigan. Is that Miss Stevenson? Yes. Thank you. Michigan motions. Miss Stevenson seconds. Mr. Lewin, abstain. Mrs. Notchain. Miss Sheen. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Jagger. Yes. Mr. Miss Stevenson. Yes.
Mr. Bernudo. Yes. Thank you. Okay. We have a uh slight change in the order. Sure. If I may interrupt, if if I I spoke to everyone, if we the board would proceed forward as we have it on the agenda originally with the application proceeding first. We no
longer need to. You're You're good, huh? You have your You have your experts. I'm up. Okay. Okay. Our first application is uh John and Joan Dempsey. Uh 665 Hugh Street, Block 1058.
Make sure you speak into your microphones. Don't push them up too far away. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, board members, uh, especially willing to accommodate us like that. It is appreciated, although not needed. My
name, Ron Galzunus, appearing on behalf of John and Joan Dempsey. Property of course is 665 Hughes Street at the corner of Franklin and Hughes. This is located in the RS residential seasonal district. This home is contributing
building and in the heart of the historic district, it is um certainly a showpiece. Um, even though I have uh Miss Joan Dempsey to my left, um, I rather than take her testimony, I I'd
like the board to hear um what she her opening statement, her statement that she read to the HPC when when she uh obtained her the approval for this uh proposal this evening because I don't think I I could have said anything better.
Um, so thank you for the opportunity to present our request to construct an outdoor shower enclosure. Can you move the mic a little closer? I'm sorry. I'm having I have with me tonight my husband, Jack, and I'd also like to thank four of our full-time Hugh Street residents, Beth and Frank Akre, and
Marty and Chris Lutz, for being here tonight to support us. I'd like to provide you some background that leads to this request. We bought 665 Hughes Street in June 2021 and immediately started a renovation of the interior to make the house a four-season home and to
update it for modern living, having concluded the two plus-year interior renovation. Last winter, we started an ambitious restoration of the exterior to include replacing the asbesto shingles, the metal roofs with cedar shake and standing seam metal roofs, adding new
cedar siding, insulation, sheeting, which the house had never had, and a topofthe-line zip system to encapsulate the exterior. We repaired and retained all of the original windows, replaced the large diameter gutters, replaced the shutters, the fencing, and virtually
every stick of wood on the house with new sample wood. I was very worried that once we removed the old cedar siding, we might find a lot of rot on the framing, but there were only three small areas of rot on three corners where the gutters had failed. The old growth wood framing
is as hard as steel. I consider this restoration to be a most successful partnership between us as the homeowners, the HPC and the city of Cape May. And I want to also note that the city's HPC zoning and construction staff have been invaluable to us every step of
the way in this now nearly 4-year restoration. This committee approved our HVAC permit request to install condenser units in the sidey yard facing Hugh Street the month we closed on the house in June 2021. A couple of months later,
you allowed us to temporarily add a propane tank in the sidey yard facing Hugh Street while we awaited the two-year moratorum against opening Hugh Street to install a gas line to the house. And you approved our request for exterior restoration. Finally, you
approved our request for awnings on the secondary elevation on the side and back of our house in line with Secretary of the Interior guidelines for awnings. We initially thought we could use the main floor bath with its shower as the
outdoor shower for our constant stream of beachgoers, but in the past three years, we have had far too much sand going into our plumbing and the city's water and sewer lines. We also consider other options such as the prominade
showers and an outdoor faucet. But with five frequent inresent children under the age of five and one disabled adult, it isn't sustainable to strip them down on the proomenade or get the enormous amounts of sand they bring home off with cold water faucet and hose. So we
started looking at places where we might be able to build an outdoor shower enclosure. After multiple meetings with city staff and because of setback and multiple variance issues, we jointly determined that the only option was an enclosure attached to our shed 35 ft
from the front property line. And like the HVAC units facing Hughes Street. Also like the HVAC units, we propose constructing the enclosure out of the same material as the shed painted to match. And again, like the HVC units, we
will further minimize the appearance of the enclosure with historically appropriate plant material, we will still need to petition the city zoning office for a hopefully easier to acquire type-C variants to allow us to attach the enclosure to the shed, provided you
approve our permit request. Because of the number of firstf flooror windows, multiple exterior doors, the gas meter, and narrow access clearances, there is no option to attach the enclos enclosure to the house that meets historic
construction and zoning requirements. The Secretary of the Interior guidelines allow for a minimally visible addition on the historic property to provide for modern use, but I realize there are many interpretations of and a lot of subjectivity about what those terms
mean. I hope we have demonstrated over the past three plus years that we are concerned about and committed to meeting and in at least one case exceeding laser cut railing the high standards of historic preservation in this jewel of a
city and that you will approve our request because we have demonstrated over and over that we will deliver an enclosure that fully respects the importance of historic preservation. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. So Joan, that
was your opening statement to the HPC, correct? Yes, it was. Okay. Um John, um let's get you sworn in and Miss Dempsey as well in case the board has any questions for her. Um I need the microphones on green,
please. Thank you. You're right. Do you swear that your testimony you're about to provide will be the truth? I do. I do. I do. John, your credentials briefly um for the board. Absolutely. I'm licensed in New Jersey as both an engineer as an architect. I've been
practicing both fields in Cape May County for more years I care to admit. I think I'm approaching 30 now. Um I've been before this board on numerous occasions as most every other municipal planning and zoning board in Cape and Atlantic County throughout my career.
Mr. Chairman acknowledging that. Okay. Thank you. John, why don't you take us through existing conditions on the site and this evening's proposal? Absolutely. As you mentioned in your opening statement, I think we're at 665 Hughes Street. This is the northwest corner of
Hughes and Franklin. We're in the RS, the residential seasonal zoning district. We're known as block 1058, lot 15. The existing property is irregularly shaped, has frontage both on Franklin and Hughes Avenue, and contains
4,144 square feet of lot area. It's presently developed with a 2 and a half story historic home containing five bedrooms. The only accessory structure on the property is an existing shed measuring about 7 1/2 ft wide by 12t long and approximately 12t tall. In
terms of conformance to the um zoning ordinance of the existing conditions, uh we have four different conforming conditions and quite a number of non-conforming conditions. The lot width and frontage are both conforming. The minimum hable ground floor area is
conforming and the existing shed is conforming with regards to the front yard and sideyard setback. As you might expect, an older home on a smaller lot has many nonconformities in existing additions. The lot area, for example, where a
single family home in the RS district, the minimum lot area required is 6,250 square ft. The existing properties 4,144 square ft. The existing building setbacks where 20 ft would be required. From Franklin Street, 3.7 feet exist.
From Hugh Street, 1 foot exist rear yard setback where 25 ft would be required. 15.2 feet exist. and a sideyard setback where 8 feet would be required. 3.08 feet exist. And parking where a five-bedroom home under today's
ordinances, three parking spaces be required. We currently can accommodate one almost conforming in size. The 9 by8 is your minimum parking space size. We can get 9 by7 uh within the existing driveway. It's there.
So one more uh actually two more non-conforming conditions in the current condition the shed the rear yard setback where 5T's required the shed as assist now is 4.27 27 ft and where the maximum permitted height for a shed is 10 ft. I approximate the existing shed at 12
feet. All those conditions I just mentioned as being existing non-conforming absolutely will be not um not mitigated or not um exact exasperated or aggravated by the development that we're proposing which I'll describe next. Good.
