testing. Testing. come back. They started to keep and finally Hi. >> Good evening. How are you? >> Did both of your houses survive? >> They did. It was touch and go.
>> A lot of snow. >> You have a tree down on Windsor, right? Not your personally, but on >> I haven't seen it yet. It was my first time in town since >> farther down than you towards North Street. >> You hit anything? >> No, didn't seem to. Amazing. It was on
the property and it went towards the street. >> Oh wow. >> And it missed everything. >> But it's it's completely blocking the sidewalk. It's blocking a parking space. Uh >> oh. And get down the street. >> Not a parking space. Losing a house is
one. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided. If any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this time. >> Please stand for the pledge of
allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Mrs. Werner >> here.
>> Mr. Venudo >> here. >> Mr. Lewin >> here. >> Mrs. Notch >> here. >> Miss Sheen >> here. >> Mr. Walsh >> here. >> Mr. Zexer >> here. >> Mr. Joerger >> here. >> Miss Stevenson >> here. >> Thank you.
>> We have a resolution for Matthew and Susan Mazatelli, 307 Congress Street. Can we have a motion? >> Make the motion. Second. >> Mrs. Notch motions. Mr. Lewin seconds. Mr. Lewin.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Abstain. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Abstain. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Next, we need a motion to approve the minutes of January 22nd, 2026.
>> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Verudo. Motions. Mr. Zexer seconds. Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> yes. >> Miss Sheen, >> abstain. >> Mr. Walsh, >> abstain. >> Mr. Zexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernudo, >> yes. >> Mrs. Werner,
>> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we have an application for Mark Atkins, 1604 Merlin Avenue, which has been adjourned to the March 26th meeting. So, our first application tonight,
>> there will be no further notice for that application. So if you wish to be heard in the Mark Aken matter for 1604 Maryland Avenue, you must come on March 26, 2026 at this time at this location because there'll be no further published notice regarding that meeting.
>> Okay. Our first application tonight will be Mark and Teresa Franken, one and two Roseman's Lane. Sorry. All set. >> Everyone turns their microphone on, please.
>> Yes, ma'am. If you press that button. >> All set. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone. I'm Andrew Kadines. I'm here on behalf of the applicants, Mark and Terresa Franken, who are seated to my left. Uh, also with us is our project architect and engineer, John Hal Bruner,
and subject property located at 1 and two Roseman's Lane. Uh, is adjacent to the Kate May Marina project, which of course you're all familiar with. It is located in the C6 zoning district. It's also in the Harbor overlay district. Uh, it is currently developed with both a
single family home and a semi- detached dwelling unit on the site. So, there are two residences on this property currently. Mr. and Mrs. Franken would like to renovate and improve the single family home and importantly uh except
for a proposed rear porch. The renovation will be entirely on the existing footprint. There will be no increase in the number of bedrooms. It will be well below the permitted height and the overall floor area ratio that is both units will be compliant less than
the 40% that the code permits. Uh, in other words, this is not a case where they are attempting to cram in more living space on the site than the code would otherwise permit. Nevertheless, the proposal does trigger several variances. First, a variance to expand the non-conforming use because while
your code allows a single family home and it allows the semi- detached home, it doesn't allow both on the same site. So, it is a D2 variance to expand the non-conforming two uses on site along with several bulk variances,
particularly front and sideyard setbacks for those vertical expansions on the footprint uh along with several non-conforming conditions that will either remain unchanged or be improved. And Mr. Hal Bruner is going to go over those and all uh in more detail. I won't steal his thunder now. Uh but overall we
believe the proposed changes do represent a reasonable update to what is a tired and frankly structurally deficient property uh with modifications that are appropriate to the lot and particularly the surrounding neighborhood. And with that brief introduction, if we could have uh Mr.
Hal Bruner sworn, we'll have him qualified uh in architecture if we may and in engineering and he'll get to his presentation. >> Okay. Are your applicants going to speak? >> Oh, I'm sorry. They they're not planning any direct testimony, but you're welcome to swear everyone now in case any questions come up. >> Okay. And also swear in our board
engineer. Do each of you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Subd. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um we offer Mr. Hal Bruner as an expert in architecture and engineering. I know he's been before the board before. >> He's accepted.
>> Thank you. Uh John, if you would perhaps start with the existing conditions on site. >> Absolutely. As you mentioned in the Europe statements for block 1061, lots 111 to 112. That's number one and number two, Roseman's Lane. Order against the Cape May Marina
subdivision. We are a I'll call it a corner lot, like a hard right angle in Roseman's Lane. Uh we are in the C6 Marina District. We're also, as you mentioned, in the Harbor Overlay district. However, we're not the first property waterfront. So there really is no implication to being within the
Harbor overlay district. The property size as it sits today is 4,33 square ft in a lot area. It's a little irregularly shaped, but we have about 86 foot of frontage along Roseman's Lane. Uh the segment that is newer created by
the subdivision running in a north south direction where it's 25 ft wide and we have about 45 ft of frontage on the much more narrower former easement portion of Roseman's Lane, the part that connects ultimately to Lafayette Street. It's developed with two principal
buildings. Uh the first one I'm going to mention briefly. We won't talk much more about doing nothing to it. And that is a u one-story detached semi- detached building that's shared with a northerly neighbor in which a one-bedroom um single family
house with attached garage is located. that building on the norly part of the lot um has been recently renovated and actually described very nicely. Um but there's really no work whatsoever being proposed of that building. Uh so you won't hear me talk about it much more for the rest of tonight's
testimony. What we're really here for tonight is the single family home. That is the um building that you first associate with the property. Um and that is a one and a half story home. It was built around 85 years ago around 1940.
It's got three bedrooms. Uh it's got a total of 760 square ft. So it's certainly modest in size. On the first floor, there's a living room combined combined living room kitchen, one bedroom, a laundry room, and a bathroom. On the second floor, there's two
bedrooms um with a very low headroom. In fact, it's a 7 foot2 ceiling in the center and slopes down to less than 5t in on the eaves. In fact, the stairs that lead to that uh at one point only have 5 foot six headroom as you come to the top of the stairs entering into this. Um all part of the nature of a one
and a half story building, but uh certainly very dimminitive in terms of ceiling height and size. The building itself um is it's ailing. Um there's framing rot affecting most of the first floor, the laundry room on the second
floor side, I'm on the on the west, excuse me, east side, Lafayette Street side of the property. Um it really doesn't have a foundation to speak of. It's wood framing on shims on the ground and uh floors are all on level. It's
truly it's a building that is in need of significant major uh structural renovation and repair. In its present condition, it's only 22 feet tall. Um, its footprint, you I think I mentioned the 760 foot total
living area. The building footprint as it sits is only 635 square ft. Now, maybe just be a good time to exhibits. >> We've got a a group of photographs uh of the home and surrounding area which we
would ask to market exhibit A. These aren't the ones that are in your packet. >> No, this >> photos may be duplicative from the one in the packet, but there certainly are new ones you've not yet seen. >> Correct. >> I'm just marking the whole package. Exhibit A. Is that okay?
