e e e 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 seeing none will'll have the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America the stands naice Mrs wner here Mr venudo here Mr Lewin here Mrs Notch here miss shayen Mr Walsh here Mr Zer here Mr catalo here Mr Bodner here here thank you we need a motion for the minutes of January 25th I'll make a motion I'll second okay motion by Mr Zer seconded by Mrs Notch okay uh Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr catalo Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you now we need a motion for the minutes for February 22nd I'll make the motion motion by Mr venudo second seconded by Mr ledwin Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr katalo Mr vudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you now we have a resolution for 604 reading Avenue someone like to make that motion I'll make the motion motion by Mrs Notch I'll second seconded by Mr Walsh Mr Lewin yes Mrs not yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr catalo Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay and we have a resolution for Thomas and GG Lord 1239 New York Avenue I'll make the motion motion by Mr venudo second seconded by Mr zetner Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch obain Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr kado Mrs wner um Mr B yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay our first application is Dev jackes 9918 Columbia Avenue um please turn on your microphones thank you can you hear me now yes okay uh good evening members of the board on behalf of Mr D jaged and Charles saman we are here today to gain approval for a uh second floor uh porch and railing uh which is going to be part of an existing um second floor apartment over top of his garage on a property that has a principal structure this is a second uh uh residential uh unit with which pre-existed the zoning ordinance uh but it as such it is an existing non-conforming use um and uh for that reason we come before the board because it is considered an exacerbation of that use as the board may recall we've been before the board uh back in December when we first presented this application uh prior to that application I had um inquired with the HPC who indicated me it was a non-contributing Structure so we decided to come to the board first but through through the course of that meeting the board thought that it would be a good idea to get the input of the HPC with regard to what we were proposing here we have since done that um in the process of doing so um if as the board may recall my client presented and in the original paperwork you'll see he presented some railings that were what he believed to be a Victorian style railing um since that uh meeting my client and before the HPC meeting uh my client went around and take a look at all the surrounding properties and came to the conclusion it really wouldn't fit in because it was not consistent with what was in the surrounding neighborhood so what he did was he went uh made a proposal to the HPC and that's what is is attached to the HPC resolution which is what was before them there which is different than what we had last time we were before you and the reason why he did that is he drove around town and and he looked at everything and he wanted to present something to the board consistent with everything that was in the area and that's what we put there um the board ultimately agreed with that uh that uh proposal and um gave conceptual approval to the plan one of the things that they made a point to point out was when you get something that's a very fancy railing usually they come in Pre um prefabricated sections where you just put a section up in between the posts they clearly didn't like that and they like this proposal because it was as they would refer to as stick built even though they they did indicate that it's okay that it be made of material like ASAC which certainly holds up to the weather much better but they were pretty clear they didn't want these prefabricated sections in there and that's what their approval was B based upon so uh I don't know that we need to go all the way into total uh depth and recover ground that we already covered the last time we're here but we certainly will do whatever the board would like us to do but that's basically the only change that we did uh since we were here last and got the HPC approval so that the this board would feel more comfortable with what we were proposing having said that I'd like to swear on my client and I've I've also brought our engineer uh Mr Rony nser to make any comments about the proposal that need be made I got swear on your client and your engineer and also the board's engineer please raise your right hand do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth the old truth and nothing but the truth stelf you got yes I do I do okay Mr Jag and you are the owner of this property yes okay and um as you indicated before we've got two residen on the property the principal residence do you reside in that residence um I I reside in the the garage Department okay what about the the main house the main house is for rent okay has it has been for rent for some years correct 2003 the garage apartment this is where we're proposing to build this deck and the rails that that we presented to the board yes okay and you reside in that unit yes you is that all do you solely reside in that unit you and your family yes do you rent it no is solely for your own personal use correct okay and the sorry about that okay thank you so if if you could just briefly explain to the board what it is that you uh you want to do here certainly and so I've been asked even my my wife and and my friends and in swn like why why do you want this deck and and I'll be honest with you the the real reason is is this like K is a beautiful town I love being here I love coming here in the summertime but the beauty of a deck is when people are walking by you say hello it's neighborly it enhances my property in a way that I get to say good evening and get you know good morning and that's what makes Cape May when you're walking down the street and people are sitting on their porch and you look up and somebody says hello that's the connections you make like our town is beautiful right our town is beautiful for the buildings however the real Beauty if you is the people we attract and when you're sitting in this house at my house sitting out in the driveway is not so nice but sitting out and watching people walk by and being able to just say hello and sometimes hello turns into something more I have great neighbors I get along with them but it's the people walking down the street down Columbia where I live it's nice when I'm out doing yard work and you say hello sometimes that turns into or somebody's walking their dog that's what makes Cape May I don't have that in this property everyone on my street does and when he talked about the railings what I did notice was all our railings are stick on that on my block you go up two blocks they're more Victorian that's why originally I proposed Victorian and when I looked at my immediate neighbors they're stick that's when we went to HPC but the real reason is that it's people it's the ability to sit out and say hello and hello can turn into more Hello can turn into going out for a drink hello can turn into dinner and that's why my wife and I want it that's why quite honestly spending more on Professional Services than the cost of the Improvement um so that's the real reason that's and I believe quite honestly in particular in my property it is certainly going to enhance the front Frontage and the street view of it um and you know I'm coming on my 30 years of federal service in two years I plan on retiring here I plan on being here and this is where we'll stay because I have a large house in Baltimore I love this house because it's small it's less to maintain and it's a perfect place to retire that's why I'd like my porch and you plan on making your permanent residence absolutely abely that's certainly because you know but now I put that with caveat wherever my children might have grandchildren I might change our plans but right now this is where um grandchildren could change you mean wherever your wife tells you to go that too but we've agreed on Cape May this is this is our house this is we've had it since 2003 we're now getting to the end of our you know our mortgage is done so we'll be this is where we would end up staying but but the real reason I want it there in that location is we we have a wonderful Street it attracts people renters as well as owners and it's a great place and you've all approved multiple new homes down three houses down four houses down to the right and left ours are the only two three and um houses there that are all your neighbors are aware of what you're Absol absolutely I know if if you're allowed I mean look the car Elanor Carr lives next door John Carr keep me for many years we've got um she would come but obviously older not coming and we're not ask you to testify on their behalf that would be simply neighb displeasure with what you like have correct correct okay um next witness would be Mr nser yes sir you can come over here Dev Mr ner we've been through this on a previous occasion but briefly can you rehash what we did and so the board is straight on everything is going on with modific the pl since our original to M since most particularly modifications that have made to the pl since they were originally proposed oh sure uh this is our revised plans that we submitted uh to to the board it shows the deck that has been adjusted to eliminate the need for the two side the sidey yard setback and rear yard setback so the only variance we are requesting at this point is the ex exaggeration of the non-conforming use as a D2 variance at this point the D2 category as opposed to D1 uh yes sir because the way I see it is uh this is a pre-existing uh lawfully existing use probably it was before even the zoning ordinances came in effect they never required requested a d variance to create this uh existing non-conformance so I believe the D2 variance would apply in this situation okay and as a result certain special circumstances can I ask a question did you submit revised plans these plans have been I don't think we received those are these I thought maybe you handed them out when I was I certainly can because I have a lot of copies well they well hold on here let me just try to fix this so the revision first of all you got to give them out because there Tech they're supposed to be within tend 10 days ahead of the meeting um it's a it's a minor revision which is headed to cure of the side setback if the revision you're talking about is the one that eliminated variances then I don't have an issue with that that's right so basically we're going to treat it as if there was some concern at the meeting about the variances and you've modified it to get rid of those concerns so yes sir the plan you're handing out now removes two of the three VAR normally we wouldn't let you just do new plans at the meeting but you're all removing variances so that seems less expensive to the stat I don't want to point fingers but fix I didn't I didn't do that maybe that's the reason you have all these copies could be [Applause] what was the date of the revision I'm going to know in a second hold on never mind thank you what was that date can we say that 2024 okay can we Mark that as exhibit a mark 22124 can you leave that with me too you mind okay great thank you you want one I I'll take that one that one's fine thank you very much sorry to inter there's no big CH they eliminated okay and just so that there's no question the record I'm allowing these plans to come in even though they weren't in advance 10 days in advance because if they had if we were just working with the plans that they already had and if what they said was I want to modify my application to eliminate two variances we would let them do that on the fly without plans we do that a lot someone says I'm going to move this deck back 5T so that it conforms when we don't make them do new plans at the hearing we say Okay move it back and then we put that in the thing so I'm treating it like that so okay I think it's okay all right thank you right okay can you explain that to the board yes so basically what the are uh we are outside the side yard setback and we shorten the deck from the rear so we're outside the rear yard side back so we're not ex exacerbating any of these exist existing conditions so we're seeking no bulk Varian no the structure as it stands it complies with almost all the Box standard except the garage can you carry the microphone I'm sorry sorry thank you um except the existing garage has 12T rear out setback supposed to be 25 ft that that's only existing non-conformance with the structure so the the sh the proposed deck would not exagerate any of these non-conformances except the use okay now um I'd like to address the D2 variance standard which calls for some certain criteria to be met in order to justify the board granting such a variance can you go over that please yes I mean we look at U the positive and negative criteria or with the special reasons uh one of the special reasons for the D2 variance is uh if you enhance the aesthetic of the structure which is definitely we are uh enhancing the structure this aesthetic of the structure rure we're becoming more in compliance with the neighborhood that's around us so that's one that's how we address the special reasons uh when we look at the negative criterias uh we're not changing the actual use of the structure it's exactly the same use we're not increasing the habitable space only a space that they can recreate they can recreate at the bottom floor or the top floor it's the same typ of recreation so we're not really impacting any of the existing uses and we feel that there's no negative impact with the with this with the granting this variant your opinion this proposed deck and rail enhance the aesthetic or the appearance of property from the street yes takes a structure that just like straight wall and makes it more interesting especially the I believe the historic the historic commission commission approved it from and would that appearance be consistent with the surrounding properties yes sir that's all I have if you have any questions do you um I if if you said this I'm I miss it I'm sorry do you have any negative impact on the Zone plan zoning ordinance with the surrounding neighborhood no sir there's no negative criteria so there's no impact or detriment to the Zone plan or the zoning ordinances there was concern about getting the cars with the post in the previous meeting right has that been changed yes and we showed the based on our plan we show the five parking spaces on site and if this becomes an issue there's there's room we can move to the front so there's room in the driveway to show that the cars can fit five cars on the on for the in the structure okay anyone else have any questions okay um at this time we'll open to the public within 200 ft of the property Beyond 200 ft of the property close to the public all right good evening everyone I'd like to go over my September 1st 2023 review memorandum this memorandum is based off the original plan that was submitted and does not reflect the revisions uh that were submitted tonight at with exhibit a but I'll update that for Mr King's uh provision of a or provision of the uh resolution of approval or okay um so just briefly um i' I've gone through this memo before there were three waivers that were requested and I did support that based on the nature of this application um and so those should be granted by the board um this is a project located in the r3a district so Apartments over garages are not permitted and you're not allowed to have two uses on the same site so those are the that's the standard that has to be met it's an existing non-conforming situation because we have essentially a single family dwelling attached by a Breezeway to a apartment over an existing garage so it's an existing non-conformity and they're expanding it so the use already exists they're expanding that use um so therefore there's a D2 use variance that's been uh requested so the board has to uh rely on the applicant's testimony with regards to that um I'd like to update the zoning table on page three of five based on exhibit a that was submitted the rear yard setback requirement of 25 ft um is now being met so the proposed deck has a set rear yard setback of 27.9 Ft so where 19.4 ft is shown that should be replaced with a 27.9 and therefore that setback is now conforming the side yard setback can I ask you a question about that real quick yep the rear yard where it says that the existing is 12 feet should that say conforming or existing non-conforming it should be an ENC okay than sorry that's right okay sidey yard setback that requirement is 8 feet what they originally proposed was 6.24 feet that is being uh revised to 8 feet so that it conforms so both rear and side yard setbacks have been eliminated there was an opportunity to conform and the applicant has done that so the only variance that's necessary is that D variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use