Yes. Um, for setting context, as I said, we are in the residential seasonal district. Uh, we are surrounded by other homes, historic and nature like ours also in the, uh, residential seasonal district. The proposal that we bring
before you this evening is really quite simple. We want to construct a 4x6 enclosed outdoor shower that would be attached to the shed. Additionally, this shower rather than being open would have a pergola style
overhead structure. I hesitate to use the word roof, but it's an overhead structure on top of it. Um, that's formed and shaped like a pergola. In terms of new structures, that's it. Collateral to that, we're going to be removing and replacing some
brick pavers so as to not result in an increase in any lot coverage. and we're going to be providing an abundance of new landscaping. Uh again, in terms of physical improvements that we're seeking approval for tonight, that's it. Whenever we talk about an outdoor
shower, particularly um one that's um not part of the principal building setback, you might be concerned with where's the runoff go from the shower. The proposed method of handling this is going to be a stone recharge trench directly underneath the shower. The floor surface of the outdoor shower is
going to be boards with open joints. So the water is going to basically go right in the stone trench and percolate immediately. There is no runoff. In fact, there is no change at all to the property in terms of the volume of runoff or the direction and method with which storm water um flows currently
take place. All those nonconformities that I mentioned previously about the existing conditions, they remain. In fact, the relief for which we seek that brings us here today is the
fact that the shower is attached to a shed and not the principal structure and the fact that we're proposing an overhead element again I won't use the word roof but a pergola which is not permitted two nos in the ordinance in terms of your outdoor showers putting this property in context
and taking the setting what we're proposing to do yes it'll function as a shower to the public and to people enjoying the beautiful landscape ing the yard in which this is situated. It's going to look like an arbor or trellis or a a ornamental element, not a
utilitarian outdoor shower. That feature is far more appropriate to the historic setting of the fabric of the neighborhood attached to the shed looking like a garden structure than it would be attached to the building. The variances Oh, I should back up before I talk about the variances. Are there any questions about
what we're proposing or how we're proposing it? I have a I have a quick question. Sure. Um, how far from I guess it would be the sideyard or is that the backyard that it would be from? I guess the shed right now is 4.5
ft from the property line. The shed is 4.27 ft from what we're calling the rear property line. The rear. Okay. Correct. The outdoor shower I set back at 5.2 feet. The fully conforming setback location. So, it's going to be gone in further. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any other questions about what the
proposed development is? Uh, not about that right now, but what is the reason why um, roofs are not permitted on showers? Just out of curiosity. Why does your ordinance not permit roofs on showers? It's an interesting question and I I can
surmise, but I don't know the exact answer. Perhaps Mr. Herurles may have more insight. I do not. Okay. So then so then my I would surmise is because it introduces more bulk and mass to the shower uh which is something that's not typically
part of the a traditional building. So for aesthetic reasons they probably prohibit that from being a shower or to prevent it from becoming something more than a shower as things like to morph over time. That's what I would be my expectation. Well I mean I don't know whether they actually outdoor showers actually have a lesser setback too. So
the massing idea complemented with a lesser setback would have more light air and open space impacts to your neighbor on that side. So but I guess the neighbor is not worrying about being able to look down into the shower from No, because I have a shower next to my
house that is roofed and thank god it is. Yeah, the pergola idea actually helps a little bit but uh that's you know I always saw that as a concern. No roof on the shower. Look where the windows are next door. Yeah. Right.
Thank you. Nonetheless, the orders requires it and we come here this evening because we're seeking to put not a roof, right? Put a pergola structure over top of it. Okay. Thank you. I also have another question for you. You said you're removing pavers to make for lot coverage. What What pavers are you removing? Behind the shed. There's an
area of brick pavers um that we are going to relocate some of those to the front part of the shed to extend the walkway leading to our new shower. And with the footprint of the shower, while it is completely pvious, we're treating it as lot coverage. So, we're removing
an equal amount of pavers on behind the shed to offset these 11 square feet or so of pavers we need on the front of the shed to our new walkway, access the shower, plus the footprint of the shower. Okay. I have a question. Now, that now that we're putting a shower outside the shed,
what's to keep the owners from putting either bathroom facilities inside the shed? Once we give this approval, we've had this before where people want to put a shower and they end up doing more. Well, there's several plumbing components that go in and do showers and
bathrooms and uh toilets. An outdoor shower has no drain. It's not connected to a san sewer system. Your ordinance prohibits that. So, yes, we will be providing hot and cold water lines from the house to the shower. It's not connected to sanitary sewer line. An
outdoor shower is effectively a glorified hose bib. A hose bib is mounted high in a wall. Um, this is not meant for sanitary facilities and it lacks the drain that would be necessary say for a toilet. Maybe you could explain how the drainage
works where you have the um Yeah, we have a stone just underneath the as I as I mentioned previously that all the runoff is going to go between the deck boards and the floor into a stone bed. The stone bed is 2 ft deep. The entire footprint of the shower, there's no need to run the utilities through the shed.
No, they could be run directly from the house to the shower. Okay. So, that that should be a condition of approval that there's no there's no water services being run to the shed. Um, quick question. Is there a reason why you put it on the the the side
closest to the street and not on the other side of the shed? Cuz if you're removing the the bricks from that side, is there a reason for The applicant was guided by representatives of the zoning or construction office as to where they believed a permissible location would be
and they discounted the rear for reasons I frankly don't understand. Um, from my perspective, I think it probably could be put there from and not be any more violative of the zoning ordinance than the relief we're seeking this evening. Um I think that if we consider that as
an option though what we're proposing on the side we're proposing it going back to the idea that what proposing is more of a garden feature actually enhances the landscaping and the um garden area with which it's being situated. I think
it looks better is more complimentary to the setting than the gable end of the shed. So I think there's reasons to put it here. Despite the utilitarian nature of the shower, it doesn't look or feel or appear that way. And John, you you you mentioned that the
um putting the the shower here with the pergola um fits in with the fabric of of the neighborhood, but principally fits in. We don't want this attached to the historic structure itself. Absolutely. going to emphasize
that it is appears as it's a garden structure, an arbor, a trellis. In fact, the applicant's intent is to have the vines grow um over top the trellis. That feature attached to the house looks very out of place. We have a
historic house that an outdoor shower with a trellus or not is going to be out of character with the house. In fact, the HPC um endorsed supports this location and not attached to the house. Not to mention, we had some practical difficulties attaching to the house.
There simply wasn't any wall space with which to do that between windows, utilities, and doors. Yeah, the preservation guidelines and I think that was in the opening statement there says you can have a small addition to an historic structure for modern living
purposes, but that's not necessarily the the most appropriate thing to do where your first choice is if you had to do that then you can attach this to the historic structure. Correct. The fact that we're putting an outdoor shower here
sounds well, it's contrary to the ordinance. What would why would the ordinance want the shower to be attached to the main building? Um, the reasons I could come up with would be that they don't want the water being too close to
property line. They don't want the appearance of the shower to be imposing upon the neighbor. But if you think of those reasons and you recognize that a the water is not going anywhere in our and the appearance that we're proposing, it actually complements the shed that's there. The neighbor is going to have a
more aesthetic appearance of the property when it's done than it is without it. So I really understanding what the intent might be. We're not violating that intent. We're actually enhancing the setting of the neighborhood um by
putting it where we are. A question about um HPC I think I read somewhere it was not unanimous, was it? Was it unanimous that they agreed for that? I did not attend the hearings. I do not know that answer. It was not unanimous. Okay. I just didn't know what the reasons why the
people that on the HPC did not um agree with that location. Do you recall? The only um disagreement specific disagreement that I recall was that one of the members did not like the fact
that it faced Hugh Street. Um but another member spoke very eloquently and per persuasively that it as uh Mr. Mr. Halurner said would actually be an enhancement and that it was in line with everything else that we've done, all the
other improvements we've made to the house. Right. I I thought I read somewhere it was like four to three. Four four to two. Four to two. Okay. Yeah. I couldn't remember. I saw it. Two people. And then there was also um as a result of that some discussion about um
adding some additional landscaping elements to the front. So the plan that was approved by the HPC did not include the landscaping plan that was included as part of this application. That plan that was prepared as part of this application was prepared in response to the suggestions of the
HPC. Um so we will return the HBC to get the that amended approval if we're fortuitous enough this evening to receive your approval. But the plan you're looking at now does reflect the enhanced vegetation and landscaping that the HBC had
requested. If there's no further questions about what we're proposing, Mr. Chairman, look like you may have a question. Nope. Okay. Um the variances that we are seeking this evening for this approval, um most of them fall under the existing non-conforming condition. Um, and I
think all are going to be advanced under the C1 or the hardship criteria. Existing non-conforming conditions such as lot size, lot coverage, and the number of parking spaces, they remain absolutely unchanged by this application. They're not
increased. They're not aggravated. Um, they're very technical in nature. Um, we don't have the opportunity to increase the lot size. we're maintaining the existing lot coverage and we don't have the opportunity without having drastic implications to the uh fabric of the neighborhood by adding additional
parking. Um can you elaborate on that? Sure. Because when the board has variance applications like this, we like to take an opportunity to see if we can bring properties better into conformance with parking. In this case, there is
that opportunity. However, I believe there's an impact to Hugh Street and the streetscape. So, can you just talk a little bit about that as part of your testimony? Absolutely. The only opportunity we have for expanded parking would be to create a new driveway off
Hugh Street. That new driveway would then do two adverse things to the streetscape of the neighborhood, neither of which would ever get approved by HBC. First of all, we would be dramatically reducing the garden area that's serving as our screen and of frankly a very
lovely garden area visible for any pedestrians along Hugh Street. Second of all, it'll result in parking that of necessity will have to take place in the front yard. HPC has made very clear on many many occasions parking in in front of a
building in the sorc zone is entirely inappropriate very dilatorous to the fabric intent of the neighborhood. So the only opportunity we would have to increase parking would be at the expense of those features which simply that's a trade-offs not worth making.
