Mhm. >> Testing. >> 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. [clears throat] Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge 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. Vernudo >> Here. >> Mr. Lewin >> Here. >> Mrs. Notch >> Here. >> Ms. Shean >> Here. >> Mr. Walsh >> Here. >> Mr. Zaxer >> Here. >> Mr. Yeager >> Here. >> Ms. Stevenson >> Here.
>> Thank you. Okay, we have um a resolution for the Bray Family Partnership, 720 Washington Street. Can I have a motion? >> I'll make the motion. Second.
>> Mr. Vernudo motions, Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin >> Abstain. >> Mrs. Notch >> Yes. >> Ms. Shean >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh >> Yes. >> Mr. Zaxer >> Yes. >> Mr. Vernudo >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay, we have the minutes of the May
28th, 2026 meeting. Can we have a motion to approve? >> Make a motion. I'll second. >> Okay, uh Mr. Zaxer motions, Mr. Walsh seconds. Mr. Lewin >> Abstain. >> Mrs. Notch >> Yes.
>> Ms. Shean >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh >> Yes. >> Mr. Zaxer >> Yes. >> Mr. Vernudo >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner >> Yes. >> Thank you. Going to jump a little bit ahead and do um Mr. Hurlis's uh Okay.
payment here. The billing. >> Yeah, the billing. >> So, could we have a motion >> I'll make the motion. >> Thank you. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Mr. Vernudo motions, Ms. Stevenson seconds. Mr. Lewin? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Nach? >> Yes.
>> Ms. Shein? >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zaxer? >> Yes. >> Mr. Vernudo? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Werner? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay, our first two applications tonight, I am within 200 ft, so I'm going to recuse myself. But, the first
application is Michael Mortimer. 444, 446, and 448 West Perry Street. >> Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Can you guys introduce yourselves?
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of to board. Anthony Manzo from Manzo Academy, St. Alois, representing the applicant, Michael Mortimer, who's to my left. Um to my right is Paul Caits, professional planner and engineer, who will provide testimony to support the variances that are identified
>> Can you move that mic a little closer? Yeah. >> to support the variances that are identified in the application. Um Just by way of background, I can give a little bit of history of the property. It seems like there's a lot going on here and a lot of variances, but these are all
pre-existing non-conforming, mainly non-conforming conditions, just triggered by some lot line adjustments that are being proposed. The properties are uh 444, 446, and 448 West Perry Street.
Um Mr. Mortimer is a power of attorney for his mother, who's technically the owner, but he and his two siblings um are basically the beneficial owners of these three properties. Mr. Mortimer owns the uh single-family
uh detached dwelling unit at 448, and there's next to it are two single-family attached units, 446 and 444. I've introduced, or I've given you some exhibits, just briefly to explain them. We don't
have to go through them in detail. Uh exhibit A1 is a um it's a copy of the basically it's a copy of the subdivision or lot line adjustment plan, but the yellow line that you see is what these uh lots above the yellow line
look like prior to a um a lot consolidation that took place in 2014. Um below the uh yellow line was another parcel that Mr. Mortimer's father had acquired in 2014, did a subdivision, and then merged
um all of that property that actually fronts Congress Street, he merged that with um with the corner lot, which is 440 4 all the way to the right. And as you look at the next photo, exhibit A2,
um 444, which is uh lot 5.01, became a long lot that actually expanded into that large section facing Congress. So, we have one really large um irregularly shaped lot, and we have these two uh parcels uh four and three that are
adjacent to it. And what the applicant would like to do is um create some additional lot area for lots three and four, and reduce some of the uh lot area for lot 5.01.
So, these are now proposed as lots 3.01, 3 uh 4.01, and 5. 02. Uh both The next set of exhibits are just photos that you can peruse um of existing conditions,
and some of them are are from the front of the house. The first one, A3, is facing the properties from West Perry. Uh A4 is actually what it looks like from Congress Street. And you can see the the brown house is um Mr. Mortimer's property, which is lot three, and the
two side by sides are next to that, which is which are lots four and 5. uh 01. So, the purpose of this lot of this application is twofold. Number one is to do the lot line adjustment. And the second um part of this application, which really
triggered this, and then since we had to come to the board, a decision was made to do this adjustment to the lot lines. Mr. Mortimer's property faces West Perry. It really has no front. Um there's no front There's no door entering this property from the front of the house.
The only door is to the side of the house, and it was accessed through stairs and a small landing that actually jutted out beyond the facade of the of the home, which was about 8 ft from from the property line. The house is
about 10 ft from the property line. Mr. Mortimer was attempting to just rebuild that and make it a little bit larger so we had some more area to come up and to the front door with and he was told that he needed a permit because it
was too close to the front. We thought that with averaging it would work because all the other properties go out farther than this. >> The permit you meant variance, right? >> Pardon me? >> You said permit, you meant variance? >> Well, needed variance, yes. Needed needed variance, I'm sorry.
And the only reason lot averaging didn't work is cuz there was one property next to it that was more than two times the distance to the street than this was and that was one of the prohibitions in the ordinance to use the lot averaging exception. So, as a result he needed a
variance. He needs a variance for the reconstruction of that landing. And as a result of that, he decided to move it back. He went to the HPC, got conceptual approval. They wanted him to move it back to to be flush with the
facade of the property. So, it doesn't go out 8 ft. It's only it's it's 10 ft from the property line, the same as the house. He got conceptual approval. It's a little bit larger than the landing he had. There's a pergola over it. The HPC did
approve it conceptually, so we're asking for I guess technically a variance to expand a structure that's encroaching in the front yard because the setback is 25 ft and we are 10 ft. So, it's only that corner
of the property where there's this where the stairs and the landing exists that would trigger that variance. And the other variance that's new variance that's triggered is a D2 variance because lot 5.01,
which as a result of the 2014 lot consolidation has about 10,000 square feet. And as a result of this lot line adjustment, it will be reduced to around 6,000 [snorts] square feet, which is still significantly more than it used to be
before the lot consolidation. But because this is a non-conforming use, a detached uh single-family dwelling unit in a zone that doesn't permit that, um even though the lot is there's no expansion of the property, the lot is
being the lot size is being reduced and therefore it triggers the D2 variance. So, they are the the the the other variances are all existing conditions, which Paul will get into as he goes through his testimony. So, with that background, we can swear in the witnesses. I don't intend to ask Mr.
Mortimer any questions, but he's here to answer questions. And Mr. Kates, um who I'm assuming you accept as a as an expert uh without his credentials, so he can be sworn in. Both should be sworn in just in case. >> Well, let's also swear in the board engineer. Do all of you swear or affirm the testimony
about to be given is truthful and nothing but the truth, so help you God? >> I do. >> I do. >> Okay, Mr. Kates, um if you can just explain the project and also go through the variances that are requested, please. >> to be quick, but there is many. Uh so again, we're located on West Perry uh to the east of the intersection with Park
Boulevard. Uh lot three is currently 49.6 feet wide uh by 100 feet deep. Uh lot four uh is 25 feet wide and 100 feet deep, where the remaining lot, lot 5.1, 5.01 is also 25 feet wide, but it has
that irregular portion. >> Can I Can I time out? The record needs to be clear on the lot numbers for history purposes. >> Okay. >> And the tax assessor recommend that lot five be referred to as 5.02.
>> Okay. Well, >> so that the resolution reflects it so that 10 years from now when someone pulls out the resolution, right? We know what's going on. >> So right now it's referring to the existing lots with the existing lot numbers. >> Yeah, I just I want to get in the testimony. I just want to make sure that the record
>> Yeah, so when I transition to what we're proposing, I'll make sure >> I keep What's confusing is lot five. It used to be lot five. >> Right. >> It became 5.01 when it was consolidated with the large parcel. Now it's proposed to be lot lot 5.02. >> Right. Thank you, Chris. >> The plan says 5.011,
but that's >> That should It's We'll revise the plan. >> Right. That's show us five. >> I just want to call out one thing in my notes. So, it's it's lots three, this >> Microphone, please. >> thing says 3.01. So, just tell me what the three lots are so I just write it down one time.
>> Okay. The existing lots are three, four, and 5.01. The proposed lots are 3.01, 4.01, and 5.02. >> And that was 5.011?
>> Yeah, on the plan it says 5.011. >> Okay, that's okay. I mean, things happen on the plan. I I'm not being critical. I just want to write it down the same way each time. Okay. Thank you, guys. >> All right. >> All right. So, existing lot three, soon to be 3.01 if
approved, uh is going to go from 4,965 sq ft to 6,300 sq ft. Uh lot four, uh if it becomes 4.01, will go from 2,517 sq ft to 4,745 sq ft.
And 5.01, when it becomes 5.02, will see a reduction from 9,831 sq ft to 6,268 sq ft. So, in addition to that, um obviously as discussed, the plan is to uh construct a new frame deck on 3.01
where there's an existing frame deck. Uh the front portion of that deck will be pulled back in line with the existing building, and then the stairs will will go towards the back of the lot. Uh and then we're also proposing a second larger deck in the rear yard, but that deck's fully conforming.
So, with regard to the variances, so proposed lot 3.1 has four pre-existing nonconformities. Uh three of those are going to remain unchanged, while one is being made more conforming. Uh and there's also an additional nonconformity that's being uh
nonconformity that's being exacerbated. So, the lot currently has 49.65 ft of frontage where 60 ft is required for both lot width and lot width and lot frontage. The building setback line is currently at 7.9 ft to the frame deck where 25 ft
is required. Uh that deck is being reconfigured to be consistent with the building setback and will be 9.8 ft if approved. Uh for lot size, we're increasing the lot to 6,300 sq. ft where 7,500 sq. ft is required. So, the lot is
increasing in size, but it's still short of what's required. Proposed lot 4.01, uh this lot has nine existing nonconformities. Uh seven of those will remain unchanged, while we eliminate one and make another one more conforming. So, the first is
the use. Uh two-family attached homes are not permitted in the R2 district. Uh the use is proposed to remain unchanged. Uh the density with this lot is actually uh decreasing while the lot size increases. So, this lot currently has 25 ft of frontage where 60 ft is required for lot
width and lot frontage. Uh that building front setback line is currently at 8.1 ft where 25 is required. Uh the side yard setbacks to this building are 5.6 and 0 uh where a minimum of 5 ft is required
for each and a total combined of 15 is required. So, one is deficient in that it's zero where five is required and the total is 5.6 where 15 is required. Uh the other pre-existing nonconformity is the setback to the shed uh which is currently at 1 ft where 1 ft where 5 ft
is required. And then for lot size on this lot, we're increasing to 4,745 sq ft where 7,500 sq ft uh is required. So, again, this lot is increasing in size but is still short of what's required. Um and then we're eliminating the
existing nonconforming lot coverage by increasing lot size. Currently, we're at 50% percent of lot coverage and we're dropping to 26.5. Uh so, we're eliminating that nonconformity. And then on the final lot, lot 5.02,
uh this lot currently has a six existing nonconformities. Uh all six of those will remain and we are exacerbating the existing nonconforming use and creating one additional variance with the reduction in lot size. So, first, the use. So, as I stated before,
two-family attached homes are not permitted in the R2 district. >> Can I just lay down just for 1 second? >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Can you get closer to the mic? >> Yeah. Yeah, but now I can't get any closer to it. I would actually choke on it. All right. The the um can you just review for a second
where the lot lines are changing? I I I mean, maybe everybody else understands this perfectly. I'm just not totally clear because something's getting bigger that I think that I thought would be getting smaller and I asked the gentleman next to me and he wasn't totally clear either. So, I felt a little more clear. >> So, here, I'll uh I'll walk through a
little closer. So, if you look at A2 is a good illustration of the existing. So, right now, uh lot three comes down to the red dotted line which is highlighted in yellow. Comes across that 49 uh 0.68 ft and then
returns to the street. So it's a perfectly rectangle lot. >> Okay. >> That lot is proposed to gain this uh sort of you know, irregular triangle portion directly behind it. Um so lot four is currently the 25 ft
wide by 100 ft deep and ha contains that little jog in it which is also highlighted in yellow on A2. So that lot is going to pick up an additional 25 ft of width on that same angle that lot three was on and then um
turn to the right behind lot three. So that's where that one is picking up land. Now currently lot 5.01 has the 25 ft by 100 but then it also has the entirety, if you look at A2 from the yellow line towards Congress Street.