great can a question on that one too yep on the on the top part should that be 8 and 14.9 or 11 and eight like what do I do with that top part that would be I think it's 11 and eight but uh the 11 gets replaced with an eight the 11 becomes an eight okay thank you okay so that that's a review of the variances the general review comments we asked them to update the variance plan to show the parking spaces I do believe that's done but I haven't had an opportunity to review that so that'll remain a condition uh we've asked for the setbacks to be provided on the plans that's probably shown on exhibit a but we're going to leave that as a condition uh we've asked them under item number three that they grade the property towards the front of the lot and not a budding properties and if there's any storm water issues created they're required to submit a grading and drainage plan and they also must comply with uh chapter 525 which is the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements item number five is our standard condition that they have to replace the sidewalk um adjacent to the subject site to the satisfaction of the board engineer six is our standard condition that they have to post the inspection escrow and tie the certificate of occupancy to compliance with the uh plans that the board approves item number seven is the applicant is required to comply with the shade tree commission the fire department and public works department uh requirements or recommendations um they recommended approval in all cases with no comments so that should not be an issue um item number eight is our standard condition that they have to comply with any and all state County local approvals item nine is compliance with the HPC approval they have uh submitted uh con evidence of conceptual approval but we will need evidence of final approval finally um or not finally but they have to under item number 10 they have to comply with the applicable able affordable housing requirements item number 11 is should the board Grant approval they're required to revise the plans to address all conditions of approval and submit the requisite number of compliance plans to the board for approval and that is a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has unless there's further comment the motion well let me just this is a they've eliminated most of the viruses except for expansion of a non-conforming use the reason this is a non-conforming use interestingly is because the two are connected that is that no but there something says they are connected so I think they're not connected really clearing them Craig you can talk about that for a second if it was just a garage and it was connected by the Breezeway it would comply the fact that there's an apartment over that garage and that there's an existing single family detached dwelling that's attached to it creates the two uses so there are two uses on a single lot which is not permitted they're expanding the use because they're creating an outdoor space for that um structure normally it's an expansion of the habitable space uh but since this is a deck it is is you know putting on the exterior and interior use so it is an expansion of a non-conforming use but it's an existing non-conforming use so it's not like a variance where they're trying to put a use that's not a new use on the lot it's a use that's kind of been there for a while so it gets a little credit and there's a case that talks about normally Aesthetics wouldn't be enough to permit an expansion of a non a use variance but since it's a mere expansion sometimes even Aesthetics can be the reason so you're safe if you believe that aesthetically this improves the property that that is within your discretion to Grant the expansion um it's a little technical but that's the gist so the motion I recommend being made although your decision is up to you but you make it in the affirmative but how you vote is up to you is a motion to Grant uh the use variance under um section 525 d16.1 a and through 11 just a reminder there's five affirmative votes that need to pass this because it is a def how many voters do we have eight full seven oh and we should mention on the record that Mr catalo who's a new member on the board tonight did listen to the prior hearing and signed an appropriate certification that I'll mark As exhibit big so that he's able to vote as well so you have a full seven voters and thank you thank you for doing that because not all board members take the time to go do that so we could vote on your application so that was everybody appreciates that okay so okay so can we have that motion I'll make a motion motion by Mr zeter I'll second sorry Mr Lewin that was Mr Walsh I'm sorry right I'm sorry I jumped the gun Mr Lewin was yes yes thank you Mrs notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr catalo yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you thank you member you have a copy of the I think I've got one for than um I've got one Craig you want you talking about the plan Karen needs one for her sure for her record sorry a little longer than usual this is going to be JT how you doing Rich too I don't I don't think so there's no Angry mobs here with which I'm I find disconcerting okay our next next application is JTG Group LLC 1382 Lafayette Street good evening Madam chairman board members my name is Ron gunis appearing on on behalf of the applicant JTG Group LLC property of course is 1382 Lafayette Street this is an historic contributing structure uh which was originally The Landing boarding house constructed in the early 1900s uh which retains much of its original characteristics including rooms located on the second and third floors uh the building currently contains two commercial businesses on the ground floor a real estate office and an accountants office and a number of bedrooms bathrooms and office space on the second and third floors The Proposal this evening is to seek preliminary and final site plan approval and variances to renovate and restore the structure namely to reconstruct the front porch that was removed in the 1950s to construct an addition over the roofed area which will be in the same footprint of the existing building and to convert the rooms on the second and third floor and offices located there uh into three residential units this uh project has received HPC conceptual approval in January 29 of of 2024 I have to my left Miss Pamela fine of fine architecture and uh sitting in the front row is uh Mr Paul Kates from uh Kate Snider engineering if and also Joe Gil Martin to uh his right um if we could have uh these folks sworn in please our engineer remains under swe or tell the truth all truth about the truth got yes okay um Pam briefly you could just place your credentials on the record oh sure um I have been before this board many times and testified um uh as well as other boards in Kate May County uh I'm a licensed residential architect uh been practicing since 2015 on my own and 10 years prior to that with another firm okay okay yes recognized as all right um Pam why don't you take us through existing conditions on the site the building and uh the design challenges that you faced and what your proposal is sure uh so I began working on this project back in 2022 um Mr Joe Gil Martin had me come in visit the site walk the building um basically what sits here is uh the first floor is comprised of a bunch of offices a couple of bathrooms um some storage areas and and various uh smaller rooms like that the second and third floors as I saw them were offices but I later learned that they were actually boarding rooms at one point so there were bedrooms uh you'll see there was a kitchen a couple of bathrooms um and they still exist today so um I have the existing plans on the S1 sheet along with the existing site plan uh the house the uh I shouldn't say house the property uh the structure is located on the right uh front corner of the site um and uh upon visiting it I was given a couple photographs um of some historical pictures and I believe these were included in the submission but uh you'll see on those photographs there exhibit B in the application exhibit B of the application there's an existing front porch uh that was later either removed or um fell apart I'm not sure but there is a a full width front porch on the property um you'll see there's two photographs one looks like a much earlier photograph uh the uh second floor which a lot was a lot smaller then and there was no third floor uh there was another photograph submitted with the front porch a full second floor and then the third floor maner roof so we are working basically with that photograph in mind we presented our concept to the HBC they gave us preliminary approval with a few minor adjustments to the plans which are shown here today um and we're looking to go back to HPC for final once we're finished uh with the zoning approvals so um you'll see I'll just briefly show you the the S2 sheet which are the current elevations of what exists today you'll see no front porch we have a couple of small Landings in the front two doors uh you'll see the maner roof in the front there and then along the back we have a low slope Gable Edition that's only two stories I'm going to jump over to the P1 sheet and this is showing us the proposed floor plans so the first floor we have existing commercial which will remain as purely commercial uh we're going to do some work to improve the spaces make them more usable make the office spaces more usable fix the kitchenet the bathrooms and such we're going to have two uh separate commercial units with a central hallway a central stair and then we're adding an elevator in the back basically the entire footprint staying the same for the actual habitable space and then you'll notice we have that new front covered port porch all the way across the front there's a small portion that's going to be open and then there's another larger portion that's going to be covered and that's to mimic what was found in this Photograph and if I jump on to the second floor plan that's where the residences start so we have two units on the second floor there's a left unit and there's a right unit I have the areas broken down in the zoning chart on the left area we have two bedrooms we have two bathrooms we have a half bath and then we have a living dining kitchen and then also in that uh that left unit we have an open deck on the right side we have another unit this one is only one bedroom one bathroom living dining kitchen and a powder room and you'll see there's that Central hallway that provides access to both units and then at the back we have that elevator also at the back we have a new Landing uh fire escape this provides another means of ESS for this floor and the one above and then I'll also mention off the back uh right hand corner for that um second unit on the right we have a balcony space so they both have outdoor spaces to enjoy and then if we flip over to P2 you'll see the third floor plan is all one unit so this is the third residential unit on this uh plan we have three bedrooms on this level we have three bathrooms a half bath and a living dining kitchen and this this level has a couple of decks uh that are private and then in the back you'll see again the elevator and the landing out the back now I'm going to jump back to the P2 sheet because it has some important square footage number numbers written here um one of one of the variances we were asking for was floor area ratio um but that was because I was including commercial square footage in that number so if commercial is not required to be counted in floor area ratio our proposed is actually well under the maximum uh allowed so if commercial is not included that whole first floor level can be moved so we would be left with uh an existing number of 2,211 a proposed addition of 1,60 and then for a total of 3,271 which would bring us far under the uh floor area ratio maximum of 4,090 or 4,900 um we just sure sure is it your position that you don't need to comply with FL Ratio or is it your position that you don't count commercial I just want to I counted it in the original application but I wasn't sure if commercial space applied to the floor area ratio because it mentions just residential it's a use variance right well we have stand it's a use variance so what what standard is the applicable standard when there's a use variance so now take the use variance out of it strict reading of floor area ratio is residential habitable space I understand that okay so um I personally based on this testimony that she's she's indicated um and I was just doing a calculation I don't believe that there's a floor area ratio necessary now the two uses don't go away so you know think you take away so it were just those apartments on the site they would they would be permitted based on four area isue um but the fact this is the R2 District it only allows single family dwellings the fact that there's apartments and multiple units going in there that's not permitted use because it's mixed with commercial units that's also not permitted and we also have the case where there's two uses on more than one use on the same site so use variances are still in play but as far as the amount of habitable space that can be provided on that lot they're complying so I don't know how you want to treat that well that's Mr King if I may that that is um my interpretation as well when I look at the uh ordinance flu ratio 525-5244 C1 and C2 it says all dwellings in those zones have to meet a 65 floor area ratio so clearly under that section does not include the uh commercial use however I do agree that this these are non-conforming uses and this is clearly an expansion of the non-conforming use uh so the standard would be whether or not the site can accommodate the uh impacts from that expansion so in my opinion I'm not sure they need a floyer ratio variance I'm not going to try to figure that out at the moment what I will tell you is the fact that they don't meet the floyer ratio if it was a residential building can be an indication that the site you know actually to an indicator maybe it does accommodate it because it's pretty close to the FL ratio but it can also mean that it doesn't I think it's part of the analysis you can do that if it was the permitted use of residential arguably the building's too big for the lot but it's pretty close and it's existing structure I'm not telling you that to dislike it for that reason I'm just saying that I think the fact that the bulk of the structure if it were the confirming use of residential is greater than the FL ratio that could weigh against a particular use variance for expanding it it'd be something to consider I don't think it's a disqualifier by any stress of the imagination but I think something you can consider in part of your weighing of it so I'm not going to require I'm not going to recommend that you require a FL ratio variance but I think that you know it was I think that'd be a favorable thing if it's over I think it's among the many things you can consider as a part of your analysis of whether the site can accommodate the expansion okay so that's where I come out on that so just Factor it in the things you factor in when you decide okay there that as as Fair as I can get it's a factor to consider I agree to consider save your okay and um so I'm GNA continue on back to P2 just briefly introduce the elevations um you'll see the bulk of the volume of the front of the building Remains the Same we are adding this front porch shutters um you'll see this section here is brand new so we presented this to the HBC they requested that we had a trim piece here to uh delineate that addition on the side and then this piece up here is actually recessed Beyond this uh deck line uh the proposed rear elevation is here and this is showing you those fire escapes that I mentioned earlier the small balcony in the back and then this space here we had if you remember the existing elevations was a low slope Gable so this volume here with the Dormers is proposed as new and then the final sheet p three you'll see the sides so this is the proposed right side you'll see this is the maner roof section to stay the same front porch addition and then this area rack here is adding on same as down here on the left side elevation this area here is added on as well as this portion here and then this portion here can you give me a this fine can you give me a sentence or two that I can write down resolution that explains what portion is expanding can you say something like the third floor the northeast corner oh sure something that I can type yeah so I would um we are proposing an addition to the third floor rear portion of the structure and that addition will be within the same footprint within the same footprint as the second floor below and then there will also be a small second floor Edition which is also above an existing single story portion of the floor below thank you you're welcome ma'am could you just um the these plans were in front of the HPC um a version of these plans yes and they requested some modifications yes I can run those modifi the plans and we're now looking at the plans with the changes that the HBC requested that's correct did you just point those out to