>> The whole packet exhibit A. Absolutely. >> Another one. we can share. >> So the first two pages are photographs of the subject building in the immediately surrounding neighborhood. The second two pages are p pictures taken during a home inspection report
when the Roseman's I'm sorry, the Franklin's purchased the property um several years ago. Uh the neighborhood is good for context and it helps to describe the aesthetic of the existing building which I would describe as being a modest mid 20th century vernacular coastal building that's gone some
incremental incremental additions over time. Uh the key characteristics are that it's got a simple rectangular footprint with a dominant front-facing gable. It's minimal architectural articulation and limited depth to the facade. It's got very plain wall
surfaces with little hierarchy or modulation and small dorma elements that appear more utilitarian than stylistically expressive. Um the second two pages start to describe the condition of the building. They're taken from the home inspection report. Um the last photograph shows for
example the laundry room edition on the east side which is literally falling down. Um and shows some of the framing rot occurring within the rest of the first floor system. So that's the existing building. Now the terms of the existing site, parking is
provided. It's off Roseman's Lane. Um there is a stone and gravel parking field that exists really along the entire frontage of the long axis of Roseman's Lane except for where the um semi- detached building exists. Um it's been historically used for parking. You
can go back to aerial photographs prior to 2005 and see that's been a stone parking field. Even when the um subdivision that's next to us was not there, it was still Roseman's boatyard. In terms of grading the storm water, there are no current storm water
improvements on site, but grading generally goes from an east to west direction uh from Lafayette side of the property towards the Roseman's Lane side of the property or towards towards the bay. I'm not aware of any prior um approvals, although there was an application very
similar in scope to what we're proposing this evening that was originally submitted several years ago. It was never deemed formally complete. I don't think the board ever saw it. Uh your engineer certainly did see it and had a review memorandum. Um before it was ever completed enough to be deemed complete,
um the project kind of went into a holding pattern. Um we're reviving that now. Get >> by mic or something. It's a little bit hard to hear you. Bring it closer. >> Is that better? >> Yeah. >> Hard magic. Anybody closer? Okay.
There are a few conforming bulk requirements and even that becomes a bit of a a quagmire to determine what is conforming versus non-conforming on the property. Given the fact that while the single family homes permitted or semi- detached homes permitted, nothing in the ordinance allows them both. So, we're
really not sure which um zoning compliance you might assess. If I look at the semi- detached requirements we have conforming lot width, rear yard setback, building height, floor ratio, and parking spaces.
Non-conforming would be the use, minimum lot area, front yard setbacks along both legs of Roseman's Avenue, Roseman's Lane, minimum sideyard setback, and lot coverage. Uh if we apply the single family home requirements, it's substantially similar um except that we
have a additional non-conforming condition of the lot width compared to the minimum requirements for a single family home within the zone the surrounding property. And this is going to be kind of key because it it goes to the core of I think some of the proofs that we'll be getting into later
for the variances that we seek. Once you enter Rosem's Lane off Lafayette Street, you enter into what is perceived almost immediately as being the KBY Harbor subdivision. That subdivision and now I think I'd like to introduce exhibit
>> call this >> A2. I think we called the first exhibit A. Is that what it was? >> Yeah. All right. >> We'll call this exhibit B. Keep going. Sir, we're going to go on to Yeah. So, this is a two-page exhibit, the top
page of which is an aerial photograph um taken from a perspective view uh obtained from the Cape May County uh GIS um software um their parcel mapping software and it shows a photograph taken earlier in 2025, so it's pretty recent.
The second page of this exhibit is a reproduction of the subdivision for what we now know as the Kay Harbor um subdivision. And I pointed out for two well two principal purposes. One to demonstrate what the neighborhood looks like and second when we get into more
the particulars how more compatible what we're proposing even with the variances is than what's within the surrounding neighborhood. You'll notice almost immediately uh our property which is located at the right
angle turn of Roseman's Lane. Um most easily identifiable if you look at the long row of rectangular I'm going to call them boxes that represent the houses. >> Is this where you're at? >> Yeah. If I could uh have a copy, I'll point very quickly to where our property is. >> And the property is about dead center of
that area, is it? >> It is. Yes. So, our property is just to the right center of the fold. >> You see it in the aerial aerial photograph. >> Just to the right center of what >> of the the fold >> fold. Yes. >> Okay. Got it.
>> You'll see that hard right turn you make on Roseman's Lane as you enter off Lafayette Street. Uh we're at that right turn. the KB Marina properties and again that row of houses immediately to our west. Um they are
twotory homes over a garage given the appearance of being a three-story building. Um they're 40t tall. They were granted variance for a one foot front yard setback, a 4ft sideyard setback, a three-foot rear yard setback, and a
floor ratio of 1.08. These are on lots that are 2,458 square feet. So that whole row of almost like dollhouses that you see, that's our immediate neighbor. That's what you would see when you first come into Roseman's Lane if you don't look to the
right at our property on the corner. So for context purposes, I'm going to do a lot of comparison to what we're proposing and how it fits in or how it's even better than that which is really the dominant feature of that neighborhood being the KB Marita
subdivision. Quite a lot of talk about the existing conditions. If there's not any questions, I'd like to start talking about what we're proposing to do. >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> Um on the pictures that you submitted here. >> Yes. on
I guess it was uh the third page. What is that the picture of? >> We're talking about exhibit A. >> Exhibit A, page three. And she's referring to the picture at the top of that exhibit, which is the area beneath
what on what I'm going to call the laundry room edition on the east side of the building. Can you can you be a little bit Can you walk me through where this exactly this is because I'm not >> Okay. If I refer you down to the
architectural plans that were submitted as part of the plan set >> to to this here, this picture >> if I Okay, refer to that picture >> right here. >> Then that would be the rightmost side of the picture. If you Andrew's
doing a good job pointing out right now, >> she she explains. Yes, that's one of those non-original unfortunate additions that have taken place in this building over over its years. >> Any other questions about the existing conditions? >> Um, real have another question. When
were these pictures taken? >> You have down here 22626. >> Oh, I'm sorry. That was the hearing date. Uh, okay. Mr. Franken, you took these photographs and supplied them to me. >> Yeah, they are they're approximately two years old, maybe three at the most. Are
they >> three years old? >> Are they generally reflect before we fixed up the little cottage area? >> Yeah. Why why I'm saying this is because >> this second building in the back doesn't have improvements to it, >> but the pictures that you submitted
>> now have the improvements to it. >> Correct. Yes. The blue colored siding shown on the semi- detached building um was what was there when the Roseman's I'm sorry, the Franklin first purchased the property. And they did, as I mentioned previously,
a nice renovation job to that building. It looks far different now. Um it's actually much improved aesthetically. Um and I didn't spend a lot of time focusing on that because really that's other than its existence there and it continued existence, it's not really part of the application. I was just
trying to get a a a handle on when these pictures were taken. >> Yep. Correct. And the so the photographs with the application are more recent. They're very recent. Right. >> Uh these that we just handed out, we were focused really on the single family home and uh they are dated,
>> but the single family home has not changed since that time. So, in terms of the proposed conditions, as I mentioned, this probably be the last time I mention it, the semi- detached building, building um with the address of number two, the one-story semi- detached building, we're doing no
work to that's going to stay exactly as it is. We're focusing all of our efforts on the single family home, which uh is the I'll say the dominant building on on the lot. It's going to undergo a comprehensive renovation and reconstruction. It's going to receive a
completely new foundation, almost an entirely new framing, remediation, new siding, new roofing, and some additions. On the first floor, we're proposing to add to the rear or the north side of the building, visible really only to people from within the rear yard, a 10-ft deep
covered screen porch. We're going to on the east side of the building, the side that is closest to Lafayette Street, we're going to enclose some stair landings to expand a laundry room and to accommodate a powder room on the first floor. And then
>> I understand that. Are you making any part of the you going beyond the footprint to do that or you just doing that inside that last part you just said? >> The stair landings >> stair landing and putting in >> it's within the existing footprint of the covered stair landing entry landing. The only beyond the footprint is the
>> porch. Covered porch, right? >> Correct. Covered porch on the north side of the building. Uh there's also a footprint expansion on the west side of the building,
but only on the second floor. And I'll get to that briefly. >> So it's not the footprints, >> not the vertical extension. Yes. Vertical. The only building footprint extension or expansion is going to be the covered
stair entries on the east side of the building and the covered screen porch. >> Again, the only the only what? The only >> the only footprint expansion is on the east side of the building where we're enclosing the stair landings.