So it has all of that and it's giving up the two portions that I just previously stated. >> All right. What's on A2? What's the significance of the purple line? >> I think So those are utility lines. So they're they're um
they're just the overhead utility lines the way the uh the surveyor had the drafted them. Or you mean the purple line in the back? >> Um no, it's the >> the purple dotted line. >> line is like the red one. Okay, so >> Yeah, so that was the I think that was
part of the former application where they were creating this parking lot and subdividing off the other lot. Um and I don't I don't recall in that application. >> I don't know what the purple line is. The red dotted line is the is the existing lot line. All right. On A2
>> think that >> the existing lot line on A2? >> I think >> the red dotted line that's highlighted in yellow. >> that the area in front of the purple line is the area that's going to be the subject of cross access easements for access to the parking lot. So, that entire area that's shaded
that's going to be subject to easements to each of the owners so they can all access the parking. >> The answer to the purple line is I don't know what that is. >> I That's what I think it's the easement line. >> the shaded It's not clear on A2, but on the on the plan itself it separates the shaded area from the from the
non-shaded. >> And it's giving each of the occupants access to the parking lot. So, I believe that's going to be the the in the easement description for the cross access. That's what the purple line is. >> Okay, I I I I
I think I understand it. So, all of this below the red line was part of 5.01. >> Correct. >> And that Okay, that's that's the part that was a little tricky. Okay, so 5.01 was the big 9,800 square foot one. >> Correct. >> losing ground. And what it's losing is
the area below the red line on lot four and below the red line on lot three. >> Correct. >> is losing. Do we understand it now? I did not understand it till the second, but now I think I did. >> It's a little uh it's a little convoluted. >> Okay. All right, well.
>> So, here's that red line. >> See this here? This big thing right here shaped like that that big thing like that that was lot five. That was 9,831 ft. Lot five is losing this section
to lot three and this section to lot four. So, that's why three and four are getting bigger and five is getting smaller. Okay? And I know that technically we just gave them different names, but okay. Three, four, five You get it? >> Got it. >> Yeah, this had a lot of lines on it. It just
>> Yeah, yeah. >> I might be the only one to understand it, but I don't think I was. >> I've had a couple days to look at it, so. >> All right. Awesome. Thank you. That's that's That that helps. Everything will be clear now. At least for me while I write it. >> No, that's good. So why don't you just I guess touch on the on the
the new variances the the two that we identified [snorts] or three and then we can get into the proofs for them. >> Okay. >> Let me >> Mr. Kates, are you is your testimony and expertise in architecture, planning, engineering? >> Engineering and planning.
>> Okay, thank you. >> So for the two new variances with respect to proposed lot 3.01, it's the expansion of the front porch. And then even though it's closer to the home and a reduction of the
non-conformity and not extending beyond the fill the building line, it does trigger that new variance because it's an expansion of the non-conforming front yard setback since the building encroaches into the front yard. With respect to lot 5.02,
we're taking a lot that does have conforming lot size to a lot that is slightly below the minimum lot size, but we are increasing and thus reducing the non-conformities with respect to the proposed lot 3.01 and 4.01. And then
with lot 5.2, it has an attached dwelling unit which is not permitted in the zone and that lot site is size is being reduced and that triggers the D2 variance expansion of the non-conforming use. I do want to note too that in the pri
the subdivision prior to 2014, lot 5.2 5.02 or proposed lot 5.02 was 2,846 square feet. So approximately 37% of what was required in the zone and the current what we're
proposing 6,268 square feet will be 83% of what what's required. So it's better than it was historically. It's making the two adjacent lots significantly better, uh but it is a reduction and it is therefore causing the variance.
>> Um so, why don't you jump to the front porch variance um and can you explain the C2 hardship criteria and and give some testimony as to whether this satisfies that. >> Yeah, so so with the hardship um you know, by reason of exceptional
narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property um is one of the criteria with which you can qualify for the hardship. So, the house is pre-existing lawfully constructed structure. Uh it does have that entrance on the side in the front and there's no
way to create a new landing or expand that porch to make it more functional without triggering this front yard variance. Um so, because uh it is pre-existing and non-conforming and would satisfy that hardship criteria
uh just being exacerbated, we believe that it can be approved under the hardship criteria. >> And what about the um all of the I mean, I I guess from Craig's standpoint and Rich, do we need to put proofs on for the pre-existing
non-conformities and to save time? I mean, is that >> I don't I don't think that you do. Only the ones you're expanding. >> Okay. All right, cuz that'll save some time. >> just put some in the record. Just how old is the house? Like, how long have these conditions been there? >> So, so the ages of the house, I'm not
approximating the house uh 448 uh West Perry, I think it was built 1920. >> It's only got to be more than 20 years, I think, under our ordinance to be a >> And the other two were even before that. >> Okay. So, just to give you something to write on. >> owned these properties?
>> Uh the very first one since 1971. >> Okay. >> So, I can I can run through them quick cuz we'll need them for the front yard setback, but we do believe that this uh you know, proof A, encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or
development of all lands in the state in a manner in which promote public health, safety, morals, general welfare welfare. C, provide adequate light, air, and open space. Uh E, that'll promote the establishment of appropriate population densities. Uh G, we are providing
sufficient space in appropriate locations. Um I, to promote desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design. And J, to promote to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts, open space, energy resources,
and valuable natural resources in the state. Uh so, that's what I had earmarked as the the proofs that kind of function through all of >> you think is your best proof? I mean, a lot of those are very tangential. Just give me the one that clearly >> Probably the >> And and say why. Say it advances light,
air, and open space because of the front porch, right? >> Yeah, and the and I think though J, uh it promotes the conservation of historic sites in the districts and uh energy resources. So, obviously this is old enough to be a historic site and or historic home and and the way we're
configuring it uh will preserve that as opposed to demoing it and creating a new structure. >> approval, right? That's an indication that it promotes historic >> Conceptual and uh for the record, it's a contributing structure in the district as well. >> Thank you. Historic site since HPC has approved it. All right, thank you. I just want to try to get the
highlights. >> And I mean, you went through the purposes of zoning and they apply to the front porch and also in your opinion to all the preexisting um conditions as well. >> That's correct. >> What about the the lot five point proposed lot 5.02? Can you just run
through the hardship criteria as well as um as well as the C2 on that? Or actually I think we're going to get that approved just under the D2 criteria. Can you go through the D2 criteria for the expansion of a of a nonconforming use?
>> Yeah, so the purposes of >> Oh, yeah, with respect to to C variants will apply to Yeah, so all of the C variants proofs that we did will apply to the D variances. But specifically, we need to apply the substantial increasing test, which focuses on whether the expansion
significantly intensifies the existing non-conforming use. Although the positive criteria still required and we put on the record, it can be met by demonstrating that this benefits the neighborhood and properties around it or constitutes an improvement to the site. And in this case, obviously, we're we're
making the surrounding properties um significantly more conforming, closer to what's there, while not uh detracting from the way that the the property currently operates. And therefore, we believe we meet that that positive criteria for a substantial
increase. >> And just uh just to touch on the practical reasons you're increasing lot sizes that are woefully deficient. >> Correct. >> Um also, parking is being made available um for all three properties through this
cross easement. >> Correct. >> And currently, none exist at least for for 3. Is it for lots 3.01, proposed lots 3.01 and 4.01, there's no parking at all. >> That's correct. There's no curb cuts and no driveway, so no parking whatsoever.
>> And also, with respect to 4.01, right now, there is a lot coverage deficiency. >> Correct. >> Which no longer exists as a result of increasing lot size. >> Yeah, it'll be eliminated with this increase. >> I think uh so, in your just touch on the negative criteria if you can for all these variances.
>> Yeah, so as far as uh detriment detriment to the public good or substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance, uh we could find no no detrimental effect uh again by by providing parking for new two structures that that currently have no parking,
we're not removing any off-street parking uh with this application. Uh or on We're not removing on street parking. We're We're maintaining the uh the curb the way it is. Uh therefore, we could see no detriment uh to the zone plan or the zoning ordinances.
And uh and therefore, we think it can be granted without any negative effect. Correct. All of them. >> I don't have any further questions for Mr. Cates. We can uh entertain board questions or go to Mr. Harless's
review memo. >> All right. Does anyone from the board have any questions? >> Um the shed on lot 5011. It says here that it's 4.1 to the property line. But I don't see where you're asking for a variance for that.
It's got to be 5 ft, right? I'm I'm wrong. You're asking for a variance for lot 401. >> Yeah, we're at 2 ft. >> Where is that? >> It's 2 ft, but the other one is 4.1. >> The other one is too close also, right? >> It is.
Yeah, we missed that one. >> Do you need a variance for that one? >> So, we do need >> Can you just Are these What Are these movable sheds? >> Which one are we talking about? Which Which shed? There's three sheds. >> The shed all the way to the right on 5.1. >> That is not movable. >> And here it is non-conforming. >> So, that is on a foundation. So, it's
not movable. So, we will need that variance as well. >> Well, how long has that been there? >> I'd say late 70s. >> I think that our ordinance says that if it's been there for more than 20 years, it's pre-existing non-conforming structure, right? >> Yeah, I just I would just edit my report
to verify that it's existing non-conforming and they're not proposing anything. >> And this the shed that's on 401, that's not movable either? >> It is not. It's on a It's on a slab. >> I was just thinking you could just drag that out of the way. >> Yeah. >> I have a question about the parking.