to the board I would be happy to so um the HPC requested I know I mentioned earlier um on that front elevation they wanted this trim board right here just to delineate where the existing Manser roof section ended and where we were adding on uh they also requested that on the sides the new roof area be stepped down from the existing Peak of them answered so we pulled that down and then we also revised the roof lines on the second floor or the third floor Edition uh to satisfy what they had requested now I know the HBC um is very concerned about streetcape scaling mass of structures and whatnot uh was there any discussion about that and were they satisfied with with your design your proposal um they seem to really like the fact that we were putting back the porch they had no comments on the porch uh itself um so I believe that the streetcape satisfied them U with regard to the front porch now is that that that's triggering a front yard setback yes yes we need a front yard uh setback variance is that porch back uh reconstructed in the same place that was originally and we saw in the uh old photographs from whatever the year that was 1925 or so it looks like in that photograph so there were um some uh areas that are left on the property currently um that I walked around and were uh pointed out to me let me see so in the front here uh there's an existing Landing so you can kind of see remains of where the existing porch footings had L had uh been located so we measured approximately how deep those were and that's what gave us that that dimension for that uh front porch depth uh now so it's back in the same place yes what we believe were um were signs of where the front porch used to be located yes and in your opinion does the uh does the benefit of having that porch reconstructed and restoring the historical character of this building outweigh the detriment of intruding into the front yard setback absolutely I think it is a uh huge carp appeal upgrade I think it fits with the look of the house I think it fits on the streetcape um it complements everything that makes Kate May beautiful so I think I think this is a great addition to this property in fact the uh building just to the South and the next one down to the South also have these open front porches which are within the uh setback area as well yes I'm not sure how far into the setbacks those are but yes that's why I say the streetscape it'll it'll uh compliment they're pretty similar visually very similar yes okay thank you um I would just ask the board to hold your questions for for uh Miss fine we're going to hear from uh Mr Gil Martin and then Mr Kates and then we'll open it up for questions uh Joe you want to come up evening everyone for those of you who don't know me I'm Joe Kil Martin uh I'm from Kate May here I grew up on Kate May Avenue um I've been at this location where the office is now for 37 years um so in my tenure it's been many things over the years uh if we do a brief very brief history of the property it was built in uh 1875 uh it was a originally a plumbing supply and a boarding house uh that continued on until probably 1950s early 50s uh there was a phone switching company in there at some point with Liv living quarters on the second floor there was uh a peor factory uh on the premises uh for probably the late 60s to mid 70s uh in 1980 Barbara cop took the building over and uh it was Century 21 cop and Company uh I started my tenure there in 1985 uh during that time it was Century 21 it was Kate Mari and it was CMI which is three different real estate companies all in one building which is kind of interesting to go into every day um simultaneously there was uh Noah the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration they were on the second floor and they were there for about 30 years um that was a government office and then the government changed the standards for the type of building that they could be in and we lost a a great tenant there uh so let's see 1998 I took over the building as JTG group maintained the centry 21 we did take over Noah they were there for a few years uh we've had U an accountant in there uh a conductor uh zimman from Kate May point was in there for a number of years uh let's see were they on the the first floor or second floor Joe uh no it was on the second floor Zinman was on the second floor uh let's see who else was on the second floor there was a Electronics uh distributor uh on the second floor at one point uh and a company called track warnings who made vests that workers wear on railroad tracks that light up and vibrate when a train's coming that was pretty interesting uh what else do we have here so uh that there's been just the Myriad of different uses on the ground floor and the second floor yeah uh Through The Years some commercial uses on the second floor as well yes uh and what about some residential uses uh tell us a little bit about how it was used uh it was used primarily as um like a boarding house there was rooms uh you shared a bath and then there was uh usually meals on the first floor and over the years it it we've used it as that we've also sectioned off parts of it uh where there's a kitchen up there and it's been just one unit or it's been rooms in a unit uh it's been a a multitude of uses with a residential up there okay now current use of the property no no one's upstairs currently no the offices are vacant and residential aspects of it are vacant yeah yes uh right now it's uh it's our office and uh an accounting office and that's downstairs yes and your idea is to to eliminate all of the various things that have been upstairs and convert that completely to a a residential uh use correct yeah o over the years through the real estate business um uh and having other businesses there we've never had any problem with any parking or anything like that um but times change uh most people can work remotely they don't really need the office space anymore so we're kind of stream Ling the building uh to to get it to where we would like to have it so currently you have a real estate office in the count office what what you'd say on any given day during the week um and are you open on weekends is the accountant there on weekends uh how many cars are utilizing the the the parking lot between your real estate office and the account no I don't want to talk about taxes just uh this time you know yeah yeah um I don't think there's more than four or five cars at a given time in the parking lot and your real estate office you have real estate agents yeah uh how do they work do they come into the office and punch a time card no or how does that work they're all 1099 they're self-employed so they they can work from home they can work from their car they can work from Florida they can do pretty much what they want uh again primarily they they're picking up a key at the office if they need to we don't have an electronic box on the on the property okay all right uh thanks Joe just stay up here for us and can I just ask you a question yeah sure are I know I supposed to wait are you asking for a use variance for specific use like a real estate agency and a what's no I'll ask him some questions so you're not changing or you're not have any plans to change the current commercial use of the property oh no no that is currently your real estate office one in the accountant yeah um and that's continued on for the number of years you've just testified to oh yeah no uh no uh desire or plan to chose no we we don't want to go back to making computer figures we don't want to do it's just the accounting office and the and real estate office you're going you're you're asking asking but you're going to eliminate any future use of the second third floor as a commercial use oh no yeah we don't we don't and you're here today just to ask for the expansion of the residential component of the building which as Miss pamine pointed out is an addition over the third floor roof and second floor roof yeah that's correct yes my goal is to give you if you win I'll make sure you get what you want okay so I want to be very clear about what you want if I type real estate agent and accounting office and then that's what the resolution says and then you want to put a lawyer in there oh that's okay yeah so I want to write down what you want so if you're saying professional office correct and that's what the board approves then it'll be professional office right not an ice cream Potter correct okay so I want to I want to put in there the use variant so to speak that you want so I think what you're I think what you want you check with your attorney is a professional office correct not not a retail just so I think that's the broadest thing that I correct you have any reasonable chance of getting to correct professional office correct yeah no Mr King that is one point I did have that conversation with Joe and um explained to him that the professional office in fact he asked me that question directly oh I well no you're not if you know you wanted to change use to something like a retail restaurant or something like that you you would have to come before the zoning board and get that permission uh but something similar to what you're doing a professional office that is within that uh current use of the property in my opinion and wouldn't trigger any additional requirements so and I I think that would all fall under the category of professional office as a let's say if that was the permitted use you'd have professional office space I think professional office is is a reasonable thing to have in the resolu not say it should be granted I'm just saying that's and that's what we want m residen is about profession because they're often put together in zoning orces a lot of times there's professional offices are permitted in a residential Zone as you know where a living space behind a residence that happens aot a professional office and Liv living space behind it's kind of a common thing so I just want to and we want it to be professional office space because that and you'll hear from Mr Kate that's going to tie into our parking analysis and the low intensity use that uh these type of professional offices get so presentation Mr Kates your uh briefly your credentials please so I've been working in Municipal engineering for 20 years now I was licensed as a professional engineer in 2011 as a professional planner in 2019 I currently represent four boards um in South Jersey and have testified before many others as a professional uh but this is my first time in Cape May other than a stin working for Cape May uh between 2009 and 2011 as uh their engineer or working for the firm that was their engineer can you save me some digging and just SP your name is it a c or Kates k a t e s okay madam chair will you recognize welcome yes thank you thank you okay Paul why don't you just uh make your presentation take us through the uh propos yeah so uh I'm sure as many of you or all of you know 1382 Lafayette is located on the east side of Lafayette um right near the entrance to town uh it's a 99 foot wide by 99 foot deep lot located in the R2 residential zoning District um as was previously testified the building has been used for a variety of commercial and residential uses over the many years it's it's been standing um as also was stated the building currently uh houses a realtor and an accountant um and there's an existing residential unit on the second floor that's not being used um what we are proposing uh is a substantial re renovation that would bring uh many aesthetic and safety improvements to the structure um we'll be improving the parking lot and surrounding Landscaping um the residential footprint of the building will remain unchanged however we will be expanding the staircases uh the porch to bring it closer to its historic form and updating accesses uh to those units upstairs um the parking lot will be better delineated with parking blocks and surrounding landscape which will make it safer as well um with regard to the bulk standards uh we are seeking a use variants for the expansion of the current non-conforming dual use and we're maintaining the first floor commercial while expanding the second floor and third floor residential units um the front yard setback is currently non-conforming uh we're proposing to further encroach into that setback by putting into place a covered porch and steps the porch will sit uh 10.3 feet from the front line where 25 ft is required and the steps will be 6.7 ft from that line um we did survey those other structures uh that Pam had uh referenced and they are relatively consistent um the setback on the one furthest to the South is 11.2 ft to the porch um and 9 ft to the steps the one north of that is do you want to put that up and can we Mark that um as exhibit a aiel A1 and take us through and um point to those buildings if you want to go through that just real quickly you get yeah so this one the furthest to the South uh the side of the building is located at 11.2 ft and there is a small staircase for access to that area and that is sitting at 9 ft uh from the property line adjacent to that with the large front porch um that one is at 8.9 ft to the stairs and 9.7 um to the porch so that one's a hair closer than um and then the one directly adjacent to us is slightly further back at 11.2 ft to the stairs and 13 ft to the porch and then next to this one is actually sits a little bit deeper which is um 24 ft to the porch and 31 so that conforms to the existing setback so we we didn't have quite enough there to eliminate the variance with the ordinance for the average front yard setback uh I think if I hear what you're saying is we it pretty it came pretty close yeah there wasn't enough structures to justify that allowance um however given the average it does pull us consistent with the adjacent homes um so then uh beyond that we are also seeking uh there is existing non-conforming loot coverage and parking um the loot coverage currently planned to is currently at 55.2 uh% impervious uh we were originally proposing to lower that to uh 52.8 uh but we are actually seeking an additional 266 square feet to accommodate um one of Mr heres's comments which is a uh a concrete handicap parking area so that increases the square footage by 266 square feet to 53.6% um and then and then with the parking so the proposed we so with the parking we we looked at the historic parking uses on the lot and given the current intensity and the and with additional commercial units on the second and third floors we want that other yeah Mark that is 8 A2 Mr King and what is that uh Paul just briefly describe what the exhibit shows so this is parking parking analysis what was A1 this is the current A1 was the areial A1 was the front yard setback oh okay sorry thank you yes A2 is the historic parking uh calculator this is the the current floor plan of the existing structure and uh as Joe had testified previously Noah was in the second floor area in the gray the red was previously utilized as the boarding rooms and the residential unit and he also I don't know that he testified it to it here but in our discussions he had at one point simultaneously been running the third floor which I believe was to the composer so we looked at the square footages of all that commercial space within the building and that with the 200 uh square one space per 200 square foot and a minimum one employee per uh unit that actually brought the total required spaces up to 21 spaces um the residential units actually require less parking than if the structure remained commercial as a whole so the one-bedroom unit requires one space the two-bedroom unit requires one and a half spaces and the three-bedroom unit requires two spaces along with the commercial on the first floor and two employees one per um one per use um that brings our required parking to 16 spaces um however given the way that uh the property is planned to be used we are proposing 12 spaces um which is what we feel the site will accommodate along with those uses um go so those 12 spaces are in the current location of the parking which is there is a curb line that runs down the property line and that's where they currently Park we are proposing parking blocks to further delineate those parking spaces and we are also pulling the stone back away from the rear property line to create a 5- foot buffer um from the adjacent lot uh we are looking at uh modifying the two parking spots um on the back right to accommodate the handicapped parking area as outlined in the engineers report so we are proposing 12 spaces where 16 would be required but isn't isn't the point really that what use could you put in here that you would comply with parking you're not expanding the building so right what I know I'm not trying to make your case for you I'm just saying what use could they put it's been historically underp parked um you know and I I'm glad you provided that testimony um and I agree with the applicant that the conversion of commercial space to residential space lessens the parking demand um just based on the the calculations that the code calculations and the res itial site Improvement standards that and uh we tried to point out too that the uh it's the commercial space that not the residential that's driving up the parking C and hopefully with uh