Thank you. Okay. Are there any other questions? I'd just like to to add a little bit to the parking um situation. Although we only have one legal size, barely legalized place, as Mr. How Bruiner puts it. Um
Joan tells me they do and are able to squeeze in um two cars in that area. So although that's not recognized, correct? I mean, tell me if I'm wrong. That's No, that's that is correct. We've had actually two SUVs parked in our parking
space. Um, so it is not ideal, but it's not ideal, but it is possible. Okay. And frankly, this application does nothing at all to increase the parking demand. I think we'd have a difficulty if we came here with an application that
was increasing parking demand and not providing that requisite parking. But that's not the case. Nothing about an outdoor shower is a parking demand generator. So, we require variance for those non-conforming conditions. The newly created variances that really bring us here this evening are relate to
the shower enclosure and that's that we're proposing it to not be attached to the principal structure and we are proposing a open quote roof element close quote. Um those two features are what bring us here. Um, under the hardship criteria, the
applicant has an an obligation to demonstrate that there is a peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty um that this specific piece of property has that places an undue hardship upon them in complying with the ordinance. All the structures that we're
dealing with are all legally existing. So, they're locked in and we're trying to work with around those legally existing structures. And we're trying to do so in a way that is complimentary to the neighborhood, complimentary to the historic fabric of
the district and the HBC standards. We simply can't do that in a conforming manner. Yet, it's reasonable in any modern day living in any short town in particular to have a functional need for an outdoor shower. So the in in the
ability to do that within the framework of the ordinance does in fact create an undue hardship upon the applicant. For that reason I believe that portion of the positive criteria under the C1 is established. Besides that there's some benefits that this application if
approved would provide which further enhances and supports the positive criteria under the C1. First of all we're going to be preserving the historic character of the building. the property in the sorc district by placing the shower where we are proposing it to be. So we're doing
so we're promoting the purpose sub paragraph a of the purposes of this land use law to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of development of all lands in the state and a manner which promote the public health safety models and general welfare. Second of
all, we're advancing the purpose to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Again, the outdoor shower is disguised and will fear as a garden pergola as a more natural accompaniment to the garden
setting of the sideyard. So, for those reasons, I believe the positive criteria under the C1 C1 variance have been established. The second part of the variance would be the negative criteria for which there's two
prongs. The first prong says we must demonstrate that the variance should not be should be granted or should not be granted if it presents a substantial detriment to the public good or if it will impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. What detriment results from
this development? What I'm suggesting to you is it is far more com um beneficial to the neighborhood and the zone plan than the compliant location against the historic building where it would be out of character, out of place and detrimental to the overall streetscape and the fabric of the neighborhood. So I
truly see no ill effect, no detriment let alone a substantial detriment to the public good by the granting of the relief for which we seek and similarly I see no substantial impairment to the purpose of the zone plan. So I believe in my con opinion that both the positive
and negative criteria have been established under the C1 criteria and the board can and I hope will grant the variances that we seek. John, you analyze that under the C1 hardship criteria. You meet all the elements there, but those same factors
too can be applied to the C2. The benefit outweighs the detriment of Yeah. the the the benefit of the alternative of what we're proposing compared to the alternative and the enhancement to the um streetscape all are positives that if you put that on the positive side of the
scale of the balancing test and weigh it against the negative side those positives do still outweigh the so you're right there are elements of the C2 in play here as well in and principally the uh converting the side of what is a shed into what you've called a garden-like feature with the
pergola uh exactly Exactly. And and just to clear something, I the the outside shower, we're talking about the outside shower and um it this pergola roof will throw that over the six foot height. The enclosed shower part itself is six feet tall. The pergola structure would take
it up to 8 ft. Just want to clear that up that that it's a variance from that section of of the code, but that section of the code has several different components to it. It does. It speak it speaks to a maximum of six feet for a shower, 10 feet for accessory buildings.
The shower itself is six feet. The pergola on top of that. If you call it part of the shower, then we're at 8 ft. We need a variance for that. If you consider it to be an accessory structure, just a pergola part of that, then it's compliant at the 10 feet. Does that make sense? I think you'd hit your head if you went in at six foot. At
least you would. Yeah, you would. All right. Um, other questions? No. No. Do we have any more questions from the board? Craig, would you like to do your review? I absolutely would. So, good evening
everyone. I'd like to summarize my February 24th, 2025 review memorandum for this application. Uh once again, it's located at 665 Hugh Street in the RS residential seasonal district. Um you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating what they're
proposing to do. Um adding a 4x6 ft outdoor shower with a pergola type roof that is attached to the existing shed. Um there's some reconfiguration of the pavers um and landscaping that are proposed. Um, with regards to the
completeness review and the checklists that are required for the submission of applications of this nature, they've asked for waiverss from items number 19, 23, and 26 as well as 28. I supported all of those. Um, the information for
item number 27, which is to provide the proposed utility line information um through Mrs. Notch's questioning, we we already sort of touched upon that. Um that's important because we want to make sure that the utilities are not run to the shed. Um and that's I think one of
the reasons that we don't allow these outdoor showers to be attached for the to the shed is because it promotes or encourages these outuildings to be converted into habitable space. Um so that I think that's the nature of it. So, we would ask that that information
under number 27 be provided as a condition of approval should the board grant that approval. Um, and that information should be provided on the plans. Okay. Based on those recommendations, I did support this application being deemed complete. Um, on the next page, which is page three of
six, is a uh summary and review of the Bulan area standards. I concur with Mr. Hal Bruner's testimony with regards to this site being an existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. It is non-conforming
with regards to lot size. 6,250 foot is the minimum required in the zone where 4,144 square foot exists. Uh lot coverage is also um there are existing non-conformities with regards to the principal structure. I'm not going to
talk about those that none of those are being changed. Uh the lot coverage is being reconfigured. Um 45% is the maximum. It exists at 53% and they're putting it back at 53% but it's still a variance and it's a new reconfiguration.
So we have to address that variance. Correct. Is there place where we're addressing what is being taken away and what is being added just for inspection purposes so that things aren't The plans were pretty clear. Okay. Um there he shows where he's subtracting and where
he's adding. Okay. Because I didn't see that. Yeah, it it was pretty evident on the site plan. So I didn't I didn't have any concerns with regards to that. Okay. Um so and then parking. Uh we we touched about upon this a little bit in in our questioning, but uh for a five
bedroomedroom dwelling, single family dwelling, you're required to have three on-site parking spaces. We have one undersized, which really is it's very wide. You could you could squeeze two in there as the applicant has indicated. Um, but like I said, we always look to
see if we can park the site. In this case, we could we could have them provide a driveway access off of Hugh Street and provide two additional parking spaces off of Hughes and it could conform. I'm not advocating that. Um, I you've heard testimony from Mr.