>> Okay. Okay. So, so aside from the porch, there's also going beyond the footprint to do exactly what? >> We can't hear you, >> Rich. You got >> me. I'm sorry. I thought that was kind of loud. Uh I I just keep writing in my
notes. The only and Mr. G's opening said the only expansion of the footprint is the rear porch. And I've written that three times, but now there's some other expansion. And I keep kind of catching it and then not. this I want to get my notes right >> and I want to make this perfectly clear.
I would refer everyone to the variance plan sheet CZ101 we have used shading techniques to shade where there's going to be footprint expansion and you'll see there is a 5.45 four five
foot wide by 5 foot stair landing that is being enclosed and there is the rear screen porch addition on the north side that is the result of the footprint or the extent of the footprint expansions >> the whole thing is shaded but I is there
a different page >> no Mr. Okay, let me let me help you. >> I'm just I'm just saying it's all I'm not saying you're a dynamic. >> Gotcha. >> Gotcha. Okay. I mean, this gets something written down. >> So, this other expansion is only 5T by 5T or something.
>> That's correct. >> And that is on an existing landing. Correct. >> Existing covered landing. Correct. >> Got it. And that addition expansion is limited to only the first floor. >> Okay. So the only expansions are the the porch and a 5x5 covered landing is being
enclosed. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> So again, the first floor is going to be renovated to add the 10ft deep coverage screen porch at the rear. Enclose that coverage stair landing on the east side.
We're going to eliminate the bedroom at that level. We're going to eliminate the full bathroom at that level. And we're going to expand the kitchen and dining room area. We're going to reconfigure the stairs um moving a little closer to the front wall. And we're going to raise the ceiling height, which today is only
7 foot five to 10 ft. >> You indicated that the stairs present an issue as well. you may be planning to get that. But in terms of the access >> in the existing condition, the stairs when you get to the top again, you have uh less than six foot of headroom. Uh
you've got a true head knocker in the current condition. Um through the reconfiguration of the stairs and the um actually reconfiguration of the second floor, we're making that uh unsafe condition go away and having a traditional 8ft ceiling uh at the top of
the stairs. >> Thank you. which takes us to the second floor where there's going to be a footprint expansion of the second floor to accommodate um our bedroom number one and that's going to be over the existing first floor footprint. So um that's on
the west side of the building. We're going to take the one-story porch and we're going to extend that vertically for the second story to create a bedroom. And then we're going to expand about 5 ft over top our new covered porch to the north. Doing so was going to allow us to
reconfigure the roof and create an 8 foot ceiling height where at best we're 7 foot2 at the ceiling at the center of the ceiling and down to 5t along the eaves. Now in doing this we're still proposing a building height that is less than 30
ft. It's about 29 and 1/2 ft tall. This in a zone that allows for a 40ft tall building. >> I'm sorry 40 foot >> 40ft tall building for a pitched roof. So we more than 10 feet less than what's >> correct and about 10 feet less than than our neighbors
>> uh then read it to the east. >> In terms of floor area ratio the single family house by itself without counting the semi- detached unit is a 0.27 will have a total of 1,179 square feet of living space with the additions I
just described. When we add in the existing semi- detached building which has a floor ratio of 0.11, we have an aggregate for the site of 0.38 which is still less than the 40% allowed for the zone. We're doing that
in two buildings but even so we're still less than the 40% floor ratio that the zone would otherwise permit. Also notably, number of bedrooms that exist today are three.
Number of bedrooms we propose are three. Again, semi- detached has one bedroom that stays unchanged. If you want to count bedrooms for the total site, total of four bedrooms. But in the existing single family home, three bedrooms exist. Three bedrooms are
proposed. So, we're not increasing the intensity of living by adding bedrooms. We're not increasing the intensity of parking demand by adding bedrooms. We're simply making the building far more usable and restoring a aging and I'll use the word decrepit building uh
carrying it forward into the next century. In terms of the exterior aesthetics, what we're proposing to do is reflect a more of a coastal vernacular with some colonial revival um vernacular.
The design emphasizes traditional massing gable roof forms and vertically proportions fenestration single shingle cladding you know with historic residential patterns that is found throughout Cape May. The ornamentation is intentionally limited to maintain a timeless contextual
appropriate architectural character. In doing so, we are enhancing the streetscape by improving the massing and architectural intent. We're having clearer volumetric hierarchy. We're integrating porch forms. We have intentional roof intersections. We have a more disciplined fenistration
alignment. And this all creates an architectural coherence rather than accumulated additions that the existing building has experienced over its life. The strengthened streetscape presence, reinforces vertical proportion. It introduces articulated gable treatment,
provides depth and shadow lines, and enhances entry prominence. The improves the rhythm and visual engagement along the street. It's going to have a significant beneficial impact to the streetscape of the neighborhood. And we're doing so with architectural consistency both with the neighborhood
and the typical style of Cape May. In terms of circulation, vehicular circulation remains the same. We have four parking spaces accessed off Roseman's Lane. They will continue to be in that location. We will, however, be changing the ground surface treatment.
Rather than being an open stone field that it is now, we're going to introduce PA drive strips for the tires and introduce grassy between those strips to add an element of um paracity and greenery to that streetscape.
The grading scheme remains unchanged in terms of how storm water surface flows across the surface. We are however by introducing the changes of stone to grass reducing the lot coverage from
71.7% down to 61.9%. That's going to result in an overall reduction in the volume of storm water runoff that the site generates. We're going to further enhance that by introducing a storm water management system that is going to hold on site the
difference between the that which we propose a C61.9% and the 45% that's permitted by the zone. So from a storm water management perspective we are significantly enhancing the existing conditions. John, one of the interesting um provisions in
the code here is that although single family homes are limited to 45% impervious coverage, the other uses in this zone are actually permitted to be much higher. Correct. >> Much on the order of 70%, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly.
>> Correct. So the semi- detached unit that of course we're not changing that would permit 70%. All the other uses in the C6 zone permit 70%. Correct. It's just the single family zone or the single family use that's 45 that we're bringing back into compliance or almost into
compliance. >> Yeah, we're we're certainly reducing it. Um and to the extent that we're not bringing into full compliance, we are mitigating any potential effects of storm water runoff by holding it on site through recharging. >> Thank you. >> Any questions about what we're proposing
to do before I started getting into the variances that are necessary to help us realize this wonderful plan? I have a question about um you're changing the front driveway to have a little bit of grass in there. What is the backyard? Is that all is there any grass in the back
or is that all stone? >> No, today it's a it's a lawn and um turf and um we are going to be increasing some nominal amount of pavers back there to increase functionality. >> You said turf, >> correct?
