testing. Testing. Testing. Okay. >> Excellent. Yeah, that's good. >> Good job. >> Very nice. >> You did good. You're so organized.
>> That subdivision thing. >> Yeah, >> I saw YouTube going back and forth. >> I mean, I was I was hoping it would kind of fix itself with YouTube talking, but it didn't. >> I mean, I sided with him for the reason he's
giving the hardware store >> that non-conforming use locker thing. So in my eyes there was not an expansion of nonforming use when the lock is smaller and it contains a non-conforming use. Cox says that that
is a true use. Now he's digging back the history. He's like well when this was originally subdivided >> like there was a 2013 subdivision. He's trying to like build and use history in front of that. And it's like that's not how it works. Once that subdivision was
approved and those laws were created now that specific containingforming use that law then gets smaller now it's an expansion that's >> I don't know you're making use more
intense but making a lot of >> what I'm saying >> I'll read I didn't think it was a big deal. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice of this meeting has been
provided. If any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act, they should state so at this time. >> Stand for the pledge of allegiance.
>> Ice to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Mrs. Wernern >> here. >> Mr. Venudo
>> here. >> Mr. Lewin >> here. >> Mrs. Notch >> here. >> Miss Sheen. >> Mr. Walsh. Mr. Zexer >> here. >> Mr. Joerger >> here. >> Miss Stevenson. Thank you. >> Okay. This is our reorganization
meeting. And first we will have an oath of office for Mr. Jagger. >> I'm going to read this and I'd ask you to confirm that you agree with it. I, Michael Jagger, do solemnly solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States in the
state of New Jersey. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same to the governments established in the United States and in this state under the authority of the people and that I will faithfully, impartially, and justly perform all the duties of the office of zoning board of adjustment member according to the best of my ability and
that I will use my office to grant preferential treatment nor to seek personal gain, favor, or advantage not available to the general public. Serge, do you so swear? >> I do. >> Thank you for your continued service for our community. >> Thank you.
Okay. Next, we have um election of the chairperson. We need a nomination. >> I will I'd like to nominate Terry Werner. >> Second. >> Any other nominations?
Seeing none, we'll have roll call. >> Um, Mr. Venudo motions. Mr. Zexer seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> M. Mr. Jagger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> We'll have the election of the vice chair. And I am nominating Sam Venudo. >> Can I have a second? Any other nominations?
Seeing none, we'll have the call. >> We have a motion by Mrs. Warner, seconded by Mr. Lewin. Mr. Lewin, >> yes. >> Mrs. Notch, >> yes. >> Mr. Zexer, >> yes. >> Mr. Joerger, >> yes. >> Miss Stevenson, >> yes. >> Mr. Venudo, >> yes. >> Mrs. Werner, >> yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Next, we have the appointment of our board attorney, and I nominate Richard King of King Barnes LLC. Can I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Your vote is for the appointment of Richard King as our board attorney
and a resolution authorizing the execution of our agreement with King Barnes LLC. >> Have the role. >> Yes. Motion by Mrs. Werner, seconded by Mr. Verudo. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Jagger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you everyone. I do very much appreciate it. And this is my 10th year. >> All right. Congratulations. >> That get a pension soon. >> Yeah. Congratulations.
>> Next, we have the appointment of our board engineer. And I nominate Craig Herurles of Herurles Planning and Engineer LLC. May I have a second? >> Second. Okay. Your vote is for appointment of Craig Hurles as our board engineer and
planner and resolution authorizing the execution of our agreement with Herurles Planning and Engineering LLC. Mrs. Wernner motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. It's always a pleasure representing you guys. >> This is your 47th year. >> 47th >> in some I've been here in some capacity
with different firms since 1995. >> Wow. >> You were two years old then. >> Fresh out of college. Yeah. Um, we have a new uh resolution here for appointing Paul Dietrich, our city
engineer and city manager as the zoning board's conflict engineer and planner. This would be in case Craig either has a conflict or couldn't be here, he would replace him. >> The planning board has done the same
thing and um I'm all in favor of it. So, So I need a motion and a second. >> So move. >> Second. >> Okay. Mr. Lewin motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have the election of our board secretary and I nominate Karen Keenan as our board secretary.
>> Second. Thank you. >> Mrs. Werner motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We need a motion to approve the resolution designating the Kate County Herald as the primary newspaper for publication of legal notices.
with alternates the Cape May Star and wave and the press of Atlantic City. >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> A second. >> Okay. Mr. Jagger motions. Miss Stevenson seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernudo? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. The next thing we need to do is adopt the meeting dates and time. And I'll make that motion.
>> Second. >> Okay. Mrs. Warner motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Um, approval of the minutes dated December 18th, 2025. >> I make a motion. >> Second. Okay. Okay. Mrs. Notch motions. Mr. Zexer seconds.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Naj. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jagger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Abstain. >> Okay. Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Okay. We have um one more resolution.
