testing testing testing okay can anyone turn your microphone on 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 i pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and
justice for all mrs werner Mr venuda here Mr lewin Mrs notch here Miss Sheen here Mr walsh here Mr zexer here Mr jagger here
miss Stevenson here thank you okay we'll need a motion to adopt our first resolution 424 2025 william and Emily Young 122 Decar Street block 1041 lot 6
motion i'll second um excuse me uh do I Okay I'm sorry i had the wrong one thank you so who motion mr zexer and anyone second yep 10 mr walsh thank you motion by Mr zexer seconded by Mr walsh
mrs notch abstain miss Sheen stain mr walsh yes mr zexer yes mr jagger yes mr miss Stevenson yes mr venudo abstain thank you
okay our second resolution we'll need a motion to adopt 0424 2025 519 Franklin Street LLC 519 Franklin Street block 1076 lot one
i'll make the motion second mr jagger motions mrs notch seconds mrs notch abstain miss Sheen abstain mr walsh yes mr zexer yes mr jagger yes
miss Stevenson yes mr bonudo abstain thank you minutes okay we need a motion to adopt the minutes from March 27th 2025
i'll make the motion i'll second motion by Mr zer seconded by Miss Stevenson mrs notch abstain miss Sheen abstain mr walsh yes mr zexer yes mr jagger yes miss Stevenson abstain mr
venudo abstain thank you okay our first application is Matthew and Cara Crane 1026 New York Avenue block 1102 lots 13 and 14 please are they here
good evening Mr chairman board members uh John Amanhauser of the Dwise Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicants Matthew and Car Crane uh subject property for this application is 1026 New York Avenue it's identified on the city's tax map as
block 1102 lots and 14 and it's located in the R2 zoning district uh prior to attending tonight's meeting we did receive recommendations for approval from City of Kate May fire city of Kate May public works and the city of Kate May Shade Tree Commission um all of
which ex I should say fire department and public works had no comment shade tree recommended approval with a condition that we will uh discuss this evening uh through the application before you this evening the applicant seeking variance relief pursuant to the C1 C2 and D2 criteria under the
municipal land use law uh the specific relief that we're seeking relates to um a a residential lot uh that right now houses a semi- detached uh duplex residential dwelling in a zone that only permits single families which is the
cause for the D2 variance uh the expansion of that use we also need C variance relief related to minimum required lot size minimum required lot frontage and width maximum permitted lot coverage and minimum required off- streetet parking uh here with me this evening to
provide some testimony in regard to the uh relief being sought I have Mr paul Kates paul's a professional engineering planner with the firm of Kate Snider Engineering i know Paul's been before the board a number of times in the past but I'm happy to elicit credentials if uh required Mr chairman before we begin tonight okay
list some credentials from Paul if you would please sure yeah so first for starters within 200 record thank you yeah so I have a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering but I've been
working in the municipal engineering field since 2003 um I was licensed as a professional engineer in 2011 as a professional planner in 2019 um I've been the principal of our firm for five years now
and we represent currently five boards uh three in Cape May County and two in Atlantic County and I've given testimony to many others including this one okay very good is he acceptable we do thank you paul if you can can you start by
just giving the board an idea of the existing conditions on the lot one second oh tell the truth truth i do i do yes yeah so our lot is a 32 1.5 by 125 foot deep lot located on the south side
of New York Avenue between Philadelphia and Madison Avenues uh we are located in the R2 zoning district uh the lot is currently occupied by a semi- detached dwelling um the home is built directly adjacent to the home next to it uh they share a party wall uh there is also a
detached garage along with driveway fencing uh and a concrete walkway um what we are proposing is to demolish the existing concrete walkway and add a permeable paver patio and a garage threshold along with underground uh storm water retention system
so Paul based on the application that we filed and I just went over would you agree that the the specific variance relief we need uh is a D2 variance for the expansion of a pre-existing nonconformity as it relates to the type of dwelling that's situated on the property yeah because this this type of
development is not permitted in the zone that's what's prompting this D2 variance and then the remainder of the variances that I went over would you agree that that they could uh be considered under both the C1 andor the C2 criteria under Mr bang Law yes okay mr kates can you bring your microphone closer i'm having
a hard time hearing you thank you very much so Paul in terms of the uh the bulk variance relief for the area variances that we're seeking can you go over um your professional opinion as to how it is that you believe they can be granted under C1 or C2 yeah so the C1 criteria
is a hardship as a hard Yeah it represents a hardship variance the NJ states that this variance can be granted where exceptional narrow narrowness or unique lock characteristics exist uh which I am paraphrasing so our lot is an existing
undersized lot and therefore we're limited in what we can do um this patio on a conforming lot would not be an issue it would be extremely dimminimous but due to our lot size we're forced to seek the variance um and then then additionally given the storm water
offset we we are providing we feel that there will be no net negative effect on the public or the zone plan or zoning ordinances so Paul a number of those variants right minimum required lot size lot frontage and width even lot coverage to an extent would you agree that they really are triggered here based on just
the undersized nature of the lot not the actual development being proposed yeah so given that undersized nature of the lot yeah it's forcing the majority of these with the exception of the the use and the parking so in terms of those other uh variances the use um well we'll
go with parking uh and then the the variance required under section 73D of the city of Cape May Municipal Code can you talk about how under the C2 criteria what what purposes of zoning do you think would be advanced if the board were inclined to grant those so the purposes of zoning that we feel are advanced are this the addition will
provide adequate light air and open space um being that the patio will not impede light air and open space and will provide an outdoor recreation space for the cranes and their family um it will promote a desirable visual environment uh the addition of the patio will be an
aesthetic and improvement to the home and will visually benefit um the backyard in the neighborhood um we also feel we're providing sufficient space in appropriate locations um the proposed uh are sized in proportion to the home and
the surrounding residential uses and we also feel there could be an enhancement to the safety and or general welfare which again being that net benefit with the increased storm water capacity and controls um which could benefit the surrounding area and the purpose of the benefit that you could see it possibly
arising out of that is reduce storm water runoff correct right so and and you know I guess uh lower the impact of the the initial storm that it has on the the existing infrastructure in the street so Paul in terms of the the
proposed patio uh PA area in the rear can you talk about the um type of pavers that we're intending to use there are they permeable in nature and if so can you tell give the board a detail so we are proposing a gapped paver system that will be built over uh a sandstone a sand
and stone base and then gapped according to manufacturers recommendations that will yield that semi-permeable um condition okay so Paul you put the positive criteria on the record uh that you believe would be advanced in terms of purposes of zoning it you just now go
over the negative criteria i mean do you see if the board were inclined to grant this relief is there any substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan and ordinance that you could see befalling the city again given the the semi-p permeable nature the addition of the storm water um as well as you know
given that it's an appropriately sized patio it's not overly cumbersome i feel that there would be no detriment to the public or to the zone plan and zoning ordinances all right so cover the C the what I'll call the C the C variances um but we mentioned we need a D2 variance here because we are uh technically
expanding in non-conformity right would you agree with before we get into that would you agree with me that that while we understand and agree that we need that we're not actually expanding the the residential dwelling which triggered the need for a D2 variance here right correct there's no no changes to the
existing dwelling the porch the the stairs the access this is just a patio in the backyard and it's completely accessory in the rear of the lot not connected to the building right correct okay that no that that's stated is it your professional opinion that the lot is able to handle the uh increased use
that these patio pavers uh would present absolutely okay and you don't see any negative detriment that that could be fall again the public good or the zone plan if this were granted none that we could find okay paul do you have a chance to look at Mr.'s review letter before we uh uh
arrive this evening and present a testimony i did okay any comments that you have to any of Mr 's comments um as contained in this letter so as a condition of approval he was requesting that we show additional grade information um which we would have no issue providing just to ensure that
the the excess storm water runoff is moving in the appropriate location which is towards the front of front of the property um he also mentioned requesting a waiver from a landscape plant and we are not proposing any additional landscaping but preserving what's there and therefore we we are seeking that
waiver all right Paul anything else you'd like to add at this time before we turn it over to the board i mean all the other uh we have no issue with all the other comments in the report um and uh have and would abide by those um the one thing that I would like to add I think
that I kind of missed in my initial is the the size of the storm water system so the presently the lot coverage is at 58% yeah 58% where only 40 is allowed so
we're actually reducing the I'm sorry 40 or 40 is allowed 40 is allowed i'm sorry so we're actually reducing um the impervious cover by 9% by removing the um the existing concrete walkway and
then we're adding back essentially 11% with the the 50% credit of permeable so then we do believe there's a net benefit there in reducing that that you know imperous hardscaping replacing with this
permeable padding patio as well as the the design criteria we used for the um underground storage was 25% of the lot where we're proposing an increase in 11% of permeable pavers we're actually
providing for 25% of um storage or 25% of the impervious on the lot per your ordinance so there is excess storm water capacity built into what we're doing so even we're not just handling the new um the new patio but we're handling
essentially the the garage the patio and and the back portion of the home the water that runs off from there so we do believe it would be a an significant net benefit to the surrounding area by absorbing all that storm water anything else you'd like to add i
think that's it mr chairman that's all we have right now happy to ask answer any questions okay questions i guess the only question that I have is um did you feel it absolutely necessary to increase the um lot coverage from 58
to 60% whereas you know it's the requirement is 40% so what was the benefit in your mind that that you needed to do that so it's really in the way that they use the property and this this area that they
they want to convert to a patio is is already being used you know as kind of a hangout area um with chairs and and so it was just that that area is what they were looking to and how are they using that area the PA area that's in the
plans right in front of the garage just as a as a hangout area lawn chairs i don't you know just get kind of a meeting area outdoors to enjoy the summer okay i have a question you know the setback for the sideyard is 4 ft uh the setback
for the sideyard is 4T and you have 0.2t um to me that's like really right on the property line i don't know yeah to me that's a little invasive on the neighbor that's right there that you're sharing it with with the fact that how
are you going to prevent runoff from your pavers going into his yard well so the actually the point 2 reference there is the uh the garage but again we are also running the paver to the property line which is permitted if it's approved as semi-permeable um but beyond that you
know we are showing proposed grades and with the fence the proposed grades we feel comfortable that we can direct the storm water to the uh storm water uh recharge system okay so Craig just so you're saying that they can go to the
property line with that yeah the the and I was going to get into this during my ordinance no I I'll touch on this topic so the the requirement is so for patios paved terraces and decks it says no impermeable surface may be constructed
within 5t of any property line so I I made a point to alert the applicant that if they're going to go within five feet it has to be permeable so if if it's permeable it's permitted if it's impermeable it requires a variance so in
this case they provided a permeable surface so there's no variance that's necessary for the surface for the setback for the setback because it says oh in Okay yeah so that so that's that's the the key criteria with regards to
that design okay and then my other question has to do with um parking you're required to have three parking you only have two and you're doing all this additional lot coverage but you're not adding parking that is required to have five bedrooms
so again that given that we're we're not changing the way the house is currently being used and so that that two parking space condition is is presently existing on the lot and um we were just looking to have that continue so we're not looking to exacerbate the parking we're
not adding more people or more cars but you're not looking to improve it either correct we did look at the possibility of moving the fence back but due to the neighbors fence it gets really tight in there and there's not a lot of room to push other cars back into the lot and Paul with
that I mean we were going over this but is it your opinion that even if we were to try to do that really wouldn't have adequate space to open doors things of that nature so adding that spot would actually create kind of more of an issue that was our concern yes well there is um well I see on the plans
looks like there's a driveway for two cars is that consistent with two cars yeah two car that is consistent with two cars and if you look this plan does show those two parking spaces in yellow it's a little light but yeah this is two cars so there's two cars there right here but not this other one is even though
there's no you go on the grass is that what that is yeah so essentially they put one tire goes down the walkway and the other tires in the grass okay what exhibit are you referring to just the record's clear just Paul that's the variance plan that you're referring to submitted with the application submitted with the application
since the board is talking about this this topic I the when we look at these types of applications when they exceed lot coverage we always look to see if they can mitigate any um and in this case they have a deficiency in the parking
spaces so they're they're deficient one space um so we always look to see if they can comply and and make it so it becomes a balancing test if we ask them to comply with the parking and pro it creates additional imperous surfaces
that drive the lot coverage up so is it more important to have the parking or is it more important to comply with the lot coverage are we overutilizing the lot or is the parking adequate so I haven't heard any testimony from the applicants
indicating is the two parking spaces sufficient for the five bedrooms um is there any parking issues in that neighborhood maybe if there's objectors here we'll hear you know about that topic but so um I did look at that um if
the board is concerned about lot coverage um there is that existing concrete walkway or driveway to remain in the front can be redone and provided with pvious pavers that would create a
50% credit so we would get some back i don't know what that sum is and maybe the maybe the applicants engineers already evaluated that but that we might be able to do ribbons there and and get some become more conforming with regards
to that design well can you explain what is the first parking spot all concrete or is it half on grass i'm not understanding what's grass and what's concrete yeah so I can Yeah this portion is concrete which the
the a parking space is 9 by8 where a car is typically in the six to 7 foot range so even though as a legal parking space the car would need to hang over into the grass in function a car actually fits on the concrete portion but leg the legal
size parking space actually goes beyond the concrete which is probably a function of the age when it was constructed it was before our current 9 by8 requirement so the 9 ft does go beyond that concrete however that concrete is sufficient to actually pull
a car onto if that makes sense yeah your typical car is about 6 to 6 1/2 ft wide so the 9 ft provides you the ability to open the doors and have clear space to exit and not conflict with anything on
the sides and Paul just so your testimony is clear right that what we talked about what triggered the need for the third parking spot was the amount of bedrooms that exist in this home correct correct and we're not in any way whatsoever expanding anything with inside the footprint of the home right we're not adding bedrooms or any other
rooms no we're not changing the use or the number of people that use the home at all so all that we're doing is adding or proposing to add this patio paver area in the rear right and that won't amount to any increased occupancy on the site correct correct okay so the condition as exists now with two parking