Um You're proposing clam shells? Is that correct? I thought we weren't allowed to have clam shells as parking lots. >> So, for residential parking less than five parking spaces, it's permitted surface. >> Okay, so it's only going to be five park parking spots in there? >> Four.
>> Four Four parking And are there going to be required um I don't know easements for allowing them to have parking there? >> Yeah, in fact in Craig's review memo, he identified that and that'll be submitted as a condition of approval. >> I was going to talk about that parking lot in my review, but that parking lot
was required when the original Graham Mortimer subdivision was done and that's then those improvements were never put in. So, >> Well, the other improvements. I mean, the curbing was in, the sidewalk's in, the apron's in and the only thing that wasn't done is landscaping landscaping and parking lot.
>> What I said was true. The improvements were never put in [laughter] for the parking lot. Um so, we've been you know, this is a good thing to get this going. We certainly will not sign off on any improvements until that parking lot is on in this time
um because of the lag and delay of of that parking lot never being >> Mr. Harris, I just want to address that. I mean, the the deck is one thing, but right now there is no entry into the house. There is a basically a platform, but the stairs aren't in yet because he couldn't
finish it. So, he'd like to at least finish the front. The entry into the house. And maybe hold off on the deck if that's It may take a little more time to get this parking lot in, but >> There's certainly going to be a performance guarantee that's furnished
um that makes sure that this is done this time because it should have been done [clears throat] a decade ago. Okay? >> And the And the reason there is no door is because he took it off, correct? Or he removed it? >> there. There's no stairs to >> Because he removed them, right?
>> Yeah, he took them down. He tried to put a deck in it. >> Right. >> If you look at A6, you can see what the what it looks like right now. And there's no way, you know, for him to get into the front hat front of his house. >> Have you seen the um the comments from
the zoning officer? Did you Were you made aware of that? >> No, I didn't see I didn't see that. >> Can I Can I get an extra one? Here you go. >> Thank you. >> And just talks about some things that were done and how they
they were stopped in the past. Will this application being approved address and make sure that all of those issues will be taken care of? >> Yeah. Yeah, and we did submit this When we submitted this application, we um
had we had the survey that the property next door, because we thought that the lot averaging would apply and that this would not be considered uh a structure in the front yard, but it turned out that there was a shed that was too far back
on the property next door that it created that exception to the averaging [clears throat] rule, which is why we submitted and we initially submitted a planning board application not realizing that this was an expansion of a non-conforming use.
And then we had to resubmit it as a zoning board application with the D2 variance. So, there was not We didn't ignore it. Uh it just has taken us some time to get through this process. >> All right. Well, I I got to put stuff on paper eventually, so
there's talk of generally you can't start construction until you do the improve the the site improvements. That's what Greg said. And then you asked if you could do a door, but nobody voted on anything. I don't know what we're doing. So, I think we're going to vote on your application. And then we'll have a separate vote on
this order of the improvements and then the board will make a decision, but I got to I can't just have comments in the record. I got to have decisions. So, does everybody know Craig, can you repeat what you said? >> When I go through my review memo.
>> it. Good. Fine. I just I just want to leave it out there and then we get yelled at by the construction officer and you think you can do it and it's not in the resolution and then it's not a big mess. So. >> What Craig starts one pressing four Craig. There's a curb cut on West Prairie and there's a curb cut on
Congress. They look like they line right up. What are the rules and regulations as driving straight through from one street to the other? These properties will now be able to drive from that curb cut on West Prairie all the way straight back. Is that a problem or can you do that? >> I I don't think that's going to be a
problem. And the reason is and this plan does not show the approved improvements for that parking lot. I seem to remember that there was landscaping vegetation that was around it or possibly a low fence. >> So to cut it. >> Um yeah, so
you will not be able to drive all the way through. >> Okay, that's the concern right there. >> That's the worry. >> Other questions? If we have no other questions, Craig, would you like to do your review? >> I certainly would. Um so, I'd like to summarize my review memorandum dated
February 25th, 2026 for this application. Once again, it is in the R2 low medium density residential district. These are uh you will be approving use variances as well as other C variances, and approving a minor subdivision. That's
something you guys don't get a lot of, but because this deals with a non-conforming use, that's your jurisdiction in this on this instance. Okay? Um, so you've heard testimony from the applicant what they're willing what they're looking to do. I'm just going
to, for the sake of time, roll right into my completeness review. Um, they asked for a waiver from items number 19, we supported that. Item 22 uh, was deficient information, that information should be provided on a plan as a condition of approval, as well as um,
item number 32, which is uh, providing the legal description of the easement that's proposed. That easement is proposed a across the back of lots 4.01 and 5.02.
Um, for the benefit of every all three lots that are in that subdivision. Okay? So, all three of those uses will be able to utilize that parking lot. That was the intent in the beginning, that is not being changed by this subdivision, so that's a good
thing. Um, however, the easement and legal description has got to be provided as a condition of approval. Item 13 33 is the landscaping plan they requested a waiver from, we did support that waiver. Um, the map details
on page three of 10, um, item M is says that the evidence of lot numbering should be provided, and this is me telling you what the tax assessor recommended that the lot number should be. The plans are not consistent, particularly with lot five, um, it's
listed as 5.011 instead of lot 5.02, so we've asked them to revise the plans accordingly. Um, P is another rehash of them re being required to provide the easement legal description and finally letter S
um when subdivisions are done, we forward the AutoCAD version to the tax assessor so the tax maps can be updated so that needs to be provided as a condition of approval. Based on the all of those uh recommendations, I did support deeming
this application complete. Uh to highlight the variances that are required uh and I'm just going to talk about the ones that are being changed by this. We have a lot of existing non-conforming situations that [clears throat] affect these lots. Um for lot 3.01
and this is a typo in my report. The building setback line from West Perry Street has a requirement of 25-ft setback. 7.9 ft exists to the existing deck. That deck is being demolished and replaced
with a new deck that will have a setback of 9.8 ft. My report says 7.9 ft. Um that is incorrect. All of the other non-conformities, we would approve as um just updating
the approval with the subdivision but they're none of that none of that inform- bulker area information is being changed. Proposed lot 4.01. This one contains one half of the non-conforming
structure. Two-family attached structures are not permitted. Lot four and five, it straddles the common lot line on the common party wall. Um so they both of these next lots contain the non-conforming use.
The lot size is being increased. So 7,500 sq ft is required in a district. 2,517 exists and 4,745 sq ft is proposed. So that lot is getting bigger, so the density is being
lessened in there. So, that's not really an issue and there's no other nonconformities that are being created by the lot line adjustment for that. So, all of those are existing nonconformities. Lot 5.02.
This is the other half of the nonconforming use. This lot is becoming smaller. It was So, it was 9,831 square feet, so it did conform and now it's going to be proposed nonconforming
6,268 square feet. So, there's a use variance that that triggers because it's a nonconforming use, the lot is getting smaller. But, from a practical standpoint, when you evaluate this use variance, this use has already existed.
These lots have kind of been utilized together. There was already a common easement across the back to support parking. That parking is still going to be contained within a existing easement. So, can the lot when you ask yourself
the question, can the lot support this new this existing use on a smaller lot? I would argue that it can because of the way that the easements are and the way this lot has functioned in relationship to the other lots.
Okay. So, that's a summary of the new the the variances that are triggered by the lot line adjustments. I'm going to move on to page eight of 10.
And the first comment talks about the subdivision [clears throat] conditions that require parking improvements to be constructed along with the access to Congress Street. Um I recommended that no further improvements be permitted until the
parking improvements associated with the original subdivision have been completed. Um I think Rich has asked you to vote separately on that. The The applicant is making an argument uh against that um because of the This has been required for so long. I am
not I'm hesitant to recommend that we not mesh these things in together to make sure that those parking lot improvements are completed this time um and not left out there and blowing in the wind.
Item number two is the um just indicate the building height provided on the plans. Item three is compliance with our chapter 258 the flood damage protection. The first floor elevation should be provided on the plan um as a condition of any approval.
Four is our recommendation to provide the zoning table to be revised to reflect the comments in this review memorandum and as updated by uh the comments um during this testimony. Five is to provide more detailed lot
coverage calculations. Uh we are not unclear to whether the lot coverage calculations include um the required parking improvements. So detailed calculations are required for review. I don't think they go over but they should
be updated and so that we have a updated plan. Six is providing the floor area ratio information on the plan. Once again, that is a relationship to the lot and the lots are lot lots sizes are changing. I don't think that's creating a nonconformity. Um I would sure hope
not or they were going to have to come back if they didn't ask for that variance. >> it's eliminating. >> Okay. That's >> on the real small lot, um it's getting it up. >> Okay. I was I was more worried about the lot that was getting smaller. So, um Anyway, uh so seven is our comment and
this is where we review uh compliance with our flood and uh grading and drainage requirements. Uh we did find the plan acceptable. Uh the previous plan that was approved addressed
um some of the coverages that are required for the new parking lot. So, um they're just required to comply with that statute in under item number eight. Nine is provide the parking calculations on the plans. 10 is the requirement to
provide a one street tree along Congress Street. That should be added to the plan. Um 11 [clears throat] is sort of talking about um something that I just mentioned is there is a landscaping and vegetation plan that
was already approved for the required parking lot. So, they are required to screen the proposed commercial parking area with that is shown on that approved plan. Um so, I just wanted to advise the board that they will be providing landscaping there.
12 is our standard recommendation that they evaluate the sidewalk um prior or after construction to evaluate and make sure that it is all non-damaged sidewalk.
13, 14, 15 uh 13 and 14 are standard conditions that deal with the inspection escrows, performance guarantees, and issuance of certificates of occupancy. Uh as well as 14, item 15 deals with
compliance with the requirements of our other commissions. We did receive reports from the tax assessor, which I already went over. The fire department recommended approval dated 3 3 26 with no comments. Public Works recommended
approval dated 2 27 26 no comments. Shade Tree Commission recommended approval with the following condition, the Colorado blue spruce in the rear garden of 448 Perry Street should remain along with the holly tree
in the front of the same address. I don't know what that is. >> tree protection zone. >> [laughter] >> Will not need to be in place. Are you Is that acceptable? >> That's acceptable. One comment, Mr. Hurless, and and just for the board
in connection with the vote that Mr. King mentioned, uh the applicant is willing to uh put up a letter of credit to cover the engineer's estimates for the cost of the parking lot so that he can get the front steps um installed as
soon as the um approval is finalized if it is approved. So, that, you know, when you when you decide that issue, if you can take that into consideration. >> Attorney, I just my sense of it isn't as much that he'll never do it, is that he has to do it very soon. It's supposed to be done 10 years ago. So, aside from
letter of credit, when does that letter of credit surrender? I mean, like it's got to be like I think I think you have a better shot if you give like a deadline. Like, I'm going to do this parking lot by X date or you guys >> It's going to take 9 6 months. >> Let Let's say he says 6 months. But I
I'd like to put 9 months in. It'll be done by the end of the year, probably at the the end of the summer. He'll probably do it and it'll be done in the fall. 6 to 9 months would be adequate. >> Okay. >> I don't vote. I just want to make it so you you'll put a letter of credit, promise to have it done in 9 months. That's the vote you want us to do. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, some Someone makes that motion, they have to be deal with your application and >> Okay. >> on it, okay. >> Craig, I have a question for you. Are you done or >> Um and we I Let me just wrap this up. So, we talked about um the zoning
officer's review comment and you believe that this application will address those, so there's no other issues there. I'll take your question now. >> Okay. Um Is there sidewalks on Congress Street? >> Yes, there is.