The uh top check. >> I'm going to do that next. >> Okay. Yes, >> I did do. I knew I did that one. >> Okay. So, the our last uh resolution is to approve
the applicants Patty and Jason Topsic for their property at 1003 Lafayette Street, Unit A, Cape May. We need a motion to approve. >> Motion second. >> Mr. Joerger motions. Mr. Lewin seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> M. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Abstain. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, tonight we have an application for
Matthew and Susan Mazatelli. You can turn on your microphone. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> All right. So just by way of brief introduction, I'm Scott Dwise, partner with Dwise Law Firm, here presenting
this the application on behalf of the applicants, Matthew and Susan Mazatelli. The property which is the subject of this application is 307 Congress Street here in the city of Kate May. It's identified on the municipal tax map as block 1031, lots 55 and 56. And this
property is located within the residential seasonal zoning district. Um, at the outset, I'd just like to note that prior to tonight's hearing, recommendations for approval were received from the City of Kate May Fire Department, City of Kate May Public Works Department, um, City of Kate May
Historic Preservation Commission, um, as well as a conditional um, approval from the Shade Tree Commission. The property is presently developed as a single family residential dwelling containing approximately 1,124
square ft of habitable living area. Has four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The property also provides one and a half off- streetet parking spaces by way of a concrete driveway accessible off of Congress Street as well as contains an accessory shed located in the rear of the property.
The overall development plan proposed through this application contemplates the raising of the existing residential dwelling to the required base flood elevation height. constructing a new twostory side porch, renovating the
interior layout in order to accommodate a first floor open living space, a second floor consisting of three bedrooms, and constructing a third floor addition that will consist solely of a master suite with an uncovered front
deck onto Congress Street. The proposed development would increase the habitable square footage to 1,439 12 square feet and would increase the number of bedroom or bathrooms from two to two and a half while maintaining the
same number of bedrooms which is four. Uh, additionally, the proposed development provides for a significant exterior aesthetic enhancement to the residential dwelling, increases the number of off- streetet parking spaces provided to meet the two space requirement
um through the new PA parking strips, and reduces the existing impervious lot coverage on the subject property. Um through this application, the applicants seek variance relief pursuant to both the C1 hardship criteria as well as the C2 substantial benefit test um
under the New Jersey municipal land use law. The specific variance relief that is sought by the applicants through this application are relating to minimum required lot size, minimum required lot frontage and width, minimum required
building setback, minimum required rear yard setback and minimum required sideyard setback and variance relief relating to the expansion of a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The release sought relating to minimum required lot
size um and minimum required lot frontage and width represent pre-existing non-conforming conditions of the subject lot that are not being exacerbated any way through the development proposed through this application. The relief sought for the minimum
required building setback, minimum required rear yard setback, and minimum required sideyard setbacks um are also pre-existing non-conforming conditions that will not be further exacerbated exacerbated by further encroachment into the setbacks, but
rather there is a vertical expansion of the building proposed. Um and therefore the exacerbation is minimal and only related to that vertical expansion. and therefore variance relief is technically required. Here to provide testimony in support of
the application this evening is one of the applicants Susan Susan Mazatelli as well as Paul Farnon. Uh Paul is a registered architect and principal at the firm of Fulcrum Design Group um who prepared the variance plan for the proposed development with this application. So with that said, Madam
Chair, can we have the witnesses sworn in? >> Yes, please. >> Did you do both at the same time or one at a time? >> Are they both going to come up? They have to microphone. >> Can you just bring that mic a little closer? Mr. Dwise, just bring it a little. Thank you very much.
>> Mr. Farnum, you can come up also. >> Okay. I'm also going to swear in our board engineer who may provide testimony. Do all of you swear or affirm to tell the truth, old truth, and nothing but the true self. You got >> I do. I do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, we'll begin with Miss
Mazatelli. >> Susan, can you confirm for the board that you and your husband, Matthew, are the record owners of the subject property of this application? >> Yes, we are. >> Okay. And can you please explain to the board the reasons you and your husband are proposing this particular development of the property?
>> Yes. So, um Matt and I and our three kids have a lot of history with Kate May. Kate May um has become a second home to us. Matt has been coming to Kate May since he was a little kid. Has a lot of family who live here permanently. Matt and I met when we were 20 and I
came here for the first time. So, it's now going on 36 years. And our kids have spent every single summer here since they were born. We have adult children now. And we were so lucky to buy this property in 2017.
And we love this property. We love this street. We love our neighbors. A lot of our neighbors are full-time people. And you know, we are so lucky because two of our kids work here during the summers. And all of their friends from Kate May
converge on our house every single night of the summer. And we just really want to make this house a more efficient space for our kids, for our kids' friends, for our extended family. Um, and we really look at this as a
generational house. We really love it. We wouldn't think of buying anywhere else in KMA because this is our little neighborhood and our friends and our, you know, neighbors are also full-time. Um, so that's kind of the reason we reached out to Paul and Cassandra and we asked them to help our make our house
just more efficient. Um, so that we could spend more time in the winter, be there. We spend all summer. we come in May and we leave in Labor Day and hopefully extend that season now since our youngest has graduated high school. Um so that's really the reason we hired
them to help us achieve this. We think they came up with a really mindful um design. The exterior really kind of keeping with what we already had in keeping with the neighborhood really not uh doing much except adding some
exterior space for us which is really important because that's like the Facebook of Kate May and you know we sit on our deck and we wave hi to everybody. So we're really excited about that. Um, so that's really our reason for wanting to stay here in this uh house.