spaces is not really while yes the variance we're not exacerbating that condition that exists now right that's correct okay in terms of potentially removing um some of the concrete area in the front would you agree with with Mr hurles that that would in fact reduce coverage and would
make this a more I I if uh enacted would make this a more conforming lot by reducing what we're going over right now correct and I I don't want to put you on the spot do you have any idea as to how much that may reduce the lock coverage figure in terms of the percentage just I
did a little bit of quick math and we could probably bring it down in the four to 6% range so it would still require a variance but we'd be more conforming and actually if if that is that number is true we'd be we'd be bettering the current existing condition correct we would be under what was currently there
and we'd be back below but but yeah no amount of impervious I think could get us to 40 that that noted Mr chair we would be willing to do that in order to uh decrease the overall lot coverage uh as a condition of approval we'd agree to that good
i also have a another quick question um I noticed Shade Tree said about a tree yes is that tree still there okay i didn't see it in the pictures that's why I was asking yeah so the tree is actually not on our property it's on the neighboring property but it's close to
the fence and when we looked at the tree and given the permeable nature of the pavers and we don't plan to excavate the roots um we we do feel that the tree will continue to survive and we have no intention of harming the tree yeah it seemed like their their
condition was not to adversely affect the root system of that tree and we can agree as a I just wasn't sure where that tree was i Yeah it's actually caddy corner to the lot um on the other side of the fence so when you look at it it's difficult to see because the fence is is obstructing the view of it okay thank
you any other questions all right craig would you like to do your review certainly i'd like to summarize my review memorandum dated February 24th 2025 this is an application in the R2
Lowmedium Density Residential District as the applicant indicated the only permitted residential use in this zone is single family detached dwellings this is an attached a semi- detached dwelling which is a side by side with a common
party wall at the property line um so that is not a permitted use so whenever you are expanding accessory uses related to a non-conforming use that triggers the D2 expansion of a non-conforming use
variance okay um I'll just roll right they've they've indicated what their improvements are proposing so I'm not going to bore you with that and rehash that um the completeness review they
requested two checklist waiverss um I did support the granting of the waiver from the landscaping plan since they are not uh changing any of the existing landscaping um what I did recommend is that item number 19 which requires the
additional topography be provided um because I cannot verify that the proposed storm water system is going to discharge in um anything in excess of that storm to the front of the property and not adversely impact any adjoining
properties so that should be a condition of approval which is number 19 of that checklist and and therefore I did recommend deeming the application complete um I'll roll into the summary of the variances that have been required they've requested
um relief under both the C1 and the C2 criteria um the use variance uh expansion of a non-conforming use this is once again this is an a semi- detached dwelling that's not permitted and the accessory um improvements uh
expand that so the evaluation should be whether the site is can adequately accommodate that um with regards to the coverage it's triggering a lot coverage variance uh 40% is the maximum permitted
the plans indicate they're proposing 60% where 58% exists but I believe that the con the applicant has agreed to provide and I I want to make sure this gets on the record to reduce the proposed coverage
um four to 6% is that what your testimony was that was my quick math and we can we can So we're we're we're going to approve lot coverage to be determined but it's going to be significantly less than the 60% that was proposed um and they're going to provide two ribbon
paver strips that accommodate the two parking spaces so that'll be two ribbons and there'll be a grass strip in in the center correct okay just so the record's clear this is an existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot there are nonconformities with regards to lot
size the lot size requirement is 7,500 ft in the district where 4,063 square foot exists the lot width requirement is 60 feet where 32.5 feet requ uh exists as well as lot
frontage 60 foot requirement where 32.5 ft exists um the we already discussed the parking but I'll rehash that for the record uh there are five bedrooms in this unit that in accordance with the residential site improvement standards
three spaces are required where two exist and two are being proposed you've heard testimony like we always re-evaluate the parking standards whenever a variance is required um they've given testimony that if they were to push that back there's a fence
that's kind of stopping preventing the third parking space from being provided if they were to push that back it would create um kind of a tunnel effect and not allow the doors to really open and create you know a light air and open space issue so that's why that that is
not being addressed um so those I believe are a summary of the variances that are required uh once again I just point out this is a use variance so five affirmative votes will be required to pass this um I'm going to roll into the general
review comments on page five of six these should all be conditions of approval i've asked that the zoning table be revised to reflect the comments in this review memorandum and we also have changes to lot coverage so that should be included um I've asked for more detailed lot coverage calculations
um to verify those that have been permitted we're going to be re-evaluating that anyway so but we want to you know have an item byiteem breakdown on the plans provided uh item three we already talked about in our discussion comments um they're not
providing an impermeable surface um so therefore that setback is not required um item number four I pointed out an inconsistency the photos of the existing parking improvements did not match the survey provided so I would ask you to
reook at that and make sure the plans are updated with that information that'll all be re-evaluated with regards to the lot coverage um item number five this development is not considered major development the applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan to mitigate
the lot coverage overages i would recommend that that lot that system remain the same size any additional drainage that can be provided in that neighborhood is a benefit um and we just ask for that additional
grading information item number six is 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 uh we've asked for under item number seven we've asked for some
additional storm water detail be provided on the plans um item number eight we've asked for the parking calculations to be provided on the plans and indicate that there's a variance necessary for that item nine is our standard condition that uh asks that the sidewalk
uh be evaluated after construction and any sidewalk in port condition be replaced to the satisfaction of the board engineer item number 10 is our standard condition that they have to tie the certificate of occupancy issuance to an
acceptable inspection of those improvements to verify that they comply with any approval that the board gives item number 11 is compliance with the Sha tree commission fire department and public works department and that kind of has already been discussed excuse me discussed uh but I would just like to
read those dates in the record uh public works recommended approval with no comments 31025 fire department recommended approval with no comments 32425 and the shade tree recommended approval with the following conditions
that the PA work to not adversely affect the root system of the large tree in the rear yard and you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating that they intend to do that uh I think what is appropriate is
that we locate that tree on the plan on and show the root protection on the plan as a condition of approval no problem item 12 is to comply with any and all necessary state county and local approvals 13 the project is located in
the historic district hpc approval will be required um especially because we're changing the driveway in the front yard so that should be a condition of approval do have conceptual okay so we go back and make sure that that's shown to them um 14 they have to comply with
any and all applicable affordable housing requirements and finally should the board grant approval they're required to revise the plans to meet the conditions of the po the board and submit the requisite number of sets to the board engineer for compliance review
and approval that is a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has craig um I notic you had a lot of questions about lot coverage on what was not on the plans is there I guess my concern is that it's going to come in
over the 60 if it did they would have to come back here okay so that's why I I pointed out in my in my review so that they're adequately advised that they have to make sure that whatever variances that we're granting here adequately accommodates whatever they're
proposing to do right so it has to be below 56 or or so so that that should be discussed but I think I think what we're approving is this plan with two ribbon strips of pvious
pavers and whatever that lot coverage is which is going to be less than 60% and probably less than 58% right that's why I was hoping it'd be less than 58% so and and we and you can however you want to frame the the resolution but that's what the board is
going to approve for lot coverage and then that'll be put on the plan and that's what we're going to hold them to okay okay we don't know exactly what that number is right that's why I was just getting clarification is potentially approving an unknown but what you do know is what Craig indicated and that is is it's
going to be less than Can you move your microphone sorry uh it's going to be less than what's being proposed um and subject to Craig's review that they comply with what they're actually agreeing to and that is to have the ribbon stripping uh and then they'll provide a new calculation as to
what the lot coverage is they'll provide that to Craig he'll confirm and then that will be the variance if you are in the approving mode that would be accepted so the number is still up in the air but it's going to be less than what's being proposed at 60 so if I may I think we can make something a little more concrete for you if it's acceptable
so Paul you mentioned that you it's your quick math that you think we could reduce slot coverage by four to 5% by doing what we're proposing to do correct correct would you be comfortable as a condition right now we're at 58 and we're increasing to 60 according to the plan right would you be comfortable with a condition that any um any lot coverage
variance has to come in below the 58% that presently exist in other words we're going to be provide we're still going to need a variance but it's actually going to be better than what exists right now yes i I would have no issue saying that we will be better than what presently exists so but that's only 2% provided that you do what Greg asked
you we still have to do Yeah we'll still make sure but at a at a minimum I think it's there you know more likely going to be that four to five but it gets us there so then we're getting a better situation than what's exists now so
so yeah net net benefit on the coverage as well as a net benefit I believe with the the excess oversized storm water management system any other questions for Greg okay this point we'd like to open the
meeting up to the public within 200 ft you'd like to speak at the podium name and address please turn on the microphone just press the button so it's green thank you hello my name is uh Scott Loper i'm uh
1024 New York AB so I'm the the adjoining neighbor um repeat your name please scott Loper l O P E R um by the way you have to raise your right hand oh swear you do you swear the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the whole truth and nothing
but the truth yes thank you uh I really I just had a question for the engineer um just to really kind of clarify um something that he said uh just uh with with me being a joining really the only concern I have is is storm water um
it sounds like this has a pretty good chance of just improving things um but you mentioned that the storm water um system that you're you're installing is going to be designed to direct excess flow to the front of the property just want to clarify that'll be away from my
side and up the driveway side of the subject property correct it'll be opposite of yours and down their driveway essentially is what we're proposing okay mr roer are you on the attached side or the other side on the attached side okay thanks yeah all right thank you
within 200 feet your address 10:28 you please raise your right hand you swear that the testimony you're about to bribe will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes it is thank you will be um I basically have
the same concern you know that I'm on the opposite side from the lopers and I just I just have the concern we've never had water running at all in our driveway in our basement i'm just concerned about
the possibility of water paul can can I ask you to do one thing for me in this design um provide positive outflow to the street and what what I like to see is that we connect a pipe to that system so that anything in excess will bubble out at the
street and so that there's no runoff going to any sideyards yeah and I think given the reconstruction of the driveway and then you can put that right in the center of those ribbon strips and it will it will effectively discharge any excess water
in the center and that would adversely could possibly adversely impact the neighbors yeah so it would give it a direct line any overflow would would overflow to the street and would also provide additional capacity right so no we would have no issue complying okay
thank you good okay thank you anyone else within 200 feet tim my name is Tim Walsh i live at 1022 New York Avenue can you raise your right hand please do you swear that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth i do thank you um most of my questions have been answered but I do have a question with the survey can I approach this take your mic with you take your mic with you oh sorry there's two surveys there's a survey that was completed and
given with the plans but this survey does not show the second concrete strip and that that's just because it was on the neighboring property the first survey shows the pin on the corner of Do you have the original
survey and that that may I'm just trying to clarify this so there's no problems when it's done that may be to Craig's point that uh he had some concerns about the way it was drafted paul you look you seem like you're looking at a device what is that ipad i
was looking up the the previous survey which was submitted as part of the applic is it the mechanical survey yeah that was the name here you go getting a little comfortable back there i was getting ready yeah see that getting rid
of my phone it's fully on the property here this is concrete this is concrete it's fully on that property and part of it so we can have a comprehensive record can you guys Yeah so you you don't need to know so look looking at the mechanical survey what he's what he's trying to show is that it shows more of
that um existing concrete strip on our side than what our plan shows your plan shows no concrete on but what I would suggest is that you know that driveway is being completely removed and replaced so
anything inside that property line will be removed and replaced with a permeable ribbon but won't this change your lot coverage and also change the calculations for the storm drainage i just want everything to be right i don't know i don't want water in my basement either i still I think given even given
whether that's this way or that way um I feel still feel confident that we can comply with what we've already indicated we didn't walk away I didn't mean to walk away from you indicated that you'll be under 58% correct so if for some reason your
calculation is wrong not by not by by intent but by error you got to comply with 58% so if you don't do it then you have to return here and figure out your next move right and the drainage will run to the front of the property like Mr eurles said right there'll be a line
they've agreed to that condition um another question about those that pipe um the water goes into the ends of the pipe it's the You should talk to the engineer sorry the um the pipe that goes that the drainage pipe so our original plan the
way we had designed it was the storm water coming off the patio would go to the inlet on the right side and the inlet on the left side would be slightly lower than the one on the right side and that water would bubble out um given what we've just agreed to which was piping the water all the way out front I
would probably change the design and hold those almost equal so we could run storm water to both sides of that trench and then the discharge would be at the street if those drains clog what happens then this house is pretty much empty all
winter long someone will have to clean the leaves off yeah so someone's going to have to take that responsibility on the leaves are going to have to be cleaned off or otherwise the water is not going to go into the system and then cause running onto
that's already a condition of any application that we approve that's why I refer to the minimum storm water management and grading requirements both during and after construction so they're required to maintain that system in a working condition or the city has the
ability to have them fix that just wanted to get this all out there that's why I put that in as a condition of all of our approvals and and we don't plan to create like an exceptional low point there but the water any water that that once that system fills up that water can