>> Okay. I didn't I thought I read somewhere there was no sidewalk on that Congress Street, but there is. >> It's in fact one of the photos that we have of from Congress Street, you can see the sidewalk along with the curb and the apron. >> Okay. Um drainage. What about the drainage? Is
that going to be addressed? >> That's That was part of the approved site parking lot plan before. So, yes, that's going to be addressed. >> And then my question about the parking. There's four spots, there's three houses. How does that divvy up the
parking spots? >> I don't believe so. I I read the resolution of approval. It It's you know, this goes back beyond my memory, so I can't remember what how it was done. >> [clears throat] >> Um I don't think they were assigned.
I don't think they were assigned to units. >> Okay. I didn't know if they're putting an easement in if it says, you know, two to one, one each have one or >> The resolution didn't specify and the approved plans didn't specify.
>> Is there a reason why they didn't do go bigger with the parking lot? >> I don't remember I don't recall what why the board had them do what they did at that time. >> And
I know I understand there's an easement, but that lot the parking lot goes with 502? >> So, the parking lot itself is located on lots 4.01 and 5.02, but there's an easement for the benefit
of all three lots. >> Isn't the I'm just trying to figure out that the dotted line, isn't that where it goes the parking lot? So, wouldn't it be on all three or >> No. >> No, it's only on that. >> Okay. >> 3.01 >> Oh, so it it doesn't touch 3.01.
>> is stopped short before it gets to that. >> But, the other two that lot coverage would be part of them when it goes into the >> Right. Yeah, so >> Okay. >> And it just it's obvious what the benefit of providing parking with access
to Commerce Street is far safer than having back out parking on the West Perry Street. So, and anytime we can clean up West Perry Street with you know, act driveway access, we try to do that. So, I think that was the intent of the board and just and determining and
that they they should have a a parking lot at that location. >> And being that it's clam shells, so they're going to have a border around it to prevent the clam shells from going out or how's that going to work? >> a landscape border, so there's like a berm around it. >> Okay.
>> That's so it yeah, it's the clam shells are not going to be spilling out onto the roadway. >> Because that's going to go underneath the previous requirement with that parking lot, correct? >> Yes. >> Craig, can you can you just help me out here?
>> I just want to try to understand the easement part. So, this lot line here, right? Where is this lot going to end when this is is all said and done? This lot is the dark lot line right here. This. >> Okay, so they all touch that shaded area. Got it.
>> All right, correct. >> Yep. >> This is This here is the actual perimeter of the parking with one, two, three, four parking places. >> And that big shaded area is going to be the easement that all of you anybody can go anywhere in that shaded area. That's the gist of it. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, that you can get out of your car and traverse to your lot. >> So, there's real easement, so to speak, like a a path or a road. It's just a big area is kind of for everybody. >> It's a common area. >> Yeah, that's good. >> It's a common parking area for all three lots. >> Okay. Just make sure everyone is supposed to do something else.
>> Right. Thanks. Now, it's important. Um all of the other items in my report are typical conditions of approval that we would recommend for an application type. I won't bore you with those things, but
that's items 15 through 20. Um so, if there's any questions that the board has, I know that I've been taking questions as I went along, but >> You said the the original minor subdivision was approved 10 years ago. >> It was 2014, I think. >> Okay.
>> And that that it around that >> And that included the parking? >> That included that parking. >> Which has not been done since. >> why I'm making a point to make sure that this is done. >> Do do do do we have a reason why it had I mean, it's over 10
years. Why hasn't it been done? >> Well, first of all, Mr. Mortimer's father handled this. He's no longer alive. >> Okay. >> His mother has the matches. So, it's really hard to get a history of this. Um other than what the ownership is. So,
but I appreciate the question. >> Um how long has Mr. Mortimer owned it? >> I'm sorry? >> How long have you owned it? How long has it been since your father >> doesn't own it. >> I don't own it. So, I My father passed >> Are you going to use the mic cuz I can't hear you?
>> Sorry. Okay. My father passed uh 3 years ago. >> Oh. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Any additional questions for Craig? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. At this point, we would like to open this meeting up to the public
within 200 ft. Or anyone beyond 200 ft, which doesn't look like there is anyone here. Okay. So, we would be officially closed to the public. And Rich, I guess we'd wait for you to clue us in on a motion to be made.
>> All right. So, we're going to vote first on the application generally as it appears in on the record and in Craig's report and on the plans. Then after that, we're going to vote about this order of things and the um
letter of credit and all that stuff. So, we'll do that second. So, the first motion >> Rich, but just a uh Because one's a D2 variance and the other is a bulk variance. >> Right. >> So, are we going to do a vote separate vote on each one because >> No. >> Okay. >> Cuz I assume you want the benefits of all of everything you've said you want that to
weigh in on the C2, right? And the D2? >> I mean This the subdivision which creates the D2 variance is different than the front just a >> Yeah, so so so So, we if we approve that
if we if we approve the subdivision but let's say we vote against the subdivision but we approve You want to vote on which C2 variances? There's like 15 of them. >> The one for the front porch. The front porch on proposed lot 3.01.
>> You want us to vote on that separately? >> I think yeah. I think we need different voting. I mean it's >> Theoretically, they could come in here and just ask for that without any subdivision and it wouldn't affect anything subdivision related. Okay. >> But if we start with if we approve the
subdivision, then he can go ahead with the subdivision without putting the parking lot in. No, the variance possibly he could do that unless you made that a condition of approval. >> Yeah, I'd like to see that as a condition of approval that this gets taken care of. >> Yep.
>> But >> Also, the temporary stairs and >> Can we just vote on it all together? And if you lose, I'll revisit it. But I mean, it doesn't make sense >> That I That I'm I'm voting >> Everybody presents everything for the benefits that they're giving us like, "You got to consider the entire application as a whole." And then they give all these benefits and how great the whole thing is. And there's parking
and this and that. And then they said, "Well, let's vote on them separately." >> They're all good. >> No, [laughter] I mean, you you you put the whole thing in together. If you want to do two separate presentations, then do them. But I'm not going to like if you lose the big vote, I'll vote on the porch, okay? Let's just try to do everything all in one
collective thing like I do it every time. And if something goes sideways, I'll deal with it, okay? >> The only question is because it's a D2 variance. >> I understand that. >> Okay. >> I understand that. But you want us to consider the fact that there's a porch in considering whether or not it's it's
a good D2 variance, right? I mean, right? >> Okay. >> So, let's just let's do everything as a whole cuz it wasn't presented separately. So, let's just We'll do it as a whole. And and if they if if it if they find that this um property can't accommodate making one lot bigger than the other smaller for a
shared parking lot, then I'll deal with the consequences of that vote. >> Okay. >> But for now, we're voting whether or not uh the first the first We're voting on everything as a whole. Does anybody have any concerns about voting on the porch and the overall project together? Does anybody have any
concerns about that? Yeah. >> I'm a little concerned that it that we'll we'll approve the porch and not get the parking lot done. >> Right. So, you You'd rather it all be done together, then. >> Mhm. >> Right? So, you're concerned that you you wanted to do it the way I'm suggesting. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Does anybody not want to do it the way I'm suggesting? Does anybody >> Question of clarification. >> Does anybody plan on voting no on the subdivision issue because of the porch? That's the question. No. So, let's just do the whole thing together. There's no need to complicate
this. >> I have a problem with this. I want to make sure that the parking lot >> We're doing the timing thing second. I can't be clear about that. We're going to vote on this application like we do every time. I'm going to read all the things they're asking for, and then you're going to vote your conscience on that. And then after we do that, we're
going to revisit the timing and performance guarantee issue in a separate vote and a separate conversation. >> That's a condition. >> Okay. Okay? >> There's Okay. >> Okay. >> So, as long as >> Question I'm I'm I'm asking I was then asked to try to parse out the porch from the whole thing, and now we've spent 10 minutes
talking about that, and it probably would have been approved by now. So, let's just move it on it and get it done. >> [clears throat] >> The The motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you, is a a motion to grant minor subdivision approval with the associated hardship,
substantial benefit, and use variances as outlined by the board engineer with the waivers and conditions outlined by the board engineer with the variance as listed on pages three, four, and five uh with the change in the uh chart to include the side yard for
the shed on lot five. Uh that motion requires a vote of five out of seven because in the most technical sense, uh it is a ex- directly an expansion of a non-conforming use in that they're making
the lot uh >> Like you say five smaller? >> Lot five over there. >> Lot 5.02 future 5.02 smaller. So, that in theory creates a D2 variance. So, it requires five out of
seven to pass. Uh and this includes the porch. And as I said, if something goes wrong, we'll vote on the porch again separately. Does anybody uh That's the motion I recommend being made. How you vote is up to you. Someone make that motion? >> Make the motion.
>> I second. >> [clears throat] >> Ms. Shean motions, Mrs. Notch seconds. Mr. Lewin? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch? >> Yes. >> Ms. Shean? Yes. Mr. Walsh? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay, that that included the condition as outlined by your board engineer regarding having the um site improvements uh improved before uh the projected before the the the
front porch the porch is done. But the applicant has requested to alter that condition that you just imposed. What they are proposing is a letter of credit and uh a promise that it'll be done within 9 month 9 months. The porch itself. I'll strike that. The parking lot. The
parking lot will be done within 9 months and there'll be a letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the board engineer to make sure that it's done. They're asking for that so that they can complete the front porch, which will give them access to the home that they don't presently enjoy. So they want to be able to do that ahead of the site
improvements. Um if they don't do the improvements within the 9 months, then that letter of credit is uh the board I I I don't know exactly how it works, but Craig does some maneuvering that gets the money so that the town can then uh build the parking lot at whatever
expense they deem appropriate and they can do the work in instead of the homeowner and make it be done. Um and I'm sure Craig will set that number at a number that will be commensurate with our need to do it quickly and by reliable contractor. So uh it'll be in the applicant's interest
to get it done timely. That's what they're requesting. How you vote on that is up to you. I understand that concern you in the history, but you have to weigh all that in your decision-making, okay? So that's the motion. The motion is to alter the prior condition and do the condition I just in a manner
I just outlined with the letter of credit. If you vote yes, then you're going to do it the way the applicant's requesting. If you do it no, then you're going to do it the way Craig initially put in his report. Craig, are you expressing a strong opinion either way? You're just leaving it to the board's discretion. >> No, I think it's the board's discretion. I think at the end of the day with
either one of these two scenarios will get that parking lot done within a reasonable amount of time. >> Okay. >> I >> That's the the board will decide if it's a reasonable amount of time. That's their That's their decision. Okay? >> I just want a clarifying question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um the
what he wants to put on the stairs and the door is something that he removed, correct? >> That's was my understanding. >> Okay, I just want to make sure that's what I had heard heard and >> He removed it thinking he didn't need a variance and then he realized that he did because of the lot averaging stuff. So now he's kind of stuck in the middle with the
>> But he didn't have a permit, either. >> No. I don't think he got a Did you get a Did you Were you ever issued a permit at all for replacing the porch? >> No, there was no permit. There was no permit issued. >> Right. If you read the letter from the zoning officer.