Hal Bruner indicating the reasons why he didn't do that. um for historical context. The fact that the HPC does not permit front yard parking in the historic district. Um so there there's and it would and it would eat into the buffering I think are the reasons he
gave. Um I I understand those uh arguments and support those. Okay. Now um the so those are the existing nonconformities. The ones that are being affected by this application
uh are the second table which is the fact that shower enclosures are not permitted to be attached to the I mean have to be attached to the principal structure and cannot be attached to the accessory structure. There's a variance necessary from that section. And then
finally, there is a variance necessary um under subsection two of that same section that says that shower enclosures are not permitted to have a roof attached. So in this case, he has a open pergola type roof. It's kind of gray
area, but for we're taking a conservative look at this and they've applied for that variance, so they've asked for that variance. So those are the variances that are necessary. Uh Mr. Howal Bruner talked a little bit about the pergola height. There is a limit to
the height of the outdoor shower at 6 foot. I believe that the pergola is a standalone structure apart from that. I believe that it conforms and I don't believe it needs a variance, but the record should reflect that he's he's this application consists of an 8ft tall
pergola just so there's no issues for moving forward. Okay. So those are the that's a summary of the variances that are required. On page five of six, my general review comments should all be conditions of approval. Um item number one, uh we've asked some for some
additional construction details um and indicate dimensions and elevations to verify the proposed height will not exceed 10 foot maximum permitted. Um that easily can be fixed on the plan or additional information. Uh we've asked for some additional more detailed
existing and proposed lot coverage calculations and that is simply to break out what is pvious and taking advantage of the 50% uh lot coverage credit and that's detailed under um item number two and four. And then three is our standard condition that we ask the applicant to
revise their plans to uh to the zoning table um and to reflect the memo uh the comments in the review memo. Items number five and six deal with uh the grading and drainage review. Um so the applicant just has to verify
that this is not going to result in any grading or drainage improvements. They've indicated that essentially this system will drain into the ground into a design system. Um, so I don't foresee any problems, but we always ask for that to be added as a condition of approval.
Should during the construction process, we notice that there are impacts or runoff to adjoining properties, uh, we ask them to fix that under chapter 525, which is the minimum storm water management and grading requirements. And that is a requirement both during this
review as well as during construction and after the project is developed. So it kind of runs with the property. Okay. Um item number seven is uh we ask for the locations of the utility connections and verify that no utilities are being proposed to service
the shed. That note should be added to the plan and that condition that should be a condition of approval to verify that there are no utilities being run um to facilitate any u habitable area within that shed.
Item number eight, uh, that landscaping and vegetation plan has been provided and I would like to commend the applicant. This is one of the most enhanced landscaping plans that I've reviewed in quite some time. Um, I can't wait to see it should the board grant
this approval. Um, but um, and I Mr. Hower talked about it. I just wanted to verify that this the HBC has approved this plan, but I you have to take this back to them and get this approved. Yes, they have approved the shed or the pergola. Okay. With a condition that
additional landscaping be added. Okay. The plan you see addresses that condition, but they've not yet seen. Right. So ultimately the HPC will have to approve the landscaping plan should be the condition. And if I could interrupt for just a second, the applicant I would hope to have some
flexibility should HPC decide to change species or numbers or to in alter the landscaping plan in any manner to suit their requirements without having returned here. That's I don't see a necessity to it unless you know um
Okay. Item number nine is our standard condition that all applicants have to address is we evaluate the sidewalk after construction has been completed to verify that we fix all the broken sidewalk. Item number 10 is the applicant is
required to post an inspection escro fee and we tie the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to the satisfactory inspection of that site that verify that it matches the conditions that the board sets. Item number 11 is compliance with
the shade tree commission fire department and public works department. We did receive a fire department review dated 32425 recommending approval. Public Works Department recommended approval 31225. Shay tree recommended approval
dated March 15, 2025. And none of those reports had any comments. 12. Any required approval should be conditioned on compliance with all other state, county, and local approvals. Item number 13, uh you're required to get um final HPC approval.
Item number 14, you're required to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements at the time of approval or issuance of building permits. And finally, should the board grant approval, the applicant is required to revise the plans consistent with the board's conditions and submit
the requisite number of sets for review and approval to the board engineer. That's a summary of my report. Any questions for Craig? Okay, at this time we would like to open uh this meeting up to the public to
anyone within 200 feet. You can go up to the uh 200 ft. I don't know. Uh I'll make it easy for anyone beyond 200 feet. Yeah.
[Laughter] Hey, go up to the podium. You need to be sworn in. I don't think so. Yeah. Little dream. How long? 300.
All right. Good evening. My name I get sworn in. Please state your name. Beth Packer. And where do you live? At 637 Hugh Street, although I don't know the footage. And do you swear that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you.
Okay. Being a neighbor and having watched everything they've done on the property, it's just awesome. And we are totally in support of whatever it is that they want to do. If you stand on U Street and you look at this yard that's
already with the fountain and everything, it's beautiful. The plans that they have for the shower will simply enhance the streets from standing on the street and looking at. Now, I'm not speaking for all of our
neighbors, but I'm pretty much in touch with our neighbors and we've heard only positive comments about what they would like to do. But if you want, come on over Saturday night at five o'clock where we're going to have 51 neighbors
there and you're welcome to join us and find out how everybody truly feels about it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else beyond 200 ft? Please state your name. Rhonda Chadzkll.
Your address? 629 U Street. And you swear the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth. I do. Thank you. I am also a neighbor as are the actors and I we moved here five years ago and we have watched the restoration that the Dempseies have done with
admiration. Um they've been painstaking and everything that they've done. They've done nothing but enhance the street and everything they've done has been in in keeping with the historic character of the uh of the um neighborhood. And I would say I didn't know all of the details of what they
were planning until tonight, but I can't wait to see it. So I hope it's improved. Thank you. Anyone else beyond 200 feet? Okay. Okay. At this time, we will close the meeting to the public.
I make a I make a motion to approve the application with the conditions of I think what Craig mentioned about uh utilities going to the shed. Okay. Now, I'll second.
Okay. Miss Sheen motions. Mr. Jagger seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes, Mrs. Naj. Yes, Miss Sheen. Yes, Mr. Walsh. Yes, Mr. Jagger. Yes, Miss Stevenson. Yes, Mr. Bonudo. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all. Appreciate it very much. Great job. But that's it. That's it. Nice first shower. Okay, all right. Moral support.
Moving forward. Our second application will be Martin and Valerie Carlin, 11:02 Lafayette Street, block 1113. Uh, good evening board members. My name is Lindseay Nukem from the law firm of
Monzo Catise Dales here on behalf of Martin and Valerie Carlin. The property is 1102 Lafayette Street. Um, the property was previously known as the Primrose B&B but was converted to a single family residence uh by the applicant. We were here in October of
2023 for approval to renovate uh and add an addition to the property. Uh, as a part of that, uh, variance relief was granted, um, for the front yard setback on Skellinger Avenue. The property didn't get any closer to Skellinger Avenue, um, but there was a garage added, so it did require, uh, variance
relief during the construction process, which has been long, almost 18 months. Um, the applicants came to realize that they would like to enclose the existing rear covered porch at the property. Um, and Valerie will provide some testimony as to why. Uh but because variance
relief was previously granted, we are before the board asking for approval to do that. We are not getting any closer to um Scallinger, which is where the setback was. Uh in fact, the property is right in the middle or the porch is right in the middle of the property. If you take a look at the application that
was submitted, um there is a uh site plan um or a photo of a site plan and the new covered porch is uh or the new porch that's going to be enclosed is highlighted in yellow. And I think that's probably the most helpful uh piece to see exactly where it is on
the site. Um Jeff, if you don't mind swearing Valerie in. Sure. Um please state your name for the record. Valerie Parlin. You swear that the testimony you're about to provide would be the truth. I do. Thank you. Valerie, you have gone through a arduous process to get this done, right? Yes, I
have. And you would like to now enclose what was previously approved as a covered porch. Correct. Can you elaborate um on why for the board and how you'd like it to look? Yes. Um as soon as we had the covered porch framed out and roofed and decked, uh we realized that uh in the original
planning we had a huge miss that the um we would really appreciate the value of this space. um if it was enclosed so that we can minimize the impact of mosquitoes and bugs and minimize the impact of inclement weather and it could be used for u multiple seasons versus
just the summertime or the fall time. So um that's why we're here today. We we had asked the builder we'll put screening underneath the deck if if in the future we decide to enclose and then my husband and I looked at each other and said well the future's now for us. Um so let's get it done if we can and that's why we're here tonight. And
Valerie, in the application that you submitted, you submitted photos of what you think or you would like this to look at, and it's consistent with what the home is being designed as now. Correct. That's correct. The the same windows, the same siding, uh the same wood will
all be you that were approved will be used for the enclosed portion. And this was approved uh by the HPC already, correct? Yes, it was approved by the HPC. Okay. Um as I stated, this does not create any additional variance relief. it's just because the variance was already granted. Um I'm sure Craig will
go through his review memo. Uh we did not believe that this was an increase in the floor area ratio. Craig uh to be conservative did include it. Um and as I'm sure he will tell you, it does not put us um anywhere near exceeding it. So it's not an issue, but it is something to be noted. As to the other um items
that are in the board engineers review memo, such as any revisions to the plan, obviously you're happy to make them, correct? Yes. adding it's adding signature lines for the board and identifying the space. Okay, that's really all we have. Um if the board has any questions.