>> What is What do you mean by turf? >> It's a mulch. Correct. >> It's like a dog. What you use at a dog, >> right? >> I wasn't sure what >> Excuse me, Mrs. Franken. Mrs. Franken, when you speak, you have to speak into the microphone, please. Thank you. We're creating a record. >> Sorry. Thank you.
>> I I had said that it's like a I am Am I correct to say cedar mulch that's laid in the backyard? We have a golden retriever, so it's the >> cleanest, I guess, >> decision for us, if you will. So we require several variances to help
realize this beautifification. The first that we'll talk about is the D2 expansion of the non-conforming use and we're looking to continue to expand the second principal structure where the zone only allows one principal structure.
uh D2 variance is not your traditional use variance uh where the site suitability test doesn't really apply but what the obligation we have is to demonstrate that the increase of the intensity of that use can be
accommodated the site without having a substantial adverse impact and whether the intensity is reasonable and appropriate for the site. We need to recognize that the use that's there exists already and has existed for almost a century. So we're not trying to
newly introduce this use. We're simply looking to expand it and we must demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse impact to the neighborhood by that increase in the intensity. To do that, we're going to demonstrate there are multiple positive um elements
that this development provides and it advances multiple purposes of municipal land use law including promoting a desirable visual environment in encouraging the appropriate and efficient use of land, preserving the character of established neighborhood
patterns, enhancing the streetscape, and reducing non-conforming site non-conformities such as lot coverage. Those are all positive things that this application brings to the table. We also must demonstrate the both prongs
of the negative criteria. We must demonstrate that there's no substantial detriment to the public good and that there's no substantial impairment to the zone plan. Dealing with the first prong, is there a substantial detriment to the public good? Let's remember that this proposed project does not increase
traffic, parking demand, noise, infrastructure load beyond that which has historically existed. The setbacks, height, lot coverage and bulk relationships remain consistent with the surrounding development and arguably substantially less than our immediate
neighbors. There's no adverse impact on light air or privacy beyond the existing conditions and most importantly there is no substantial detriment to the public good because the functional intensity of the site remains unchanged. It has not materially
increased. Number of bedrooms stays the same. Um and again just remains far far more compliant with the zone plan than our neighbors in terms of building height setbacks and floor ratio. So for all those reasons I think it's fair to
say that there certainly is no detriment let alone a substantial detriment to the public good by the granting of that use variance. Turning briefly to the second prong we must demonstrate that there's no substantial impairment to his own plan. First of all, this variance is sight
specific and does not undermine the municipality's overall objective of limiting multiple buildings in the zone. Second of all, the board retains the ability to distinguish this property based on longstanding existing condition and physical characteristics. The approval would recognize and
rationalize an existing anomaly rather than create a new president for undeveloped parcels. So for those reasons, I don't see any substantial impairment to the zone plan by the granting of that requested relief. This also requires several what we call
bulk variances, the so-called C variances. Most are advanced under the C1 criteria. Those certainly is a blending of both the C1 and the C2. The C1 being the hardship criteria where there's a um by unusual
conditions of the lot through its geometry, topography or legally existing buildings thereon, there's a practical difficulty that prevents the applicant from complying. There's also the C2 elements which are demonstrate that the benefits of the relief for which we seek outweigh any
detriments. And again most of these are going to fall under both the variances that we seek for uh these bulk require or bulk variances are the lot size per family is the first one. Law size would normally require 6250 ft
per family. We have two families which would require a size of 12,500 square ft. would exist is 4,33 square feet substantially less of our remind everyone that condition exists
today as condition for virtually a century and the intensity of that is not increased at all by the proposed development. Next variance would be lot width and frontage where 50 ft required 45.12 exist and is proposed to continue. There
simply is not available land with which to acquire to increase the lot width or frontage. Again that condition exist has conditioned has existed and will remain unchanged. The next u two variances will relate to
front yard setback both of which are existing conditions. front yard set back to Roseman's Lane where 20 ft's required. 18.3 ft exists and will continue to exist but be extended vertically. This is the part of the second floor where we're going to take and then create the third bedroom on the
second floor by building over top the existing footprint on the first floor. We have sideyard setbacks that are existing non-conforming that will remain uh the 0.6 ft 68t that exist on the east
side. Um again that exists uh we will be enclosing the covered porch to match that. So we I guess we would be considered vertically extending that but again the magnitude remains unchanged. It's already a covered entry. We're simply going to be enclosing that portion.
And also on the sideyard setback where 8 ft is the minimum required. The screen porch has a 7.33 foot setback established more for symmetry with the building and aesthetics. Um and it's truly a dimminimous
deviation from the eight feet required. Lastly, we have the lot coverage where 45% is a maximum permitted the zone for single family uses. Mr. Katniss is right. If this were any other uses may be at 70%, but for single family use
where 45% is the maximum permitted we are proposing 61.9. Again, I'm going to remind everyone we're reducing that from 7 to 1.7 and we're further mitigating that by the introduction of the storm water recharge systems. So
those are the variances we need from the the bulk requirements. Both fall under the both the C1 and the C2 criteria. Most of them are existing conditions that we have no ability to control. And to the extent that we are increasing or aggravating them, the benefits which I described under the use variance are
equally applicable here. For the sake of brevity, I won't repeat them. Um, but the very same positive effects to the neighborhood that I described under the use variance are equally applicable here. And for the same negative criteria that I described in the use variance are equally
applicable here. Again, for brevity, I won't repeat them. Um, but for those reasons, I believe the bulk variances can be advanced under both the C1 and the C2 criteria. So, I'll conclude that variance discussion and be happy to entertain any
questions unless Mr. Scott see if we've got anything I I missed. >> No, sir. I think you've covered it. >> Okay. Um, let's have Craig's report, please. >> Were there any questions for Mr. Hower? >> I don't see >> I just have a question about the the setbacks.
Were the screened in porches that setbacks staying the same? The screen and porch is an entirely new appendage to the building. The setback >> at the rear of the building today, the northerly edge of the existing building,
the property actually widens out by 5t and where where we are proposing to do the screen porch addition, the sideyear setbacks taken to the wider part of the lot there. So, we're proposing a 7.33 foot setback to the screen porch um
where 8 foot would be required for new construction. And I'll refer you again to sheet CZ 101 in which that uh that dimension is illustrated. >> Okay. So again, I'm going to just answer the
question is what is the setback from the property line to the new screened in porch? 7.33 ft from the easterly property line. >> Okay, >> we good. >> This doesn't distances between the two buildings,
>> the distances between the >> porch and the building. >> I've read that ordinance again yesterday that applies to garages based on my read >> accessory structures. >> Okay. I just want if you needed a variance when we should have got it. So, okay. >> Um, usually Richard, this is we usually
say when that lot became two families, you know, usually people say it's been was grandfathered in or anything. Was this grandfathered in this these two homes or two different? >> I believe there was testimony to that
effect, but Mr. Hal Bruner, if you could confirm that you've investigated and confirmed with the aerials that's been there. >> Correct. I I reviewed a photo photograph and those buildings have existed long since the 20-year time frame with your ordinance considers to be um
>> it wasn't a garage that was converted to a home. >> There is a garage that is there and remains there. Yes. But to say that was converted to a home, no livable unit for more than 20 years. >> Okay, that's what I was looking for. Thank you.
It's been there at least 25 since I've been involved in the city. I know that I >> I guess my reason for asking that question is that the other pictures don't have it redone and now it looks like it was redone and I don't remember coming before us. That's why I was asking.