>> Great. And in my hearing introduction, I'm sure you heard me make reference to the shade tree commission's recommendation of approval um which noted the three large trees on the left side of the driveway of the property. Um now in the variance plan that was
submitted with this application, >> you have proposed removing two of those three trees. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. >> Can you explain the reasons why as to why you're trying you're proposing to remove two of those trees? >> Yes. So, we've actually been thinking of this project for a very long time. Um,
I'm also very experienced in elevating houses. I'm a flood plane administrator. Um, we and I work with a lot of contractors. I've consulted with several contractors that I work with and based on how small our property is and we really don't have a lot of options for
staging areas. A lot of the the equipment to elevate our house is kind of going to be in that vicinity of these large homes. Um these trees are causing us a lot of problems with our sewer
system. Our toilets back up. I mean, almost every time we're either in the house or at once a month, we have, you know, the drain doctor on auto dial. And the reason being, we've had our pipes, um, our sewer scoped out. The roots from
the tree from these trees on the left side of our property are actually under our house and have infiltrated. So, we're having a serious sewer problem. That's also what we have to correct. Um, so not only would the staging and the trucks, we're worried about them
damaging the roots. The trees are really close to our neighbors, Terry and Gino, dangerously close. And we're worried with any damage that could be caused and the age of these trees that we don't want it falling on their house or our house. So that's what we were asking. And you know, we would meet the
requirements of putting in the trees in kind for the trees that are >> the trees are on your property, not on your neighbors. >> Excuse me. The trees are on your property. >> They're on Yeah. Honestly, like the tree kind of goes on the property line. >> I wasn't sure. >> Yeah.
>> They the plans identify two of the trees on your property. Is the third one on the adjoiner? >> No, that's on my property, too. But we felt that that would be okay. That third tree, >> that one wasn't located on the plan. So, I would ask a condition of approval that that one be shown
>> and be shown to verine. Right. Because you're only taking two out of the three. Okay. But the shade on my thing for the shade tree, they said that they the three trees were to be protected. They didn't say about having them removed.
>> Um so you're going to have them removed. >> The let let me try and nip this in the bud. >> Sure. >> Um >> the applicant is required to put a storm water system in and that storm water system is going to be located right next to the driveway in between the driven
strips of the driveway. >> Okay. if you install that, it's going to damage the roots. Um the zoning code allows them to remove those trees if they're outside the footprint of their building expansion um disturbance,
but they have to do a two for one replacement. So that's set forth in their code. So they can comply with that um and meet the code requirement. They don't need any relief from us to do that. Um, however, I would recommend that um, one of one of the comments that
I have in my report is that they didn't identify what type of species and what size of the tree and all of the very specifics with regards to that. I would recommend that they go I don't I don't think that shade tree picked up on the fact that they because I mean the plans are quite clear that show that they're
removing those trees. I don't think they they even saw that. So, I would recommend that they go back to them and have the replacement trees size and the species approved and put those that information on the plan as a condition of approval.
>> Okay. Because this is National Tree City. >> I know. >> And it's really difficult to You're taking down trees that are here for years and years and then you're putting in new trees. I know. And I've had trees going into my sewer and we didn't >> Yeah. I mean, we've been told we have to replace the sewer. I mean, it backs up.
So, we, you know, we have to do special toilet paper because it's constantly backing up and we've had it scoped out several times and they're telling us it's the tree roots. So, if we we're going to replace that sewer on the right hand of the house. If we remove it, you know, we we're they're going to be
ripping out roots as well. So, I I just don't know. We're trying to fix this problem. >> Where would you place the trees that are going to replace? I mean, whatever is suggested of I mean, is there a list of trees that are required?
There's a recommended list. >> I mean, we have a nice little alley yard. You've seen our property. So, we have the house and then we have that. So, if there's recommendations that we can look at, we can absolutely make it work. I love trees. I I don't
want to lose the shade. Wherever we could fit them, we we'll make it work. There's four trees that we're proposing in this application to be placed in the rear of the property. And Susan, as a condition of approval tonight, would you be agree with all those four newly planted trees to be approved um an
approved species by the Shade Tree Commission? >> Yes, I would. >> Okay. >> And does your neighbor, Sounds like they know what you're doing. They know that you plan on taking the trees out. >> They fully support it. When we have a storm, it's terrifying because you can
hear it creaking. I mean, it's probably within 8 ft of their house. >> So, they have an absolute right to take trees down if they want to. >> Permitted by ordinance. You're allowed to remove them, but it's removal at a two for one replacement rate.
>> Okay. So, what I wrote in here um is that Craig says the applicant is required to put a stormware. Craig asked that the third tree be shown on the plans that is to remain. Craig says the applicant is required to put a storm water system in and that will interfere with the trees as well. The
ordinance allows them to put two trees in for each one removed. Craig says they should go back to the shade tree commission and get the replacement trees sized and species identified. >> Is that accurate? >> That's accurate >> that you will do that? >> Yes, we'll do that as a condition of approval. >> Okay. Thank you.