Questions? Is this going to have heat or air conditioning? Um it has a fireplace and we have held off on getting the logs installed because we want to convert to a indooroutdoor log unit. Uh where it was initially just an outdoor uh unit.
It has um uh heaters on the top that were installed for outdoor purposes. Uh but they're compliant with indoor, but there's no um there's no it's just decking. So there's no heating, HVAC, water, or anything else uh in this
covered porch for the going. It's covered right now. Screen, but you don't put windows in. Yeah. Right now it's just covered with the roof. So when you put the windows in it, you have air conditioning. No. No, no, it's it's adjacent to a
gathering room that has sliders and there's air conditioning in there and there's going to be there will be a ceiling fan, but that was part of the original covered porch as well. I we normally ask a lot of these questions about those improvements because it increases the floor area ratio. I
treated it as if it was floor additional floor area ratio. Um it checks off all the boxes in our definition of habitable area. um habitable area doesn't have to be conditioned. Um but putting those
windows in, recognizing that there is a fireplace there, recognizing you can open the the doors to the interior of the house and it can be air conditioned leads you to believe that it's floor area increases the floor area ratio. That being said, this is a
substantially large lot that has a smaller house on it. Um the existing floor area ratio is 0.208 where 0.4 is the maximum and then and including this area increases that to.249. So as part of this application
so that there was a slight increase with the with the with the former addition that you guys already approved. So in this case, um, I've taken a taken a conservative view so that we really don't have to answer all those ask those questions that we've been having to ask of all the other applicants with similar
situations like this. Other questions? Nope. No, I can just do a quick summary. Um, I agree with the applicant. Um, there are no variances being created here. This is a proposed amendment to
resolution 1192023 semicolon 2. Um, and we're reviewing this under the zoning review standard, which means that if the board grants approval and there was variances involved and they want to do anything else to the property, they have to come back and we have to re-evaluate it. So,
you know, does this change any of your any of the reasons that we used to evaluate the former variances? Now the only variance that was approved initially was for the front building setback um which was for Shelinger Avenue um and
that was 25 foot was required 15.5 ft exists and they were proposing addition in that within there and that addition had a setback of 15.5 ft so it wasn't exacerbated but that was the variance that was granted as part of that approval. It's my opinion that
this enclosure of this space really doesn't affect any of the variances, doesn't create any new variances, and therefore there's no variance testimony that I believe that's necessary. Um, with regards to um the checklist items for submitting this application, I ask
that two things be provided. Item number 13 um they incorporate the new floor area ratio on the plans and include that so that it is you know part of our record documents and finally a fix a signature um blocks to that plan so that
we can approve it and it can go in the city's records as as approving that plan. That being said, um just under general review comments, these should be standard conditions of approval, we've asked that they revise
the zoning table. All of the conditions that were set forth in resolution 119 2022 semicolon 2 um should remain in full effect unless otherwise modified by this application. I don't believe that this does. Um, and so all of the
conditions set forth in my review memo should be standard conditions of approval. They were already captured in the former resolution. And then finally, they did provide evidence of historic preservation commission approval dated
232025. Um, so they have that. Um, they are subject to the review of the fire department. They recommended approval dated 32425. The public works department recommended approval dated 31025 and Sha Tree
Commission recommended approval dated April 10th, 2025. None of those reports had any recommendations or conditions or um uh set forth a nose. So, um I believe that the board can approve this under
the zoning review standards. Um there's no variances necessary. All right. Um, we still now open this up to the public within 200 feet for comments beyond 200
ft. Okay, we're closed to the public. Do you want to make recommendation or do you want to go do it? Make a motion. I make a motion to Approve the application. Excuse me. Miss Sheen motions. Mr.
Ledwin seconds. Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mrs. N I'm sorry. Mrs. Noder accused. Miss Sheen. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Joerger. Yes. Mr. Miss Stevenson. Yes. Mr. Venudo. Yes. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does the architect revise that zoning table that you want or is it done by the survey people? No. So, as part of the compliance review, you'll revise those plans and you'll submit the requisite number of sets to me. I'll review them
and then you can call me call me and we can discuss it if you have questions. Pam did that original set, but she didn't do anything for this application. So, okay. Yeah, we'll give you a call. We'll figure We can we can work it out. We just need the information on the plan. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Pardon? Can I make that? No, I think that's good. Especially the supplement have much of a slam dunk. Okay. Our third application would be Matthew N. An Low, 1443 Delaware
Avenue, block 1171. Please come forward and introduce yourselves. [Applause] You ready? I'm ready. Okay. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board
members. My name is Ron Gelzunus. I'm hearing on behalf of Ann Lowe and Matthew Low to my left. Property is located at 1443 Delaware Avenue in the R1 zoning district. The proposal this evening is to construct an addition to the home in the rear, which will be
largely within the existing footprint of the wood deck and the patio below. Witnesses this evening, Mr. Paul Farnon, our architect, and of course, um, Ann Low. And, um, we can have Matthew sworn in as well. Everyone, raise their right
hand. You state your names. Paul Farnon. Anno. Matthew Low. That the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth. The old truth. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Paul, would you just like to place
your credentials credentials briefly on the record? Sure. um New Jersey registered architect, uh graduate of New Jersey Institute of Technology, Bachelors of Architecture, Masters in Infrastructure Planning. And you've appeared before this board on on
occasion and other boards. Correct. This board um the HPC here in KMA as well as other zoning boards in the county and elsewhere in the state. And you've been accepted as an expert. Correct. Mr. Chairman. Yes, he will be accepted. Okay. Paul, um why don't you take us
through um existing conditions on the site, the building, the property, its location, nature of it, and then um the proposal. Sure. So, um the subject property is uh 1443 Delaware Avenue, uh block
1171, lot 18. It is a it's um a semi- detached dwelling. Um effectively with the rain. Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I'm I'm getting distracted by the rain myself. Um it's in effect a duplex.
Um in that area of Kate May, um we're talking about the area of like the fisherman's memorial um off of pit off of Pittsburgh Avenue. Um there's a a series of these similar type builds. Um my understanding is that uh since that
property was developed along with the uh adjacent properties that are similar, the zone changed um the zoning district changed. So now the property is actually not compliant with current zoning regulations. That is a in large part why
we're here. Um the intent is to construct a rear edition entirely in the back of the property. Um virtually unnoticeable from the street in my opinion. Um and the intent for
that volume, that new building volume is to house a new bedroom and a sitting room or den if you will. um because of the conditions of being attached to another adjacent dwelling um
there's very limited options in terms of adding to the residence. Um that's why we're pursuing an addition off the rear of the property. The addition I want to call attention to is going to be entirely situated under what is already
an existing second floor deck. Uh so the idea is to really mitigate any impact to the neighborhood or the adjacent properties uh by really not enhancing the perceived volume I would say of the
building itself. There's already a um kind of like a fence panel uh on the on the side of the property under the deck that kind of obscures a view into their rear yard into their back door.