>> We've got the testimony in the record. Well, you'll you'll vote your conscience on that. I've expressed no opinion. They've asked. You're invited to do that. If [clears throat] someone makes that motion, then it's made and they can second it and then you vote. But that's up to you. >> Is there a defined amount for the letter
of credit? How much are we asking for? >> A performance performance guarantee review that I will do. Um with consistent pricing >> [clears throat] >> 2026 pricing. >> Okay. It's >> Not 2014 pricing that was done
originally. >> That Okay. I'm >> [clears throat] >> assuming it's significant. It's not a small amount of money. Which I We need some incentive. >> someone to finish. >> Okay. Mhm. All right. Someone has to make the
motion. Someone No No one has No one has to make the motion, but in order to vote on it, there needs to be a motion and a second. I I don't make motions. I just kind of set forth what they are, so it's clear in the record. >> Would someone like to make the motion? >> This vote is a simple majority. Not your usual. >> Correct. >> I'll make the motion.
>> I'll second. >> Mr. Wash motions, Mr. Zaxer seconds. Mr. Lewin? >> No. >> Mrs. Naj? >> Yes. >> Miss Shane? >> No. >> Mr. Wash? >> No. >> Mr. Zaxer? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Yeager? >> Yes. >> Mr. Benudo? >> Yes. >> Okay, that passes 4-3, so >> Thank you. Thank you. >> [laughter] >> Yes. >> He was okay with switching, so >> Before they can start >> We can do this one.
>> And before they can pull a building >> We can do this one. >> They cannot pull the building permit. >> So, we'll do that and we'll get it done. >> They have to have to sort that out before they get permission to >> the regular >> I think they're blazing >> That's not going to get it >> I'm set. >> Uh almost.
>> I'm recovering from the last holiday. >> [laughter] >> I'll get up there and read about that. >> Do you need a power bar? >> Okay. >> [cough] [clears throat] >> How are you looking at that? Okay. I need more time. >> I just got to do that second, bro.
>> Is it 4 in here? Feather fairy street one? >> Glad to do it. >> Okay. So, our next application tonight is Christine Carlson Glazer, 107 Ocean Street. >> I'll say thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone. Andrew Cadena is with
the Manzo Cadena is the Wallace Law Firm, on behalf of Christine Carlson Glazer, along with our project planner and architect, John Halbrunner. Uh in this application involving the property at 107 Ocean Street, we present a site
that has an existing uh four-unit multi-family structure. There are a number of non-conformities on the site. Particularly relevant are the density. We have four units on site, and that lot only measures about 4,000 square feet, and of course, the resulting shortfall
in off-street parking. Ms. Carlson Glazer proposes to convert the home to a single-family dwelling. And to be clear, the proposed use, that is single-family homes, are permitted in the applicable RS zoning district, and the change will improve a number of
conformities, not the least of which is that density and the parking I talked about. However, uh you may be familiar, and I'm sure you've I know you've seen some of these applications before, where multi-family structures in this zone are allowed to have 75% lot coverage, whereas
single-family homes are only allowed to have 45% lot coverage. So, although nothing is changing on site, the change in use changes the standard applicable to the site, and therefore we're
requesting a variance for the the lot coverage on site. Um, that [clears throat] being said, there are some other non-conformities, they're not changing, and for the most part those will be proven. So, with that, the extent of this application is
extremely limited. We will keep our presentation brief. Ms. Carlson Glazer is with me for any questions, but we'll turn it over to Mr. Halbreiner, we'll ask that he be sworn and recognized in his, um, disciplines of engineering and architecture, and we'll have him go over the plan. We'll try to keep it brief.
>> Thank you. Um, our board engineer remains under oath. Mr. Halbreiner. Mr. Kenny, Kenny, you may have said this and I was zoned out typing. Is your applicant Is your client going to testify? >> O- Only if you have questions. >> we're going to swear you in just in case they ask you a question, okay? Raise
your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Like I know Mr. Halbreiner's been before the board many times. We offer him as an expert, and John, if you'd like to give an overview, I'd appreciate it. >> Absolutely. As you mentioned, we're
dealing with 117 Ocean Street. We are a lot in the RS, the residential seasonal zoning district, and which currently developed with a four-unit multi-family dwelling. We're proposing to change that to a single-family use with no physical improvements inside or
outside the building. Simple change of use. The existing building as an historic structure, originally built in Oh, sorry, 1888. It's a two and a half story dwelling and again the footprint and envelope were made unchanged by this application.
Um in terms of existing site conditions, we have a 4,015 square foot lot area. We have 50 ft of frontage on Ocean Street. We have approximately 80.3 ft of depth. Property is developed with a dwelling with covered porches, pavers, driveway
parking area, walkways, landscaping, fencing, utilities, typical uh residential accommodations. It provides two off-street parking spaces and uh interestingly I thought where I thought often I could say this, it's in a flood hazard zone elevation eight but the
finished floor is at 12.1. We're fully conforming. Um now skipping again very quickly to the proposed conditions, they're exactly the same. We're changing nothing. There's no physical improvements.
The effect of that of the use change though was kind of unusual as um Mr. Cannizzaro mentioned in his opening statements, the bulk requirements in the zone differ based upon the use. And while most of the
bulk requirements are less stringent for single family use than they are for multi-family, one is not, lot coverage. You're actually allowed to less lot coverage for single family than you are for multi-family. So we're here seeking relief from that.
Um one quick note regarding parking. You mentioned I you have mentioned I we're providing two parking spaces today. The current configuration is a four unit multi-family dwelling has a parking demand of seven parking spaces.
Two are provided. And the proposed conditions going to single family use, suddenly that demand gets reduced from seven to three. >> How can you say how do you know that? I don't know how big our family is. >> If your regulatory standard is
residential site improvement standards >> Can you explain what that means, but >> Oh. Sorry. Can you explain what you're just >> Parking by your ordinance is defined not by how many family members someone has.
It's based upon uh in the case of a single family home or maybe multi-family home the number of units or the number of bedrooms. >> Bedrooms, I I get that. >> Okay. So, as a four-unit building five bedrooms. >> I'm sorry?
>> Go ahead. As a four-unit building the residential site improvement standards would require seven parking spaces. >> So, in order to to to reconcile the two positions here you use the word demand. Demands less parking. And I think my my
colleague here is quibbling with whether or not it really would demand more or less parking. But, what you're saying is the required parking is less under the proposed use than the required parking would be under the current use. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> And it doesn't focus on whether or not really
a five this big single-family house is going to have 400 cars there from all their guests there. That may be the case, but that's not what our ordinance looks at, right? >> That's absolutely correct. Thank you for that clarification. >> you're speaking the same the same language. But, you'll also point out that it's going to be stacked kind of parking over there, right? And it's
easier to do that with a single family than with a four-unit. Are these two things side by side or they like this? >> There's two side by side. They're They're not stacked. That's correct. >> I don't know on the picture I thought it was the other thing, right? >> No, they're they're two side by side. >> have that going for you, let me tell you. >> Okay. So, again um there are a number of
non-conforming conditions. Um most of which we're making better. Um but still require variance by virtue of the change in use. And with that, to indulge me, I want to go directly to the variances that this application requires. >> Can I ask a question before you get into that too? >> Absolutely.
>> I couldn't In reviewing this application, I couldn't get at my hands around the fact that you have four units in there. So, there's four separate kitchens. And you're saying that there's no internal improvements. Explain [clears throat]
the how four kitchens are going >> There are not four kitchens. There's one kitchen. >> Okay, that's This is what I would like to do for you and >> Done. That's all right. >> Uh I know I'm most familiar with the interior, so I will I will take that one. >> please.
>> So, when we purchased the property in 2021, it was zoned as a four-unit multi-family. In looking at the history of the home, it was turned into an apartment building after World War II and operated as a four-unit apartment building. At some point in time, the Queen
Victoria acquired the building and used it as an ancillary building to the bed and breakfast. I don't know why your records weren't changed or what didn't happen, but it was before my time. I have a kitchenette on the first floor,
which has nothing to cook with. There's a refrigerator. They used it as a wet bar. Um there's a sink and a couple of cabinets. The main kitchen, so I'll be back to talk to you another time, is on the second floor um and remains on the second floor. I've
done nothing to move any walls or structures. But so, it has like a kitchenette on the first floor, >> [cough] >> but everything's opened up where as they had had doors separating some of the rooms. We've taken some of those doors off or or keep them open. >> And and to be
Yeah, and to be clear, we submitted looking at the architectural plans, the existing conditions, and seeing the layout, having the same question myself, I included with the package the certificate of zoning compliance that Ms. Carlson-Glaser received when she purchased the home in 2021, confirming
that in the city's records and as far as zoning is confirmed, this is four unit multi-family. So, that's that's what we start with and that's what we >> important. I just couldn't figure out how we were going from four units with >> Mhm. >> What? >> Yeah, Frank >> you'll be back. I'm not clear why you
would be. In the sense that if you get I suppose we say yes tonight and then in 3 years from now you want to move your kitchen to the first floor and and this and that. >> You don't need to come back. >> You you think that would require I mean I I I don't >> No. >> you so you just change it like around inside. >> be back but if you want to see >> Well, I'm trying to save you a few
thousand dollars. I mean can't we get something cheaper, you know what I mean? >> officer in the construction office will see it but we're going to >> At some point we will want to as you can imagine being used as an apartment or a bed and breakfast the configuration doesn't flow like a single family home would you'd want it to but we're not tackling that now. I [clears throat]
just want the paperwork to match what how we're going to use it is really what tonight's about. >> Understood. >> [clears throat] >> Sorry. >> No, it's a bed and breakfast but it's a single home. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Okay, we're good? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep.
>> Okay, the first variance we're going to talk about is lot area. The existing lot area is 4,015 square feet. In the existing condition as a four unit multi-family dwelling, that lot area would be required to be 12,500 square
feet. Grossly deficient in the existing condition. As a single family home, the lot area required gets cut in half. 6,250 square feet is required but we still have the same not compliant 4,015 square feet. So, we
require a variance to maintain a lot area of 4,015 square feet where for our proposed use 6,000 would be required. Again, notably it's an actually a made more conforming condition because the required lot area
under the present use is twice that of that required for the single family. The next variance we require is a front yard or building setback where 20 ft would be required and in the existing conditions is 3.67 ft measured
to the front step. Now, this is the condition that is required to be 20 ft under both uses and the existing condition remains unchanged by the application, so it's a non-conforming condition that we are looking to continue.