All right, Susan, before we turn it over to Paul for his professional testimony, is there anything else that you'd like to highlight or bring to the board's attention? >> No, I just appreciate you considering this. We really love our neighborhood and our house and hope to make it better. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Madam Chair, I know Mr. Farnin has testified before this board in the past. Yes. >> We recognize him as an expert. >> Thank you. >> Can I just get a note expert in what? I just want to get your planner >> field of architecture >> registered architect state of New Jersey.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, Mr. Farning, can you provide the board with a general overview of the subject property as it's presently situated? >> Sure thing. Um, so as already previously testified and
described by um Mr. Dewise and Susan. Um the property is 307 Congress Street, block 1031, lots 55 and 56. Um it's an irregular shaped lot. It's kind of like a reverse flag lot in a way. Um it's
undersized uh from a lot from a square footage requirement perspective. Um the existing structure is a twotory front gable that effectively sits at grade. So, their first living floor is essentially on the ground. Um, putting
it obviously well below the base flood and design flood elevation. Um, presently it's it's not um particularly characteristic of any architectural style that you may find throughout the
historic district. Um, it does have four bedrooms, two bathrooms. uh supports the off- streetet parking of one vehicle. It may the owners may be able to fit two, but from a zoning perspective, it only
has one parking space. Um and the house total is about,25 square ft. >> All right. So then can you also explain what is proposed um to be developed on the subject property through this application?
>> Yes. So, the proposal is to lift the existing structure um and to add a third story to it. Um the goal is to for the owners is to expand their living space for their growing family that likes to enjoy Kate May as we all do. Um and the
intent is to provide more interior space for them to gather while also maintaining four bedrooms, which is why we're adding the third story with the master suite. Um, it will remain a front gable, but the alterations and additions that we're
adding will provide a thirdtory uh deck for the master bedroom facing the street, facing Congress, as well as a covered uh gable roof front porch, twotory front porch, um, a side porch rather.
uh lifting the building again will will bring it into compliance with uh the flood plane regulations. The total square footage of the building does increase to about 1440
square ft. Um we are going up to the maximum building height. Uh although we're not utilizing the exception or the additional uh five feet from the for the pitched roof caveat in the zoning code.
Um otherwise we are modif we are obviously taking down trees proposing to take down trees as discussed to accommodate the new storm sewer um or storm water recharge drain that will be located as Mr. Hurles described in between two new parking paver strips
which will be permeable um thereby letting rain water uh percolate back into the ground. >> Cars are able to be parked >> uh two sorry that I was I was going there but uh I might have lost track of but uh
>> is that stacked parking >> stacked parking correct correct in the same location. With that being said too, there's miscellaneous concrete pads and paving around the site. Most of it is being removed. Effectively, all of
it is being removed. Um, and so we're kind of gaining some uh lot coverage back, but then we're going to be again adding this two paver parking strips to accommodate two full-size parking
spaces. Um, generally I think from an aesthetic standpoint, um, I think as described, it was our effort to enhance the aesthetic of the of the structure and make it appear to fit in more seamlessly with
the surrounding context. The historic neighborhood, as we know, Congress Street is um, one of the oldest in in the city. So uh we did try to again enhance the aesthetic overall which we coordinated with many times with uh the
HBC. We do have a conditional approval. Um but the intent is to get final approval after this hearing. >> Do we have that resolution? >> There's a notice of conceptual approval. >> Okay, that's right. What's the date? >> Uh June 16, 2025.
>> Thank you. We are also adding a >> ask about that >> um outdoor shower. Um that outdoor shower will be more I would say behind the house but not really behind the house but behind
the furthest extent of the side porch visible from the street. So, if you look at the plans, you'll note that there's an outdoor shower indicated um behind this. What is the new side porch?
>> Why Why is that so far forward to the house? >> I'm sorry. >> Why is that so far forward? It's like near the front porch, right? >> It's on the No, it's on the back side of that porch. >> Oh, it is >> back side of the side porch. >> Will it comply to the setback? >> Correct. Yes, it will. Yeah, we will. We
will. It's This is the front of the house. Right up here. >> Correct. >> So, it's kind of like in the front side of the house. >> Uh uh >> right next to the front of the house. >> Well, the No, no, that's like the back corner of the house where your finger is. >> Yeah. Congress Street is at the bottom.
>> It looks like the front of the house, but Congress side of the house. >> This is the side of the house. >> That's That picture is the side. >> Yeah. >> Driveway here is the side. This is the front of the house here.
It's kind of >> I got you. Okay. >> There's the front of the house. >> I got you. I peaked that that picture and I thought >> Yeah, totally totally under totally understandable. That was totally understandable. And that's something that we that we um
>> This is why they let the engineer review the plan. >> Not me, not the attorney. >> But we we did review that. We reviewed um the porch that that perspective that you're referring to kind of being what seems like it would be a front porch, a front-facing facade, but it being the
side. We went through that with the HPC. Um we discussed the location of the shower itself. Um and to answer Mr. Herurles's question, uh we will on the compliance plan certainly detail the setbacks around the outdoor shower. I
know that they're omitted from this plan right here, but I can assure you that the uh the shower will comply with the the setbacks. >> Okay. >> All right. Based on the application filed um together with the board engineers review
letter, would you agree that the project requires variance relief relating to minimum required lot size, minimum required lot frontage and width, minimum required building setback, minimum required rear yard setback, and minimum required sideyard setbacks?