Mr Gil Mart's testimony the board uh understands how the property actually functions and what the the actual parking demand is for the type of uh offices that are located in there when you have just a commercial parking standard in the ordinance it it covers all of the type of commercial most of the type of commercial uh businesses that that could be in a in a commercial Zone um so you know that's um trying to point out there's a low parking demand and uh it's driven by the uh commercial use uh and it's not uh being caused by the uh expansion of the residential that can easily be accommodated on the property and if the board accepts that that's why important that Mr King um essentially fine-tune that use general office to professional office so that if there's any change that parking evaluation needs to be done and you guys have to come back to the board for any future changes yes so in addition to those variances we're also seeking two design waivers um one we'd like to leave the parking where it is um it's been functioning there for as far back as we could see in historic areals which is right up against the property line so we are looking for a design waiver from the 5- foot buffer requirement um we did look at the possibility of conforming to that buffer requirement um the drive AIS is actually wider than it is required to be it's currently at 26.3 feet or 24 foot would be required so in essence we could pull that parking away slightly and get some buffering um but at this time we're we're requesting a waiver from that 5 foot um we're also seeking a design waiver for the requirement to pave the parking lot uh we think there's a benefit in leaving this as a stone lot in IND in reducing imp pervious coverage and runoff um the stone will absorb uh some of the storm water and also so it slows the rate of runoff into the street in this area um typically you see higher impervious coverage allowances in commercial zones um being this is a is presently a non-conforming commercial use in a residential Zone those uh standards are lower um but like we said we are pulling that parking lot in we're pulling back some of the existing impervious in order to bring that impervious coverage down um beyond that I we are willing to comply with all other uh comments made in the engineers review memorandum and and you did meet the five foot buffer requirement in the rear yes we did pull the parking back and we are meeting the 5 foot in the rear and that will you be able to do that when you provide the ADA Compliant parking space it's going to be tighter okay so I think in I think to address that ADA parking space you should ask for that 5 foot wide as well that area I've requested from the applicant in my review memo um to provide one ADA compliance space based on the number of parking spaces that's the requirement um we're essentially updating a uh site plan that was approved or not approved probably May probably predated zoning so there was no it was just done before any of these zoning standards were but we have an opportunity here to get it to comply as best we can um so it's a place of business there needs to be an ADA parking space um and that's really the only place that it can fit and that's going to not allow them to pull that parking and create that 5- foot buffer so that's that was my request and they're they're accommodating that but it's going to necessitate that buffer requirement uh well Mr Kates has a a sketch drawn up for the uh Ada parking space which is essentially in the same place as the two part working spaces that are shown the two together in the middle uh and then he has an an additional space that that is one space and then the additional SPAC is in the five foot buffer Mr huris is talking about so I I know you so the so the provision of the Ada space won't reduce the number of parking spaces that so you're still going to have 12 but it will reduce the buffer in that area in that area right so we talking about buffering we're not adjusting the parking number thank you and and I just wanted to make it clear that we're not talking about eliminating the entire 5ft buffer along the rear of the property but only in that area where the the car is parked right doing it improves um yeah no I mean go back to the stone I think you mentioned that uh that counts as coverage correct we weren't counting we're counting it as a semi- perious in this situation okay and it actually does in fact water percolates through that you're allowed to take credit for it because it is in a residential zone right but having to PVE it would dramatically increase the runoff from the site and and your lot coverage calculation lot coverage calculation and and Craig there's sufficient room for that apron that you like to have for the yeah it's so they already have an existing um Drive aisle that's paved with pavers um which acts as a tracking pad so they're not spilling those stones out onto the street um so I'm you know typically when we have this many parking spaces I'm a little hesitant to say uh not pave it but in this case I think we're we're safe to allow that and given given that area we are actually showing a small reduction in that entrance drive to increase the semi permeable area which was part of what allowed us to bring down our coverage from the 50 it was at 55.2 down to 5 53 yeah 53.6 okay and so we were looking at these as D2 and C2 variances um We Believe by uh updating the structure it'll promote a desirable visual environment it'll actually bring it back into conformance with the historic nature of the structure um we are also providing sufficient space in appropriate location we believe that by lessening the intensity the use on that lot it's bringing it closer to conforming with the neighborhood um and also reducing the impact of the surrounding neighborhood um we believe the plan does provide adequate light air and open space um we are promoting the establishment of appropriate population densities as it fits within the F calculation for the residential and uh updating the structure is going to increase the safety and general welfare of the public as well as in the parking lot um with regards to the negative criteria I mean we could see we think this this plan improves on the current use of the site um and we could see no negative detriment to the zoning plan one thing I I wanted to talk about I think is the neighborhood Joe you've been there a long while and and Paul if you want to chime in on this the um I know the zone is is but what are the build are any multif family buildings In the Zone close to you or in that area there's the 10 homes in the block uh five are multif family currently one is a residential that was previous a duplex uh and then the remaining four are uh residential and um uh Paul do you feel that um it's uh it it's a wash removing the amount of commercial guaranteeing the commercial doesn't come back changing that to residential and that little bit expansion for the residential um is better than having the commercial yeah I think it's creating a less intense use on the site and the site is Will better support that use and in uh in in different terms um Can the site accommodate uh the expansion with that in mind can it accommodate the expansion uh on on the site the expansion of the residential yeah absolutely is any anyone have any questions for anyone who's testified I do um question about the I guess probably miss fine would probably be the uh person who address the question because I'm going to be referring specifically to the to the plans so trying to in looking at this they're designated as two commercial spaces I'm trying to um Can how is it this distinguishable as commercial space from habitable space then the reason I asked that is this looking at the the left commercial unit there's three rooms that are designated as as offices there's two bathrooms in in the space and if I'm looking at the plan correctly it looks like it looks like there's showers in both of in both of the B both of the um in in in that in that unit as well yes um also the there's a there's a laundry closet um in that unit and in the kitchenet it's equipped with looks like a sink dishwasher and a refrigerator and then you you look over on the right unit and there's two separate dedicated areas that are referred to as as office space um but there's also bathroom looks looks like there's a tub in the bathroom um as and in the kitchenet there's a refrigerator a sink a dishwasher and I believe that's a washer and a dryer uh with another powder room off of off of that room as well so when I look at this I'm just wondering other than just look putting chairs and tables in the rooms what makes this commercial space other than I understand how it's presently being used understand accept that that testimony but from the idea of looking at this building for for what it is and what this proposal is is for why are we not considering this as habitable space I understand um for one we don't have a cooking facility in the kitchen we're not proposing any stoves or microwaves or anything like that uh no ovens uh second this was uh By Request by my client who um he said the the accountant sometimes stays overnight during tax season so it's out of convenience for him to have a shower and all those uh niceties at his leisure if he's needing to stay longer than than a normal day um but I I think we had discussed it if that is a problem with the showers with a tub or anything of that nature uh they would be open to removing it if needed but that we're not proposing any cooking facility so you know as far as trying to prepare meals it's not going to happen there sorry if Mr Gil Martin can add to that I'm Sor you're Steve um happy to remove the tub uh but the reason for a shower there is uh Pam is correct the the account tax season 2 a.m. leaves 4 a.m. back goes for a walk sometimes a run you know once the hose off and get back at it myself you know uh I I like the fish I like to Surf a lot um you know I come into the office and do a quick change and go out on appointments so you know if there's a facility there for me to hose off shower off and go right back out the door that's what I do um you know we're happy to remove tubs and stuff we'd like to keep the showers just for those occasions where you know someone needs that but you know we live at the beach we like to enjoy the beach we only get a little time to do it so we have to work too so we try to make it convenient you know so we can get in get out go on hope that helps uh I have another question I guess as it relates to to the parking I understand the historic uses as a real real real estate office and as an accounting office um as far as the the present use as far as the number of commercial offices that are there presently um I mean you're proposing five different workspaces and again I accept that Realtors come and go they're not there all day long yet we need to I think we need to look into the future it may not be a real estate office you're and you're talking about professional office which is a which is a broad a broad area of of uses there's a number of different professional offices that could could be used um and we dealt with the pandemic where people are working from you know more people work remotely that may not always be the case and I I my concern is with the number of offices you have and the the parking can you remind me how many places how many spaces you're dedicating for each of these um and you don't need to necessarily answer this sir but someone someone from from your group as far as the number of of spots that you're you're dedicating for uh the the commercial commerci spaces how about if I touch on it and then let the professionals jump in currently the way that the parking lot is laid out we can we can park 19 cars there easily no one has to back into anybody no one has to uh you know kurn um to meet the new uh requirements we've reduced that number but currently right now in its configuration L-shaped we park cars in the back on an angle and then down the side so the space is there how it gets utilized for the next person that wants to change the use or something I I would think they'd be back in front of this board to to make that happen that makes sense on Saturdays when you do change over for rentals how many people are in and out picking up Keys that's my concern um key turnover on Saturdays um the pandemic has changed that completely uh checkin was at 2:00 now they're staggered times so it's 2:00 4:00 5:00 the days used to be Saturday to Saturday that was it Saturday was Chang now it's Fridays Saturdays and Sundays so it's limited the impact of people and then it's limited that impact at once but it's still the same amount of people sure coming in and out of there sure and then over the years um we have never had any problems with traffic coming in or going out uh in that area we've never had like a fender bender in our parking lot or going out of our parking lot um half a block going out of town where people come in and people are going past the mar Tuna Club there's been you know I've seen incidents there over the years when was the last time it was used as rental were people staying uh let's see this is 24 so uh summer of 23 summer of 22 you're hoping to use it as summer rentals or as um local rentals for people you around over the oh for the new use yes uh would probably be um uh seasonal rentals seon yeah yeah I think that would increase the usage people don't come and especially where your business is anybody is going to be staying there as a Summer Rental as a week rent they're going to be driving to the beach going be driving restaurants they're going to be driving to the food store it's not just like someone comes home parks a car at night and goes out there's rentals all around my house and it's unbelievable how much people travel in cars like we're two blocks on the beach but the people are still in their car driving all the time we try and promote to most of our tenants uh to park their car and leave their car and the way we do that is we uh make sure that most owners have like a stagger Beach box so now they don't have to cart things um that they can either get a golf cart or bicycles is what we prefer so again they don't have to move the car once they're here uh we give every home like an instruction book that says hey while you're here you know shop oppr right delivers groceries a ACME does here's you know uh the uh the food guys will deliver right to you so you don't have to leave because we understand that and we see how that the traffic has increased me personally because I've been here my entire life um I like to say I have more miles on my Schwin than I do on my Toyota uh so I I understand how that works in addition to what we will do with that space is that we've been fortunate enough over the years to be able to extend to people that aren't as fortunate to come down and uh that third floor unit we will probably donate a lot of weeks there to folks that just would never be here uh it's very very satisfying when you can work through a couple C Church groups and things like that you know on the front setback where the porch is going to be you have an intense amount of concrete there you have the wall you have the sidewalk and now you have the additional curve out that they've just put in so you have so much concrete in front of the building yeah you're going to bring that porch out almost to that concrete you would think that but if you look at the one historical picture um there still is I'm going to say three and a half to four feet between the concrete wall you have no you have no grasp between the sidewalk and the curb where everybody else down the street has that I don't know what you call it I'm sure there's a specific name but the the grass median there that goes between sure unfortunately there's no right in front of your building and there's now that you have curbing being put in by the city it's like this i' gladly put it in there except our property line ends at the wall so we don't own between the wall and the street but man I'd love to see that like that little strip of grass talking about we are we are also modifying the the sidewalk reducing the width and adding some landscaping around it and and per one of Mr heres's comments that he would like to see additional Landscaping in front of the property which we do plan to comply with yeah I I made a recommendation I looked at this this is like at the Gateway of the city right this is one of the first properties that you that a visitor comes in and sees so I was very concerned about the landscaping and like I said this site plan that exists now predated all of our buffer requirements and Landscaping requirements so I recommended that they landscape particularly along that front there now although that you know what's on their property they also have to get County approval because this is a County Street right we can ask them to modify the plan and hopefully the county approves that Landscaping strip Street trees whatever we we can ask for um we can have them do that and see if they're successful with getting that County approved um they control that right away but we can certainly make that request in condition our approval on it's it's a concern for me that porch being so close to the street