As a point of testimony, the 1888 structure is already located within the front setback. It does not move it any closer to Ocean Street and no new front yard impact is created by the application. In a very similar vein, we have a rear
yard setback variance relief required where the zone requires 25 ft in both the multi-family and the single-family condition. So, 25 ft is required, 3.69 ft exists. And again, that's something that has
existed for a prolonged period of time. We're not exasperating it in any way. We're simply looking to continue it. The next variance that we require is a side yard setback variance. This is one where the degree of
conformity becomes better but not fully conforming. In the current use as a multi-family dwelling 10 ft minimum side yard setbacks required. 0.76 ft exists. As a single-family home, that required
setback goes down from 10 ft to 8 ft. But again, we remain at 0.76 ft still deficient from that minimum requirement. So, we're improving the degree of non-conformity, but we remain non-compliant. The next variance I'm going to talk about is the only one that's actually
newly created as a result of this change in use, and that is the lot coverage. As a multi-family dwelling, the lot is allowed to have 75% of its area covered by surfaces. Today, 71% lot coverage exists.
Convert this now to a single-family home, 45% lot coverage is permitted. So, the degree of non-conformity for lot coverage actually goes up. But, let's remember, it goes up not because we're increasing coverage anywhere, not where
changing anything, it's simply the regulatory threshold changed by virtue of the change in use. And the last one to talk about is the number of parking spaces. So, I'll be sure not to use the word parking demand. The parking requirements by ordinance
under the current condition as a multi-family four-unit multi-family building would be seven parking spaces required by regulation. Two exist. By converting it to the single-family home, the ordinance requires the number
of spaces to be a minimum of three. Where again, the same two parking spaces exist. So, the degree of non-conformity is significantly reduced. Again, no physical changes, no physical improvements. Now,
there are a number of conditions that are non-conforming today that we're either improving or eliminating the degree of non-conformity. Again, lot area was made more conforming. I'm sorry, get the the lot width
and lot frontage, two separate items, but they're both the same number. As a multi-family dwelling, you're supposed to have a minimum lot width and frontage of 100 ft. What we have is 50 ft. Lo and behold, the requirement for a single-family home is 50 ft. So, we're
taking a non-conforming condition in terms of lot width and frontage and making it conforming. The lot area deviation is made more conforming, the side yard deviation is made more conforming, and the parking deficiency is made more conforming.
So, to kind of frame the overall application here, it's an unusual variance application because no physical improvements are proposed. No alterations interior or exterior are proposed, but the variance exists because the existing 1888
structure predates modern zoning standards. The existing multi-family standard and proposed single-family standard in your ordinance differ, and some existing non-conforming conditions will remain non-conforming. As I mentioned, some non-conforming conditions are actually improved or
eliminated. Only one new variance, that relating to lot coverage, is created as a result of the change, but again, the physical conditions do not worsen. Any questions about that before I dive into the the proofs for the variances?
Okay. These variances are solidly grounded under C1, but I'll also be able to demonstrate a lot of the C2 criteria. So, I'll take the C1 and C2 both positive criteria in turn. The negative criteria will apply to both, so I'll do that for brevity at the
end. Under C1, the hardship is created by the existing lot size, the existing historic structure, the existing building location, the existing site configuration, and the application of the current single-family standards to a lawfully
existing property condition. Specifically, the lot is 4,015 sq ft where 6,250 sq ft is required. The existing front yard setback is 3.67 ft where 20 ft is required. The existing rear yard setback is 3.69
ft where 25 ft is required. And the existing side setback is 0.76 ft where 8 ft is required. And the existing lot coverage is 71% where 45% is permitted under the proposed single-family standard.
The existing parking space of two parking spaces provided where three is required for the proposed single-family use. In terms of practical difficulty, strict compliance with any of those requirements would require physical alteration, reduction, or reconfiguration of this historic
building site. The result is an unreason is an unreasonable where the applicant proposes no construction and no increase physical impact. The applicant is simply seeking to use the property for a permitted single-family use. And as Mr. Katinis mentioned in his opening statement, and I should have
early on, the single-family use is in fact the permitted use in the zone. So, in conclusion, the existing lot and structure create an exceptional situation that affects the property and the relief is appropriate to permit the permitted use without requiring unnecessary alteration of this historic
building or site. Flipping now to the C2 criteria where we're all be able to demonstrate that the benefits of the relief will outweigh the detriments. I'll first start by uh noting several purposes of the municipal land use law that are advanced by the application.
And I'll start with uh the purpose under sub-paragraph A, which is to encourage the use and development of the land which promotes the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. This application does so by allowing a less intensive residential use with no
physical development. This conversion promotes the general welfare by reducing the operational intensity of the property. Sub-paragraph E, which is the purpose to promote appropriate appropriate population densities and concentrations. Again, we're taking the density of this
down from four units to one. Sub-paragraph I, which promotes a desirable visual environment by preserving the existing building, the driveway condition, and the streetscape, and the site arrangement, we are preserving a very integral part of the historic fabric of
the neighborhood. And sub-paragraph J, which is for both the conservation of historic sites and districts. And again, we're proposing to maintain the existing historic configuration in its entirety. So, those are purposes of the municipal land use law that are being advanced by the application.
And to kind of wrap up the discussion about these benefits, cuz some of them go beyond those purposes. We're converting a the property to a permitted single-family dwelling, reducing the intensity from four dwelling units to one, reducing the parking requirements from
seven to three, we're making non-conforming lot width and frontage conforming, we are maintaining the existing side yard and rear yard deviations uh with no intent and no increase in the intensity.
We are preserving the 1888 historic uh structure and the site configuration, avoiding any new site disturbance, any new impervious coverage, any expansion of the existing physical non-conformities, and we're maintaining the streetscape and historic district character.
Those, I believe, are all the positive aspects of the application. Flipping now to the negative. First of all, I see no physical detriment. Again, there's no physical There's no increase in building mass, no increase in height, no increase in lot
coverage, no increase in floor area, any of the things that might normally be associated with the variance relief that we're seeking this evening. There is no physical impact on the neighboring properties. There is no
um worsening to the parking demand. All the things the intensities that you would normally seek when we take we need a parking variance, we need a lot area variance. None of these things are being increased or exasperated, so there cannot be any substantial detriment to the public good. And for the very same reason, there could be no substantial
impairment to the zone plan. So, for those reasons, I believe both the positive criteria under C1 state C2 have been presented. And the negative criteria satisfied for both, and I believe the variances could be granted.
>> That's our presentation. >> Okay. Any questions from the board? So, let's go ahead with Craig's. >> I I do have a It's more of a comment or question for the applicant, and it's relates to one of the comments
in my report. Um Um during my normal course of reviewing these applications, because of the importance of parking in the city, um I always evaluate to make sure to see if we can provide compliant parking on site. In this case, it looks like you
could deepen the parking and provide compliant parking. However, there's some trade-offs there. I think one, if you start doing those improvements in the front yard, um the HPC would probably comment and say, "You need to provide all parking back behind
the face of the structure." So, we would be pushing the existing two con- spaces back further, and then providing three spaces. They're already over on lot coverage. So,
to is the importance of parking that important that we're going to deviate from lot coverage standards, or is the reliance on the fact that they're reducing the parking demand at this site for this use from the change
of use carry the day? Is that Does it Do you make Does that make sense to you that they're It's it I would >> Isn't there still the that it's the owner's property though? Like can't they do that way? Like if they if they wanted to have more parking, they would figure out a way to have
more parking. And if they wanted to sacrifice it, they would Like don't they weigh that? Like why would they want to have less parking on their property? >> I think the board weighs that as part of the parking granting the parking >> they can't. I'm just saying that. >> Right. So I I just >> [clears throat] >> in the normal course of action I would just say yes, you should provide
compliant parking. Why are we granting the parking variance? But then we're driving a lot coverage variance way higher. Um we're involving the HPC, probably telling them to push parking back, even driving the the lot coverage even higher. Um you know, so
the benefit of changing the use and reducing the parking demand from seven to three on site might alleviate that recommendation or Yeah. Not necessitate that recommendation. >> One more mitigating factor if I could
add to that is this site is beautifully landscaped even with the parking in the front. At the end of the parking is an arbor with beautiful landscaping. That's what the public sees. If we were to push the parking back, we're going to lose that effect of the streetscape of the public and you're
going to see what, 40 ft of driveway instead? That does absolutely nothing to the historic fabric of that neighborhood. >> Yeah, the you know, this apart from the sh sort of the short answers of Ms. Carson Blazer isn't proposing any um
changes to the site. And that the application we feel really stands on its own because the benefits are just overwhelming. When we thought about you know, when we think about going to the HPC and talking about reconfiguring [clears throat] parking in the front yard, creating more
parking and as John said, removing some of that green space on what's really a a pretty lovely layout when you look at this house. It just never came into our mind. >> That's understood. I It's just a normal recommendation. It's in my report, and I wanted to discuss
that with the applicant because there are some unique circumstances to this application, so. >> Yeah, if I may, I I have spent a lot of time looking at that side yard, and if anybody ever walks by that property, the wrap-around porch and the structure
there, if the cars went in further, they'd have to go in the middle of the space that we currently have because we have three large white locust trees along the right property line. So, while you could put a car in there, you wouldn't be able to open a door.
On the left side, if you if you expanded it forward, you would hit the porch with your driver's side door or any door on that side. So, the only way to get more parking is to eliminate the two in the front, I think, and run them all down the center, unless we wanted to talk to
Shade Tree about taking the trees down. >> I mean, you know, it just is a whole slippery slope. >> I get the sense that the board does not want to see you increase the parking on site. >> So. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, I just wanted to explain my rationale. We do evaluate that as part of these reviews. >> Thank you.
>> All right. I will summarize the rest of my review. March 31, 2026. This is an application for the C variances. Mr. Hal Brunner has detailed them quite well. I'm going to talk about my completeness review on page 205 or two waivers
[clears throat] that are required from the checklist requirements. Item number 28 and item number 33. Based on the nature of this application, I supported both [clears throat] and did recommend deeming the application complete. Um I agreed with Mr. Hal Brunner's
testimony. There is a variance necessary from lot size. 6,250 square feet is required where 4,015 square foot exists. The building setback line from Ocean Street just has a 20-ft requirement where 3.67 ft is the require
is proposed and exists. The rear yard setback of 25 ft where 3.69 ft exists. Now, once again, I've explained this to the board. Our bulk and area requirements are based on the use and not the zone.