>> Yes. And I think um all of the uh board members here I think you're if you know looking at the site plan and and the survey you understand that the shape and the dimensions of the lot um you know generate this hardship as it's uh
described. >> Okay. So just referring just to the minimum required lot size minimum required lot front width. Um, we're seeking relief under that C1 hardship criteria that you alluded to. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. And is it your professional opinion >> um that you believe that these variants can be granted under the C1 hardship criteria? >> Yes, I do believe so. >> Okay. And then with respect to the minimum required building setback um rear yard
setback and sideyard setbacks and the expansion of the non-conforming structure on the non-conforming lot variance that's required um as identified in the board engineers review letter. Is it your professional opinion these variances can be granted under both the C1 hardship criteria and the C2
substantial benefit test criteria? Yes, I do believe that they uh they can and should be granted under certainly under the C1 variance and I it's my opinion that the same case could be made for the C2 variance.
>> Okay. And what are the specific conditions of the lot that you believe um make it that so that can be granted under the C1 hardship criteria? Can you elaborate that on that a little bit? >> Sure. Uh again given given the um
uh shape and configuration and the existing sighting of the house um the setbacks uh are extremely uh constrained. We'll say um the rear yard specifically required to be 25 ft. Uh
the house itself from the nearest property line which could be considered the rear property line is less than a foot. Um similarly lot frontage uh the frontage is not it's not as drastic as the rear yard but the frontage is short
of the 50 ft. It's about 49 and a half. Um the lot width being again being required to be 50 ft is the average is 31.5. Um the building setback line being 20 ft. Um the proposed is 7.6 which is
existing. Um, and I'll also note too that in conversations with the HPC, uh, it was explored to do uh, expansion and addition towards the street um, kind of either wrapping or creating a front
porch. uh we ultimately decided against it um because we didn't want to further increase the lot coverage and we also wanted to respect the street itself and that proxim the I'm sorry the building's proximity to the street and the
sidewalk. >> Okay. >> And to be clear, these are all pre-existing non-conforming conditions relating to the setbacks. >> Correct. >> And we are not exacerbating them from the standpoint of encroaching further into the setbacks. Correct. >> Correct. The only exacerbation would be a vertical expansion of the building
itself. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. So, going into the C2 criteria, um, can you please provide the board with the purpose of zoning that you believe would be advanced through this application? >> Sure. Um, so first and foremost, I would
say safety from fire, flood, and natural or man-made disasters. Obviously lifting the building outside the flood plane protects the structure, protects the occupants, um protects neighboring structures in the event that there were some sort of
catastrophic event. Um moreover, bringing this property into compliance obviously benefits the entirety of the national flood insurance program. So I think locally obviously within immediate proximity the neighborhood and then
beyond that I think benefit um and that that purpose is is advanced. Um, I would say light air and I would make the case for light air and open space. Although we're adding to the building, I would say we are also um, you know, respecting
the footprint that exists now um, and going directly lifting the building and and going directly above it with vertical expansions. Um, I would also say providing a desirable aesthetic. Uh, I think we
tried I think um Susan attested to that as well that we um tried to enhance the building's aesthetic to be something that fits more appropriately in the immediate context but also the city uh
as opposed to um really a at this point unremarkable like I said front gable twotory pretty straight rectangular plan and volume. Um, so I would say desirable aesthetic. I would also say conserving
historic sites and districts. Now it is in the historic district. It is non-contributing. Um, but again to enhance the aesthetic in my opinion is to also uh enhance and conserve the neighborhood, the historic
district which is the neighborhood. So in addition to the positive criteria that you've testified to that would be advanced the purposes of zoning um is your professional opinion that the requested variance relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good um and without substantially
impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning plan of city of Kate May. It is. Um I think there could be uh obviously CA comments that would uh point out the removal of two tree shade trees as part
of this project. Um or lifting the structure up um obviously bless you. Um and adding build building volume, increasing the height of the structure overall. Um ultimately increasing as I
just stated increasing the structure is directly related to lifting it outside of the flood plane. Um similarly removing the trees are directly related to um recharge the storm water recharge
drain repairing compromised sewer as building sewer as it stands. Um, and that benefit also too, I think, um, Susan also attested to is that, um, that benefit will directly impact their neighbor,
their immediate neighbor. Um, their property is is safer and the likelihood of these trees damaging their property or their sewer pipes um is eliminated. So the the cases that the comments that may
be made to any detriment I think are balanced if not overweighed by um the benefits that that we're creating with this project. >> And would it be fair to say that there really isn't any substantial detriment to the public good zoning plan um based
on the nature of the variance relief sought in that these are all pre-existing non-conforming conditions already at the property? >> Correct. No, I would not I would not see there to be a detrimental impact to the zoning plan or the municipal zoning law. >> So, prior to tonight's hearing, did you
have the opportunity to review Mr. Hurles's um review letter dated November 18th, 2025? >> Yes. >> Okay. And do you take any exception to complying with the general review comments contained in his letter as a condition of approval of this application? >> Not at all. Generally, I think they are