>> Gotcha. The redone consisted of re- roofing and residing. >> Sir, it's not time you for you to speak. >> Let me address this issue. >> No, not at this time. I thought it was me. >> I'm not sure if you heard the answer. It was that was >> I I wasn't I'm sorry. I thought she was
talking I thought she was talking to me and I wasn't sure what Terry meant by >> the renovations that you see if you were to drive by the semi- detached building today limited to the roofing and siding exterior trim. There's no there was no um modification to the interior living
space or configuration. It was simply an exterior um >> new sheet >> beautifification. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah, it wouldn't trigger board review. >> I'm I'm Oh, wouldn't Okay, cuz I see like a like a outside bar every and things like that. That's why I was asking.
>> There's a whole permit. >> We wouldn't do anything about that. Now, >> I just I was just reason why I was asking. That's the only reason why I was asking. >> Okay, >> let's go ahead. >> We're good. >> All right. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Uh, I
would like to summarize my engineer and planners report dated January 28th, 2026 for this application. Um, as Mr. Howuner has indicated, this is in the C6 Marina district is also within the Harbor overlay district. Uh, there are an exist
there's one unit of an existing semi- detached dwelling. One unit of that semi- detached dwelling falls on this lot. The other one falls on the adjoining lot. um that that structure is not subject to any changes that the applicant is proposing tonight. There is
an additional single family dwelling on the subject lot in which the proposed changes are relating to. So that is the only structure that's being changed. Um Mr. Hower explained the changes that are proposed to the single family
dwelling. So I will not rehash those and I will roll right into the completeness review. On page two of my report, they asked for one waiver and that is from providing a landscaping plan based on the nature of this application. Um they have shown uh vegetation that they're
proposing their grassing up where the stones are uh existing parking. Um so some of that is shown uh but a full landscaping plan is required as part of your ch checklist. I didn't feel that's adequate or or necessary for the review
of this application. So therefore I did recommend deeming this application complete. Okay. So within the C6 district both single family detached dwellings and semi- detached dwellings are both permitted uses. Um however there is a
section of your ordinance that says you will only have one principal use per lot. So in this case we have two principal uses on the subject lot. So any changes to those necessitate um approval of a use variance and that
use variance is the D2 standard which is an expansion of a non-conforming use and Mr. Hal Bruner did a great job of explaining the difference between a normal use variance and a D2 use variance and I agree with his testimony um if there's any questions with regards
to that. I will be happy to um explain that. But uh with regards to the variances that are necessary uh for this application, we have two non-conforming structures or uses on the site. So when
we're expanding those, we have we trigger a D2 use variance. This is also uh an existing undersized lot and it's undersized with regards to lot size per family. The requirement in the district we have two families. So it
is 12,500 square feet is the requirement where 4,33 square foot exists. And it's also non-conforming with regards to the lot width and lot frontage. Both of those requirements are 50 ft and we have a lot
width and lot frontage of 45.12 ft that exists currently. Um there are no uh vacant lands available to acquire additional land uh lot land to make those better or conforming um because all of the lots surrounding this are
developed with regards to the improvements. The improvements trigger the necessity to grant a variance from the building setback line and that is the northeast segment of Roseman's Lane. the there is
a requirement of 20 foot setback along that roadfront. Um 18.37 feet is proposed. That's a vertical expansion on the second floor. Um it falls within the existing footprint. So that structural
improvements will not get any closer to that road, but they will be going vertically up. The sideyard setback, each sideard setback has a setback of 8 feet. And this is an irregularly shaped lot. So we have um sort of a jagged
sideyard setback um lot line that so the lot line is jagged in which the sideyard setback is applied to and that so there's an 8ft requirement along that sideyard setback. Uh the existing is non-conforming at
0.68 feet and 25.4t 4 feet which conforms. Uh the proposed porch enclosure uh is sort of filling in existing footprint is set back at 0.68 ft.
And then the new structure that falls outside of the of the footprint which is denoted as the new landing and steps and proposed screen porch uh has a setback of 7.33 feet where Aid is required and that in
my opinion is because that structure lines up with the existing structure on that side. So those are the sideyard the setback requirements with regards to I'm sorry I will make uh or fill in some
information with regards to building height there is an increase in building height and my chart does not reflect that. So in the proposed under the proposed column for building height where I have 22.14 feet that should be 29.43
feet. So, if Rich, you could fix that in my table. Um, that's still conforming and still less than what's permitted, but I just want to make sure the record is clear. The lot coverage requirement.
Um, I should clarify this because um, Mr. how Bruner includes both the criteria for the single family dwellings as well as the attached dwelling. Um I've explained this to the board. Our zoning tables have essentially a menu
based on the use that's permitted. Um in this case I utilize the single family dwelling table uh because it's more conservative and also because the improvements are proposed to the single family dwelling. So I thought that was more appropriate. Mr. Hal Bruner pointed
out that the lot coverage requirement for different uses increases. Um, but the more conservative lock coverage for the single family dwelling is 45%. Where 71.7%
exists and they're mitigating that and lessening that to 61.9%. Still non-conforming, but it's a better situation. Um, they've also implemented a stormwater uh recharge system that would mitigate any potential negative
aspects of being over on lot coverage. Now, that being said, if they were proposing a single family uh attached dwelling on that lot, they would be permitted 70% lot coverage. So,
they would be below that. Um however there is a variance necessary from that section. Um so that's a summary of the variances. Uh this once again this is non-conforming use with a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. Kind
of sums up the whole thing. Okay. So if there's no questions with regards to the variances, I will move on to my general review comments which all should be conditions of approval. Um, under item number one, I've asked that the zoning table be revised to reflect the
comments in the review memorandum and that they should add all variances to the compliance plans. Under item number two, I've asked for construction details for the permeable pa surfaces that are proposed uh to accommodate the driving the driveway
parking spaces. Three, I note that uh the site triangle requirements because this is a corner lot and because this is at the corner intersection of Roseman's Lane
under four, uh there is no sidewalk adjacent to the site. Um and the rightway at this segment of the road is insufficient to accommodate sidewalk. So no sidewalk is recommended in this case.
Under five, I detail uh my review of the storm water system and I did find that design acceptable. Number six, I just asked for a note um that verifies um with the contractor that they have to have the the
excavation verif uh inspected by the board engineer prior to backfilling. And number seven, they have to comply with the minimum storm water management and grading requirements both during and after construction which is required in accordance with chapter 525.
Eight is our standard condition that they have to comply with our requirements for uh having the property inspected prior to the certificate of occupancy. Under item number nine, they have to comply with the requirements of the sha
sha tree commission, fire department and public works department. We did receive reviews from the fire department dated 21126. They recommended approval with no comments. Public works, I guess they recommended approval. They
didn't check any box, but their report review is dated 2326. They have no comments. The Shade Tree Commission recommended approval um with the following condition and it's more of a statement that says there's no trees involved and that was dated February
4th, 2026. So that summarizes those. Um item number 11, uh this should be corrected in my report. Um this property is surrounded by the historic district but does not fall within the historic district. Uh Mr. Katnese and I um took a
hard look at the historic district map and this property was not located in there. So I do not believe it's in the historic district. Um so HPC approval will not be required. >> Item number 12. >> Do they does HPC have to make sure that it's not there or is it just
>> It's not I I checked our map has a list of block and lots and this is not listed in their block and lot. Okay. >> So it's not in there. Um item number 12, the applicant is required to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements. And finally, should the
board grant approval? Uh the applicant is required to revise this these plans to address any conditions of approval that you require and submit those plans for compliance review to the board engineer. And that is a summary of my report. And
I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. >> Craig, I have a question. On page four, number five, >> four number five, >> it says the minimum setback is eight. >> Four number five, >> and the applicant proposed expansion of
the structure will include a porch enclosure that will have a setback of 68 ft, >> right? >> I thought it was seven. >> There is a covered porch to be enclosed.