continue overland out of the property consistent with what it's doing now so we don't we don't plan to change that condition and create an artificial low point that could flood the neighbors out you know we would direct water there and then any water once that fills up would spill towards the street naturally the
way it does now so it it's not our intention to create create an issue even if it were to clog we still look to provide positive flow towards the street i just have a clarifying question for you uh you're saying that right currently that that concrete is on the
property line or on the neighbor's property is that going to be the one survey shows the one concrete ribbon encroaching into Mrs hamilton's property just a small slice of it and I believe
0.9 ft is what's shown on the on the survey so at the back portion of where it is it's approximately almost a foot encroaching into the neighbor's yard but they're going to remove all of that even in the neighbor's yard even in the neighbor's yard that's their I mean
that's what's prescriptively been used as their parking space they're going to remove all of that put those improvements back on their property with the two ribbon strips that they've agreed to do okay thank you for that clarification anyone else within 200 feet
anyone beyond 200 feet okay we're now close to the public all right um so I would recommend a motion Mike for question i have my I would recommend a a motion for the granting of the variances as
contained on Craig's page three of his report to include a use variance uh lot size variance lot width variance lot frontage variance uh lot coverage variance as well as the parking variance combined with Craig's review letter on
page five and six amended to include uh a positive outflow to the street which the applicant agreed to uh as well as a condition that the applicant uh remove some of the concrete in the front of the
building put in two ribbon strips and be under lot coverage of 58% would someone like to make that motion i'll make that motion and remember this is a devarian so requires five affirmative votes please state your reasons on the record when you vote
second okay we have a motion by Miss Sheen seconded by Mr zexer mrs notch yes miss Sheen yes mr zexer yes mr jagger yes miss Stevenson yes mr bonudo yes thanks
thank you very much okay okay our second application be Joseph and Gail Stevenson 233 Kart Lane block 1031 lots 38.02 and 39 okay so before we start uh Sarah
Stevenson had to recuse herself i say that to Mr galzunes so uh he knows that there's only six voting members do you wish to proceed we'll proceed Mr
barnes introduce yourself and your party sir Mr chairman my name is Ron Galzunis appearing on behalf of Jake and Gal Stevenson to my right property of course is located at 233 Cape Hart Lane this is
in the R2 zoning district the proposal this evening is to construct a one room addition to the home the addition will be located where the existing roof deck is located it will be located within the same
footprint this will require a variance for a vertical intrusion into the sideyard setback area and will also require a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use that nonconformity that non-conforming use is the existence
of a second small cottage dwelling located on the property that is not in any way involved with this application the applicant is also proposing uh some other major renovations to the property uh including exterior renovations to the
building as well as some structural repairs to shore up the structure uh so that it lasts well into the future uh here this evening to provide our expert testimony to my left is Mr blaine Steinman and of course Jake and Gail to
my right uh if we could please have them sworn in raise your right hand where the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do i do all right thank you mr steinman if you could
just briefly place your credentials on the record i'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey get the mic and have you uh testified before uh various planning and zoning boards on other occasions yes I have you've been accepted by an expert in the past i have
have you testified at this board in the past yes I have they've accepted you as an expert they have mr chairman accept them blaine why don't you take us through uh the current conditions on the site explain that to us and then take us
through your proposal okay the site as shown on the P1 on our drawings uh existing site um is accessed through Kart Lane there's uh an existing structure on the right hand side with
parking to the left the structure um it's an existing two-story structure with a one-story portion in the back the one-story portion in the back is a garage with a deck above uh that accesses the second story of the front
structure um if you continue down the driveway side there are uh there's a a structure to the left which is an existing accessory apartment and if you go towards the right there are two other structures um that are both used for storage
um what we propose which is on the same page on the drawing directly below it um are really no changes to the site um the driveway exists um the buildings in their in their locations and their size
exist and the only uh addition and why we're here is because when you go into the existing uh dwelling unit um on the first floor there's currently two bedrooms and two bathrooms and the stairs to get you to the second floor with a garage in the back um on the
second floor there's a kitchen dining living area with a bathroom and access to the deck and what we propose is that the first floor to remain the same with the two bedrooms and the two bathrooms the existing garage to be enclosed because you can't really get a car in
there there's a mechanical unit in there now that serves the residential unit um but that's sitting on the ground which is below base flood elevation we're going to raise that up to bring it into flood compliance and we're going to enclose the area so that it can be used as storage as it is now um without the
use of overhead doors um so it's you know better better um able to keep the uh the storage area safer from the environment um because it's not really used as a garage uh as you go upstairs the second floor proposed um we're not
really changing the main structure that's the second floor of the living dining kitchen area with a bathroom um but we're enclosing the area that is currently a deck to become the new living area because this the uh living dining kitchen area currently is too
small for the family use okay the uh tell us about the actual enclosure uh what's going to happen as far as that's concerned um can you try to move that mic a little closer thank you i I'm having a hard time i can hear them okay can you hear me
now is that better um so we're going to do uh walls we're going to redo redo the floor bring the floor up flush to the floor of the of the second story structure and we're going to enclose the perimeter of the deck with exterior walls where the
railing currently is um on the back side facing the backyard will be windows on the two sides there will be no windows um it'll be accessed through the house and also there's a current set of stairs that takes you up to the deck and now that set of stairs will take you up to a
door that leads you into the new living room so what's proposed to be inside of this new enclosed area it's just the living room and now the existing second floor I understand is pretty small and you can barely even accommodate um just a
handful of people at say at at a table yeah there really there's not much room for a table for dining there's a small kitchen with an island a bathroom and an existing living area that's also very small uh so we're going to create a new dining area where the existing living
area is and a new living area where the existing deck is and the existing exterior deck that's currently used correct that's a what what does that consist of is that a fiberglass deck with a railing fiberglass deck yeah it's a fiberglass deck with a railing around it and and what uh activities happen on
there is there uh a barbecue or a table chairs that sort of thing uh there's some furniture i don't remember maybe the client could tell you better i I don't remember seeing a barbecue up there but it's just definitely just a sitting area okay uh so the the the
manner in which the property is used um that's not really going to change any is it this area this space on top of the deck is already being used in connection with the with the home yes um so the only thing that's going to change really then is that whatever happens on that
exterior deck is going to now be uh within an enclosed space a sitting area living area that'll be Yes it'll be inside with walls and a roof so in in in one respect that will actually um possibly be a benefit to the
neighborhood the adjoining properties because you won't have outside activities occurring on an elevated deck that's correct and I think that sometimes that voice is carry even a regular conversational tone in the evening will carry pretty far uh and you
won't have that now that'll be enclosed it won't have the noise or or visually it won't be able to see in there because there's no windows on that side it's currently you know less than a foot to the property line on about half of it so we're not proposing any windows on that side so the fact that you're um not
adding any bedrooms you're not adding any bathrooms um you just have a space that's being utilized sort of as a um a living room area it's outside versus inside is the only difference correct and we have here a a vertical intrusion
into the sideyard setback are you you're going up on the existing exterior bearing wall we are and what's the distance between that wall and the um the property line it's 0.9 ft and it's not going to go out any further than that are you proposing eaves on top of
the roof there's a roof eve but the roof eve will be cut back so that it does not uh exceed the property line and you you've had some discussions I believe or interaction or input from the neighbor on that side as well concerning uh the roof eaves the client had interaction
and and uh I was uh part of the uh email so I could see what his comments and concerns were and we've addressed those and when you um look at the property that's next door uh to the east that sideyard area um what's the approximate
distance between this um part of the Stevenson house and the wall you're going to build and and the structure that's located on the adjoining property that structure i think we you scaled it at approximately 12 feet i think that's about what it was yeah I didn't have
that on a survey but yeah to his house we're we're 0.9 ft to the property line and then he's probably 11 or 12 feet or so from that same property line and then this uh uh part of the the building and the addition actually goes past the uh
portion of the rear property line extends past the building the adjoining building correct in fact a good portion of it i think that building sits fur a little bit further forward yeah it sits further forward and the property line like you said turns 90° um so that only
about half of the addition is 0.9 ft to the property line the rest of it is goes into the backyard of the property that belongs to this property and you said you're not proposing a window in in that location we are not you're not so So do
you see any kind of um negative impact uh flowing onto the adjoining property the property to the east no I don't um I know his concern was uh that he didn't want the roof overhang uh or water runoff because of the roof overhang uh
and as I said we've addressed that we've we pulled the roof overhang in uh and put a gutter down the side of it and the gutter is also within the property line where we're adjacent to the property line so you've considered that issue and you you feel that it's adequately
addressed I believe so we did exactly what he asked us to do he's a he's an architect and he actually proposed um the solution and we just said we would follow it you agreed with that as well and he was satisfied with that uh
and do you believe that it's adequate there's adequate space buffering between the two structures which was approximately 12 ft yes well yeah again i mean it's an existing structure and it's been there a lot longer than than his structure but uh yes there is about
12 feet between the two structures so it's not as though they're right on top of each other now in in addition to um enclosing and making this new room you have some other improvements that are happening here I think siding windows which go into a little detail about the
other improvements that will result from this uh we did some some cosmetic as well as structural uh improvements to bring the house into code compliance and make it more energy efficient um and it has been through an approved HPC approval already now this is an historic
structure correct yes so those um structural repairs you're making are actually helping preserve this structure well into the future they are and also the um design features the new windows siding roofing that sort of thing that
also advances the historic character of the home itself the structure yes and and also the historic district yes and the neighborhood in general correct and that's to the general those are special reasons right the advancement of the historic district and the um general
welfare they are yes and that promotes all of those factors including a desirable visual environment which I guess is the aesthetics and visual appearance of the whole yes absolutely and that's all advanced um so now the uh the second variance that we come to the
expansion of the nonconformity um which we have a cottage second cottage on the property and that's a very small cottage right your floor area ratio on that is something um exceptionally
small I believe if we look at the zoning chart we have a floor area ratio we start with of uh.16 for the home and then I think 038 for the cottage mhm so you're adding um
just a small amount we're going from 0.16 floor area ratio on the principal house to86 for unit one correct that's not a lot is it no in in fact for the size of the property we're very unders sized for
what could be on that property what's permitted correct so considering that um the expansion is is this can the site accommodate the expansion well I believe it can yes like you said
it's well under the floor ratio and all of your other uh bulk uh numbers are lower than what's allowed the um lot coverage you're under that 34%
uh building height you're only at 24.2 feet you're allowed 35 ft correct uh and we essentially just have a big lot and two very small dwellings on it that's correct and the area we're
enclosing is already the floor area is already there and it's already utilized it's already building coverage and so those factors did they lead you to conclude that um there's no additional intensity of use there's no um really uh material
expansion of the nonconformity yeah there's no expansion onto the lot or the use of the structure it's the same number of bedrooms same family um so it's just changing the use from a deck to an enclosed living room and there's other
existing non-conformities on the property but none of them are going to be exacerbated here correct uh and and for instance the parking we that's provided is four spaces two spaces for each unit yes that's correct um and no
additional parking is is needed no and from that uh use variance that expansion of that non-conforming use um in everything that you've testified to do you see any um negative impact on the
neighborhood or the public no I do not and con considering that um we just have a one room addition here over the garage do you see any substantial detriment to the zone plan the R2 zoning plan or the zoning ordinance resulting
from this no I don't in fact it's a rather unique situation the way the lot's configured with the existing house where it is and the other property the Lshape of it and whatnot that's very unique yes
does anyone have any questions uh for Mr steiner i have a couple questions um is the house going to be raised no okay i was a little confused there when you said you know they talked about 6 feet elevation that's why I was
asking no the house is is an existing historic structure i don't think there's any way to raise it okay and there's two cottages in the back a habitable one and a non-habitable one there's three buildings one is an apartment and the other two are structure three buildings that are
accessory buildings besides the main structure so there's four buildings total on the lot the one that we're working on which is the which is where they live and then three buildings like I said one is a cottage and the other two are are storage buildings
okay so there's they're not finished off the other two buildings aren't finished off not as far as I know they're not finished off are they no they're just the two other buildings besides the apartment they're just storage correct yeah i mean we didn't go in and we're not We weren't doing anything to them um now you're removing the garage door
correct correct that's one thing I have an issue with because now it's almost becoming an improved space by removing the door okay okay let me let me shed a little light on that um Jake that um area we're calling a garage connected to
the house uh to your Well first of all how long have you owned the house eight years um to your knowledge uh well what was that space used for when you purchased the house when we purchased the house it was all they had the walls painted with kind of like decorative paint and it was just an all-purpose
room where we've had because our Was it used for just storage no not originally i mean it it is storage but then it was also used I guess for parties things like that it was it's being called a garage um what's your knowledge about whether that is a garage station or not
the um if you read the historic report it does indicate that the garage use was discontinued in the 1960s i believe in the historic report um additionally it doesn't have the proper turnaround radius to back in and out there's also a large tree right by it so I mean it must
have at some point became impractical and you know it hasn't been used as a garage and again if you look at the historic report it does indicate the 1960s yeah just being a being having a garage then it's a garage door is considered a G for me my garage once you
remove the garage it to me it becomes another room a habitable area are they heated spaces it it is heated it does have an air conditioning in there it has a floor but I mean we we've our our living room is 7 by10 our