Um so the use within the zone. So the menu changes when we change use. So Mr. Halburner did a great job of explaining how the menu changed and affects this property. Um the side yard setback actually became a little um less
stringent. >> That's correct, Reagan. >> Correct. 10-ft setback 20-ft setback requirement. Um so in this case, um it's still not conforming at 0.76 on on the one side. However, that requirement changed and that's just an example. The
lot coverage is what most applicants struggle with. Going from a multi-family use to a single-family use because the lot coverage goes from 75% down to 45%. So their they're existing at 71% which is conforming, but once you change your
use, they're non-conforming. So that's really the only variance that's really being triggered by this application that doesn't have any improvements on it. And then finally, the parking we just talked about. Um they're proposing two spaces where three are required. So
that's a summary of the variances. My general review comments should be conditions of approval. Item one I already talked about with the applicant. Item two is our standard requirement that they comply with the flood damage protection code. Um
However, there's no construction proposed so I don't know that's even uh required at this point. Um three I already discussed with them is the compliant parking. Four is our standard condition that they should revise the zoning table per my report.
Five is a standard requirement that we will evaluate the sidewalk post construction, but that's we're going to do that before you get a CEO for your single-family home. Um Finally, item six through 11 are standard conditions, and I will talk
about the reports that we received from the fire department. They recommended approval with no conditions. 6 5 26 was the date. Public Works recommended approval with no comments 6 12 26 that date. Shade Tree Commission recommended approval
with the following conditions, and they talked about the three large locusts that you just mentioned, and they want to make sure that they're preserved. Um I don't think there's any problem since we don't have any improvements, and therefore that would be the three reports. Um and I'm happy to answer any
questions the board has at this point. >> If there's no questions from the board, I'd like to open it up to public within 200 ft. With beyond 200 ft.
Okay, we'll close it to the public. >> Okay, the motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. You'll be voting on the C1 NC2 standards as presented by Mr. Hal Berner. Is the motion to grant the variances 1 through 7 on page 3 of the report
dated March 31st, 2026 subject to the conditions outlined by the board engineer on 1 through 11. And that's the motion I recommend being made, but how you vote is up to you. This one is a simple majority. >> Okay. Can we >> I'll make
>> the motion. >> Second. >> Mr. Zaxor motions, Mr. Lewin seconds. Mr. Lewin? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch? >> Yes. >> Ms. Shane? >> Yes. >> Mr. Wash? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zaxor? >> Yes. >> Mr. Benuto? >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Werner? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time, sir. >> [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Our next application is 420 Perry Street LLC.
And I am recusing myself since I am within 200 ft. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> I assume that. >> Have fun. >> Yeah, I know. >> Good night, man. >> All right.
Okay, you may begin. >> Thank you, Mr. Benuto. >> Uh again, for the record, I'm Andrew Catenese of the Mazzo Catenese & Lawless Law Firm, on behalf of the applicant. Uh in this case, Gino and Terry Giancolini. Ms. Giancolini is here, along with our project engineer, uh Andy Shafer. This
property at 400, uh I'm sorry, 420 West Perry Street, uh is located in the R2 zoning district. It is currently developed with a duplex. Uh now, duplexes uh are non-conforming uses in the R2 zone. The R2 only permits
single-family zones, uh single-family homes, I should say. In this case, the applicants simply wanted to do two things: replace what was a shed, and number two, reconfigure their parking, and frankly, improve it substantially. However, doing those things was determined by the zoning
office to be an expansion of the existing non-conforming duplex use. That triggered a D2 application. It's a again expansion of a non-conforming use. Uh the the outcome of it however is positive. There will be an increase in
the parking spaces as well as uh parking that is better configured. Mr. Shafer will go over those in more detail. Uh the other substantial improvement is a reduction in the impervious coverage from the non-conforming 48% down to a conforming
39%. Overall, the variance relief that is being requested is relatively minor. We believe it's more than outweighed by the benefits. And with that, if we can have Mr. Shafer sworn, I know he's been before this board before. We offer him as an expert in engineering and planning.
>> Mr. Shafer, do you swear and affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. If if you would go over existing and then for >> site conditions and >> certainly talk about the benefits. >> So, it's an existing house and the history's fairly important here in that
it was purchased by the applicant in 1995 as a dilapidated, actually condemned structure, a side-by-side duplex, apparently legal at that point in time. It's been renovated and converted and converted to an over-under
duplex in the same footprint that it was built before. So, the existing non-conforming variances I'm going to talk about shortly were existing non-conformities from 1995 that we know of. The other is the use itself because we
are replacing a shed and that was determined to be an expansion of a non-conforming use. And that's the that and adding a parking area is the extent of the development that is proposed. So, to the parking area, there is a parking area we we are wanting to develop in the
rear Um, utilizing the existing driveway which extends past the front of the house. So, there will be no visual change to the front of the house whatsoever. And then there are fences along the backyard to block the view of the shed we're replacing with a new
factory-built shed. >> And the existing parking layout is just a single car wide driveway down the right side. Can you show the board on on the plans roughly where that existing driveway is? >> So, the existing existing brick driveway or paver driveway I'm showing right
here. And we're we would like to propose to extend it further back, add four spaces, a turnaround area, and then come back. Now, one important feature is this parking lot will be made of grass pavers. And
removing and changing shed size and removing some concrete, we're actually taking an existing nonconformity of covered lot coverage of 48% down to 39%. So, actually one of the nonconformities is going to be going away. It's a process of what we're doing here.
>> So, so to be clear, right now you've got a duplex or the Genkelinis have a duplex with stacked parking, which in and of itself is sort of problematic, isn't it? >> Absolutely. So, that means most people will be parking on the street. And that's one of the other benefits, and
again I'm jumping ahead, is that the parking we're providing or proposing to provide would free up at least two spaces on the street, generally speaking. >> And on top of that, right now cars that do pull into the driveway, they need to then back out
onto West Perry, which isn't good for anyone. >> That's correct. So, they need to back out on the West Perry, and I'll re-cover this again. We are providing this K-turn area back here. So, when you back out, you can back out of here and pull out on the West Perry forward, not not backing out.
>> And in doing so, does that improve safety for for everyone, not only the Genkelinis and their guests, but for passersby. Everyone is >> Yes, it is. And I forgot to list it as one of my special reasons coming up. >> Got it. All right. I I Sorry, I jumped in. I didn't I? Okay.
>> Can I ask is this the plot proposed plot plan that was part of the application? Not an exhibit. >> Correct. This is the same This is the same that was submitted with the application. >> Thank you. Just want to verify. Thanks. >> of the record. Uh additionally, the
relocation of the spaces behind the house as opposed to down the driveway is consistent with the HPC design standards, which always want houses or cars tucked behind the home. >> That is correct. And I also believe we already have HPC approval. >> Thank you. >> With the configuration that we provide.
>> Right. I'm sorry, I interrupted you. >> That's okay. That's okay. Uh moving on, the D2 variants um is an is a slight expansion to the existing non-conformity. Uh it does not change the intensity of use. So, but
going back to uh the special reason, I'll limit it to one so we move along. And that would be under 40 {colon} 55 D2 G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of all the different uses that normally get listed there.
And this I believe is in a very appropriate use. And one of the special reasons This is cited from special reason from common sense is the shed would provide storage for bicycles and other outdoor equipment
that they don't currently have. So, it's going to be an aesthetic improvement as well as [clears throat] a public safety. The two other reasons I didn't put on the record in terms of special reasons, but they do really do exist. And again, coming back to the benefits associated with this
approval of the expansion of a non-conforming use, the proposal does not increase density or intensity of use. And in fact, it may reduce intensity of use by removing some of the parking demand for the uh street. It does create four parking spaces. It
does eliminate a coverage variance that right now the site coverage is greater than what's allowed. HPC found no detriment to it. And as I said before, it lessens the chance of recreational equipment being stored outside where it can be seen.
So, my opinion, there are uh in terms of negative part of the there are none of any consequence and they're all positive in in every way uh possible by providing parking and reducing the impervious coverage. In regards to the C2 variances,
they're all existing nonconformities minus one being the coverage. And just to quickly summarize them, we're asking for a lot size of 69 6,900 sq ft where 7,500 is required. We're requesting a variance from front setback of an an
existing 18.4 ft where 25 ft is required. We're asking for a variance for I'll put these together lot width and lot frontage of 46 ft where 60 ft is required. And then last, we don't need a side yard variance for the setback itself on both either side. It's the
combination of the two uh which in the ordinance requires a summation of those two side setbacks and we are providing 14.9 ft existing where 15 ft is required. And again, uh I I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we are providing uh reduction in
impervious coverage by use of the grass pavers to an compliant amount of site coverage. >> Andy, no changes to the building. So, all those variances you just talked about, they're just all existing conditions. >> They're all existing nonconformities. >> Okay.
The shed itself will comply in all respects? >> The shed itself will comply in all respects, yes. >> Thank you. Um and I know you mentioned briefly some of the standards under the purposes under D2, Uh certainly promoting the general welfare by improving the safety of cars not backing
out onto West Perry. That would apply, would it not? >> That's absolutely applies, yes. >> And to the extent that the HPC design standards want cars back hidden behind the home, does this not promote historic districts and the HPC's goals? >> Clearly it does, yes.
>> Um You already indicated, I think, briefly that there was no real impact of this in your opinion. Can this application be approved without substantial impairment of the zoning ordinance or zone plan or substantial detriment to the public good?
>> In my opinion, there is no detriment to the zone plan, master plan, or the ordinance. >> Okay. We could go on, but I think we could stop here, and I think the best thing for us to do is just answer questions if you have any. >> I have a question. Are these all the neighbors that were
that were notified of >> There were two different mailings that went out. We had two different lists, we messed that up the first time. >> That's what I thought, yeah. >> This is the first time to Cape May, we we missed the list across the street for West Gate May. So, we did a
supplemental mailing, we submitted a supplemental affidavit to Miss Keenan. >> Okay, cuz I I still don't see Cape Heart Lane listed on here for any people that are notified, and this house I back right up to it. >> Oh, oh, sorry. We we
We received a list from the tax office that was submitted with your packages. We realized that they missed some properties. We got a new list from the city of Cape May that we used and is attached to the affidavit of service that Miss Keenan
has. Then there was the additional issue of not having West Gate May on it. So, we had a couple of notice issues, but your your point's well taken, you picked up on something, we all picked up on it as well beforehand. Ms. Keenan has the right one. You guys >> Okay. Yours is not the list that was served. There was a later one.
>> Just in the future, if anybody has a question about the notice, please do that at the very beginning. Because if there's if the answer to that question wasn't to your satisfaction, we just wasted 20 minutes of our life or next time it could be 3 hours of our life. >> Well, I asked you just so when I was
>> I don't mind you asking. It's a great question. I'm just suggesting for everyone that notice issues, please let's all address those at the very outset so that if there's a problem, we just kind of start over another day. >> No, thank you for raising it. We We fortunately picked it up. >> I remember that. That was a couple of
weeks ago. I remember. >> Yes. >> So, and I can verify there are some properties on K part, but we checked to make sure that every member who's present is not on the list. Is outside the 200 ft. >> Oh, yeah, that wasn't what I was thinking. >> Okay.