always thorough and fair. So, have no issue with the report. >> Is there anything else you'd like to bring to the board's attention um regarding this application before we conclude testimony? >> Um no, I don't believe so. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um if it's okay with the board, let's do Craig's report and then if anyone has any questions, we'll go to them. >> Okay. Good evening everyone. Um, I'd like to summarize my November 18th, 2025
review memorandum for this application um at 307 Congress Street. Um, as the applicant has indicated, it is located in the RS residential seasonal district. Uh, single family dwellings are permitted use in that in that zone. Uh,
you've heard testimony from the applicant with the proposed improvements. So, I'm going to roll right into the checklist requirements and completeness review on page 205. Um, there are two items that the applicant was deficient and I believe that these
can be provided as a condition of approval. Um, they have proposed a stormwater system and some driveway reconfiguration. So we've asked for the topography um be provided in that area both existing and proposed so we can
eval better evaluate the design of the stormwater system and the grading thereof. Um so that should be a condition of approval. That's item number 19. And number 33 I already touched upon and it relates to the replacement trees. Um they need to
provide uh the size the the species um and that and those should be approved by the shade tree commission. So, um, based on those recommendations, I did support deeming this application complete. With regards to the zoning requirement review and variances,
um, this is an existing nonconforming structure on a non-conforming lot. The lot is weird. >> It's an Lshape. Um, it is essentially 38.5 foot deep by 49.5 ft with its
frontage on Conger Street. So it's a weird configuration. Um that's where the massing of the building is. So it's not very deep there and it's um so both with regard that structure with regards to
front yard setback and rear yard struct setback is non-conforming there. And there's really no buildable area um that would um building envelope that would support a conforming structure
there. Then it has a leg off the back that is very narrow, 22.5 foot wide. Um if you take your 8 foot setbacks, it gives you a 4 and a half foot sliver that you would be permitted to build in. So the lot really doesn't support
development and but it already has an existing structure. So if you start looking at it that way, you know, where they're proposing the vertical expansion of this um would create nonconformities. Okay. So I'll go over those
nonconformities. Um, with regards to lot size, 6,250 ft is the minimum that's permitted. Uh, 3,661 square foot exists and is proposed. Uh, with lot width and lot frontage, there's
a 50 foot wide uh, lot width and lot frontage requirement. 31.5 foot lot width. And the lot width is based on averaging. That's why it doesn't match up with the uh, lot frontage because it's a weird lot. and the lot frontage
is 49.5 ft which is almost conforming but is slightly under. So that's the weirdness of the lot. The existing structure has a non-conforming setback with regards to Congress Street at 7.6 ft. They're proposing to raise the structure so there's a vertical
expansion. Um it's getting no closer to the road. It will remain at 7.6 feet. With regards to the rear yard setback, the requirement is 25 feet. Uh what exists is 0.9 feet and they're proposing
the vertical expansion of that. So that will be 0.9 ft gets no closer but it vertical expansion. And then the sideyard setback there's 8 foot required on each side. So on the right side
uh the setback is 2.6 6 ft um vertical expansion. It remains at 2.6 ft. The left side does conform. You'll note uh the rem the the tests that I use of planning tests that I use
to see whether they're overdeveloping the lot or or how they're better bettering the situation on a lot. Um they're complying with the building height. The lot coverage has a maximum of 45%. They're at 40% now. They're
proposing uh to take advantage of eliminating a lot of impervious coverage and replacing it with pvious coverage, allowing them to take advantage of the 50% credit that we give. Um and so they're proposing 31%. That is a big
improvement. Um in a neighborhood that has a lot of storm water issues and drainage issues, that is a positive aspect of this application. With regards to floor area ratio, 0.40 is the maximum permitted for single
family dwellings. They're proposing 393. So they've met the test. The massing of that structure is appropriate for that lot size. And then finally, they're increasing parking. They have a non-conforming parking situation. They're proposing two on-site spaces um
which is meets the requirements for a fourbedroom dwelling. So, those are the positive aspects of this. Um, and you can weigh those appropriately in considering those variances and I'll move on to the general review comments and these all should be
conditions of approval. Um, I've asked that the zoning table be revised to reflect the comments in this memorandum. Um, and that includes uh providing some of the setback information that we've requested. Item number two is uh I indicated that
they are reducing lot coverage but they have to demonstrate that by providing those appropriate construction details on the plans of verifying that those materials are indeed pvious. Three I talked about the outdoor shower
and Mr. Farnon indicated that the shower will conform. So that information needs to be provided on the plan as a condition of approval. Four is our storm water review. Um, so I have not approved the grading and drainage plan. I have no doubt that it can be approved and the
information that's missing is the grading information that's in that area of disturbance. So that needs to be provided as a condition of approval. Five is our standard condition that they have to comply with chapter 525 of the minimum stormwater management and grading requirements. Um, and that runs
with the property. Six is my recommendation that they have comply with the street tree requirement and provide one street tree. That's in addition to the two for one replacement. So there's going to be a requirement to provide one street tree that falls
within the city right away and that is controlled by the city. Uh item number seven uh just indicates the landscaping and vegetation plan. It was provided but not all the information was provided. So they have to clean that up and that should be cleaned up after they receive
the comments and uh recommendations from the shade street commission. Eight is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction has taken place um and they're going to replace any sidewalk found to be in poor condition.