I mean in the drawings in the one drawing they come down off the stairs and make a right onto the walkway the stairs actually intrude into your walkway a little bit maybe about foot foot and a half well and that was due to trying to maintain Landscaping it's so tight and the porch is going to be so big off the front of the house can but yeah I think we would be more than open to adding a grass strip and and Street trees as as requested by the board should I so that that strip that we've been talking around that I believe that's called a parking strip and uh that's in the public right away and that's utilized for if a car is parking on the uh Street you can open your door and eess from your car and step onto the sidewalk there's no parking there though no I know I know but that's that's what it's for so um you know a lot of municipalities have ordinances where um you're not allowed to conquer treat that and it has to remain something I think Stone Harbor is a good example while Crest P an ordinance similar to that where it has to be something pervious either grass perious papers or stone um so I I don't know if the city would allow somebody to come in or to and and and cut that sidewalk and then install grass but it's not the city it's it's the county so would be the county I think I think we could set and a condition that says that you have to approach the county with a design plan that shows that and if you can't get approved then you however you want to however the board wants to deal with it but um provide evidence that they made that attempt and and if if it's accepted then we're fine with it if not then we could Grant approval pending their approval of it oh it's an easy matter to submit the plan show you the plan that we file with the county we haven't filed with the county yet but I think it's important to landscape the the front of this can you tell me what the condition is um so I think there's a request from the board and interrupt me if I'm getting this wrong um to create the grass curb strip along the property Frontage with the exception of the driveway apron to provide Street trees okay um within that County RightWay and seek approval from the county for those improvements but if they don't get approval it's okay they it's if if they don't get approval then it's they don't have to come I'm not going to try and make them come back here if they don't get approval but they should at least make that attempt provide evidence that they've done so and I think it's reasonable and I I don't see why the county wouldn't do it um so I think I think it's could be successful another question I have there was a discussion in the opening about the floor area ratio are we in that or over it I believe the strict reading of the floor area ratio definition and habitable space excludes that commercial space from it so whenever we've had mixed uses on any other application we exclude that commercial space now that doesn't exclude that consideration from you right judging your you making your determination of whether a use variance is appropriate for the more more than one use and then the changes that they're proposing whether the site can accommodate those uses but the floor area ratio would not require a separate VAR I don't believe the floor area ratio variance is required they still need to use variants though right they need an even harder variance to get right yeah I'm just checking I'm just checking stuff can I ask how many of the parking out the 12 parking spaces are allotted for the three Apartments knowing that knowing the people that come to Kate may come with multiple cars when they run an area I mean you have 12 parking spaces and you're going to have three apartments that you're going to be running fuel that one how many of the 12 or a lot of for them I think I think what we want to do is designate parking spaces for the residential units right yeah I think can we do currently in the plan we would have five five for three apartments and I mean but I think think given the the intensity of the commercial use um I don't know that I think the applicant would be we could designate as many a six um and still adequately Park the uh the people that come for that and we're not opposed to designating those you know signing those specifically can you put it in a rental agreement that they only come with one car rather than six like they do in Kate may I don't know how legal that be but we could put it in there tell them there's no place to park and you only have two parking spes we we'll give them a bicycle for the week there you go no but I mean I do think it's reasonable before we go past that to to have designated parking spaces it prevents chaos and so how would those be designated Craig can you just so in the past whenever we've designated for mixed use we we would sign those you know you can't stripe this because it's Stone parking so there would have to be a sign in front of each parking space saying this is for residential unit one residential unit 2 residential 3 yep so we would designate six spaces so each unit would have two spaces we provide more parking and what's required maybe yeah the one extra would be a visitor residential visitor could float between them so each each residents because I mean the way it reads here there's like one 1.52 but you're going to say each residential unit will have two spaces I would say I would recommend one one for the single bedroom unit right two for the two and three bedroom units and then one residential visitor parking okay so that could be a swing spot if somebody has a visitor or an extra car any other questions um let's have Craig's report certainly okay um I'd like to summarize my January 23rd 2024 report uh for this project is located in the R2 low medium density residential district the applicant is seeking use variances uh as well as other C variances and site plan both preliminary and final um for the proposed improvements that they're that they've gone on and testified with regards to and I'm not going to get into that I'll let the testimony stand um with regards to the completeness review so the checklist items there was a waiver requested from uh providing some of the utility information on there there's already existing utilities that Serv as the site so I did support that waiver request um there were uh requests from the proposed utility lines um often the sewer and water department like separate services for individual units I'm not sure whether they're they're going to require that but we're going to require that they provide evidence of that sewer and water Department's approval for whatever services are provided as a condition of approval and therefore I did recommend deeming the application complete we talked about the uses so this is an R2 District the only permitted residential uses that are permitted in this District are single family dwellings so this is it already has an existing non-conforming use there um the guest house over the commercial uh guest houses aren't permitted the commercial the two commercial units are not permitted um now they're proposing three Apartments over the two commercial units um that's not that's non-conforming so there's a use variance that's necessary um it's a little bit of an expansion of a non-conforming but they're also incre providing one new apartment a three-bedroom apartment unit um that represents um a brand new uh use variance they've requested a variance from the building setback line from Lafayette Street 25 foot is the requirement there's already an existing non-conformity at 11.6 uh they proposed a setback of 10.3 ft to the porch and 6.7 ft to the face of the steps so those are the variances that are necessary and you heard T testimony with regards to that that they're essentially putting back historical front porch that existed um and can rely on the testimony from the applicants professionals with regards to that the lot coverage variance there's a maximum that's allowable in that District of 40% the existing is over at 55 5.2% um because of my recommendations and the applicant complying with that they've modified their proposed loot coverage to 53.6% to accommodate accommodate that ADA uh space that I've asked for the floor area ratio we discussed I believe that is gone parking variants so this this site I believe has historically been underp parked in accordance with the code um D dating back to you went through exhaustive history of numerous commercial uses that have existed there with the boarding house um if you were to apply the code requirements um to it I believe it was underp parked historically um there's been the existing parking situation is undine Stone parking um kind of a mishmash the applicant is proposing to bring this up the code they're delineating it with uh concrete parking bumpers so now we know where where the parking is um and you you have uh compliant 9 by8 parking spaces unfortunately there are 16 spaces required and 12 are proposed so um one of the things that I think you said 16 can yeah so I think so I questioned the one space per employee for the two commercial uses and they only had one one employee I'm like how do you have one employee for two commercial uses that's kind of impossible so I think Mr Kates the intent was two indicated another employee yeah is one for each use okay that does bring us up to 16 so so I believe it's 16 spaces um it should be noted that the conversion of commercial space to residential lessens the parking demand um based on our code standards and requirements so um they board can weigh that with their decision you say that again KK the conversion of commercial space which is treated at one space per 200 square fet to residential space based on the number of bedrooms lessens the parking demand is that all you need yeah one thing I going to clear on Craig I think it's important for the board to think about particularly if there's an appeal or something is I'm not clear on to what extent the expand exping the expansion the part that's expanding okay all right impacts parking I there's already two professional offices on the first floor that's not really changing right there's a residence and now we're expanding it so just for purposes of the board's analysis so they you want to ask and correct please correct me but I believe the expansion is the third floor three-bedroom unit right and that by based on the residential site Improvement standards um and if you look at the table on page 3 of seven of my report three bedroom units require two parking spaces so there's an addition of two one one thing to note is there is currently three rooms on that third floor so absent of separating it as an additional unit there could potentially be without expanding the footprint that additional three bedroom so I got the impression the third floor wasn't being utilized right now is that correct it had it one Point yeah we used it up until um the city passed the ordinance that professional offices have to have uh fire inspections okay and then the fire inspector said you don't have a a fire escape no one can use that so so based on that I would think that conversion of that space is new parking well prior to that we had a photographer up there that took pictures to put on the internet and uh an appraiser was up up there at one point so so um the applicant has testified that there's been no parking issues there I've been driving by that site for 20 years I've never seen a parking issue there I don't know whether anyone else has seen one um you know we deal we deal with code requirements and we also deal with what's actually happening on the site so I've never seen one um so I usually do this at the end but I'm going to if I can say something now I think with the board the way the board in my opinion should approach the analysis of this and how you vote is is of course up to you and this is an expansion of a non-confirming use we're going to we're going to assume they haven't abandoned any of their uses and they're expanding a non-confirming use but they're also changing the uses around so it's not a classic non-conforming use I think you really have to do a weighing here and you have to you know they are increasing the expanding the structure and requiring two new part that would essentially creates two new SP parking space requirement okay so in a sense the the site is trying to accommodate this expansion of two of a what is it a three-bedroom unit third floor residential unit and that's creating two parking spaces but there's a lot of benefits that are coming with this they're returning it to the historical Aesthetics Craig told you the parking lot is now Mak sense okay it's supp it's going to function better so even though it requires two more parking spaces it's now going to function like a real real parking lot which it wasn't before um so you need to take all the is going to be limited to professional offices whereas it had a compter Factory in it okay so you got to take all those good things about the application and weigh that against the expansion and the need for two more parking spaces and that's why you get the big bucks you need to do that weigh if you don't approve it then it may stay what it is a hodge podge parking space doesn't have a fire escape on you know all these things they're modernizing it you need to take all that into consideration and and weigh those two parking spaces against the other benefits and make a decision okay that's what I think you you're going to be doing in your analysis all right sorry Craig I'm sorry nope that's good okay so we talked about all of the variances that are in the table um Mr katees mentioned that he asked for waivers from the 5- foot barking buffer and Paving the parking lot those have always been treated as variances so I believe there's variances that are necessary for those items and those items are list Ed at in my general review comments number five which is from 525 60D I know Mr King needs that one and the 5- foot parking buffer I'll have to look up because that wasn't in my review memo um so the 5- foot parking buffer is NE necess NE in the area of the two parking spaces that are located behind the structure because of them accommodating that ADA Compliant space so those those spaces are wider and that pushes the parking back into that puffer and that's why that's being asked for Paving the parking lot we discussed mitigates lot coverage helps with storm water there's already a tracking pad there I don't see any problem with that so I believe there are so we eliminated item variance number two one two three four listed plus those two I just mentioned is there any questions with regards to the variances variances 134 and five and then you added two 1 three four and five and I just added two okay all right I'll move on to my general comments um item number one we just asked for the lowest floor I don't know whether this is in a flood zone area or not but that needs to be added on the plan item number two we asked them to revise the zoning table to reflect um the revised plans and the recommendations that are in our report item excuse me item number three is our standard condition that they have to comply with chapter 525 minimum storm water management and Grading requirements they have provided a grading and drainage plan and we did find that acceptable as is um item number four and I I talked a little bit about this but I think is very important um one of the board members mentioned how kind of hard hardscaped this this the site feels there's a lot of concrete there's a lot of stone there's retaining walls there's not a lot of green space so the recommendation to provide the Landscaping along the front I think that can even be enhanced by on-site Landscaping I was kind of disappointed that they're only providing a couple shrubs on each side of the stairs I think you could landscape that whole front of that structure and make a big impression on people that are entering the city um soften soften your encroachments into the setbacks so I would ask the applicant to please comply with that recommendation is that a yes any oh yes yes okay do you want a new uh revised revised Landscaping plan it enhances the front Landscaping Ong the the front of the site yes certainly um there may be neighbors here that want additional buffering but um we'll we'll listen to those and adjust our uh recommendations accordingly okay item number five we talked about that's uh the paid parking surface and they've requested a variance from that item number six is my recommendation to provide the Ada ADA Compliant parking which they've agreed to do um item seven we just asked the plans um a lot of the plans are getting bounce back from the construction Department based on this minimum roof slope so we would just ask that they all be provided on the plans um item number eight um I mentioned this the city and sewer water city sewer and water department um when they have multiple units often they require separate Services um so we will ask for um evidence of approval from that uh we ask for the uh additional Street trees um I asked for one I think there can be more provided and I think um at least two yeah okay um 10 um those Landscaping species should comply with our code um there are U backy backyard habitat for Birds Etc butterflies recommended