kitchen is so so small we have a four seat dining room table so we've had Christmas dinners in there Easter dinners in there Christmas parade parties in that room with picnic tables so we have used it other than garage but right now it is storage in there and
right now the HVAC units in there the hot water heater it's that becomes habitable that becomes habitable space if you're using it you know it's almost like having an outdoor patio with the cover over it
it's pretty much but but it's supposed to be a garage a garage is not to be used for forable we just went through this last month um I you know if Yeah we could I mean the garage door can stay just make it a garage door for the historic time
frames there'll be no other work done on any of the other structures at this time no no this is enough believe me I mean my my concern is that if you're going to be using that garage as habitable space is
there going to be another bedroom does that change the parking requirements h you know that's we do have six parking spaces as it is so I don't know that that would But that does include the the the place in the back for parking
how many bedrooms are in the place in the back that's one just one yeah it was a converted garage that was you know it's very tiny wasn't it or Coast Guard housing or something no it was Coast Guard but it's been there again 60 years 80 years is that what the history was it's a very unique site there's It looks
like there's four cottages on there yes why don't you give us the history of of the buildings that you you've researched a little bit next door at one time um you know that area along Cape Island Creek which has since been put underground and covered was a series of
barns including um the Congress Hall stables we're the last one left it's it's a po post intended barn uh it's 21 by 24 it's a little square barn mhm everything's crooked in it and you know
I mean it was converted to a house kind of like half-heartedly I think in the 80s and we're trying to bring it back to represent the cultural uh history of that it's a barn we're going to make it look like a barn because that was part of Kate May's history and so I mean our
intent is to just when people come down the street they're going to say "Oh wow there was a barn here." You know and it's not just any other house um the the other buildings are there one was an ammo dump from the old campus of Hickin now the Coast Guard base the other one
was a gas station on Washington Street at Union and the my neighbor Ruth Leo says the one that's occupied now was a garage at one tunnel so Ruth Leo she lives to the west of you she Yes the
left from the front about you've spoken to her about this and she's related to the original owners of the property that accumulated all the ground uh Ruth's hus late husband John uh his mother at one time owned all those parcels and how
long have those to to your knowledge speaking with her through the history of this have those sort of that collection of buildings existed you know at least 60 years if not longer maybe 80 years and the one is uh a habitable cottage
and that you have a merkantal license for yes we maintain that rent that but for the past four years we've had our daughters living in So you know we're not using it as a a rental property currently one of those buildings was a guard house from the Naval Air ammo
shack an ammo shack it's so tiny you couldn't use that for anything that's the equivalent of an actual shed at this point yes and the other building directly behind you that was some type of structure what was that the gas station it was a gas station you know
probably at the turn of the century when cars first came out on Washington Street and Union and it was moved from there onto my site now that was habitable at one time correct yeah we have you know anecdotal that people did live there um
well there's there you go in there and it's it's a bathroom with with this some of the the um I guess the vestigages you know toilet flange pipes gas lines all that still exist but we it's all torn out yes and you have no intention of
doing anything with this point what are you using it for now it's loaded wall to wall and it is it's you can't even move in there i mean I we may be a little bit like quarters but we have a lot of stuff right so so that's the history of those little cods it is very unique you go
back there if you ever have the opportunity it's it's um very unique i'm just trying to get a whole like we we have this habitable floor area expansions into different structures on lots and it's been very prevalent before this board
and the zoning officer and myself deal with this all the time enforcement issues and everything what so I'm just trying to make sure that whatever we approve we know what's going to be on this site right whether it's historically there and if you're not touching the other buildings if it's
historically there I think that this approval should at least document it so that now what was the building that you said that you have Thanksgiving dinner in or that was the current garage because the garage upstairs is so tiny
we got the current the garage for the garage floor the the prime principal structure yes okay attached gotcha which looks like it was an addition it has a garage door but I I just asked Mr stein to 16 so maybe three that would still
comply with the floor area ratio if that was well under so that's that's why that's why I want to make that case is like if if that's not an issue it's too it's it's below base flood to we have a very small dwelling here and it's but
it's below flood elevation it's below flood elevation i mean we meet the parking even if it was habitable usable space parking's not a problem like that in there because okay so it's it's not habitable but it it's not unlike anyone with a huge family throwing Thanksgiving
dinner out in their garage basically yes right so the issue is whether the the door should remain or not whether the board feels comfortable with that with this addition we won't need to do that anymore gotcha okay I understand now there was there
just a little bit of missing information i wasn't registering thank you thank you right and that garage door I think historically that is an addition to the barn that probably shouldn't even really be there it's I don't think it's part of the original structure jay probably knows
more about it than I do and then I think there was one more confusing point where you were talking about elevating something were you talking about the the the height of the deck the the the rooftop deck to bring that up to be consistent with the floor so you could walk that was just raising it up a few
inches so that there's no step down i think there was some confusion there about raising something but that's what you were talking about we were just going to remove the fiberglass can you grab the mic please mic mike sorry so the rooftop deck sits a few inches lower than the floor the second floor yes and
so you have to bring it up so you're not tripping you don't have a tripping hazard right so the floor is consistent the existing floors will be consistent in the new living room okay okay any other questions for Mr steman this close so uh it looks like
you got HBC approval or do you still have to go through that process we do have HBC final okay final mhm all right thank you yeah that that was included as exhibit C in the application resolution
202441 any other questions just clarification if they remove the garage door then it becomes habitable space but they have plenty of space go ahead right it's not really habitable
space well well that's how we consider it because it's heated and air conditioned and the garage door is gone then it becomes habitable space mhm what's Yeah I think I think the interpretation of our zoning code would suggest that it is habitable space
you're you're getting very close to it if it not I think that you should present it that it's and I don't know whether you're going to concede the garage door or not but I believe without the garage door it is habitable space i think you can make
that case now is is it going to create an overage do you do you know what that calculation is you're at 0.16% proposing 224 and that's including both
cott the cottage and the principal structure so I'm doubting that that we're not going to need a varian to force it to exceed the permit it's up to the board can you please speak into the mic i'm sorry it's not going to require a variance for more than what's permitted i just don't
want this becoming a future habitable space issue moving forward mr willing to do whatever the board suggests i think I'm just trying to make it clear so when they go for the CO they know what is
there right so I think it should be presented that it's h it's existing habitable space or proposed habitable space with the removal of the door is that No no Mr hollis I I I agree i mean look they they purchased the
property in this configuration the garage use itself was abandoned sometime in the 60s according to the HP survey that sort of puts it in this sort of gray zone it's a garage and it's abandoned but it's being used how in various different ways i think Mr hurles
you're correct we could resolve that now and clear it up and simply call it what it's been used as and that's habitable space and we're still so vastly under the floor area ratio that's permitted this this is a
9,867 square foot lot right and we're talking about adding 380 square feet um I guess we divide that by 9 38 3867 correct
um 0385 additional floor area ratio that's which is a tiny dimminimous right it is I it is dimminimous given given the scale of the lot I just want to make sure that we approve this and that there's no issues moving forward and we know what
animal that we approved So that that it becomes an enforcement issue so if we can get that clarified and I don't believe that it increases the intensity of the use there or creates any more additional adverse impacts that could be considered but so
I just like clarity especially with this issue that the board and the city have been dealing with for so long okay let's put another bedroom together right well that would create a parking issue
so we'd have to address this okay thank you for clarifying any other questions no craig would you like to do your review sure i'd like to summarize my January 8th 2025 review memorandum um
this is an application in the R2 Lowmedium Density Residential District once again the only permitted uh residential use in this district is single family dwellings now that being said you're only permitted to have one
principal use on each lot now that cottage is considered an we don't have a definition of cottage it's considered an additional single family dwelling and the other two outbuildings are storage buildings
okay all right so rolling into the completeness review the applicant requested waiverss from items 8 13 23 24 26 27 28 31 and 33 and based on the nature of this application I did support waiverss
from all of those items i did ask for additional uh calculations for lot coverage to be provided on the plans item number 13 should be provided as a condition of approval and that will include the garage area right well that's not a that that would be a
calculation of the floor area ratio or the the habitable space right so yes we would include that so that that's a different that's a different animal than what's included in my review but we'll add that as a condition of approval too so we would ask for the floor area ratio
and habitable space calculation will include the garage okay is that okay all right so that re based on that um recommendation I did recommend deeming the application
complete with regards to the variances that are being requested so this is an expansion of a existing non-conforming use not because it's a cottage or whatever we're calling a dwelling it's the the principal dwelling but because
it represents a second dwelling on a lot any expansion of anything on that site represents an expansion of a non-conforming use very similar to what I described in the previous application okay so the addition to single family
dwelling number one which is um as it's indicated on the architect's plans um that creates the necessity for the board to grant a use variance under the D2 criteria for that um once again it
requires five affirmative votes to pass that um I'll just touch on the other bundle of so this is an existing non-conforming structure it has an existing non-conforming structure setback with regards to Kart Lane 25
foot is required 19.8 foot exists that's not being changed the lot frontage does not meet the minimum requirement of 60 feet 50 foot is the existing condition the habitable ground floor area so in
this case they're way under the minimum so there's there's all there's a maximum and a minimum in in Kate May so these are extremely small structures which is not really promoted or encouraged or
approvable under the existing zoning criteria so um obviously there's there's four you know very small structures 392 square f foot exists for the cottage and that's going to remain as
392 so that's an existing non-conformity the principal structure is getting larger 596 and that is being increased to 916 which goes from a nonconforming situation to a conforming situation so
the addition actually makes that conforming that's a positive uh the rear yard setback for the cottage um has is required to be 25 feet where 2.3 feet exists and is proposed there's
no changes there the sideyard setback and this is a vertical expansion in that setback um 5 foot is required on that side 0.5 foot in is an encroachment and there will be a 0.5 foot encroachment
that exists however you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating they will pull back those eaves so that doesn't encroach on the neighboring property so that is more conforming however it does still require a setback variance
okay and then finally I just asked and I just indicated in my chart uh you provided a conforming lot coverage it's not really up close to the the maximum permitted however there was no detailed calculations on there so we would ask
that that be added to the plan just so that can be confirmed and the floor area ratio will change based on our discussion of the garage being habitable space if the garage door is removed and then finally just detailing our checking
of the parking for both units there are four parking spaces required where four exist so that's a summary of all the variances craig quick question sure is there a reason why you don't include the other structures on the the lot they're not
being touched and it just gets too convoluted they're they're accessory structures they're okay they get they get evaluated kind of like sheds do so they have a reduced setback requirement um typically five foot from any sideyard
or rear yard is the requirement um the one is non-conforming but I I just left to to to keep our report concise and reviewable without creating too many issues i omitted that okay i just didn't
know how you know for it's existing non-conforming situation and they're not touching that structure so I left it alone okay okay all right any other questions with regards to the variances all right under the general
review comments um these should all be conditions of approval um so they already talked about this and this is the EES encroachment in the budding lot so they've indicated that they've worked it out with the neighbor they are going to pull back those eaves they're providing a gutter so that
there's no storm water discharge onto the adjoining lot um so and I've also asked for some setback information to pre to be provided on the plan just so it's clear okay item number two um the survey created a
little bit of confusion because the survey indicates that there are four dwellings on the lot the Cape Bland surveying says one-story frame dwelling one-story frame dwelling one-story frame dwelling all on the rear with a two-story frame dwelling
in the front so we're going to let the architectural plans govern because that's only showing what you described and just note that that survey is inaccurate um and there's no habitable spaces permitted in no structures so that
that's being agreed to okay um item number three this is within a flood area so uh you have to comply with chapter 258 flood damage protection for the new construction item number four we always ask that the zoning tables is revi revised to reflect
the comments in the review memorandum and whatever the conditions that the board sets five is the applicant shall verify that the proposed improvements will not result in grading or drainage is issues um if that occurs then a grading and
drainage plan should be required and submitted for review and approval to the board engineer you also have to comply with chapter 525 which is the minimum storm water management and grading requirements both during and after construction uh item number six a
landscaping and vegetation plan was not provided we would just ask you to confirm that all the existing trees and landscaping will be preserved we're not going outside of the footprint of the building nothing will be touched thank you so much and just add a note on the plan confirming that um we evaluate the
sidewalk on any application like this there is no sidewalk existing on Cape Hart Lane capeart Lane is extremely narrow it is a 25 20 foot rightway it cannot accommodate sidewalk and therefore I don't recommend any sidewalk
being provided in on that on this site items eight is our standard recommendation that they have to provide an es inspection escrow and the co is tied to an acceptance of the improvements nine is compliance with the
sha tree commission fire department and public works department we did receive reports from them sha tree commission recommended approval with the following conditions and this is a brutal one with the handwriting so give me a second there are four large elm trees located
on the property which will need to be protected as per our ordinance one of the elms is of a size to be considered a landmark tree one dead ginko ginko is that what
that is that that was the word I was having ginko okay ginko and crepe myrtle can be removed are you accept those acceptable yes and you know just as anecdotally you know those that one Dutch elm that is a legacy tree okay we had two other huge ones that were right
next to it and Easter Monday about 5 years ago a straight line wind came through blew the roof off of Congress Hall and blew both of them down both down i lost my roof in that storm and it cost cost a lot of money to get them babies