That setback is 0.68 ft. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. That's the front sheet that closest to um the bottom of the sheet. That's the little small almost 5x5 section. >> Yeah. >> That setback is 68. >> And that's one that's staying.
>> And that's that's essentially filling in the footprint that's already there, >> right? Cuz it's already it's already there. It's not >> correct. >> Not expanding or anything. >> And then the 7.33 ft is to the new structure to the north side of the existing struct of the existing dwelling. That's where I was getting
hung up on that other >> Right. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Are there any more questions by the board
of any kind? Okay. Like to open it up to the public within 200 ft of the property. Anyone wishes to come up and speak. Make sure the microphone is on.
>> Is it on? >> It's green. >> Is it a green light? >> No. >> Okay, there we go. Better. >> Yes. >> Okay. Hi, my name is Stacy Nichols. I >> Stacy. >> Hi. >> Hold on a second. I do it a certain way. Stacy, can you spell your name for me? >> S T A C E Y N I C H O L Ls.
>> I would have never gotten to >> No, nobody ever does. >> My correct just corrected that, too. Um, and can you please uh tell me your address? >> 133 Roseman's Lane. >> You swear from the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth.
Truth of God. >> I do. >> Um, I am just speaking in favor of the improvements requested by the Frankens. I think that these improvements can only help the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood and the cohesiveness of the
properties that are existing. And just having been neighbors with the Frankens and seeing the improvements that they've made to the structure that they've improved already, I can only attest that anything that they do will be in good taste. >> That's it. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else within 200? >> Hello. Hi. I'm Robert Krill. Let's tell the truth. >> One second. What? Spell your last name. Krill K R I L L.
>> And can you please tell me your address? >> The address is 146 Roseman's Lane. >> Okay. So, do you swear affirm the testimony of Brother is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Go ahead. And I'd just like to say as owner and
co-founder of Kay Brewery, I'm keenly aware of all of the historic and nature and charm of the city and I know the Franklin's uh Franklin and they they are going to do a great job with their addition and I fully approve and fully support uh their addition.
Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else within 200 ft? My name is Lee Scott. >> Yes. And I live at 1281 Lafayette Street.
>> Okay. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give is to be the truth, old truth, and the truth of God? >> Yes, I do. I bought this uh I bought this house 25 years ago. My house from uh Davy Craig who owns Lucky Bones. And um at the time
this property obviously was still sitting behind me. And I think you'll all agree we're all really lucky people to be living here in Kate May. And people really take care of this town and they take care of their homes. Unfortunately, this lot has sort
of been an eyesore for 25 years when you came in through Roseman's Lane. The previous owners, great great people, but they just didn't have the financial assets to take care of the home. And they probably
painted it after 15, 20 years. They put a roof on it probably four years before they were ready to leave. The first renters
was probably the first time anything was done inside the house and it was the reners's father who came in and did most of the kitchen to start. Other than that, I can say that the Frankens have done more in two years and has been
done in this house in 25 years. the extension of was a garage looked like it was going to fall over if we had a bad storm. You know, a lot of a lot of the things in in Cape May, it always really sort of depends on you buy an
asset. You know, what you what are you going to do with it? Just live in it and just let it slowly disintegrate and become worthless or are you going to it's like a piece of stock you keep investing in. It keeps getting better
and better. It's no different in my opinion in a home. And we have good people here who understand that. And just like I say, just the repairs they have done in a couple years has made this place look 10 times better.
Particularly the garagees that was going to fall down. Right now, if you saw it up for sale, you'd be right there to see how much it was going to cost and you want to get it. They've all done already done repairs to the home on the inside
and the cellar and everything. And um I think it'll be an asset for Kate May for the uh boating yard there. And I would be ecstatic to be quite honest with you. I feel like I hit the
lottery when this home is completely done because these people aren't just throwing up a home and just renting it to rent it and that's it. that they want to put some real value to it and real value to the city of Kate May. So, needless to say, I'm for this and I've
waited for people like this to buy this home for 25 years. So, my vote is obviously for approval of this. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Name is Philip Rogers. No. D.
1275 Lafayette Street. >> 1275. Sir, >> 1275. >> Thank you, sir. >> House is recognizable by the target. >> Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth? The testimony about to give is the truth. All truth about the truth. >> I'll swear without God. Yes. >> There you go.
>> I'm an agnostic. All right. I've owned the property at 1275 since the early 70s. The property in question was a piece of junk with asbesto siding falling apart
rotting wood. So any alterations, improvements are welcome. Almost nothing was done until the current owners purchased the place a couple years ago.
Now, one thing not mentioned, actually two things. It was It's been a twounit property since before 1972 when we bought our property. It was always the place in back
was a place for undesirable people would be a kind description. At one point there was a whole load of college kids in there. There must have been 12 people and God only knows where they parked their cars.
Right. Half the time we'd come down and say, "Get your car out of our driveway." Um, there's an interesting question about the size of the lot because three feet of that property belong in the street
and when the street was increased from oneway lane to two-way, they took away three feet off the front of that property, >> which should be included in your measurements. even though it's in the street
and at some point the street was made two-way instead of one way. Although one way is the dynamic dictated by the county when they made those improvements.
So you may want to change your setbacks to include the three feet even though it's included in the street. Condition of the property I mentioned has been awful until these people bought it. There was asbesto siding
right on the roof and rotted wood on the side of the house and all kinds of plumbing that leaked right a kitchen that was looked like it came out of 1922. Uh, I am delighted that somebody is
taking over this place, fixing it up, and not turning it into a second home with more bedrooms and cars than the property can hold. I'll be delighted to answer any questions. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Anyone else within 200 ft that wishes to speak? Anyone beyond 200 feet that wishes to speak? Okay. At this time, we'll close it to the public. Okay. Okay, unless there's anything
further the application um you have a lot of testimony in the record and clear statements of the standards. So I would ask you to consider the standards for the expansion of a non-conforming use as articulated by the uh expert from the applicant and adopted by our board
engineer as well as the C1 and C2 variances. We're going to vote on this all at once because it's a use variance that requires five positive votes. So, um, project's either going to pass or fail, unless you want me to vote on something separately, but I generally do
them all together. >> I don't see how he could do it separate because you're you're expanding it either way. So, >> you can't break out any components of this. It's it's a comprehensive project. >> So, I' I'd ask you to um if you're going to vote, there was only neighbors speaking in favor. the applicant uh
expert who spoke in favor obviously and our board engineer did not offer any real critique. So I would ask that you uh if you're going to vote no that you please carefully articulate the reasons why you're voting no. I'm not saying you can't vote no. It's in your discretion to vote no. It's it's a lot of property
and and a lot. So about you have discretion to do it. But if you want to vote no, please articulate it carefully because there really haven't been a lot of negatives put in the record. So it would be up to you to put in the negatives if you feel there are negatives and are reasons why you're going to vote no. So the motion that I I
recommend that you make, but how you vote is up to you, is a motion um to grant um the variances 1 through seven on page three of the engineers report with the change uh to the chart making
the height 29.43 43 subject to the conditions outlined by the board engineer one through 13 with a change on number 11 to make it not in the historic district.