Nine is our standard condition that we tie the certificate of occupancy to um the acceptance of improvements and inspections. So, they have to comply with section 211-5. Uh, we've asked that they comply with the requirements of the Shade Tree Commission, Fire Department, and Public
Works Department. We did receive notice of conceptual approval from the HPC dated June 16, 2025. We received evidence of the fire department recommend ren, excuse me, recommending approval dated
121 1925. Public Works recommended approval dated 121925. The Shade Tree Commission recommended approval um and they added a condition that there are three large trees to the left side of the driveway. There will need to be a tree
protection zone barrier put in place to protect these trees during construction. The fact that those trees are two of those trees are identified as being removed on the plan makes me believe that they had did not see that. So that I'm asking them to revisit that. I don't
think we should attach this condition to their to their plan. Um they're removing they're planning on removing two and preserving one. The one to remain should be shown on the plan to be reserve preserved. That tree protection zone
should be applied to the tree that's remaining and shown on the plans. So that's highlighting the reports that we received. I'll move on. Um I talked about the HPC. Um we will need evidence
of final HPC approval. Uh number 13 is they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements. And finally, should the board grant approval, the applicant is required to have the plans revised to meet the conditions that the board sets
and submit six sets of the re of those revised plans uh 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. Um, seeing no questions, we'll open it
up to anyone within 200 feet that wishes to speak. Anyone beyond 200 ft and close to the public? Okay. All right. The application before you is a
motion for variances under the C1 and C2 standard. The variances are as listed on page 305 because the structure itself as is located on the lot and the eye shape lot. Uh this is appropriate under the C1
and C2 because the location of a structure is one of the features of a lot that you can consider. So the applicant is given the reasons for their hardship but there's al also given purposes of zoning and the your board engineer has also testified that the lot is odd shaped and it's sort of a tough building envelope
to do anything within. Also relevant is the fact that it complies with floor ratio and lot coverage as an indicator that although it it's bumping into the bump variances it's not overdeveloped for the size of the lot. So if you're going to vote against it that's certainly your prerogative and you probably have the discretion to do so.
But if you're going to do that, please give your reasons in detail because at the moment, we only have positives from the applicant because there was no objector and no one on the board really offered much criticism. So, you're going to have to develop that in the record for me if I'm going to do a resolution denying it. Um, so the motion I'd
recommend you be made, but how you vote is up to you. is a motion to grant the variances one through six on page three of the engineers report subject to conditions 19 and 33 on page two and conditions one through 14 on page five as well as the
issues we discussed um that the applicant accepted that I read to the board about the uh about the trees um and some and also the I don't know if this was in your report Craig it may have been but adding the information at the location of the outdoor shower with the setbacks. >> Yes, that was
>> okay. So, uh that's the motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. >> Okay. Someone make a motion. >> I'll make >> Who's claiming Mary? Mrs. Notch >> and I'll second it.
>> Okay. Mrs. Notch motions. Mr. Jagger seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger. >> Yes. Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bonudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> This board before >> probably not probably been over two years. >> Good to see you. Good job. >> Thank you. >> Can I ask a just a quick question administratively? Um the six compliance
plans, is it still should it still be practiced to submit them to the secretary or should we mail them to Galloway? talk to me about that. >> Okay. >> Um I will accept additional review first so that we don't kill trees before
>> Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> If you kill trees, you have to replace them. >> You have to replace them. Um okay. So, we have a couple other things
to do here. We have to approve the um zoning board say payment of bills if someone
>> a second I'm sorry Mr. um Lewin did you motion who motion >> Mr. Lewin okay thank you Miss Stevenson seconded >> yes >> Mr. Lewin >> yes >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Joerger.
>> Yes. >> Miss Stevenson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Venudo. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And I think everyone received 2024 and 2025 decisions. >> Does anybody want to make any comments
or >> I would like to comment. >> Okay. Um, I'm us I'm normally charged with preparing the master plan re-examinations for the planning board. We use these
to evaluate and make decisions based on things that we do at this um the planning board. So, it's um it's a good review for both you to see what you're approving and what you're denying. Um,
and if you start to see patterns, we can make recommendations to the planning board as to whether we think there should be ordinance changes. Uh, you know, if you if you if you consistently are approving certain things in certain zones, there might be a need to tweak that zone so that people don't have to
come here. We've done that in the past. So, it's a very important practice to look at these things. Um, and there and not only for for your review, um, but I look at these and the planning board looks at these every 8 to 10 years when
we do our master plan re-examinations. >> Okay. So, that's all I need to say. >> Do you have any recommendations at the moment when I don't at the moment? Um, >> I think we've nipped a lot of these
things in the bud already. Um and um one comment that we often get is, "Oh my god, look at all the things you're approving and they're not denying it." Word gets out.