out i'm very familiar with that they fell right with that storm yeah they fell into the one that's standing oh yeah but they were 250 year old trees okay yeah they all right so that takes care of item number nine item 10 is our standard condition that they have to
comply with any and all other necessary state county and local approvals item 12 I mean 11 they have provided evidence that they have HPC approval item 12 they have to comply with any applicable affordable housing requirements and
finally item 13 should the board grant approval they have to revise the plans consistent with the board's conditions and submit those plans to the board engineer for review and approval that's a summary of my report happy to answer any questions the board has
no questions for Craig we don't take any exception to any of the conditions okay all right at this point we'd like to open uh the meeting up to the public anyone within 200 feet that would like to comment i'm James Lee i live at 232
Perry Street which is behind the property uh I support everything they Please raise your right hand that's where you want do you swear that the testimony you're about to provide is going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you Mr lee what was the address i'm
sorry 232 Perry Street thank you i support everything they want to do i knew the previous owners very well and anything they want to do to improve that structure in the neighborhood is wonderful my fear has been that someone
other than they would buy it tear everything down and fight with you all about a mega whatever because it's a big lot and with the right lawyers and whatever they who knows what they could do so they're doing what I think is really good for
the whole community so thank you okay thank you anyone else within 200 feet beyond 200 feet okay we'll close it to the public and Jeff you explained recommendations
and motions to be made sure we recommend a motion for the variances as contained in Craig's report on page four that require a use variance a building setback line variance lot frontage variance then we'll have all ground floor area variance rear yard setback
variance sideyard setback variance and non-conforming structure on the non-conforming lot as well as Craig's comments in five through six of his report uh on his completeness review there was a issue as relates to I believe number 13 that required some
revisions by the applicant uh lastly and if I'm wrong you can tell me the garage door I believe is actually being removed and it's being considered a habitable space per the resolution yes correct perfect remember it's a devariance it requires five affirmative votes i ask
that you put your um proofs on the record when you vote i make a motion i'll second mary P miss Sheen motions mrs naj seconds mrs notch yes miss Sheen yes mr
walsh yes mr zexer yes mr jagger yes mr bonudo yes thank you thank you Mr chairman board members for your time thank you and thank you everyone on the board this has been a long process and thanks for your kind consideration good luck i just
like to thank the applicant for actually talking to their next door neighbor Mrs leo i always make sure Ruth knows what we're doing every time I go in there Mrs leo grabs me and chews on my ear
i try and hide from All right our uh third application is Jason and Cinda Clei i think I would have got that right uh 501 Hugh Street block 1049 lot 101
this is an appeal from the HPC okay Chris we're gonna test the microphone you want to just introduce yourself can you hear me okay one second just give me one second okay thank you okay okay can you talk now
can everybody hear me okay working just I can just barely hear him who's that chris Gillan Schwarz oh he was otherwise otherwise we weren't coming back till like July so okay so give it a try now okay
good evening can everybody hear me okay loud and loud not so clear okay give it one more check okay i'm going to try and stay out of the way of this meeting so you can all just tell me when I need to talk
okay just one more time okay okay sarah can you hear me it doesn't work it has to be on the speaker just turn the volume down okay did you all right I'll turn the volume down just move it a little bit away that why you're getting reverberation okay
okay one last time and then I'm going to step away and let Mr florence take over okay good evening Jeff and everybody else can you hear me yes okay
all right good to go Mr chairman we're good to go all right uh good evening again board members john Amanhauser of the Dwis law firm uh here this evening on behalf of the appellants uh in this matter Jason and Cinda Clei uh the subject property of this appeal is 501 Hugh Street identified as block
1049 lot 10.01 um as the board is aware this is an appeal from a denial of this application by the HPC um the application was dated September 27th 2024 the HPC hearing that was conducted
was on November 25th of 2024 um the subject of that application originally and I'm going to go through a time frame just to to make it clear for everybody in just a second but the subject of that application before the HPC on November 25th was related to a
condition of planning board approval to go back to that body as it related to proposed gates and fences on the subject property uh the original HPC approvals and planning board approvals contained much more in terms of development just than just those things um they included
ingground swimming pool uh they included patio pavers in in the uh rear of the building on this property as well as some landscaping um and I'm going to get into more detail now but just to frame it there was a very very limited scope of re-review by the HPC that was
warranted in this case and that was ordered by the planning board the opinion of the appellants is that the HPC grossly exceeded the authority that was provided to them on remand and considered this application completely a new after previously having provided approval uh of the entirety of the
application so to go through a time frame as to how we got here tonight so originally an application was filed by the Kwis to the HPC on March 25th of 2024 the application that was sought uh or that was submitted sought approval
for the installation of an ingground swimming pool patio pavers newly proposed landscaping and a at the time a black aluminum fence surrounding the pool area in the rear yard then again March 25th of 2024 is when that was submitted on April 3rd of
2024 just about a week or so later an email was sent to the applicant and to myself uh by the board secretary of the HPC she advised through email and this was copied uh it was included as I called it subexhibit B to exhibit A of our application so exhibit A is
voluminous it's a legal brief that I authored along with exhibits to it the entirety of that was exhibit A you'll see the subex exhibits attached to that so sub exhibit B was an email uh from the board secretary HPC secretary to myself and to the Cleveland indicating
that the proposed black aluminum fence was inappropriate in the historic district and the HPC requested a plan with a wooden fence be submitted or that a full commission hearing would be required in other words submit a wooden fence plan along with the other items
that you'd sought for development or if you don't we're going to require you to go before the full commission that's directly from the HPC secretary to us may 15th of 2024 so approximately a month later a revised application was submitted to the HPC with a wooden fence
plan included so this revised application included a wooden fence plan an ingground swimming pool patio pavers newly installed landscaping all the same items from the first application with the conversion of the aluminum fence to wooden what was the height of the new wood at the So that fence at the time
was six foot in height that was proposed or presented to the HPC for approval uh thereafter on the same date so we submitted May 15th and uh board secretary sent an email on the same date indicating that and this is impertinent part but again uh the entirety of the
email is subexhibit C to exhibit A in our our application she stated "HPC asked for a plan for a wood fence or a full commission hearing will be required." She went on to then state "A submission for an alternative wood fence would have been sufficient to avoid a
full commission hearing and advance the application for re-review." Lastly she goes on to state "I will submit the revised application for re-review the next meeting of the HPC review committee is scheduled for Tuesday May 28th." In other words she was telling me directly
and had been this is the second occasion that if we submitted a plan for a wood fence they'll review it in committee that's what they did may 28th 2024 the revised application submitted on the 15th of that month was reviewed in review committee by the HPC and the
application was approved in its entirety it's for an ingground swimming pool it's for a six-foot wooden fence for the newly proposed landscaping and for the patio pavers that were proposed that was approved in review that was review approved in review on the 28th of May um
sub exhibit A is that HPC approval the application as well as a stamped approval on the bottom with the date on it so at this point the HPC's had two different bites at the apple from initial submission to May 28th when we were approved to tell us that they had
an issue with what we were proposing or that we had to go to full review committee they didn't do it in fact not only did they not do it they made it clear to us that if we submit it what they want it we can be reviewed in committee and would be and that's exactly what happened thereafter june
7th of 2024 that is the date um that after obtaining the HPC approval on the 28th of May we got together with the architect that was thereafter retained by the Kiwis to draft a site plan they they expended the cost to do so and we submitted an application to the city of
Kate May planning board knowing that we had HPC approval in place for what we look to do june 17th of 2024 the HPC's full committee met for their regular monthly meeting if you look at sub exhibit D to exhibit A that includes the agenda that was set to be um worked on
that night by the HBC on the cover of that agenda are all of the applications between their May meeting and June meeting that had been reviewed and approved or denied in committee on that list is the Klew application this is exactly how it reads right on the cover
page of the agenda it says Clei 501 Hugh Street 1049-10.01 non-contributing pool patio and fence again they made it clear to any member that wasn't part of the review committee that this was approved in committee and here are the items that were approved
this was part of the application says it right on its face that there was a pool approved at that time that's a sixoot fence with a sixoot fence now during the during the actual meeting right I just went over was on the agenda but then during the meeting of the HBC
um there was a it it came up as to the approval of those applications in committee uh by the full body at that time there was a motion made by Mr carol seconded by Mr becker and this is in the minutes and then unanimously approved by the entirety of the HPC all of those applications in review that were
approved or denied the month prior was a third bite at the apple that the HPC had to tell us there was an issue with this to remove it from those uh items that were approved in review or to otherwise say I can't approve these you know through the minutes here I can't approve this because it shouldn't have been done in review committee it wasn't done then either so three different times they had
the chance to do so or tell us there was an issue they failed to do So after that August 27th of 2024 the applicants planning board application that I had mentioned we'd filed back on June 7th was heard by that body unanimously the board that evening approved us by a vote of I believe it
was an entire board it was unanimous i believe it was 9 nothing that the um it was a site plan application without any required variance relief they approved it unanimously that night that was for the installation of the pool that was for the installation of patio pavers landscaping that was approved the only
condition that the board put in the resolution that night and the resolution is attached also as subexhibit E to exhibit A was that 6-ft fences are not approved in front yards this is a corner property essentially two front yards this is the rear of the structure but
technically a front yard so what they said was we're not inclined to approve anything over a 4ft fence in that area go back to the HPC solely as it relates to gates and fences to ensure that they're okay with that design at 4 foot that's exactly what we did so on
September 27th of 2024 an amended or an application was filed with the HPC seeking amended approval solely as it related to the gating and fencing we made clear in the body of the requested relief that we did not seek to otherwise alter or amend the prior approvals related to the ingground swimming pool
the patio pavers or any other approvals that were granted by the planning board in HPC earlier not only did we make it clear in our in our application narrative but the planning board made clear as to what the authority they had for re-review was only gating and only fencing the other thing that we changed through that
amended application to make it even more palatable as we saw for the HBC was to change the design of the fence to say listen you were okay with a wood fence but being that we can go to 4 foot here's a row iron design that's more historically appropriate makes more sense for the streetscape and something we think you like more so we did do that
in there november 25th 2024 came um the applicants and myself we appeared before the HPC uh and during the course of the presentation that evening very early on as you see in the transcript that was provided as exhibit C the HPC chairman
indicated that the original application was approved in error as he called it and that's right from the record it's page nine lines 13 and 14 of the transcript and he indicated thereafter that since it is coming back for a fence which is required assuming he's speaking to the resolution of the planning board
our position is that it opens up the discussion to consider whether the pool is appropriate at that This is problematic obviously as we see for a number of reasons the first of which is that that wasn't sent back on remand from the planning board for consideration by the HPC but secondly
the pool never moved between the first time we submitted to the HPC all the way through the planning board approval and then secondly on our second application to the HPC that proposed inground swimming pool the dimensions the location none of it ever changed so to say that it's not appropriate at that
location now seems to be very very arbitrary the chairman then went on to say that so tonight we're going to consider more than the fence we'll consider the entire application the fact that it was made an error does not prevent us from revisiting it at this
point cited to no legal um basis for being able to reconsider it anything in the code case law or otherwise just that we can do it because we want to do it at this point despite the fact that the planning board did not give them any authority to review anything more than gates and
fences uh coincidentally enough I as you can see from the transcript and I'll highlight if necessary uh specific pages again the only items back before that board were gating and fencing and despite the fact that the board after reconsidering the entirety of the application despite a standing objection
from us that they had no authority to do so they denied the entirety of the application but five of the members that were there that evening actually spoke in favor of the proposed fencing so if they would have just abided by the remand requirements of the planning board we would have walked out with the
exact approval that we needed and been well on our way here instead they unilaterally acted to hear the entirety of the application a new despite our objection denied it in full we filed this appeal thereafter uh within the time frames required under the municipal code uh to essentially say
that the actions of the HPC were arbitrary capriccious and/or contrary to law um for all the reasons I just went over I think it's pretty clear at least in our estimation that everything that they did from the planning board remand onward was arbitrary and capriccious and
that's based on not only their approval the first time through but the fact that they had multiple opportunities to tell us that they had some form of an issue with what we proposed and never did so so when it went back to the planning board were did they take the fence down
to 4T so the planning board the original because was it mandated to be a 4ft fence in front yards it was so when we went to the planning board the original application requested 6ft fence during the discussion that evening with the planning board they made clear that they were not going to approve a six-foot
fence in a front yard so that was what triggered the need for us to say "Okay that's fine we'll go to 4 foot." But they wanted to be sure that the you know even though the HPC typically deals with design that the HPC was going to be okay with a 4ft wood fence in that front yard as opposed to the six design didn't
change in any way whatsoever solely the height so that's what we did again when we filed the amended or the application for amended approval we said "We're keeping the design the same we'll change it to raw iron because we think it's more consistent but if you want to approve us for a 4ft wood fence like you did a six we're fine with that again
they just they went well beyond the scope of that remand requirement in considering this a new and denying us that night and again uh our position is that from a legal standpoint that was arbitrary capriccious and contrary to any direction that they had from the planning board um again I I don't want
to continue to repeat but they had so many different bites at the apple here to tell us there was an issue we could have addressed this well back in March of 2024 we didn't because we were told we were okay the clients expended a very large sum of money and continue to based on this decision that they made which we
believe is arbitrary and capriccious mr chairman I don't know if you had another question but you looked like you were getting ready to ask me one no I have questions right now can I just make a comment since we have somebody attending by phone and if everybody could make sure they have the mics close to them when they speak it would be a