I just I thought there might have been another condition that I wrote somewhere. I I don't see anything. I Bear with me one second. Oh, no. I know what it is. The shade tree commission thing, but it turned out that they didn't really have a condition. There was just no trees. Okay. If there's another condition that
was articulated on the record, I incorporated by reference. I just can't recall at the moment. That's the motion I recommend be made. We always make it in the positive. Doesn't mean you have to vote positive. It's just we always make them in the positive and then you vote how your conscience and the law guides you. Again, articulate your
reasons. Uh particularly if you're voting no given the way the record went in. Okay. I make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Miss Sheen motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. Good luck. Sean, thank you. Oh my god, my tears. >> I think you're right. I think you're
right. >> Thank you. Okay with the weather. >> That's not That's not surprising. Get the hell out of there. >> Good job, John. >> Good night. See you, John. Okay, our next um order of business here
is regarding Kate May Contracting and Patrick and Annette McGree, the owners of 16001 New York Avenue. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Anthony Monzo representing the applicant in this case, which is Kate
May Contracting Inc. Uh and this is an application for one variance with respect to um an expansion of an existing deck and that expansion really is where a staircase was located. There was two staircases on the deck and
one of them was replaced with an expansion of the deck. >> Move your mic up a little bit. This is for property at um at 1601 New York Avenue and it's in it's at the corner of New York and Brooklyn Avenue and and it's located in the R1 zoning district.
Uh with me are Bob Leon to my right who's the owner of Kate May Contracting and Christina Amy who is a licensed architect who uh prepared the variance plan and will provide testimony in support of the variance.
Um so this um occurred by reason of a slight alteration of an existing deck that you can see on the plan. There were two staircases from the deck in the rear of the property. One of them went back out toward the garage and the other went
was off to the side. the second deck that was um on the corner, the second set of stairs to the corner of the deck is about 8 feet from the garage and accessory structures need to be um 10 ft from an existing structure. So that 8 ft
um triggered um a non-compliant situation. So when the stairs were removed to ex expand the deck into that area without expanding the footprint, it was actually um a vertical expansion of a non-conforming structure. Although the
uh plan, the variance plan says 2.8 ft. That's the distance from the stairs that remain to the garage. The stairs that were uh altered with the deck are actually 8 feet from the garage. and the
the minimum distance is 10 ft. So that 2 feet makes it a non-compliant expansion, vertical expansion of a um non-conforming structure. Um when Mr. Gleason did this work, he applied for permits, did not show clearly on the plan that
the deck was actually being extended where the stairs were, and he got permits to put in some plumbing work for an outdoor grill. Those permits were granted. The work was done and the zoning officer when he inspected the property, he identified this as a
vertical expansion of a non-conforming structure and therefore asked that the applicant come back in for variance relief. So the one variance is going to be the requirement that accessory structures be located at a minimum of 10 ft from the principal structure and in
this case it's 8 ft even though other parts of the deck including the stairs that come off to the side are 2.8 ft from the deck. But this expansion is at the farthest part of that deck, the farthest part between the deck and the garage. So this is the ideal spot to do
any expansion. Uh but again those stairs were there were an obstruction. Um it's the same thing only it's elevated at the same level as a deck. So with that background uh I have Mr. Gleason here who can be sworn in. I don't and plan to ask him any questions but he's there to
answer any questions that the board may have and Christina Amy who's here to provide expert testimony. So >> Mr. Gleason, could you move the microphone toward you and turn it on? >> Okay. I'm going to swear in all of you. Our board engineer remains under the oath. Do each of you raise your right hand. Do each of you
swear or affirm the testimony we're about to give is the truth, told, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> I do. >> And Miss Amy has been here before as a licensed architect. Will the board accept her as an expert? >> So, um, Miss Amy, can you just explain the work that was done and why this is
triggering variance relief, please? >> Sure. Although I think you did a very, uh, descriptive description. Um, so there was there's an existing deck um on a house that has two stairs going off it, one towards the street, one towards the rear yard. Um,
it's a corner lot. Um, the one stair, which you can see in the photographs on the drawings provided, um, was renovated or altered to be uh, a deck extension with a grill as opposed to remaining as stairs. So, the footprint stayed the
same. It was in the place of the stairs, but it is in fact higher now as a deck with a grill on it as opposed to the stairs that were there. >> So, we're asking for a variance under both the C1 and the C2 criteria. Can you articulate the C1 criteria and how this
project or this request satisfies that criteria please? So the T I'm sorry the C1 criteria uh is where reason from exceptional narrowness shallowess shape of a specific piece of property reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affect a
specific piece of property or C by reason of extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or structures lawfully existing thereon. Um the strict application bulk zoning would request a result in a hardship. So this was an existing footprint of a stair for an
existing deck uh on a corner lot where as you know you know corner lots have two front yards and one set sideyard. Um we're not asking for any setback variances beyond the distance to the garage. Um but that the shape of that lot and those existing structures being
there play a part in the this application. >> So how how does this um application satisfy the hardship criteria? Um so the existing location the locations of the existing portions of the property the existing deck the existing steps and that existing garage um all lawful
lawfully existed um at the time this property was originally built. >> So there's any is there any way a a um any alteration of that deck can occur for this project without variance relief? >> No because of the location of the existing garage.
>> And what about existing setbacks? Is there any other area that you can use to to to >> The deck is 12 feet from the sideyard setback where 10 is required, but that wouldn't support the depth needed for the the grill that it was then placed there. >> And any other portions of the deck would
actually be closer to the garage, and this is the ideal spot for it. >> Any other pl Yes. Any other place between the house and the garage would in fact be closer to to the garage. Um can you um go through the negative criteria and whether this is has a substantial impairment to the intent purpose of the ZOP plan or any
substantial detriment to the public good? So the negative criteria requires um actually you just said that part sorry um the uh setback requirement between oh maybe I did skip one um between the structures there's fire safety concerns where the existing deck
is but again where the um steps were replaced with decking is further away. It's 8t as opposed to the 2.8 or 2t8. Um, you could tell by the plan, the site plan specifically. You could see the location of the house and the existing
detached garage where the existing deck is and the narrow space between the house and the garage that it could not be expanded in that direction. Um, as well as there was an existing uh lot coverage that was um it's all right maintained.