species so your Landscaping uh that you're providing should comply with that 11 is our standard recommendation that the sidewalk adjacent to the site will be replaced to the satisfaction of the engineer 12 uh is our standard condition that they have to provide the inspection escrow and the co is tied to the acceptance of those improvements 13 this is a site plan Improvement so they're required to per furnish the required performance guarantee and inspection escrow 14 is compliance with the requirements the shade tree commission environmental commission and fire department as well as public works department we did receive reports from the fire department that recommended approval with no comments and that is dated 22124 the uh public works department recommended approval with no comments dated 21324 and the sh tree commission uh recommended approval uh no comments 22924 all right um compliance with all other state County local approvals uh once again mentioning Lafayette Street is a county right away Kate May County Planning approval is required and you've heard there's going to be another condition a fix to that that you're required to um try and Landscape uh within their RightWay and provide evidence of that 17 is provide evidence of final HPC approval and 18 is comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements and then finally should the board Grant approval they're required to revise the plans um to meet the board's conditions of approval and provide the requisite sets for review and approval that's a summary of my report I'm happy to answer any questions the board has okay any questions like to open it up to anyone within 200 ft anyone Beyond 200 feet Clos to the public are the I'm not going to repeat the oh no go ahead I'm not going to uh repeat the the standard or what I thought should be your analysis I just did that a second ago um but it is a d variant so it requires a favorable vote of of five out of seven the uh applicant has presented the project holistically sought the benefits of all aspects of the plan so they're going to do a single vote for all the variances and for the project as a whole the motion I recommend being made is is to vote um to motion to approve variances 1 three four well these six variances that are now required as outlined by the board engineer on page three of seven as supplemented by his um comments to the board subject to the waivers outlined by the board engineer and the conditions outlined in the engineers report one through 19 plus two additional conditions that were added uh which are that the applicant um will the applicant has to try to create a grass curb strip along the frontage to provide Street trees within that County right away but if they do not get it they do not need to return to this board but must make a good faith attempt and the condition the units will have a assign parking spaces with signs the one bedroom unit will have one space the two and three bedroom units will have two and there will be six for the commercial and one undesignated okay so that's the motion that I recommend be made but how you vote is up to you any questions or comments or concerns about the oh no no no not about the summation eliminating of the amenities on first FL I'm going to remove the tubs the tubs are gone yeah I actually wrote that down as a condition I'll add that as a condition thank you both or one both both tubs the shower shower and the tub okay shower will stay showers are staying no tubs okay there's one shower on one unit and the other one has a tub SL shower yeah is what I what I looked at tub and shower so okay it'll be going got it thank you I will say about that um the less intense use in the ordinance is residential so the concern that those things kind of seem residential um is not the the commercial use is the use that requires of varant uh right am I wrong about that so the fact that they have things in there that make it look residential actually is a more favorable under ordinance because it actually makes it more consistent with the use that's permitted so I wouldn't I understand the question I'm just pointing out that it's not tragic if it became a presidential unit that's kind of what it's supposed to be I just make a couple if we're ready to vot and I make a couple closing comment after now okay oh is it too late no look I just usually I do my thing last and then they vote on the thing I just said so okay so it's brush in their mind I don't want to disturb that so I'm not telling you you can't do your opposing argument if you no I just had a couple points I when I when I look at this building I drive by it it just looks like it it looks like an old building the property looks like an old property and and I think this renovation with the HPC approved building is going to make it look especially especially with the addition of the front porch to put it back to what it was and the addition of the Landscaping is going to make it historic appropriate and Mr huris this point this is in in the front of the city as you come in and this is what you see right now you see just kind of an old rundown building it needs love it needs care it needs to be brought back to life and and I think this application will do it uh these additions will be in the same footprint um and it's residential and the commercial is not being touched so um you know what's there now is uh just all the pictures in in in the application it's just a myriad of rooms and kitchens and all kind of commercial rental space up there and everything this solidifies this into the future permanently for uh clean appropriate residential use up top only and the commercial downstairs is not expanding so just wanted to add that thank you Mr King Madam chairman yep okay um can we have that motion please I'll make the motion motion by Mr vudo I'm sorry I didn't hear that who motion Please Mr Bono by Mr zetner thank you Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes yes that was a yes thank you Mr Walsh no I feel the property just can't handle combined usage Mr zexer yes Mr catalo yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you thank you board members um excellent questions and thank you for your time thank you would you consider making an year round rentals just because they're so yeah no it has nothing to do with your approval I'm just making the comment we'll have to see how it is once we get the project rolling CU everything is so expensive find the number nobody can find anywhere to live I get it's getting worse and worse I get probably 30 or 40 calls a month and I tell everyone you know they're kind of becoming extinct like you just can't find them I know and the ones that we handle they usually turn over someone says oh my cousin moved in with me and I'm moving out but they're going to take over there's not even a like a turnover like New York City yeah yeah property needs help for sure I didn't want to be the one but I'm like the busiest place in town everybody's going to drive right now Satur when changing keys I also had a real concern downstairs this one kitchen's bigger to bedroom space it they have been bedrooms forever one pack that's get ready to get on good evening hi oh more papers more Pap talk to what happened thank you I remember we don't we wer to that we should can we a lot of papers my pack oh this is your packet what' I do with mine no you didn't get one oh what do I need one for got extra ones there I know going to C your back I was I stopped it's like when partner Steve had rotator cup twice Shake anybody did you hurt yourself our next application is Fern and Kevin Waters 128 New York Avenue good evening Madam chair members of the board for the record my my name is Keith Davis I'm an attorney at neat Davis and Goldstein and I'm here on behalf of the waters um they apologize that they had a scheduling conflict tonight uh wanted to be here uh but wanted to have the application proceed um if you may recall Miss Waters was here before the board last year concerning this very same home uh which was constructed in about 1915 in the craftsman style it's one of the triplets uh the original Builder constructed three homes which are very similar in appearance one for himself and the other two for his daughters um we were here before the board last year to construct a deck in the back of the home and we request a variances for that Improvement Miss Waters was here and that relief was granted um as part of that project of adding the deck there were also interior Renovations that were proposed according to the plan plans that Mr Schultz our architect prepared and submitted and those were reviewed in about that time by Bruce Brittain uh the City Zoning officer and he after inspecting the premises made a determination uh that the floor area ratio for the home which has existed since 1915 exceeded the maximum floor area ratio limitations in the R2 zoning District when we learned about this we engaged in extensive investigation which unfortunately led to the stacks of paper that I handed out to all the board members this evening we filed open public records act requests we went through and found all the prior zoning permits and construction permits that were issued for the renovations that the wers is have undertaken in the renovation of this home since they came into ownership in 2005 and there were two events that we isolated and Mr Schultz will provide some additional testimony as to this as to what led to the discrepancy in the floor area ratio calculation one of which was the provision of Windows on the second floor in about 2005 which again enclosed that area made it livable space for purposes of habitable area as that's defined by the Cap May City uh zoning ordinance uh the zoning officer the construction official at the time they issued permits nobody ever said it led to a floor area ratio variance it was relied upon the improvements were made and they exist today there are some Renovations that were're proposing interior but there's no expansion of the footprint uh or the walls uh related to that space the second issue is a series of Renovations that occurred in about 2010 it was another architect involved Mr DS uh he submitted plans uh to show uh interior Renovations um to to the home and for whatever reason he never included the third floor bedrooms as part of the floor area ratio calculation we don't know why we don't know if it was inadvertent uh we don't know if he had a misunderstanding as to what how floor area ratio was calculated but it wasn't shown but those bedrooms have existed going back to 1915 we have aerial photography to show that the home essentially is the same as what it was in in 1915 with some changes um and there's actually a claw foot tub tub in the third floor that is historic in nature and we think has existed there for some time so at Mr Britain's uh request since he indicated that the floor area ratio was non-conform Waring um we are here before you to clean up this mess of these issues that took place in 2005 and 2010 in order to have the board hopefully confirmed tonight through the grant of a new floor area ratio variance a d variance um that what exists now is legally non-conforming and is entitled to deuse variance relief Mr Schultz is going to provide the bulk of the testimony as to what I just summarized and I also have Ramy Nasser here um our planner who will also put on proofs to say even if you don't agree with our argument that this is lawfully non-conforming that the D variance for f is warranted and we meet our proofs so with your permission Madam chair I'd like to have Mr Schultz and Mr Nasser swor yes so what did you mean by lawfully non-conforming so we're reserving our rights okay we we've read Mr brittain's analysis that he doesn't believe the current structure conforms a FL area ratio and technically he's correct we believe though that with the permits that have been granted that have been relied upon By the Waters through the past almost 20 years that the floor area ratio that exists today is lawfully non-conforming okay um but we we've made the application I don't know if what I'm about to say disagrees with you or not but I'm going to tell you my thoughts on this and they're not unfavorable to you um first if this building had this FL ratio prior to a FL ratio ordinance then it's a pre-existing nonconforming circumstance whether it's a structure or a use I'm not quite sure but it's pre-existing non-conforming it doesn't matter they've expanded it at some point in 2005 and 2010 um so technically maybe they should have gotten variances then but what I tell my board all the time is we don't do Reliance we don't do um a stopple that's not our board's function we're not allowed to do that what we do is we we apply the standard to whatever they're asking to approve and we either Grant it or deny it and I tell my board we don't punish people for not getting permits that's not our job we don't give them a break because they didn't get permits and they built it that's not our job either what what our job is is to decide whether or not this this property can reasonably accommodate a FL ratio in excess of the ordinance but if this house has existed for 100 years or it's functioned since 2005 or it's functioned since 2010 without incident okay unless someone comes in and says there's been flooding or there's been a parking problem or it is interfering with the light air in open space given its size or something if it's been functioning all that time without incident then that's really good evidence that the site can accommodate it without a problem does everyone understand the distinction I'm making so I don't want you to Grant this because uh some building inspector messed up five or six years ago but I don't want you to punish them because they had an architect who didn't bother to include the third floor in some permanent application we we're not going to get any useful testimony on that tonight the architect's not going to be able to come in and explain why the owner is not going to come in and explain how that happened so that's not what you're doing tonight I want you to look at this and decide if what's here now can be accommodated under the fla ratio standard I think they're going to present evidence that says well it's been this way for years and nothing bad has happened that's persuasive evidence as far as I'm concerned okay so whatever whatever you think that you may disagree with that analysis but that's the analysis and in my opinion so don't punish them for whatever happened in the past but don't give it to them because you think it was the building is spector's mistake I don't think that's what we do okay I don't think the Builder inspector is testifying tonight either so we're not going to get that testimony so I I don't disagree with your analysis I think you're giving good guidance to your client um I'm only putting it on the record so that our our our application for D variance relief is not deemed to be a waiver of rates that we may have outside of this board meeting in in in a court of law for a municipal stopple that's all just protecting my client's rights absolutely I I respect you're doing that and we don't do a stopple so you're safe um you also mentioned parking and I'm glad you did because that is an element of this application too when we came here last year we explained to the board that there's some uniqueness to the property in that there's a Shar driveway between two homes the two of the triplets okay and there's a share garage that crosses the property line in the back in the rear yard and when you granted the deck variants your attorney at the time wisely said to the board we're giving you the parking variance too but you can't rely upon that if you have to come back on an F variance later so we've sought the parking variants again because it's a singular driveway shared by two homes Miss Waters testimony at the time and it remains today functionally it's working well for the two homes um but we did conservatively ask for that variance again and I'll note as Mr Schultz will explain with the interior Ren Ovations that are being undertaken to the home there are six bedrooms currently and they will be reduced to five so there's actually a reduction in intensity of the residential use itself so those are the two variances the D variance for f and the parking variance uh because we don't literally meet the ordinance requirements did we administer the Oaths I forget well our board engineer remains under oath I'll swear and whoever is going to testify do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing nothing but the true self you got I do all right Mr Schultz I know you've been before this board before have you been accepted as an expert in the field of architecture I have and where your offic is located um well first I'm a registered architect in New Jersey and as well as other states where we're active our main office is in Philadelphia but we have an office in West Cape May in my home where I've been a resident for 26 years any questions about this witness's qualifications no he's accepted all right and you and your firm thank you you and your firm presented the plan of development that we submitted as part of this application correct correct um I know that you have and you were involved in the deck