Um and I guess adding a in our view adding a solid wall there is not going to change that uh condition very much at all. The existing second floor deck is presently
50% permeable according to the to the zoning ordinance. Uh as it's just wood decking and water can pass through those those gaps. Obviously, putting a enclosed building volume underneath that changes the fact that now we're going
from what would be considered 50% uh permeable to 100% uh impervious. What I think is important to also note is that we have an excessive
side and rear yard condition. Um for the sideyard the requirement is 10 ft minimum. What is there presently is a fraction of an inch over 17 ft. Um and that will remain the case. We're not
encroaching on that side uh neighbor to that side. Similarly um the rear yard is in excess of what is required. the requirement is 30 feet um including up to the new stair on the rear of the
property it would be 38 and a third. Uh so we are still providing again in excess of what is the requirement of those two yards. Um, and I I think that will just give
you the gist of what it is we're trying to accomplish um for the addition and and how it's impacted um by the zoning ordinance that it has to comply with now as opposed to the property when it was
constructed. Um, and I I think that's it for now. So Paul, you mentioned that the um there was a zone change, correct? So formally um this is a um a semi- detached
structure. Um meaning it's it's got the shared party wall. Correct. You called it pretty much a like a a twin, a dup. Correct. It's not part of a condominium. Correct. No, it's not. It's a fe simple ownership with a shared wall and a property line in in between them. Um so they changed the ordinance or the
ordinance was changed to R1. Um, so that structure is no longer permitted. Correct. So, and my point is anything you do to this building in terms of an expansion, let's say for instance, even
if you added an outdoor shower attached to the main structure, you're going to have to come into the zoning board for a Dvariance. That's correct. And ordinarily, even though you have a structure that's um as long as you're constructing in compliance with the uh
setback requirements and the height, um you could put an addition as long as you don't need um as long as you don't go into the setback where you comply with the bulk regulations. That's correct. But you can't do that here, right? Uh and and so you you mentioned that we had
excessive sideyard and rear yard. So, you have a 17 ft sideyard setback. That's right. Uh, and you elected to design something that does not encroach into that area. Correct. We thought that was to the benefit of the the neighbor
and the neighborhood. And and so your your minimum sideyard set back 10 ft in the R1 is 10. Correct. Um even though you you would still need a Dvariance um you could normally build up to the 10
10 foot mark. Correct. But you think it's better to go back? We Yes, that that's our opinion. I think collectively we made that agreement. Um came to that agreement, I should say. Um, the intent is
to really try to nestle this new addition into what is already a constructed building element and not encroach on neighboring properties. So you you tell me about the problems
designwise where uh the the nature of this structure is such that you can't really go up even though you have plenty of height uh and how does that work out going up versus enclosing the area to
the rear? Sure. Um so being as that it's attached to the adjacent dwelling really the entire building um is designed to look like one uniform structure.
um enhancing uh the building's height by adding any second floor addition or um even beyond that would in our opinion negatively impact the whole architecturally speaking. Um we know
that there are examples of that kind of design um elsewhere in that neighborhood. We didn't think it was something that we wanted to pursue. Um, we thought it was a little obtrusive and
again the the idea is to really make it as least noticeable as the least noticeable as possible. Um, we did have to account for some existing interior spaces already. Um, there is a rear uh
let me back backtrack. All of the bedrooms are on the first floor. Um the second floor is all living and kitchen and dining space. Um so where we are placing the rear edition we had to account for life safety
specifically egress um from to maintain an an egress window an existing bedroom. So, we had to actually hold the ground level, the actual enclosed addition five feet off of that party wall, the adjacent neighbor to maintain access for
firemen and emergency services in the event that um you know, somebody has to get out, somebody has to get out and save somebody in that room. Um that the petition will be 5 foot off the party wall. Correct. On the on the ground on
the ground level only. on the ground level. Will it go past the party wall? It will go past the party wall. Yes. Just not in that five foot section, but the rest of the deck actually extends 2 feet beyond. So that party wall is going to be there on neighbors and then your new addition
will go past that from beyond. It's an exterior. The exterior party wall that's there. Correct. The addition will go two feet past that. Correct. But not within that 5 foot proximity. We're holding the exterior
sidewall of the addition closest to the party wall 5T off of it to maintain egress uh the egress requirement from the bedroom that's there presently. And then on the second floor it meshes up with the with the common
with the exit. Correct. Okay. So so on the ground floor level we have a five foot setback from that common property line. That's correct. And then on the second floor and above it's zero. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. So your deck
butts up against the party wall. That's correct. But the addition below as it as it does presently. As it does presently, but the addition below it does not. Correct. It's 5 ft. That's correct. And the addition below is what sticks out an additional two feet. Correct. Right.
And just to be clear, you still have more rear yard set back than what is required. That's right. Yeah. The and the the setback number that we are identifying the 38 and a3t 4 in that's to the um the stair the
actually the outer edge of the rear stair. So the interesting um number here is that uh the house the way it exists right now is below your um floor area ratio. The habitable area that you're
permitted in in this zone. What are we currently now without the addition? We're at just shy but we're rounding up to 35%. And the addition will bring it up to where? Uh 40 uh 39 and a fraction,
but we're rounding up to the permitted 40%. Okay. So, you're going to comply with the floor area ratio. Correct. So, you're constructing an addition in the in in relation to the floor area ratio that is permitted. That's correct. Um,
so you're taking advantage of the ordinance that allows for the floor area ratio of 0.4, but you have a design problem on exactly where to put that in the building. Right. That's correct. And and and so you're placing it in in the
rear, right? And that'll be within the footprint, but two feet further out for the first. Correct. And notably within the setback requirements. And and this is this is really sort of a hard a hardship type situation in in that
you're you face a dilemma rather of what to do um and and how to do it, how how to get that benefit that's allowed under the ordinance of your uh point4 area ratio,
but you're going to run into a a devariance right away, right? No matter what you do, no matter where you put it, right? Um, so and then the only variance we need here is the sideyard setback variance for the minimum sideyard which
is 10 and you're at five on the shared wall side. No, it's actually it's actually zero on the shared wall side. So we're in we're comp we are compliant with both sideyard setbacks. Got it. You're that the deck goes
correct by zero. Correct. And underneath is five. Right. Right. And to um take another step back, really the um hardship in my view has to do specifically with the lot size. Um and again that's a product of it being
reszoned in whatever year that was. Um but the minimum size requirement, lot size requirement is 9,375 square ft. Um the lot that we're discussing is 6250. So it's an
undersized lot with respect to the zoning ordinance. So the the the variance we need is the expansion of the nonconforming use, the expansion of the structure. The the standard for that is can can the site accommodate the proposed expansion. Um, and you feel
that because you're complying with your floor area ratio, which is your metric that governs the habitable space in in a given area, that therefore the conclusion sort of has to be, well, yeah, of course, um, the site can accommodate this expansion.
Yes, that's that's our view certainly. And and then we can get to the negative criteria. Um so what's what's the detriment um to to the the neighborhood the zone plan um by uh putting this addition in the rear and we'll say you
know the two feet beyond where it is. Uh I guess in in my view the detriment could could be found in just expanding this use that today is not permitted.