You only need to deny one. They know that we're tough on fluor ratio varianes. >> Um they're not bringing them to us. That's why we're not denying them. And if they are bringing them to us, they know there has to be very specific
reasons for granting those. >> Um, but >> so I have a question. So, we denied the one on Grant Street and they're constructing that house so they didn't have to come back before us to get that one. >> Yeah. What is going on on Grant Street?
I I didn't want to be the one to bring it up since I live on Grant Street, but I thought that part of the house was remaining. I'm kind of I I don't remember. I could be wrong, but like you're talking about that hu the the big >> the boat down towards from the uh left hand side going down towards Broadway.
>> Yeah. >> Left hand side down. >> It came in at one point and they were going to retain the front part of the house and just redo the back or vice versa. >> Okay. >> And >> I guess they came in again to do the whole house. I don't know because the whole thing is like all new.
>> Okay. So, so what happens if it's not approved by the board and they modify the plans and go into zoning and comply? I don't see it again. So, that's possibility of what happens. So, >> I don't know. I would have to I would
have to research that and talk to the zoning office. >> What which what road is that? What what address is that? That's >> Do you remember what >> I'll tell you in a second. I know exactly where it's at. to 24 25
>> it's uh all right as I go on the street >> it's 8 >> I don't have money >> 8 24 I think I think it's um 82224 >> it's uh second page >> it it's this one here that's it was this one with the >> and it had a >> we have the address
>> yeah it's a 266 >> is it on here >> there's two of them here there's 211 grant and 266 26 is the one we denied Right. It's 266. >> I think you're showing 211. >> No, I think I'm pretty sure I've been
inside the house. >> All right. >> Okay. I will >> Oh, there it is. >> I will research that and get back to the board with regards to that. Yeah, it looks it looks like we approved everything in 2025, but the decision a
um reaffirmed decision affirms were all pretty much rejections of what the applicants were trying to do. >> Right. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. I had a conversation with somebody once about this very thing. I got a call from someone on the governing body about
it and I explained to them that the first thing is what Craig said. There's some things that they know we really look at hard and don't even ask. Then in the review, Craig does a very thorough review. I tell you, not all engineers do that. Okay. A lot of times they get to the meeting and it's a free-for-all. Craig vets these things a lot.
Everybody, the word around town >> is that it's very hard to get to the Kate May boards, but once you're there, it goes very smoothly. And that's because of your engineer. >> So he weeds out a lot of the ridiculousness before they get there. So if they come in with something silly, he says, you know, that's really not what
you want to do. And then they redo it. By the time it gets here, it's usually something that's semi-sensible that has a chance. So Craig weeds a lot of them out. >> Also, a lot of the things that are approved, we we're not approving what they came in for. They came in and then we had a conversation and something got
moved back or moved around or mitigated. So if there's any problem from the audience, we tend to try to find something that makes everybody kind of happy. So even though it's approved, it's not really what they asked for. So that approved is a little bit a little bit deceiving. You know, not everybody's getting everything they want in the
town, >> right? >> Okay. So >> So should we >> you want you want a motion on this, right? Or not. So, uh, in prior years, we would do a resolution so we could, uh, if Rich wants to prepare a
resolution one, two, or you want me to use last year? >> I did the resolution the one time because we were recommending changes based on what we saw in there. >> Okay. >> But if you're say I'm not going to, you know, spend $250 to do a resolution for you guys for this. You're not recommending changes. So, just adopt it.
That's all you got to do. >> Forward it to the >> We'll forward it to the planning board. if we recommend changing something, but I do a resolution. There's a record of what we recommended and all that stuff. >> Okay, great. >> Need a vote to adopt or just >> Sure. >> Okay. So, both years um a motion to
adopt the decisions >> 2024 and 2025. >> So, move a second. >> Okay. Mr. Lewin motions. Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. Yes. >> Mr. Zexer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jerger. >> Yes. Miss Stevenson,
>> yes. >> Mr. Verudo, >> yes. >> Thank you, Mrs. Werner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> I >> thank you everyone. >> Hey Craig,
>> off the Craig off the record. One >> thing I'm curious my man of my word. this house that was on New York Avenue Harrison. They had the garage the office. >> Oh, there you
>> Oh, yeah. Oh, okay. >> So, that that >> that was denied. >> That that was denied. Yeah. >> They were quite good on something. So, there's some enforcement issues going on with that. >> Okay. >> That was the last I heard about. Okay. >> Bruce was on them. >> Okay. Cuz I was wondering about that.
>> Yeah. that they're not >> his owning officer when he saw your denial he started going after that. >> Good. >> So I don't know where it's at and what stage you have to ask him but I know that >> pursuit after
Thank you. >> Yes. I just want to get it now. Oh my god. I'm I'm shocked. But the question I'm pretty sure
somebody is either friends with him but knows him well and he's a bitter But I don't think that