application too right correct um I know you present you prepared a PowerPoint presentation which we weren't able to display on the screen tonight do some technological issues but I know you're you're going to run through that just for purposes of the record I've marked that presentation as A1 and there's another copy of it and what I handed out um but we've also handed out your slides to all board members correct correct all right can you walk through that presentation yeah absolutely the the the presentation was done um with the help of fern Waters um in terms of providing some background in lineage to what's happened to the house over the last 20 years just be to help everybody understands why we're here with this uh variance request so if it's okay I'd like to kind of just walk through this as slides I'll just is tell you what slide I'm on and if you could follow me I really appreciate that so as I was just mentioned I think the house was built in 1914 not 1915 sorry it's a it is a craftsman style house and it is part of a triplets the center house is the waters house that's the one in that kind of light green color so next slide um the waters uh bought the house uh from Toby Adamson in the fall of 2004 actually closed in early 2005 they the waters Su spent every summer on at this house since 2005 they apparently through their jobs traveled and worked in different places but they always came back to Cap May for the Summers Thanksgiving and an occasional New Year's Eve so they see it as their family home for a long time next slide um at the time they purchased the house they said it was very much a def deferred maintenance they replaced the roof they repaired the brick the brick footings and they and they went to enclose the rear Southern facing second floor deck which you should see in these pictures um that they were very concerned really about their their son Seaman shown there seus shown there that he might fall out or jump over that low railing so they frankly put window those in those openings that's all they really did next slide so that when that happened that took an open porch and it made it livable space um yeah it it has become livable space they use it as an office currently so it's it's there's Windows around it and it's not open currently it's it's not open the windows surround the space u but it is not it is not heated or cooled at this time um all slight four should be a collage of various permits which I think you have records of um as was already said all work in 2005 was permitted inspected and approved before we leave that and we've marked those also as exhibits A8 uh through a12 and you've just combined those for that presentation purp yes I that's correct okay uh the next slide is number five this is a current view of the rear of the house is everybody with me so far so um if you look at the where the I'm going to kind of point to this if you look up in this area that's the windows we're talking about that were installed where the porches you can actually see the porch column still exists and all the the porch trim still exists so it was really a matter of infilling that area with Windows um I'm going to quiz you I know the answer I think you do What's the total square footage of that enclosure do you know approxim um oh I do that's going to come up later okay well then we'll come to it later that's fine yeah okay um okay so I think we can move on to the next slide slide six so that's a picture of what's current happening and what has happened for the last 20 years it's just kind of a pseudo office space for Kevin and fern to to work out of it's not heated and cooled honestly there's an extension cord for power and as part of this application they' like to improve that and include that in the floor area ratio next slide ask a question is there a separate door to this room um it's right off the master bedroom it's just an opening off the Master Center on Master bed heated then it's well if there's no door it's yeah there's air flow sure and when when we get to the plans I could show you that a little more better so uh the next slide you're looking at what what the the house looked like in 2010 this was another porch on the rear of the house it's a approximately a 10x10 porch they as part of a kitchen renovation they enclosed that porch to uh improve the kitchen and make powder room work and um and they replace the the shingle siding at that time so the next slide no enclosure there right stayed open the porch the p porch was enclosed in 2010 10 okay fully fully enclosed and became part of the K the kitchen was probably very small and they they expanded the kitchen and enclosed that corner porch all right it's it's about 111 square feet same thing permits were secured and obtained from the yeah the next page next sheet you'll see um kind of a various copies of plans site plans um the application timeline which is provided in those purple squares I don't need to read all to you right but um they thought everything was fine because they were granted permits and as was said before the architect who was not local who was from New York didn't maybe understand the code didn't include the third floor in his F calculation which was an error that happened and um became a surprise to all of us just last year and again full copies of those permits and plans we've marked you what I've distributed correct and actually the the next slide is again showing some images of those same permits all right all right we're getting there um so the next slide is picture of the back of the house today it it shows it shows what it looks like today and in that left side on that left rear area of the elevation you can see the wi the double windows there that was where the porch was and that be in 2010 became an expanded kitchen the stair was part of that project too so that corner that corner porch became a kitchen area um next slide um this is a kind of a timeline of the whole sequence of events from when they bought the house which maybe I'll just quickly review just so they purchased a house in 2005 they did they replaced the roof and installed new windows in the second floor porch March of 2005 which we just talked about they opened the interior wall they combined some bedrooms on the second floor so they reduced bedrooms back at that point in time too and that was in 2008 um they replaced the cedar sighing in 2010 they enclosed the rear porch in 2010 which also triggered this variance this F variance question um and then the other two things are really just maintenance they repaired the front porch stack boards and they replaced HVAC that's not another picture of the house they've really done a wonderful job of maintaining and making this updating this house u in a very classic way um so the left picture is that CLA Hub that that we mentioned that was evidence that there was a third floor bathroom and we only present this because Mr Brittain had a question about whether or not the third floor was original to the house so we want to prove that it was original to the house and if you look at that aerial view that's a old photo um you can see the triplets there they're one of the early houses in this part of K May we're the center triplet um you can caddy corner see the Lord residence which you probably I think you heard last month so that was also a very early um uh house in this part of Kate May so this has to do with when we calculated the F we used the the section of the code that says if the house is pre1 1950 before you leave that exhibit yeah this is my opinion it's the only exhibit that matters this picture here to a reasonable degree of architectural certainty how long do you believe the third floor has functioned as a living space since 1914 okay it's original to the house and what do you base that on what what what facts have you drawn from to reach that conclusion um well the fact is we have some photographic evidence from I don't know the exact year of this area photograph but it's probably a long time ago 10 in the 1920s perhaps those houses um consistent with a lot of houses in that part of Kate May were two and a half story houses if I look at the architecture of that house I can't imagine that it was added at a later time that it was always the interior picture on the left based on your understanding of architecture and design how long has that been utilized as living space um when the Waters bought the house that was a picture they took of the third floor was that 2005 is when they took this picture um I would believe that that predate that that's an original tub and an original you know original Plumbing fixtures based on when the house was built so your professional opinion is that this house has functioned with a living space on the third floor for somewhere between 21 and 100 years yes yeah I believe it was built this way in 1914 all right good thank you um the next page is part of our application which you would have received before uh you can see some pictures showing the existing conditions um the the Blue Block um is really the footprint of the house the darker blue to the left you see the garage that's a shared garage that's also a structure and darker blue the light blue is the big wraparound porch which is lovely and then at the brown is the deck that was approved uh last year um that takes the place of an existing terce and we' pre pre-marked this as A4 and I just want to I know it's going to be hard to read and apologize um if you look at the zoning requirements in the chart everything is either uh existing nonconforming or conforming so we're not we're not expanding the house or the f as part of this application the the hope is we're going to be able to renovate the interior of the house and that you will grant approval that the prior porch additions um would be approved um The Pri I'm sorry the prior porch enclosures U if you look at the F calculation to the right and I apologize because it's very small I thought we were going to use the screen um the house prior to 2005 was 20 29 50 2950 Square ft is what the house was when they bought it based on our calculations then in 2005 they added 196 square feet when they enclosed the second flare rear porch which we we agree and that increased the F to 5091 2010 they enclosed the rear first floor report for the kitchen and that brought the F to 54.17% we are today and what we're asking for in terms of the F variance we're asking for that as a variance as as a as a as our current f um the next slides are really the interior plans uh the scope of the renovations are really cosmetic we are making some big improvements to the flow of the house we're adding some bathrooms and we're updating the kitchen but by and large the character and the bones of the house will be retained so you'll see you're looking at the basement on top the first floor on the bottom of that sheet there's really nothing going on in the basement um the next page you'll see the second floor in the top and the third floor on the bottom and the answer the your question sir the the access from the master bedroom to that enclosed porch is there's a pair of doors sliders sliders that that would connect that but that's that's going to be office just like they've been using it what's that plan sheet you're referring to uh z201 thank you um so there's minimal Renovations mostly cosmetic on the second floor the third floor rear to the left we're actually taking two bedrooms and making it one so that left room is going to be one bedroom so that's that's where we get the five bedrooms I believe we're adding some bathrooms too but it's I think it's to Minimus for what your concerns are um the elev ations uh we have been before the HPC we have received final approval um as part of this project the waters would like to make some additional changes they want to change the asphalt roof to a cedar Shake roof which is consistent with what would have been there in 1914 that's you can see how that's rendered and there's several windows that are vinyl windows that were there when the waters bought the house which they're they want to replace in wood wood window so you're looking at the front elevation with the porch and the side elevation the left side elevation you can see the gamble roof and you can see the third floor and how it fits the roof line so before you leave that with this plan that you've prepared we're conserving a historic home correct correct and we're advancing the desirable visual environment purpose of the municipal lus law correct okay um so you can see on that same page you can see that profile of the deck at the rear consistent with the the hes architecture U the second page is the second set of elevations that's the rear elevation on the top again new roof replacing vinyl windows the addition of the deck which was approved and in character with the with the history of the house and the bottom is the right side of the house with WRA BR porch and U again it's you can see the profile of the deck um my last slide is looking at some f comparisons we did some research just on some neighboring properties to see how we compared F wise and we did this through Oprah and we either found um documentation on F or we found plans where we could calculate F so just uh if I could hopefully you'll follow me so you see the triplets everybody so the middle one is the waters residence that's 1218 New York AV our lot area is 6,022 for whatever reason this house has the smallest lot which is also driving our f up so it's our F again is 54.17% existing to the left of the house to the left of that house the neighboring house at 1216 the lot are is bigger at 7,097 Square fet that F totals 60.88 per. at some point in time they did a fairly large addition to the rear of the house the neighbor to the right or to the east 1220 New York AV has a larger lot again 7,225 Square fet their f is 45.1 15% because they have a larger lot their f is lower I would like to mention that that house we have pictures also enclosed the same porches that the waterers enclosed at some point in time and they also have a rear deck the and then adjacent to um on Trenton Avenue our property 106 Trenton Avenue um has a lot area of 6,240 square fet and an F per 2009 application of 56.5% and next to that there's a very small lot uh 2640 square foot lot with a 98.6 F they don't have a driveway at all so I think looking at that overall um we are either in the middle or far or lower than many of our neighbors in terms of F and you think that's establishing shows that the F that we're asking the board to Grant a variance for establish this appropriate population density for this neighborhood I do and then you didn't have the benefit when you prepared this exhibit of the Lord's recent application which the resolution for was adopted by the board tonight do you know what the f was approved for that um I believe it's 53.6 you're right am I right and that's right AC almost across the street yeah caddy corner from this property okay so for all those reasons you believe that the population uh density for the F we're seeking is consistent with the neighborhood I do that's all I have the next slide is from Mr Nasser okay and just for purposes of the record we Mark that F plan sheet as exhibit A6 and then the next sheet that Mr nass is going to provide testimony to is A7 the variance plan um that's all I have for Mr Schultz any questions as to architecture or his analysis you said there's a reduction in bedrooms six to five I believe that's correct yes you just point that out I think it was the third floor two bedrooms are becoming one that's what I thought you said I just want to make sure do you want me to review that or no okay just third floor is fine okay um functionally with the F that we're proposing and what we believe has existed um throughout at least the the waters period of ownership has the home operated in a manner uh that has been able to accommodate the deviation from the F standard I I believe it has and then the same as to the parking variants that we're seeking has it functioned even though the home and the driveway doesn't literally meet the zoning ordinance requirements it has and I think uh Miss water Mrs wat's testified that they have a great relationship with their neighbor there's never been an issue with parking right and there is a lawful easement that exists giving each owner the right to use that driveway and we've submitted that correct any other questions if not I'll bring forth Mr Nasser for a few questions as to planning one up BR I hate to do this can ask one quick question yeah your chart says 40% is the maximum FL ratio and he says 48.7 that's the 1950 grandfathering that he explained there's a provision the ordinance I just want to know if Craig make sure he agrees yeah sure 4899 yeah that's what I have is existing that's right right yeah but they're saying that the required I thought was 48 so the the literal requirement is 40 but there's a provision in the ordinance which allows you to assess the f as of 1950 I believe it is and I believe Mr Brittain issued a updated memo which says as long as we can demonstrate what was in 1950 and I believe your testimony was that it's the 48 number right yes we we basically recalculated the F prior to the portch en closures occurring when I when I complete my reviews I utilize the F