um or adding building volume that would otherwise encroach on neighboring properties. Um we think we've mitigated that impact and uh actually eliminated it. Um, with respect
to the floor area ratio, we did look at other ways to try to achieve what it is the property owners are and the applicants are are looking to achieve, but um it just didn't seem practical and the way
that everything's configured um being attached to another dwelling. Um, so we really thought we were strategic in where we placed the building volume um to have a minimal impact but to also
um get the lows, you know, that additional interior enclosed habitable area up to the point that is permitted by the zoning ordinance. So, um, you've seen some of the pictures that were included with the application um, and
they changed the ordinance. So there were some additions to properties a little further south of that. Um probably the ordinance was changed to prevent that sort of thing. So in relation to that uh that's not in any way. No uh the nature of that is just
simply not what's being proposed here. Absolutely. You want to distinguish between those two. Right. And I think um the pictures that are included in the application are are pretty telling um you know
especially that angled image of the rear the rear property uh rear yard rather looking at adjacent properties. It also kind of emphasizes or shows illustrates what I was trying to emphasize which is that corner with the
fence panels that's already kind of enclosed. it's kind of already forming, you know, a corner of the building. Um, so that would be more or less the same visual impact that is going to be generated um if this
proposal is approved and constructed. It will just be sided to look like an extension of the exterior wall. and the um the lot coverage numbers I yes I think when when this was R3 it was you were allowed 70 uh% coverage and uh the
existing condition right now is even what was well well well below that when it was constructed um but you you recalculated those numbers I think and you were able to um somewhat reduce it yes go through that absolutely so what
what the what was submitted in the application um is actually higher numbers than what we found. And since taking a closer look at, you know, how we can balance coverage, floor area ratio,
things, you know, the the important aspects of this application, [Music] the things that we had not accounted for such as the front deck, a front landing and stair being permeable or 50% permeable, whereas our initial
calculations were considering 100% impervious. Um similarly in the rear of the property there's um pavers that are set up. We weren't accounting for those being also permeable. Uh the good news
is that our numbers came down like I said from the application. The application numbers are higher. Um what you have in front of you I know is uh a 35% lot coverage as existing and a
proposed lot coverage uh calculation of 36. Um so you're losing some like outdoors living area. Is is that correct? Um with the addition because basically correct there's taking you're taking the footprint with the outdoor
living space. Right. Which I'm sorry. Yeah. So, what are your plans, you know, for dealing with an outdoor living area that they're losing outside the shower? I mean, you'll put a a patio.
Oh. Oh, no. No. There's no intention to put a patio there. And I think mostly what the rear of the property is used for is I think you spend a lot of time full gas. So with a ball so um no there's no intention to provide addition
a new patio or anything to that effect. Um what I did want to call out are those numbers that we had initially indicated as 35% existing and 36% proposed whereas we're it's actually rounding up to 31.
We're over the lock coverage, the permitted lock coverage as it exists today, but it's 31% and we are requesting an increase to 34% rounded up. Um, again, all of that is, and I say all of that, I'm using it loosely. The
the vast majority of that is occurring underneath what is already considered 50% coverage. Um we do know that there and that there are ways to even further reduce that coverage number and um you know for
instance the PA driveway we could split that up into PA strips and gain some some space there. There's ways also that we can, you know, the rear stair that it does stick outside the the uh proposed building volume and the deck
above that could probably be relocated, the rear door could be relocated to be within that space that we're holding off the party wall. Um, we just don't think it's conducive to how the Lowe's live. So, that's why we're here. Um, you know,
obviously, as Mr. Galzuna stated because it's a non-conforming use now today, we had to come here regardless. Um, so the the thought is that we're trying to get the Lowe's exactly what it is
they're trying to to achieve within reason with um, you know, respecting neighboring properties and really the aesthetic of the of the neighborhood. And I would say too, and keep in mind this is directly across the
street from the Coast Guard military housing as well. Um, so that repetitive kind of town home type style construction is something that is uh kind
of unique, I think, to that those few blocks. And the idea is to keep with that and not expand into either side or rear yard excessively with a new obtrusive building volume.
Can I have a quick question? Absolutely. The area that's below the deck that's next to the party wall and then the addition, what material is going to be in there? um that I
would probably assume that's going to be lawn area or or a gravel area. Regardless, it's going to be 100% covered because of the deck above it. So, the deck above it cover, right? Right. Now,
is I guess the whole deck above it is going to be u like a fiberglass kind of assembly, right? like that you're used to seeing and when there's habitable space under it. Right. Um so it's 5t off the party line or the
party wall. It goes in 5 ft. Correct. Right. And you said that that was because the bedroom needs a egress window there. Correct. And that would be large enough. Correct. There is an there is an existing egress window there. Okay. Or an existing bedroom. So the
intent is to preserve that um and not know if regulations change that requires a larger window or things like that. That's always just asked. Oh, no, no, no. Okay. And my last question has to do with the outdoor shower. Was that included in this calculation or is that added later?
The shower? I I am certain I'm virtually certain it was included in that calculation. I know for sure it's included in our compliance plans. So we specifically kind of as Mr. Hurles uh asked of the last um
applicant more detailed line items for every individual coverage component. Our compliance plan set will identify every single one of those. Okay. Now also in the pictures I saw that there currently now it looks like there's a shed there. Correct. Is the shed staying or moving?
The shed is being removed. Being removed. Okay. question. Can I ask you to clarify the lot coverage? Yes. We started going all over with it. And is what is on your plan is
what you're asking for. 35% existing, 36% proposed. No. No. You reach out to Yes. No, it is not. So you you mentioned 31% existing, 34% proposed. Correct. Is that what we're That is what we're being
asked to to grant. Yes. Variance. Okay, that that helps. Why is it increasing to 34% if the deck is already um fiberglass? It's not. Oh, it's not. It's not. Yeah.
Right now it's just a standard pressuret treated wood deck. Okay. Thank you. That deck's That deck is not going to have a roof on it. No, an open deck. Correct. And still keep that extended wall between the two properties there. That's correct. M privacy.
I just want to make one positive comment. I think with the deck or the little steps going out the back versus on the side, you give more privacy and quietness to your neighbor. Instead constantly going towards them, it goes the noise goes out the back. I
appreciate I appreciate you pointing that out because that was part of the discussion as well. Other questions? Craig, would you like to do your thing? Your testimony done. Okay. All right. I'd like to summarize
my March. Make sure March 18th, 2025 review man me, excuse me, memorandum for 1443 Delaware Avenue. It's located in the R1 Low Density Residential District. We have a proposed expansion of an
existing semi- detached dwelling. So semi- detached dwellings are not a permitted use in the R1 district. The only permitted use are single family detached dwellings. Okay. There is a typo on the first uh second paragraph of the first
page. Um it says the applicant proposes the construction of a rear edition consisting of a den and new bedroom. The proposed dwelling with addition will have 2,000 and it's supposed to be 490
square feet of habitable space and four bedrooms. So there that's the typo. Um I'll roll right into my completeness review. These are the checklist requirements. Um I've asked that these be provided as conditions of
approval. Uh 19 is providing topography on the plans. Item 28, design calculations for the drainage facilities that are required. And finally, item number 33, a landscaping plan if there's any landscaping
changes. Um, we have a non-conforming situation with regards to lot coverage. So, one of your proofs is to demonstrate that the lot can accommodate the problems associated associated with the larger
addition. When we increase lock coverage, the usually negative impact is storm water runoff. So I've asked you to provide a stormwater system. Are you willing to do that as part of this? Yes. Okay. Okay. So items number 19 and
28 and 33 should be conditions of approval. Um and therefore I recommend deeming the application complete. On page three of six is the zoning table in which I evaluate the bulk and area criteria. Um, once again, this requires
an expansion of a non-conforming use variance uh because single semi- detached dwellings are not permitted use in the R1 district. It is also an undersized lot. It doesn't meet the lot size requirements
9,375 ft where 6,250 ft exists. lot width and lot frontage requirements are both 75 feet where this lot is 50 foot wide. So that that's the lot how it doesn't conform. It should be noted that that would be a
conforming lot in the R3 district for semi- detached. So I just want to point that out that um had this if this was in a different zone this would be a conforming lots. Um, okay. Uh, the building setback line has an existing
nonconformity of 23.2 feet where 25 ft is required. That's not being changed. The sideyard setback requirements, mind you, they're for a detached single family dwelling that would have sideyards on each side, right? It has a 10-ft requirement on each side or 20
foot total. In this case, we have a zero foot at set back at the common party wall, which so it's an existing non-conforming situation. That new addition is going to have that zero foot setback on the second floor, 5 foot on the ground
floor, 0 foot on the second floor. It's going to match up to that common party wall. So, um there's a little I need to tweak my uh bulkan area standard uh for that sideyard. Um that double asterric in that table for proposed should read
five foot zero foot because it changes depending on which floor it's at. Okay. And then finally lot coverage. We had a change um as part of your testimony. The maximum permitted is 30% in R1 district. Um 31% exists according
to Paul um and 34% is proposed. So, as a condition of approval, they're going to have to revise those calculations, provide that information on the plans for review. Um, those that's the variance they're asking. So, they have to demonstrate that they're meeting that proposed
34%. And then finally, they did ask for a variance for parking. Um, I don't believe it's required. The residential site improvement standards for four bedroomedroom dwelling requires 2.5 spaces. They rounded up initially.