great help to Mr gillan Schwarz still with us Chris thank you i'm here okay um just additionally so chapter 525 section 354 it's the the HPC uh historic preservation commission area of the land
development ordinance here in Kate May subsection four indicates that the the role of the historic preservation commission is to advise the planning and zoning board on applications for development pursuant to NJSA 405D-110 our position is here the advice
that they provided was that we're okay with this they approved it in committee a and gave us no inclination or documentation indicating they had any issue whatsoever with the proposed design of all of those items the ingground pool the patio pavers the landscaping and the gating and fencing
the gating and fencing came later obviously after the planning board uh additionally once the planning board made their determination on August 27th uh as to approval in the application for development that was submitted it's my opinion that the application for development in and of
itself became final when you got through the appeal period there was never an appeal of that determination by anybody yes it was conditioned upon the HPC saying "Are you okay with this gating and fencing plan?" But no other aspects of that approval were ever appealed or otherwise brought into question by
anybody um so again I think that brings more into question the actions of the HPC whether they had any authority to do so not only did they not get that direction from the board but I also don't think they had any guidance under the municipal language law or authority to do what they did on that on that date
for all of those reasons it's our position that the actions of that body were arbitrary capriccious unreasonable and contrary to law and direction that they were given by the planning board and we're asking you this evening to overturn their determination and allow us to proceed with the proposed development that had been approved
okay thank you thank you is um the gentleman from the HBC able to answer questions is Chris going to make any statement or let's hear from Chris yeah Mr barnes can you just let me know that everybody can
hear me in that room we can hear him yes okay all right thank you hey listen i I I I want to thank everybody for allowing me to appear uh virtually i know it's we're not taking testimony tonight this is a special case
vacations are hard to come by i was ready to go last month um and the applicant requested a German which I was consented to but I also didn't want to hold up the works on this people have to make decisions and move on with their planning so I wanted to thank you for the ability uh for me to participate
virtually look I I can cut right to the chase on this and and Mr amhouser is being diplomatic obviously a mistake was made here right um but the the outcome of that is and what this board has to decide is do you get a pool by accident
in the city of Cape Maya front yard storm district and I I think the answer to that in this case has to be no and I know that there's a lot of frustration as to how we got here and it's not uh it's definitely not the poster child for
uh navigating the the application process in the city of Kag but the the simple question of is is the HPC bound um by an approved and reviewed pool the answer has to be no
because the issue is and and what we have to look at is the way that the HPC reviews these types of applications so we have we have the review committee which like the zoning officer will review these things as they
come through the construction office and we have the majority of the of the applications processed by the HPC are in review it's either by the chairman or one less than a quorum which is three so those are the types of things that you
see for siding windows doors uh I need a new roof it's the speedy type of things it's the small type of things and those are minor applications specifically exempt from that in the city code is things like new construction or additions and and
accessory structures you know the bigger type things you're going to put a garage you're going to put a new house you're going to add a back room to a house and a pool which is also an accessory structure so this simply does not fit within the category of things that should have breezed through the review
committee and it's not the type of thing that the review committee has the authority to weigh in on and approve so clearly and obviously and admittedly there was a mistake here but the the reality of the situation is is that HBC was looking at it and they don't need uh
they don't need the planning board's permission to look at this issue it's it's um it it h it came back to them because of that referral about the fence issue but this is a a the city of Kate May has a
strong commission not a weak commission where it's here's our recommendation but do whatever you want with your planning board no we have the HPC is a straw commission it's one of the boxes that you have to check on the way to the construction program so if the HPC wanted to look at this without the
planning board's permission they have every right to because that's the way our code is and that's the way it is in the municipal annual law so um when this came back to the HBC by the way that pool was never reviewed by the full that
full concept was never reviewed on the merits of where it's going to go and what it's going to look like and how's it going to be screened on Decadence Street that that discussion happened before the board for the first time when Mr raymond Houser and his clients came
in and presented that uh after we voted on uh to to consider it and they they came back to the fence issue so that was very late in the game that should that should have happened here right um and they but they came in with an approved
in review which was a mistake but again the the review committee uh does not have the authority to approve a new house or an accessory structure or an addition so it's just not the category of types of things that they should be reviewing and proving so clearly it's a
mistake um and Mr ravenhauser and his clients acknowledged when they came to the HPC that they were pre-construction permit there's not there's no shovels in the ground there's no pool in the ground and if you look out there today if you looked out there before
uh it's a garment and one of the things that that HPC had looked at is that this particular structure the what's commonly known as the Empress was it lost its contributing status because of all these modifications over the years and this is
this is not me speaking this is in the the property the historic property survey that was that's reviewed by the board when they look at these applications when they come in so you know they there's a building that lost its contributing status because of all these modifications over the years you
have a garden on the side um facing Decator and then a long parking area the historic design standards don't like parking in the front so you look at all these kind of pieces on the on the site and sometimes what the HPC has to do is make lemonade out of the situation and
try and salvage something for the district and um having a non-contributing structure does not mean anything goes on the site it means that you have you you you get to use different kinds of materials probably lower grade than maybe on a contributing
or a key contributing structure but it doesn't mean that anything goes on the site you still have to think about the district and particularly in this location it's almost in the center of town you're near the Washington Street Mall you're in the heart of the city of Cape May and the historic district so the idea that the the HPC would just
approve a pool in a front yard area the visible um uh potentially visible uh was was the non-starter because you had the the parking in the front and a building that's already lost its contributing character so what they didn't want to do is compound more
negatives for the site and and further detract from the district so and you'll find that reasoning in the resolution and that was one of the considerations uh that was expressed by one of the board members in their deliberations they're worried about the impact on the site there's already some things going
on that that tunk it out of contributing status and we don't want to compound errors uh so that was that was the reasoning behind it it again it's it's not ideal how we got there but if you if you look at this um I I don't think it's
unfortunate but you can't possibly look at the HPC and and say that their reasoning is arbitrary reasons they gave the reasons they they just don't like the answer which is no to this pool but that's it's there are historic design standard reasons for saying no to the
pool for instance a pool is referred to as an intrusive feature under the historic design standards this is something we don't want to see in the streetscape to be out of sight and by the way one of the board members noted probably the reason that this error was
made is that the site survey plot plan that was submitted in review did not clearly show where the streets were in relation to the site so I it's the the chairman I think was under the impression that the there wouldn't be two it wouldn't be a quarter lot that
the the pool would actually be out of sight in the in the true rear yard but on this site it has two front yards right this huge street indicator that wasn't immediately apparent on that that plot plan that was shown and and I'm not trying to say and HBC is not trying to say there's some strauge here or
something like that it's just it's it's part of the mistake right so that they it wasn't immediately clear where the the pool was going in relation to the streetscape so there's an explanation for how we got here and mistakes happen and and I I disagree wholeheartedly um
with Mr aenhouser it there is a legal basis i mean all government action is is voidable um and and the citation for that is Hillby board of of adjustment eaten town 122 NJ super 156
that's in the division's case one uh 1972 that's in the resolution i put it right there so we're not just making this stuff up it's unfortunate how we got here but uh I'll I'll end with what I started with which is that we we have a national
historic landmark we have a local HPC which uh governs building and construction in the local district we can't have pools by access to city bank this one is not two years in the ground it's not there there aren't even shovels in the ground there's still a garden there that garden should stay because it
it it at least contributes something to the district and that that was the finding of the HBC so basically you're saying that um uh you did not initially approve just because you didn't have a full committee
i I'm I undoubtedly they got some indication of approval in review but what I'm indicating is that that's under the code that is not the type of thing a pool is not the type of thing that gets approved in review and the citation for that and the code sections are all in that resolution
i provided all that back in the resolution anticipating we'd be having this discussion tonight am I able to respond if you'd like yeah I I just just to touch on a couple of points i mean one of the first statements made by Mr gillwforts there was "Do you get a pool
by accident in the city of Cape May and I think I agree with them you don't in this scenario there was three opportunities for the board to tell us you're not getting a pool in this location we don't agree with it." They didn't do it on any of those three occasions instead they said "You're allowed to have this." We then went to the planning board and submitted an
application for it there's also there was a statement made that that pool specifics were never discussed on the record until we came back before the full body we we know and it's because the HPC told us we're going to approve this in committee if you submit it we only did what we were told we could do
by the secretary of the HPC to then hold that against us and say that there's something that was wrong here or a miss by the HPC because of it is again negligence I guess at its finest but it's it's arbitrary it's capriccious it's unreasonable for those reason and then
the idea I guess at the end and this has come up multiple times that because we haven't constructed the pool yet that this is all okay is just in my mind an absurd argument the amount of money that these applicants have spent since the time that we initially filed and received approval till now is enormous
so to say that it's it's okay and that yeah we may have made a mistake it it just doesn't sit with us and I do not think it passes the smell test or the legal standard required for your consideration any other any other questions for you is he is he gone do
you want to respond Chris again I I as I indicated this is not the poster child for navigating the permitting process in the city of Cape May but it's it's important enough that the HPC has to say no to it you think
about we're they're proposing a pool in a forward front-facing area of Decar in the heart of the historic district so if it wasn't apparent at the point of review there should be some reason for that and the explanation was that it
wasn't clearly shown on the plot plan once they realized what it was there was sort of a red alarm fire of what do we do about this and and they were coming back to the board anyway to revisit it and it had to be addressed because the reality is as Mr dreamman Hazard just
acknowledged the full board did not consider the merits of that pool until they got to this application that that is we're appealing now so it it had to be addressed um the answer has to be no from the HPC standpoint it's not a
enthusiastic you know uh you know everything was done right but we're talking about procedure here the substance uh is correct the substance of saying no to that is correct and you know they had they had to navigate some
permitting process anyway to get here and everybody's presumed to have gone notice to the city code provisions all the city code provisions that I cited were online available to anybody at before this application was even filed
so again it's unfortunate but it doesn't it doesn't alter the substance of that the HPC gave reasons uh for why it said no and those reasons are based on the city code and the design standards that's it and that's all I have to add
thank you thanks any other questions for Chris all right no more questions thank you Chris thank you okay any questions from the board
um I mean I just want to say that from what I you know the HPC is a strong HPC and HPC is approval is required for this project and it was a major application
and it required full board approval which it didn't have um both sides are responsible for that too we know as the applicant they know that they require a full board approval by what's in there if I can respond we
we were told by the HPC itself that we were not going to be required to full approval i have it's a copy is in the exhibit packet right but that's if you read the requirements for a pool it requires full board approval so I guess we're not to take
the direction of a of a body secretary right we're just not to listen to them when they tell us "Here's how we're going to review your application." I'm just I'm stating my opinion you have your opinion that's how you want to be i feel that is a strong HPC hbc approval
is required it's a major application and it required full board approval it had to be submitted and discussed with the full board not a committee then and this was a question I wanted to
ask um if it's a strong HPC and they make the final call why are we even here tonight what are we doing any applicant is is able to appeal the decision but appealing to a body that can't override the decision that's been
made by the HPC you can You're the You're the appeal board okay so tonight if we approve the pool then the HPC's decision is overridden you're you're not approving you're just you're your role
tonight in my opinion and based on the code is that you're reviewing to determine and I and if you if you look at page three of my report um it sets forth um your role tonight and I'll read that into the record just so everyone's
clear a determination by the Historic Preservation Commission on issues within its authority shall be entitled to due deference if in the case of an appeal made pursuant to this subsection the zoning board of adjustment determines
there is an error in any order requirement decision or refusal made by the construction official pursuant to a certificate or denial of a certificate submitted by the historic preservation commission in accordance with NJSA
405D11 the zoning board of adjustment shall in writing include the reasons for its determination in the findings of its decision thereon the determination of the historic preservation commission may be overturned only if the zoning board of adjustment finds that the historic
preservation commission determination was arbitrary capricious unreasonable or contrary to law so you are the appeal that the applicant is bringing that appeal and you're to determine whether the HPC based on their findings there's
no new introduction of findings of fact or anything like that but based on the the resolutions and everything that was done was their determination arbitrary capricious unreasonable or contrary to law well that that's your role here tonight i it it's still not what's not
clear to me is I look at this and what I'm looking for is where did they go wrong with the codes not HPC aside where did they go wrong with the codes I was on the planning board that voted on this
right I know and we had they didn't do anything wrong with the codes right so uh as I see it now the zoning board is you can't really find a flaw in here except that the HPC's got to approve it
and ex but what I I heard what you just said um I guess all I'm saying then is that uh it's it just seems to be kind of right straightforward i that's fine that's
that's okay i just took issue you can't be dismissive the applicant is certainly able to bring this to us and you're to rule whether it's arbitrary capricious unreasonable or contrary to law the determination that the HPC made but the HPC determination's got nothing to do
with the code is the problem it's my problem i don't I don't agree i think it does but I mean what I'm saying is that they're saying no for reasons other than zoning codes which are a board member which they are
allow I understand that they're allowed to do can we so what what we're asking is they said no the second time around right we came back to them they said no the issue that we have is they said yes the first time around and they did it in