>> Thank you. Um the >> and the purpose of this of this Yes, I'm sorry. 10 foot requirement is mainly for fire firefighting and fire protection to provide adequate space between the two structures. >> Exactly. And uh again, this area that
was renovated is 8 ft away unlike the deck itself. Um and it did get approval from the fire official when it was permitted. the um so there's no substantial intent to the >> there's no detriment to the public good or impairment intent of the purpose of
the zoning plans in the location of this vertical expansion of 6'6 in above ground >> can can you go through the C2 criteria and can you identify any purposes of zoning that are advanced by this project
>> um so it's b balancing the positive and negative criteria um the um purposes of MUL outweigh the negative impacts on the zoning plan. The variance can be granted. Um satisfying the negative criteria. Um
it encourages outdoor living space where it is. It limits new development to the existing footprint of where the stair was. Um and the improvements to the deck are uh aesthetically pleasing and a better use of space than the second set of stairs that went to kind of the the
empty portion of the backyard. And so go ahead. No, >> I was going to say why don't you finish and then I'll we'll >> um so I was just say that you know under those um that the variance can be graded under the C1 and C2 standards >> and the same negative obviously the same negative criteria apply. So in your
balancing of negative and positive criteria uh the positive outweighs the negative. >> Yes. >> Um the one comment that Mr. Herless had in the report and I just want to make sure we address and then we'll go through the rest of them is is whether this has any impact on the grading
>> or of the property. Is there any grading concerns? Is this change anything? >> This did not um impose any grading changes. No. Okay. >> Um two other components that or three technically that Mr. Um, Harles mentions are the number of parking spaces and the
parking spaces shown on the plans which we would illustrate and uh accommodates four parking spaces where um three are required. Um we would add the street tree as needed and then we would also show the um site triangles for both the
corner and the driveway itself. >> And this uh this expansion of the deck is on an existing footprint. So there's no increase in lot coverage. Correct. >> And any any other place to put it other than an expanding the existing footprint
would create more impervious cover and therefore trigger a lot coverage variance. Is that accurate? >> Correct. Or if it even were the same area somewhere else somehow it would be the same lot coverage in the end. >> I have um I have no further questions. Again, Sammy can answer questions. If
the board has any questions for Mr. Gleon, he's here to answer them as well. >> I have a question. You mentioned that uh the fire department had approved this >> uh not the fire department, the fire code official. >> Fire code official approved.
>> They would review the building plans. Yes, >> we got the report in today from the fire department and they had no comment other than to make sure that it meets this fire sub code officials um approval which it has already done. So there's no
fire safety issues. >> So they were aware of the 8 foot Right. And um in general um a um grill with a gas line attachment as opposed to a propane tank uh is a permitted on deck
and really adjacent to a wall of the house whereas this one's actually further away from the walls of both the house and the garage. >> Thank you. >> You said it's that is not in in the record. I can uh this is the fire department report. It was actually
issued today. Um it says recommended approval with the following conditions. That's referral to the fire subcode official which again has already been permitted. So that is not an issue. So we don't have any fire safety concerns.
>> So what is that sub code recommendation >> because it requires a permit from the fire sub code official because it's a plumbing gas line. >> Okay. So that should have been inspected before it was covered up. Is that it was inspected. Okay. >> But they would the fire department
wasn't aware of that. So that's why they said recommended subject to approval of the fire sub code official. >> Is that correct? Is that correct, Craig? That the fire that what he's saying that the it says referral to higher sub code official and he says it's because of a
plumbing and I understand that but >> I believe that that is accurate. >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure because we didn't get this till just now and that was a concern of mine if there was a permanent structure that close permanent fire grill or whatever that close to the garage.
>> Well, the other choice is to put it closer to the house. >> Yeah. >> Which would be arguably worse since people live there. >> Yeah. Any any place on that deck would be closer to the house than it is to the garage. So, >> was there was there a reason why the contractor did this before without
having prior approval? He did get a permit from the construction office, but it wasn't clear to the to this construction office that this was an expansion because it was in the same footprint as the stairs. >> Same footprint, but it wasn't on the original. >> But I I can tell you that I I it took me
a while to figure out what variance is required here. I would not expect a contractor to appreciate that this is a variance. >> I mean, the steps are 2.8 feet from the garage and now the deck's 2.8 ft from the garage. I've never seen an expansion a vertical expansion of a
>> adjacent building ordinance in my life. >> Yeah. >> So, this is a uh I fault no one for missing this. >> And actually, just just to even though the application said 2.8 ft, these stairs, this this is the second set of stairs that is actually 8 ft from the
garage. So, there is still one set of stairs that are remain 2.8 ft. >> This is the furthest set of stairs. >> Like two feet. I'm like, "Yeah, that's a funny picture." Okay. >> Just one question for the applicants. Um, the general review comments
contained in my January 26, 2026 report, they're all acceptable to you. >> Yes. Okay. >> That makes a lot easier for me to go through my report. >> Would you like me to summarize? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Uh January 26, 2026 uh
review memorandum for this application. It's located in the R1 low density residential district. They asked for waiverss from items number 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 33. Uh based on the nature of this application and how, you
know, limited it is, I did support the waving of all of those checklist items and recommend deeming this application complete. To summarize the variance that's required, there's one. Everything else conforms. Uh
the distance from the adjacent building to this vertical expansion of the deck with this um grill structure um it's 2 foot 8 in at its nearest point. But to this new structure, it's 8 feet offset
where 10 is required. So it's uh one variance is required from section 5255A3E. Um and that being said um I'm not going to bore you with the general review comments. They are all standard conditions of approval that we usually
affix to all um applications similar to this. Um they should all be conditions of approval items number one through 13. Is there any questions of my report? >> Thank you. There's no further the public.
>> Oh, I didn't. >> Seeing no public, it's closed. >> The motion that I recommend be moved, but how you vote is up to you. is a motion to grant the variance number one on page three of the engineers report subject to the waiverss and conditions
outlined by the board engineers report dated January 26, 2026. >> I'll make the motion as stated by Rich. >> We have a motion by Mr. Venudo, seconded by Mr. Ledwin. Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We need a motion to
pay the bills for the zoning board. >> I make a motion. >> I'll second. >> Mission motions. Miss Stevenson seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Sheen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um before everyone leaves, I just want to make note of a meeting that I was at this morning. The um city council is planning a public open house. It's going to be held at convention hall.
Um it's going to be an overview of all the boards and uh any groups in the city open to the public for questions. There'll be a PowerPoint presentation. Then there's going to be tables manned by people from the boards and the
groups. Uh because of the sunshine law, we're going to have to be careful at our table not to have too many members at any given time. Uh people are going to be able to come up ask questions about the boards
and um if anybody has any input for me, I have to come up with um things to be proposed in the PowerPoint. Um if you have any ideas or things that you are hoping to
uh have covered, let me know. Let Karen know. We're going to put something together fairly soon. This is going to be kind of late spring, I guess we'll say. But I can't because we're on I can't say
the date, but it will be announced within the next couple of weeks. So, uh, they are looking for input sooner than later. So, and if anyone wants to volunteer to man a table,
you can do that. Also, we're going to be sharing a table with the planning board. So, we're going to be a mixed group. If our attorney wants to be there, >> they don't have a date. If they don't have a date, I can't commit to anything. >> Sorry.
I I think anything that we think about I think Rich should over look look it over before we do a PowerPoint. >> The PowerPoints are going to be what I said two minutes, >> right? >> Yes. There'll be um a lot of trouble. >> Mrs. Warren will make a twominut
introduction and the no one will be coming up and asking questions about spec no specific questions just what does the board do? >> Right. >> Basically basic >> Yeah. What's the purpose of the board? >> Yeah. And then when we're sitting at a
table, people may have some more specific questions. >> So, right, >> there's if I can possibly go, I will go, but I have to know that they probably >> So, I do both boards. So, Craig and I probably should >> I think they're going to try to schedule it for Wednesday night when there aren't
many meetings. That helps. It's going to be a Wednesday night, I believe, >> in convention hall. And the hope is that it would be homeowners, you know, not general public. >> Refreshments.
>> Refreshments. I don't know. Are you >> We can go out after Sam if you want. >> Okay. We can um close the meeting then. >> Yeah. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Thank you everyone. Have a good night.
walk with yelling.