That's not what how the RSIS works. It says you're supposed to round down on a fraction. So, two spaces are required. Two spaces exist. There's one in the driveway, one in the garage. They're conforming with regards to that. Um, and then we look we look to see whether the
lot is being overdeveloped. And the ordinance tells us to look to the floor area ratio to sort of use that as as the guide. is the massing of that building appropriate for the size of that lot? And even though
this lot is undersized, there meeting that floor area ratio requirement. So, the ordinance is telling us that the massing of that building is still appropriate in the proposed condition. So, just thought I would point that out. Um, that's a summary of the variances.
You've heard testimony from the applicant with regards to those, so you should weigh that accordingly. I'll move on to my general review comments on page five of six. Uh there was just a I pointed out under number one, this is a semi- detached dwelling and not a single
family dwelling. There was a typo in the application. I just noted. Uh item two is revise the zoning table um to reflect the comments in this review memorandum as well as your testimony because we've changed some things here. So that should
be a condition. Um item number three and four is my recommendation. It how it's not considered major development and that's a definition that we have in our code um with regards to storm water. However, there's an addition proposed and therefore it triggers the
requirements of chapter 525 the minimum stormwater management and grading requirements. So therefore they should provide a storm water system that mitigates the additional coverage that's over and above what the zone permits. Right. With that, do they also um
because they're attached have to have their gutters like go towards they don't not towards their neighbor? They don't necessarily have to gutter it. No, I don't mean gutter. You know what I'm saying? Like the runoff towards not the neighbors. We never want to see the runoff going towards the neighbor.
So that's part of the evaluation of providing that storm water system. So when that's why I asked one of the completeness items was topography. I can eval once they put that on the plan, I can evaluate which way the runoff wants to go and make sure that that doesn't impact any neighbors to the rear or
either side. We want it to discharge to the front. Um, anything excess of the required storm that they're required to retain and infiltrate on site is supposed to be discharged to the street and then collected be collected by the city system so that there's no adverse
impacts to your neighbors. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, that was items three and four just combined. Um, so we've asked them to provide a storm water system to mitigate the overage and coverage. Um, the applicant I believe has agreed to do that as a condition of approval. Item number five, we've asked
them to provide one street tree that's required in accordance with the code and we also recommended that they provide a landscaping and vegetation plan um as part of the checklist items and conditions of approval. Items six
through 12 are our standard conditions and just highlight those. Six is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction and have them replace any damaged uh sidewalk. Seven is the requirement to post an
inspection escrow and we tie the cert issuance of a certificate of occupancy to a satisfactory inspection of those improvements to make sure that they comply with the board's conditions of approval. Eight is the requirement to comply with the shade tree commission, fire department, and public works
department. We have memos from them recommending approval from the fire department dated 42925. No comments. Kate May Public Works Department recommended approval dated 52925. No comments. Sha Tree Commission
recommended approval dated 5 to 2025 with no comments or conditions contained in any of those reports. Okay. Um just of note, the project is not located in the historic district. So
there's no HPC requirement. Uh item number 11 is they have to comply with any and all affordable housing requirements at the time of approval or issuance of the CO as applicable. And finally, should the board grant approval there to revise the
plans consistent with the board's conditions of approval and submit the requisite number of sets to the board engineer for review and approval. We take no exception to any of those requirements. And that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. I have one
question about the shower. Okay. Do we have to know what the um the ground under the shower is going to be or does that come with the lot coverage? As part of the lot coverage review and part of my drainage review, we will um address that and make sure
that's covered on the plan. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to just take a little bit of additional testimony from the applicant. Um, speaking about the neighbors just reminded me. Um, and Matthew, um, your neighbor next door, um, have you have you had any discussions with them? Yes,
our neighbor next door actually owns a home in New Providence and he has a store, uh, Dog Days by I'm sorry, in K. Um, the Dog Day store up by the Acme and we asked and his wife if they had any objections to the addition and they were actually they were thrilled that we
wanted to do it. So, in fact, you tried to get them here this evening, right? But what was the problem? because of their store. It's Memorial Day weekend. They said they really couldn't commit to coming to support us. So, they don't have any any problem or concern. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Other questions for Greg. Okay. This time we'll like to open it up to the public. Anyone within 200 feet would like to comment, please go to the podium and be sworn in. Can you state your name for the record?
Sure. Guyari. And your address? Uh 1442. Finally, raise your right hand. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. Thank you. Excuse me one moment. Could you make sure the green light's on on the
microphone? Is it on? Okay, thank you very much. Sorry about that. Um U actually in block 1171, lot 12. Um so I'm adjacent to them. I'm I'm literally right behind
you. Um and the the one thing I have to ask um I really don't have an issue with the addition, but I do have to ask um in a that we have had well let me explain. We've had construction noise for two
summers now at least. Uh they're building new homes on Missouri Avenue. Um and it's been, you know, very difficult for all our neighbors and it's finally ending. They got a couple homes left. So all we're asking is that uh and
I have my son from Colorado and grandchildren coming this summer. If construction can start after Labor Day, it would be greatly appreciated. I I know, you know, you have a schedule and you have things, but um the construction
noise has been terrible. I mean, it you know, and and we're literally right behind you, so we can hear every little hammer. Um so, all all I'm doing is asking that um you consider starting after Labor Day construction. And I I
don't know if you have piles on the site, what the foundation's going to be like, because if you're driving piles, then that's really noisy. But um I don't know what you're going to have for but but that's all I'm asking. Um really appreciate if you could consider that.
Uh and that's really all I have. I'm okay with the addition. Okay. Certainly. Yes. No problem. Great. Thank Okay. Anyone else within 200 ft? Hello. Uh my name is Joseph Manetti and um I u I'm uh in a semi-attached with uh
guy uh right behind where the Lowe's will be putting on hand. Oh, sorry. Raise your right hand. Yes. Swear the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth. Yes. Thank you. Uh I have no problem with the addition also. Uh
just the same concerns as uh Guy does uh from all of the the work that was done. I'm sorry I missed your address. What was your address, please? 1440 Missouri Avenue. Thank you. So, that's basically guy put it down. You know, exactly the
way I feel. You know, if we could do it after Labor Day, that would be wonderful. Okay. Thank you. Being there's no one else in the audience, this time, we'll close it to the uh public. I'll make a motion to accept the
application with Craig's recommendations. Second. As well as their agreement that they won't start construction until after Labor Day. Labor Day. After Labor Day. Okay. I didn't know we could actually put that in that it was just going to be for them. Okay.
Going to hold them to it. Okay. We can't They can't start after Labor Day. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. And remember this is a devarian so requires five affirmative votes. Please state your reasons on the record. Mr. Lewin, yes. I'm sorry. Michigan
motions. Mr. Lewin seconds. So Mr. Lewin recorded a yes. Yes. Mrs. Notch. Yes. Miss Sheen. Yes. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Joerger. Yes. Miss Stevenson? Yes. Mr. Bernudo? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, board members for your time. You're welcome. We lasted just long enough for the rain to stop. Yeah, maybe. Don't jinx us. Oh, we just became five minutes ago grandparents. Five minutes ago. Congratulations.
Lucky you. I forgot to mention that. We should have started out with that, right? Oh, okay. Well, I guess that's not as impressive. No, it's in Australia. Oh, okay. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome.
I guess our last bit of business is we have to make a motion for someone to get paid. So moved. Yeah. Motion to pay the bills. We need a motion to pay the bills. So move. Second. Second. Mr. Lewin motions. And
did Miss Stevenson second or Mrs. Notch? Thank you. Mr. Lewin. Yes. Mrs. Notch. Yes. Miss Sheen, yes. Mr. Walsh, yes. Mr. Jagger, yes. Miss Stevenson, yes. Mr. Bernudo, yes. Thank you.
Do we have a um anything else uh for the board tonight? Need a motion to close the meeting? Motion. All in favor? I. Thank you everyone and have a good night.