>> I just want to make sure the people were notified. Since it does they're within that 200 ft. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I don't have any questions. I just like to make a statement that I have no problem with the shed.
This is turning this yard into a parking lot. I mean, we're supposed to be stewards of light air and open space, too. Any one of these neighbors will look out and see four or five possible cars in the in this yard. They're very small yards.
I I just don't see how this would work. >> Well, for for [clears throat] our part, we're looking at all the things that advances under the four corners of the code. Right? To to bring that that impervious number down within the code
to satisfy the HPC, you know, parking on a duplex lot with uh a non an existing non-conforming front edge and particularly where again stacked parking for a duplex is a is a real issue Um because in truth
we've said there's two spaces there but they can only serve one unit under the residential site improvement standards because two different units can't >> Why don't you let Craig just talk about that? >> This was This was a Let Craig >> When they initially submitted this application
that parking lot was not on there. Um I recommended that they provide it. They were initially deemed incomplete um because of the safety factors on West Perry Street I recommended that they put it in. I believe that they've done it in
a very environmentally friendly way. This is not the the grass pavers that you're the blocks with the grass growing up through them. This is actually a geo fabric that's rolled out and you put sod on top of it. >> They will have to mow their driveway. >> Yeah, this is so it will look like a
lawn. >> It's It's not You know, I I understand all that. It's just the fact that there's now going to be four cars behind this house. And there's no there's no yard. There's literally no yard. >> Is there three parking spaces or four? >> Four. >> then there's a turnaround space so >> Okay. >> I mean the
the yard is gone. >> Um >> I think you're asking >> your concern but like typically, you know, I I think the theme tonight was improving parking and and circulation and access to West Perry Street. Um
in this case I think that carries the day for me personally but you get to weigh it, you know, appropriately. Um >> It may not be ideal for every street and every situation but it's a non-conforming use. It's a duplex. Two
unrelated people can live there and park on the side of a building with insufficient parking on a busy street. So if you're going to ever have a parking lot in the back of a house, this may be the one to do it. Now if somebody comes in in the middle of Grant, well, that's a bad example that happened. If
somebody wants to come in in the middle of a uh pick a pick a nice street, I don't know, Columbia, and they want to do this, maybe you might feel differently or something, but this is >> Well, let me frame it a little differently. Well, I mean, the >> [laughter] >> parking situation right now is non-conforming. They only have two
parking spaces. They're required to have four. They're now providing four spaces. They They complied with our ordinance. And they've done it in a way that parking lot, the way that's designed, creates no further variances. They've met all of our ordinance requirements.
So, I think that their complying with our ordinance is is a testament to the fact this is beneficial. >> I think what Tim is trying to explain, and get me wrong, but maybe make it not as wide, but shorter, because it's how how many
It's 22 ft, and then there's another 18 for the cargos, right? But how how long is a normal car? >> Uh a a nor- most of the cars and SUVs will more than fill that parking space up. >> I just asked for how long a car is. How many feet?
>> The how long a car is? They vary anywhere from 16 to 22 ft. >> Okay. So, then I was just looking at, you know, where >> The minimum required parking size is 18 ft. >> ft, right. 18. But then there's another 22 behind it. That's what I was just saying like that maybe
it being shorter and not because you do have to turn around. >> if they need any variance for this parking lot. >> Would they need a variance? If there was no shed >> No, there's no variance for the parking >> could build this parking if they could build this parking lot without a variance. It's just because there's a shed
involved, I think that's why we get a a chance to improve the parking, but if they wanted to do this without putting in a shed, they could do this, we'd never even hear them. >> Yeah, yeah, the Yeah, and the other very important part it was I believe it is. Um it was when the shed triggered the need
to come here, and then it was Mr. Hurless's comment that said, "Hey, while you're here, why don't you fix the parking?" So, we went back to the drawing board to satisfy that request. The The thing that Again, it was already brought up, but I don't want to lose sight and perhaps there will be more testimony on the fact [clears throat]
that these will be those geo pavers and the fact that it's going to be grass. In other words, if this were concrete or blacktop so that it presented like a parking lot, I think I would share that under I'm not sure I would say I agree fully cuz under the four corners of the
ordinance, it would still more closely comply. But, if this presents largely as we believe it will as grass, but now it can have four cars parked on it. Um I I think that that's going to maintain the character of the neighborhood, not
make this feel like you're behind a restaurant in their parking lot or something we've got. Uh that that's the goal. >> Yeah. Th- When you eliminate non-conforming situations like they were over on lot coverage, they've mitigated that and and
now they're complying at 39.7%. So, there are a lot of positives like bringing this property back into conformity with the improvements that are proposed. I I >> It It backs out onto West Parrish Street. >> I know. >> You don't want that. >> [laughter]
>> That's why That's why I recommended all of this in the very beginning to make sure that the applicant was aware of that I was very concerned about that. >> And it's stacked parking with two separate units right now. >> Right. >> That's That's crazy. >> the worst possible parking situation you
can have. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I I see nothing but positives from this. I'm I'm I don't vote, but that's just my opinion. >> [clears throat] >> Are there any other questions? Craig, would you like to hear a review
at this time? >> Sure. Um I'd like to summarize my February 27th, 2026 review memorandum. This is an application for a use variance along with the other C variances. Um, I'm just going to roll right into completeness review since um the
applicants did a great job of explaining what's going on. Um, they requested waivers from items 19, 22, 23, 27, 28, and 33 of the checklist. I did support all of those waivers and did recommend deeming the application complete.
Once again, there is an existing non-conforming two-family attached dwelling on this non-conforming lot. So, a lot of the nonconformities relate to the use and the lot. So, this is a
They're not actually in um expanding [clears throat] the use other than the accessory structure associated with that. And you've heard testimony from the applicant as to why that was a good why those are good things. Um, I
don't have any negatives to associate that um change with. Um, there the lot size is undersized with regards to lot size, width, and frontage. There is an existing nonconformity with regards to the front building setback along West
Perry Street and along with the total side yard requirement. Um, the one question that I asked the applicant and they did indicate that the shed would comply in every way, but there was no height up uh provided with the shed. Uh,
we asked that there be a construction detail added to the plan to verify that the height does not exceed 10 ft. >> It's 15, Mr. >> 15 with a peaked roof. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> You I think you're right there. We can We can comply with the code and provide a construction detail.
>> Okay, are we changing something in your chart? >> Yeah, the required height in the on for accessory shed is 15 ft. >> The 25 becomes a 15? >> The 10-ft at the very bottom of the second gable. >> That's 15. >> Correct. It's It's 15 if you have a peaked roof. >> But they have not provided what they're
proposing. >> Are you providing that? What is the height of the thing you're putting in? >> It'll be maximum 15-ft peaked roof and we can add that detail to the plans. >> I'm going to put less than 15 in the chart, okay? >> Perfect. >> Is there a second story in the shed?
>> There's not. >> Okay. I'm going to move on to my general review comments. I've talked about a couple of these already. One is our standard condition to revise the zoning table as appropriate. Two I just talked about which is providing a construction detail of the
shed and providing the building height. The Three we talked about which is the parking. Four is they're required to comply with the grading and drainage as well as item
number five. Item six is our standard condition that they have we evaluate the sidewalk prior to acceptance of the project and they will be required to replace any unsatisfactory sidewalk. Seven through 12 are our standard conditions affixed to these after types
of applications. I will talk about the fire department review recommendation. We They recommended approval dated 3/9/26. Public Works Department recommended approval dated 3/5/2026
and the Shade Tree Commission recommended approval indicating there were no trees on the property and that was dated March 5th, 2026. That is a summary of my review and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. Thank you.
>> If there are no questions for Craig, we'd like to open the meeting up now to the public. Anyone within 200 ft. Any beyond 200 ft. Meeting meeting is closed to the public. Okay, Rich, you want to explain the motion you made?
>> Uh the motion I recommend you make, but how you vote is up to you, is a motion to grant uh the variances outlined by uh your board engineer 1 through 5. Remember that this includes a use variance for expansion of a
non-conforming use. Again, this is one of those ones that I agree it's an expansion of a non-conforming use, but it's it's a shed, so it's a bit of a stretch to say it's making it all that much more intense, and it's a shed that complies with all bulk standards, right? So, you know, that
that to say that the site can accommodate what's there now, but can't possibly accommodate the shed would be challenging piece to make. Um uh So, they're the variances 1 through 5, subject to the conditions outlined by the board engineer, including that the shed be less than the 15 ft as modified
in the uh in the chart. But, that's the and um I I just want to add that I do agree with our our colleague that create just randomly creating parking lots in backyards is not to me a great design feature throughout the town. Like
I I'm not in favor of that. But, when you have we don't like back that backyard parking. We have a non-conforming use, which a duplex stack parking and duplexes are not compatible. Um and it's a you know, it West Perry is not particularly in a street you want to
back out on all the time. So, in this instance, you know, for those reasons some of you might not say those reasons, but I want to say them, so they're in the record, cuz we may have another application where somebody wants to put a parking lot in the backyard, and you may say "No, we don't want a parking lot in the backyard." Yeah, you may weigh it
differently in that instance, but there's some special circumstances here that I think need to to consider. So, your point is well taken. Maybe just this isn't the spot. You vote how you want to vote. You can still feel that way. I just want to have something on the record distinguishing this from other things we might hear where you may
say the same thing and everyone may chime in and say we totally agree because it's a different situation, okay? So, that's the motion I'm recommending made and some thoughts on the standards. Um it does need five out of seven, so if you're going to vote no, you know, articulate your reasons, you know, carefully. I'm not saying you can't.
Yeah, I just want you to express them because it's going to matter a lot. Okay? So, that's the motion I'm recommending made. How you vote is up to you. >> Okay, would someone like to make the recommendation, the motion? >> Did you hear Norm? I'll second. >> I'm sorry, who motioned?
>> Norm. >> Norm. >> Okay, motion by Mr. Ledwin, seconded by Mr. Yager. Mr. Ledwin. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Notch. >> Yes. >> Miss Shane. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walsh. >> No. Um
I think I was pretty clear on what I said before. Uh I feel that the loss of open space is overrides the backing out into the street. Everybody's been backing out onto Perry Street for quite a while. It's not the best situation. I feel losing this open space
worse than the parking situation. We're always chasing parking and I'm right with everybody, you know, we're it's what we look at in every application, it's parking. I just don't think this application warrants it. >> Mr. Dexter. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yager.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Venedo. >> Yes. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you all for your time. >> I think you just got to do this. Just stand up and do it. >> We need a motion to adjourn. >> I have bills to pay. >> Oh, we did the bills already. >> did that?
>> We did them early. >> Oh, is that right? >> Everything's done. >> Motion to dismiss. So, uh Miss Jan motions to adjourn. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Thank you, everyone. Good night. >> It was Terry, yeah.
>> I I can't