an abbreviated manner that they recommended and told us we this is what to do to get here and I I understand exactly what you're saying I guess all I'm trying to uh be clear on is that if
you again their no had nothing to do with codes and I I guess um am I missing something other than Mr chairman can I add something to this yeah I I'd appreciate that
yes but then but but Chris keeping in mind keeping in mind that I'm not on the HPC and I don't think like an HPC person um I just want to be sure that um we're looking at it in the same light
but you have to just keep the hat on of that of a board member on the zoning board of adjustments and your role that's is to listen to the arguments that were advanced to read the four corners of the
documents that you were provided then make a determination as to whether or not the HPC committee when they rendered their decision acted in an arbitrary and capriccious manner that's your job that's it that's all you're supposed to look at you might not like it you might
have a different opinion as to how uh we got here but your role on the zoning board is to say did that board the HPC board act arbitrary and capriccious when they entered into their ruling and that that's it that's your job mr chairman
can I add something to this yes you may um to to Mr joerger's point um I I agree with all the prior statements that were made the zoning board is here to be the brakes on HPC decision making you're the last stop before a court case and it's
really a challenge to the HPC to make sure any decision that goes to you because you this board your board has appellet jurisdiction so you review our decisions when people don't like what the outcomes are is to make sure that what we're doing makes sense under our
design standards that we're giving people an explanation as to why we did something and if you if you look at that here you can really see that the the arbitrary and capriccious decision was the review committee approval in an email or whatever it was it there's
there's really no reasoning behind that but when they actually came before the board and we reviewed the tool we gave them a ton of reasons why it wasn't going to work and all those are in writing and they're tied to code sections and they're tied to design standards and things that the HBC
regularly has to apply so if you look at this case the almost really simple kind of conclusion of it all is the original decision that they're want to rely on is the arbitrary capricious one the one the HPC actually gave after they thought about it considered on it chewed it up and spit it out you know that's that
contained all the things that we we base try to base our decision-m on and for that reason it can't be arbitrary gracious it's it just they just don't want the answer and I understand that but it doesn't mean that we didn't make a decision based on our design standards i I'm just going to note a continued
objection what what Mr gillan Schwarz is saying is that the fact that this got back to them somehow opened the floodgates for them to unilaterally say "Hey we're going to just consider this entire thing a new even though we granted you approval before." I don't I don't think it matters whether it was in review whether it was by the full
commission or not the HPC acted as an entire body on June 17th to approve it might have been reviewed in committee but it was never questioned by the full board when they then voted on it unanimously approved it and to say that when it came back that was the arbitrary and capriccious action but when it came
back we acted non-arbitrarily you you never had the authority to do that the remand was solely related to two items gates and fences then they said "Well it's back here so we'll just do whatever we want and we'll consider it a new." To say that that's not arbitrary and capriccious and rather is non-arbituary
and what should have happened i ju I just think it it goes completely out of bound it's never what was supposed to happen and it's never what the planning board envisioned to happen when they put the resolution together requiring us to go back so my my question then to our attorney
is uh pretty much one of you know I get why the HPC did what it did when we were the planning board when we listened to this um to be honest with you not everybody was really thrilled about it
because we're talking about putting a pool in right in the the middle of the city in the historic on Decar Street you know we said you're block and a half from the Washington Street Mall um it it all just didn't sit right however at the
end of the day um we you know unless you put you put it in a code that you you can say no to something because you just don't like it um I I don't understand how that's why the planning board voted yes unanimously
it was it was yes across the board it was plainly and simply every all the uh provisions were met so um I whereas I feel I understand what the HPC did um as
a member of the zoning board I can't you know I can't come to that same conclusion i don't think I have the right to i don't think I have the right to say I don't like that pool being there well they H saying that you like don't like the pool being there you have
to take everything that was presented to you and then determine whether or not the board at the HBC acted arbitrary precious in their decision and when you do that it's an interesting argument because Amanhauser will indicate that they should only act on what was before them gilen Schwarz will say that they
have to act on everything that was before them and everything before them was there's procedures in place and quite frankly the committee dropped the ball on it that's what Gail Schwarz is going to argue you have to sit here and reconcile as to whether or not you think their decision was arbitrary and capriccious on what was remanded or what
the whole process was uh it's not an easy decision for you to make but but that's what's in front of you and the HPC made their decision on their design standards that it didn't fall within the design standards within I think they said um well that's ultimately what they
concluded at at the second meeting right and and and again aim Hower is advancing that this happened three times and no one said a word and now all of a sudden when they got their fourth bite at the apple to use your terminology that's when they decided that things have gone wrong and we need to write them and the
way we write them is we look at the code and the code says you were supposed to have done all these things before we even got here now we're going to step in and use our jurisdiction and say the committee was wrong and that's how they came up with their decision the reason why people file appeals is because generally there's a big dispute in in
hand and there's not a clear-cut answer and so they boast advanced colorful arguments and you as the board unfortunately have to sit here and sift through it and make your determination i think there's also a barrier in place too i I understand that there's a review committee and there's a full HPC but
this goes back to the point I made where the full committee gets to decide whether every application reviewed or denied in committee should stand that's why it's on the agenda for every full committee hearing and that's why they decide they motion they second and they vote on whether or not they're going to
ratify those determinations so I I and I'm not trying to sound glib but I guess unless the argument is we look at it but we really don't look at what occurred and just blindly approve then they did evaluate these and consider their design standards or at least they had a duty to
do so and should have and if they didn't I I I I'm hardressed to find out why that is our issue at this point is what I'm getting at if we didn't have a strong HPC we would not have been be reviewing it it's because they are a strong HPC and they realized it was
their mistake and then they went back to go over it and that's the reason why we will lose our national status if we keep letting people do whatever they want to do and in the H in the historic district HPC really should have the final answer
and I I don't disagree they gave us a final answer here before we even went to planning board is the argument that we're making on three different occasions and the fourth occasion they decided that that they were wrong and that they're going to change their mind and that's Yeah but see I don't think they gave their full approval until it
was before the full board and to me that's the full that's the approval when it's before the full board a committee cannot make the approval that's not been submitted and presented before the full board i don't disagree and that's to the point I just made when this went before
the full board on June 17th 2024 for their meeting they looked at or should have looked at every application rep approved or disapproved in committee they then voted on each and every one of those they vote on them as a block i understand but they're the name of the
applicant the address what was asked for and whether or not it's contributing is all right there what they do beyond that I I don't think we can force them all to to hand read every application if they decide they're not going to do it on their own merits but apparently that's that's what happened here if they're realizing it's a mistake well after the
fact any other questions is the HPC uh chair going to speak at all or we're not relitigating the matter i don't think so all we can all you can do is listen to the arguments that the both
attorneys advanced and look at the text that's been provided to you i mean okay i just wasn't sure just asking okay so if there are no more questions right now Craig so I would just like to So I am not an expert in historic
preservation i am an engineer and a planner um so when I prepare these reports I do it just more factf finding and and just summarizing and directing you to what appropriate sections of the ordinance that you should be paying
attention to um so I'm not going to go exhaustively through this um I did point out under the completeness review on page 305 um and I already read that into the record so I won't do it again but that is the considerations and that's the reason you're here hearing this
appeal of the decision of the HPC um so and I believe that the balancing test or your decision tonight is um whether the HPC's determination was arbitrary capricious unreasonable or contrary to
law that's the verbiage in the ordinance um that's what you should be considering now that and that's strictly from section 525-37E5 that gives you the p the appeal power of the um of the decisions of the
HPC um there are a couple of corrections um so just if everyone's aware I am the planning board engineer i did hear this original application i am familiar with the process when I started this application I utilized my review memo
from the planning board it contains a couple of inconsistencies or just one inconsistency in two places um when this application was originally submitted to the planning board and by the way this is just forformational purposes it really shouldn't have any bearing on your decision tonight i just want to
clear up to make sure that the the this document is is correct on the zoning page um it indicates that there's a variance that was granted by the planning board there were no variances granted by the planning board the applicant initially
when they submitted the application there was a request for a variance that was rescended during the meeting um so that the the or the application totally complied with all the required setbacks and and I'll just fill in a little additional information because there was
discussion the fence so when the fence was sub when the application was submitted there was a six foot high fence on the plants there was a discussion that occurred at the planning board level um and you whether a six foot high fence was appropriate that
disc that discussion evolved into hey that would be a variance um it's not really appropriate we're going to change that and that when when that fence height was dropped that's when it was remanded back to the HPC to see if that fence was appropriate to buffer that
pool but there was a variance-free site plan application that was granted conditionally with the remand back to the HBC so I just want my page four of five there's a zoning table at the bottom for a swimming pool um that
indicates there's a non-conforming front yard to the face of the building that was complied with what was proposed was 22.4 ft which met that requirement and then on page five of my report the variance it notes that there was a
variance granted by the planning board that is incorrect that should be stricken from my report that's what I thought i Thank you so I just wanted to clear that up just wanted to clear that up i have nothing else to offer um you should rely on the application that was
filed all of the minutes from the HPC's decision and and review under that criteria that I already indicated craig I just want to clarify something something so that I understand this so when it went to planning a variance was
requested the fence was dropped to four feet no variance is required planning board was okay so the variance that was requested wasn't for the fence that was not picked up okay okay the variance that was requested was for the patio
which encroached into the front yard so we have we have a couple of different pool standards it has to be we have to meet the setbacks it can't be between the face of the structure and the street and it applies to the pool and
patio connected so what they were asking for the variance was for the patio that was connected to the pool came out in front of the face of the structure they withdrew that request and moved the
patio back to the face of the structure so that no variance was required there was a separate discussion about the fence height okay okay during that discussion it was it would I and I I'm going off of memory that's okay the discussion was whether a six-foot high
fence was appropriate at the front rightway line okay back very close to the sidewalk right it was determined that it wasn't after we considered it it was brought up that that would be a variance so the sixoot fence would have
been a variance that you can't have a sixoot fence in the in the front yard so it was dropped had an application like that i'm good so it was dropped to 4 feet so it was dropped to 4 feet and then remanded back to HPC it was dropped to 4 feet the the planning board
approved a site plan that didn't require any variances okay okay right they approved it conditioned remanded back to back to HBC for determination with regards to the
fence and the gate so if you don't mind I can So I include it in my application packet it's sub exhibit E to exhibit A is the actual resolution of the planning board paragraph 9 um and I'll just start with the sentence where it starts here uh the HPC approved a 6' high fence
where the applicants proposed now a 4ft high fence so the 6ft high fence would require variance the issues regarding gates and fences are remanded to the HPC for approval before its full board but the planning board is not in favor of any fence that has a height not consistent with the ordinance requirement of a maximum of 4 ft of
height in a front yard and specifically request the HPC clarify this is a second part if the existing iron fence is to be replaced with a wood fence and where the fence or fences are appropriate for the historic streetscape so it made clear that that those are the items to go back to the HPC
paragraph nine of the appraisal do you have any do you want to comment yeah I I don't think this this is I disagree with the idea of the planning board being the only reason that this would go back to the HPC this again this is a strong commission so we're not
making recommendations to the planning board for uh you know you know what they might do on their own all these boards have their own independent jurisdiction and the HPC has the authority to bring this back in they could have denied a construction permit made them come back
in so I think this planning board discussion is is confusing the issues a little bit i know Mr amhouser disagrees with that but that's the way it is in the city kate you have you have to go to these boards and check the boxes and this was a mistake that that went through the cracks but the the issue
before the board the zoning board tonight is whether the no that they ultimately got from the full board was without basis and I I I don't think that you can look at this and say there wasn't a ton of reasons why to say no to this under the city code and the design
standards that's the basis for the decision you good i think my objection is pretty pretty clear at this point yeah i wasn't trying to confuse the issue i was asked the question but I just wanted to clear clear up an inconsistency in my report
you should be making your determination and decision based on what the HPC did and that's what I was leading up to this planning board that's so when clarity from what was discussed at planning it was sent back to
HPC because of the fence correct because of the fence and HPC as a full commission is now looking at the entire project i understand it was sent back because of the fence but HPC that night according to the transcript says a a
pool is not minor this is a major piece and they now want to review the whole thing am I correct so far i believe you're correct okay so the question before us in my mind is is it arbitrary capriccious i forgot the rest of what's in there i'm not an attorney for them to
decide wait a minute you know we got to take a look at this thing because I don't know did they air did they make a mistake did a committee make a mistake i don't know the answer to that the question is not about their process and procedure the question is is it arbitrary and capriccious that's the
question that's before us yes yes it's a good way to summarize yes and if if I can Mr before just said yes before I lose that never happens before I lose the chance when in speaking to Mr king before we got here he did indicate that he'd give the applicants who have
come down and they're here the opportunity to say something on this i know they're inclined to do so i just want to make ask the board for that indulgence based on my prior discussion with Mr king it's fine why don't we finish yeah I I want to cut anybody off but I just wanted to make sure to reserve that