requirements based on the dwelling type in the zone that it is that's how the chart works and then at the end of that section there is a grandfather clause now all the applicants never verify provide a 1950 justification so I always just utilize the top part of that now they're certainly able the ordinance does provide that provision so can I change your chart to BV 48 you may okay so it'll be 0 48 is it 0 48 exactly I think it's 48 and change 97 49 4897 48.97 per yeah 4897 almost 49 well it's never mind I don't want to talk it's fine it's it's the house without the P but go ahead we offered that just to show that the deviation is not really from 0 40 to 0.54 it's less of a deviation under the ordinance because the ordinance allows you to look at f as it existed in 1950 and we've calculated that by taking out the additions uh the enclosures that Mr Schultz described all right I know Mr Nasser was here on an earlier application he was sworn in as a engineer and a planner he set forth his qualifications on the record do you have any questions about his qualifications as a professional planner for this application okay great so Mr Nasser you reviewed everything that Mr schz just uh described and put into the record correct yes I did and you also prepared your officer prepared a plan a variance plan that we're marking is A7 that's part of the record as well correct correct okay um you're familiar with the issue you you recognize that we request an F variance here what's the standard for the board well if you look at the F it's uh a D4 variance uh so we need to show that uh the building is suitable to handle the additional uh uh increase in the floor area ratio basically that's what we're supposed to do uh for the board to be able to make a decision that we need to prove that this structure can handle the additional F because uh the the size of the proc property is what dictates F and this property is a bit undersized from the current standards so the use is permitted it's not a D1 variant it's a relax burden to proove for an F variant yes sir and that's under a case called cry Square correct correct okay um you heard a couple purposes of zoning uh desirable visual environment conservation of historic resources um do you believe we've also established an appropriate population density with the testimony Mr Schultz put onto the record yes also we established that this structure is suitable for this additional f we're not increasing the edifice of the building the footprint staying the same we're just enclosing couple areas that they are there so you're not going to have any visual change to the structure with the increased f f and do you believe the same also applies to the deviation from the parking requirements since there's a sh driveway uh that's a little bit different because the parking is a C1 variance is a hardship variance uh we have two parking spaces available we are required to have uh for six bedroom three parking spaces but now we are reducing the number of bedrooms to five we are still required to have three parking spaces so we are deficient by one space but keep in mind when this structure was built the lot was created they didn't have those standards so it becomes a hardship to impose new standards that came in probably like 50 years ago than for structure that was built over a 100 years ago so I believe the the the shape of the properties was the size of the properties was forcing us to request the variant and um with respect to both the F and the parking variance do you believe that there would be any substantial negative impact to the public good or to the Zone plan no sir because the usually the negative would be uh you're impacting the visual impact on the neighbors we are not doing that uh we're not changing the density with reducing the intensity of the structure so I don't see any negative to the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance and that's by a reduction in the number of bedrooms yes sir and not changing the actual house itself it's a historic home we're preserving a historic home and I think that's a plus right and actually bringing it more into the character of what it was in 1914 when it was built with cedar uh uh roof shingles and uh taking out the vinyl windows and putting in Wood yeah the renovation is actually give it its Glory back um for those reasons you believe that both variances are warranted and we've met our burden yes sir that's all I have from Mr Nasser any questions from a planning perspective that concludes our presentation that's all I have Madam chair um let's go ahead with Craig sure I'd like to quickly summarize my January 8 2024 review memo this is a project located in the R2 District you've heard testimony or from the applicant what they're proposing to do um we did recommend deing this application complete based on the information that was provided um on page 25 I have a zoning table um that indicates the floor area ratio Varian is being sought um the underlying zoning district for single family dwellings requires 0 40 um there's a grandfather clause in there um which is U essentially their grandfathered in at 049 and they're proposing. 5417 uh as a floor area ratio the other uh variance that they've requested is for parking um I agree with the the engineer and planner's testimony um they reduced the bedroom from 6 to 5 the parking requirement is still three the residential site Improvement standards is weird um fractional spaces get rounded down um instead of up um so they're required um so the threshold that kicks in for the next would be seven bedrooms um so at five it triggers three required parking spaces six is still three required parking spaces at seven you're required four parking spaces um little odd weird calculation but that's how the residential site Improvement standards work um on the next page I highlighted um the variances that were granted from resol resolution 928 2023 uh semicolon 2 um that's what we granted the last time and the variances that have been requested are for floor area ratio and parking and you've heard testimony um from the applicants in in support of that um my general review comments are essentially um the applicant shall conform to the conditions set forth in resolution 928 2023 COL two unless specifically Modified by the board's review of this application um so if you're going to add any conditions um they're added on top of what's already being um conditioned on what they're constructing right now so that's the easiest way of summing it up um I offer comments the the fire department public works department and shade tree commission reports recommended approval the shade tree commission did have one condition no trees are involved in this application replacement of sidewalk sunk something sunk in blocks of concrete sidewalk running Street Sycamore may be eligible for the 506 sidewalk replacement program um one of the conditions from the previous approval was um we you're required to replace a sidewalk um sat satisfactory to the boards of U the zoning board uh Engineers approval um so that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction um so we'll have you replace those sidewalk at that time no issue with that that's it any word questions okay um we'll open it up to anyone within 200 ft of the property property for any comments please turn your microphone on state your name and address yes hi uh my name is yens fog I live at 108 Trenton Avenue oh so I have to I have to put that in the resolution can you just spell that for me yes uh for first name is yens spelled j NS last name fog spelled fog okay sir and the address again 108 Trenton Avenue thank you sir you sir do you swear to swear the truth all truth is nothing but the truth I do thank you I do um no my comments are brief uh the waters are good neighbors they take good care of their property uh my wife and I my wife Les is here with me we support the application uh we think the improvements although they'll be mostly interior with the uh exterior Cedar roof will be a big Improvement uh more in keeping with the neighborhood so we're excited uh to see that change and we're excited for the wat so again we support their application have you seen any problems at the site um with the current use of it other than the uh sidewalk issue that Mr hurles mentioned no thank you thank you very much anyone else within 200 feet anyone Beyond 200 feet that wishes to speak close to the public comments questions okay um the board the reason I thought it was important to establish that that third for has been present for a very long time is that it's a very different consideration for the board if he trying to figure out whether the site can accommodate a whole another third floor and these enclosures or whether the site can accommodate these enclosures based on the testimony I think the more re reasonable analysis given what's been testified to is you're really not deciding whether this missed third floor that in 2010 on the plans where the site can accommodate that I mean the site has existed for 100 years with that third floor and the testimonies that it was used for residences so I I just I don't I think it might be troubling to do this analysis and and say that you're deciding whether the site can accommodate another thousand square feet or whatever this third floor is some huge number really what you're deciding is the site can accommodate enclosing some existing porches on the I think the rear of the property um not bedrooms not anything like that so that's really the decision you're making is whether the site can accommodate the um the additional living space created by putting windows in and closing in those porches on this 100y old property that was built really without the benefit of knowing modern zoning so the lot sizes and the size of the houses can be a little tricky so that's the uh the motion is to Grant how you vote is up to you and by the way you may decide that it can't accommodate this you may decide it's too much there's not enough parking adding more space isn't a good thing that's that's within your discretion as well but the record is record uh so the motion would be to uh to Grant the variances one and two on page three of the engineer report subject to the waivers conditions described in the engineers report and subject to the conditions outlined in the prior resolution 928-2020 colon two um that are already in the record does anybody have any questions okay so can we have that motion I'll make the motion motion by Mrs Notch second second Mr leadwin Mr Lewin yes Mr Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr catalo yes Mr vudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you thank you on behalf of the walers thank you very much appreciate your time tonight thank you run oh I think I did it for you t are we you remember that driveway one okay oh can't go yet we got we can't go yet what's that y work to do okay the next thing on the agenda is discussion of 2023 zoning board decisions does anyone have any comments about them maybe I can ask a general question now in this application when we heard this back there was question about the far and it says right here that there an issue about the portion which may or may not trigger the far should we have not heard that oh we did they were doing exterior deck but should we have not heard that until this one was settled no because the deck doesn't impact the 4 ratio okay so it's not even in the FL ratio calculation I'm just thinking like if if we said no now what would have happened here nothing because the deck doesn't afflect FL no I mean if we said no to this application now nothing would have happened because they they they were building an exterior deck but it affected the the um windows and the no but they didn't do any that no but they we just have prove them to it but they wouldn't have to Stu that already happen right the stuff that they're doing now has no impact on FL area ratio if they lost this and and if you made them deconstruct their if they lost they would have had to bring their home into compliance with the floyer ratio I guess asking those decks whether they were there or not would not help them they could remove it wouldn't change the FY ratio they would have had to open up those Port those patios I guess I guess or do something else to make you comply or appeal and then sue you for all the permits that you issued in Reliance so there that was the other option you asked a question about heating and air conditioning and he and part of this application was regarding heating and air conditioning and in General Heating and Air Conditioning of a habitable space is not the determination of habitable space um so it's not part of the definition okay so that's not a distinction um it's weather and you know I had it open oh here it is an interior finished room enclosed by a floor ceiling and permanent weather resistant walls which has a minimum floor to ceiling height of 6.5t which is intended primarily for human occupancy they weren't disputing that um you know it was being used as an office it was open to the interior so but um just in general the heating and cooling of that space is not the determination it was still so I just wanted to educate I think it's a good education um really it's not part of this definition so um right we see you got to kind of work into this backwards there's an exception there's an exception for decks patios except so when you inclose that and put Windows on them it's now weatherproof and I think that's what transforms it from not counting to Counting so just in the future for all for all board applications just remember that um and just the the zoning Board of adjustment decisions um thank you Karen for putting these together wel um when the planning board does Master Plan um and reexaminations we use these things um to make uh adjustments to the Zone plan you know the zoning ordinance um so these are very important is there a deadline on this Karen no not that I'm aware just annually I'm sorry an it has to be done annually I would just say that this is sort of like a master plan kind of discussion and it might be a better idea to try not to do those on nights when we have three applications yeah you know I this warrant's like it these guys don't do that planning what happens here is this board forwards those to the planning board for those master plan review actions so but it's really important because it's very important you want to take time and really analyze these and think about them because this is your chance to tell the pl and have a discussion about it because this is your chance to tell the planning board variances that you're encountering repeatedly that you that you think should be considered for different ordinance legislation things about pools and distances from houses uh and things like that so you know I just this yeah that's what the purpose is it really is your it's really your chance to impact the master plan I mean that doesn't sound that way but it really is your chance to tell the planning board what's going on in the variances and then they can make recommendations up to based on the things you say if there's a pattern of approval or denials on certain things you can make that recommendation to the planning board listen we're running into a a headache here because of some something that's in the ordinance um and we keep running into this and it needs to be fixed so that can be made at any time doesn't have to be at the time of master plan or reexaminations but right but it it's a very important document I know we're just we're in a hurry to get out of here tonight but um every year every year that we do these I mean it's it's very important so I just trying to I would table it would you like to table it it's going to be a while yes well it's it's factual right so unless there's an error in it we're not making recommendations I mean we can we can review this at a later date to make recommendations a good idea what's that but this is just factual and we're just looking at that so whatever you want to do if you if if the board wants to put this on an agenda where it's a little lighter we have more time to talk about it that would be appropriate because a lot of times I have to do a resolution to send this up there so in the past that's when I put in the resolution kind of recommendations well if that if that's the case then we should table it for a full discussion later agenda I mind if you want to do it now oh yeah I think we should talk about it and I think we table all right so we're tbling the decisions and we also have to approve the bills so if everybody looks at the bills um so we made an overall um should I U call do we want a motion to table that um I think the chairperson can do that okay that's fine thank you and then let's um make a motion to approve Palestina Associates and King Barn's bills I'll make that okay Mr Walsh made a motion I'll second it oh well no thank you Mr Lewin by Mr venudo yes thank you Mr Lewin Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr catalo yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay and next would be an adjournment if anyone wants to make that motion uh Mrs Mrs Notch motions all in favor thank you everyone good night okay wow that was longer than I thought it was going to be