i read every page went back and looked at on video of all the meetings it's going to be a tough decision but I went to the city master plan and under land use law says that
one of goals of the master plan and I quote is to protect the character of any district in the city i think that we have to look at that as part of this is what's going to happen if a pool is installed there pools are
permanent it's like building a house it's a permanent thing that's going to be there forever this is the heart of the city it's half a block to the mall a block to the beach trying to correct it by putting a wall of trees up to me goes
against another rule of light air and open space you're walking down there and you have beautiful garden now that you say people love to take pictures of all of a sudden that's going to be gone and there's going to be a wall of trees to try to hide the pool you know you can't see through the
yard which is back in that time everybody had you know you could see down the street and see through everybody's yards and stuff that's what I took as guidance that's just my Anybody else wants to say and you use that to determine whether or not the board acted in the arbitrary capriccious
manner that's a good question i took that as more of my goal or my job of what I should be doing here i know we're supposed to be determining whether it's arbitrary but I don't believe it was arbitrary um
can I Yeah please please look looking at this that's normally a consideration of granting your power to grant variances and consider the master plan and the impact on the zoning the HPC's role is
not to consider the master plan they're experts in historic preservation they made their decision based on historic preservation and their their guidelines requirements and standards um that I think that's the
test um but they're asking I I don't I don't disagree with Craig i know this is difficult for this board because um you're not judges you're not attorneys you you don't hear these things that often you hear applications in front of
the zoning board where you're looking at the um the different variances you did it in two applications before this and you you granted use variances and you understand that there's a higher proof there that's what you're geared to do you you do this analysis um and now all
of a sudden you're faced with this whole new beast that's come into you that has a complicated fact pattern that has multiple layers to it um and and Mr raymondhauser set that out in a in a brief way but also in a in a voluminous way with what he submitted and he
indicated that there's various steps that occurred before they even got to the planning board and now we're talking about nuances that occurred at the planning board and reports that have been modified and master plans and all this stuff is wonderful conversation and it's intellectually
stimulating but it's not what we're doing what we're doing is we're looking at what did that HPC board do when they got that application and when they made their ruling and when they made their ruling do you think that their ruling was arbitrary and capriccious based upon what's been presented that that's all i
know it sounds rudimentary but that's what you're asked to do and you got to stick to what the law requires you to do can I ask one more question on that process just to make sure I'm getting it correctly so the public city code and design standards a mistake was made where they didn't follow them then they
came back around fixed the mistake so wouldn't we technically be appealing to override city code and design standards that's where I'm No you're you're determining whether or not the board when they acted acted arbitrary and capriccious and you could figure out what they why they voted the way they
voted and it seems like what you're saying is they voted because it seemed contrary to the codes that existed at the HPC and in your mind that might be enough that they didn't act arbitrary and capriccious because they were just filing what they were supposed to file albeit late in the game
got it i mean Mr gillan Schwarz indicated he said this isn't the poster child of how the HPC should act um but I guess the question is did they act correctly when they did it by way of not acting arbitrary and
capricious unless any other board members want to talk about what's happened so far no then perhaps if Mr king indicated to Mr amanhauser that the applicants uh have the ability to speak that's fine the only thing I asked John and applicants is this is
we understand we can't introduce new evidence we can't introduce new facts and and and I get that this is a supercharged emotional thing like you've been living this for a long time you spent a lot of money you probably have arguments at the family about this and and how much it's eating away at like
just the family being and and what your dreams were and I get all that i understand it i I don't want to hear about it and I know that sounds awful and calculating what I want to hear about is the facts that you believe the board should know not about your
emotions because that's not really relevant in how the HPC responded sorry that it's somewhat cold in calculating but I want this board to understand that whatever feedback you're given we want it to be similar to what the attorneys
did and that is they they relied upon what's in the text here so if you can expand upon the text that's great well well to be honest I mean most of what I have prepared is really an introduction to us personally because what happened if you if you read the
transcript at the HPC meeting had nothing to do with standards setbacks guidelines construction code uh property use um fencing at all uh the the there
were uh five or six members of the board that specifically emphatically said that they were fully in favor of of the fence that we chose we never had an intention to put a 6-ft wood fence we never had an intention to put a wood fence at all it
was I was on the plan because we were told just this isn't about the fence it's about the pool so just you know get your paperwork in and move along when when we got the approval we went shopping for our materials and that's where the 4-foot row iron fence came in
and they absolutely loved it we have absolutely no intention of diminishing the streetscape in any way shape or form we take tremendous pride in our home and if you drive by our home you you'll see
that you'll see the care we we bought our home 5 years ago it was our dream to buy this home we painted it fully repainted the home two years after we purchased it not because we needed to not because it was due because we love
the property and we want to make sure it presents as beautiful as it possibly can we repainted every square inch of the outside of that home no one asked us to do so we we we put drip lines on our flower lines you know across both of our
porches no one asked us to do so we did we do these things at our expense because we want the property to present as beautiful as it possibly can that that's why we bought our home so So the idea that we would allow ourselves to diminish the beauty of our property
because we want a pool is to me is insane we are we have a garden area that gardens are beautiful but we have a garden that we can't use there are walkways throughout the entire garden
there's pavers wound in a in in a in a network with plantings in every direction with trees that were not kept up for more than 12 years the the garden was in disarray and the only reason we haven't done more to beautify the garden was because as soon as we closed in our
home we knew that we wanted to put a pool in the back of our garden area and enhance the garden around it we're not trying to build a wall of trees we're We're trying to build a beautiful garden with a pool in the back we didn't ask for a bigger pool than we're allowed we
didn't ask for a pool closer to our home we didn't ask for a pool closer to the street than we're allowed we didn't ask for more pavers than we're allowed we met with a zoning officer in May of 2023 he graciously spent about 3 hours
walking our property i think his name was Bruce Britain he graciously spent that time with us he introduced us to a pool contractor he went through everything that we would have had to do before any of this started and that's when we started the process and we and
we never we you know we we have no intention of doing anything other than making a beautiful garden we have a beautiful garden we just can't use it and our garden currently and I and I did bring this up at the last meeting and I just didn't do a very good job of of
articulating it our garden currently appears like it's a public property but it's our property it's not public so people walk in there and they bring in garbage and beer bottles and candy wrappers and it gets thrown around the
you know the garden our you know this it it's not We love the garden we have a beautiful garden in our home that we live in you know full-time we want a garden like that here that we can use that we can put a table in that we can sit down at outside you can't you can't
do anything in that garden currently except walk inside of it that's all you can do and all we want to do is is enjoy our property we don't want to do anything to diminish the streetscape with the new fence and the new plantings and the floral plantings behind it and
the new flowering trees that we want to install it's going to look better than it ever has and I and we wouldn't stand anything that didn't do that we wouldn't allow it to be done ever so I you know I apologize if that's more than you wanted
to hear but Okay thank you um any any others Mr barnes yeah I I'll let you speak Mr gillan just just bear with me for a second okay it appears that the um applicant's spouse and and son may be here and I don't know if Mr king authorized them it was essentially
discussion related to public comment and the fact that if there was public comment to be had he'd allow my clients to then speak okay well we haven't had it yet we haven't there's the Apple i get it i don't think anyone was sworn yeah there's there's usually not public
comment with our appeals okay okay mr mr barnes got here i One second chris sure are you good good you know we prepared something for my son to speak
yeah it's it's okay i I mean this is a little bit um out of order I guess um Chris but I mean I think it would be intellectually unfair and not equitable if I don't allow you to give some kind
of response but only as it relates to what you just heard please well I I believe and this is the first time hearing an applicant speak at one of these so what I'd like to do is is see if the board would entertain the chair who I think is president if you could
just respond to the applicant on the same topic and very briefly he's asking to respond to the comments no he's asking that the chairman of the HPC board now respond
when I had I I I I want to Chris I mean I the idea behind this is that we're supposed to be sitting as not me but the board is supposed to be sitting as like a quasi quasi judicial board judges right with robes on and they're supposed
to hear the what's been presented by way of the documents as well as the arguments advanced by the attorney wasn't privy to the government and I I agree with I agree with that but we just we just heard from the applicant so it's
it's actually not critical and I don't I don't think what the applicant brought forward really changes the analysis what I was going to say is I don't I don't necessarily object to them speaking because if there's a doubt
that again it was a mistake that led to this um but the HPC had to rely on their standards to fix the problem and I know that they don't like the answer but they're the protectors of the district and that's that's what they were doing there was an explanation given there was reasons given they don't like the answer
but that doesn't change the fact that there were reasons and they were based on the standards right and I I don't I'm I'm not gonna I'm not going to go any further than that i think the board has heard enough i don't know this tonight if the chairman of the HPC can say it
more eloquently than you did like like I don't think you need him to testify I think it's at that point it's just duplicity and you're kind of wasting not you wasting time but it's wasting time because it's not going to be any different than what you said uh I think
at this point we should cut off any more any more testimony or arguments the board can go into its uh deliberation excuse me it said on the comments and as much as you're trying to shut me up yeah I I the only
thing I can't I only goes directly to what is before you goirectly to the decision of what the board relied on in making a decision to determine what we're allowing we're not I'm just going to we're not we're not That's good i got
it i got it the only thing I want to add Jeff Mr suter comment that at the HPC hearing the transcript provided includes testimony that he provided at that time so if we're if we're not expanding upon that he's already provided the testimony it's in the record i think we've gone
far enough here with with hearing um testimony the reality is is the proof is in the documents that have been provided that everyone has read and the arguments that have been advanced by the attorneys i think it's appropriate now to just go into deliberation and render your
decision yep so the the we recommend a motion to determine whether or not the board of the HPC acted in an arbitrary capriccious fashion and was unreasonable with their finding you heard what Mr hurles said he gave you the uh legal definition craig you can read that back
to them if you'd like um if the board wants me to I will yes go ahead please do okay just the standard itself that's all right the standard this is from section 52537E five and this is a third excuse me a determination by the historic
preservation commission on issues within its authority shall be entitled to due deference if in the case of an appeal made pursuant to the subsection the zoning board of adjustment determines there is an error in any order requirement decision or refusal made by the construction official pursuant to a
certificate or denial of a certificate submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with NJSA 405D11 the zoning board of adjustment shall in writing include the reasons for its determination in the findings of its
decision thereon the determination of the HPC may be overturned only if the zoning board of adjustment finds that the historic preservation commission determination was arbitrary capriccious
unreasonable or contrary to the law okay good thanks excuse me Mr barnes yes um just I don't know how you're planning on framing the motion but I just wanted
to bring up and perhaps some board members are familiar with this too but it's been a while since an HPC appeal came before the zoning board i believe that in the past Mr king would frame the motion in the affirmative but then ask the board members to just indicate which side they agree with and that kind of
keeps it clear for the board members to know how how they should be voted rather than saying yes with whatever motion just pick a side do you agree with the applicant or you agree with the HBC and that might make everybody's vote a little bit more clear
so you want us to frame the motion that you vote yes in favor of the HPC's decisions no no no i'm saying that board members just indicate which side they agree with that's fine
so their their role is to determine whether or not the HPC acted in an arbitrary capriccious fashion and when the board members vote they're going to say "I believe they acted arbitrary and capriccious i believe they did not
that's fine so you're not motioning yet that's the motion they did they act arbitrary and capriccious and and their response to that is going to be they're going to say they did or they didn't okay it's like saying yes or no sure all right that
sounds we do the affirmative so wouldn't it be that the HPC did not act or I'm sorry I'm just getting a little confused there's no reason to be confused you You just need to decide whether or not the HBC acted in an arbitrary and capriccious fashion you're
going to say they did or they didn't i mean I can say do you accept the do you accept the findings of the HBC yeah how's that sounds good that's just like saying do you do you agree to the use varian
any motion i'll make a motion sorry i'll second it okay michigan motions mr walsh seconds mrs notch yeah I believe that the HPC did their job and I agree with them
miss Shan I agree with the HPC it's a strong HPC hpc approval is required it was a major application and it required uh to be reviewed by the entire board planning PO
does not trump the HPC they are separate and distinct that the HPC used their design standards to make their decision which was page five page 12 and page 45 of their design standards and they based
their decisions on them a pool is an intrusive structure and that's why they use their design their design standards mr walsh I agree with the HBC also mr mr dexter I agree with the HPC
mr jagger um I I didn't agree with the HPC until um I think something that was shown to me was that I'd never realized was in fact part of
HPC's code is that you can't have a pool in the sideyard and you can't it can't be visible and you can't hide it with plings um I would have I thought that it that they were allowed to do that i don't want pools in sideyards anywhere
in the city to be honest with you but unfortunately we allow it in most cases but HPC not in the historic district you can't do it and uh then I would have said well put six foot arborite up like at my place but uh they say no you can't
do that so I have to agree that they're not uh they didn't vote in an arbitrary or capriccious matter they're following their rules and regulations so I'm voting in favor of the HPC being not
arbitrary and capriccious miss Stevenson I believe uh the HBC acted in a reasonable manner by following their design standards in the city code mr venudo I'm siding with the HPC as well do not
believe they acted arbitrary and capricciously i would think and I agree with the lawyer earlier that if they um did vote for the pool that would have been arbitrary and capriccious with the environment in Kate May
Thanks Rich all right we still have to do this all right we need a uh a motion to approve uh the payment of the boards I guess zoning board lawyers and I make a motion
second we have a motion by Miss Sheen seconded by Mrs notch mrs notch yes miss Sheen yes mr walsh yes mr zexer yes mr jagger yes miss Stevenson yes mr venudo yes
thank you do we have a motion to adjurnn motion to All in favor thank you everyone all right