e after we open up you'll do office right sure take it from there I cheap oh good prepare especially since the first time I'm doing it spe got some um this m I'll bring it out at some point I got the B okay sounds good good oh here we go I don't know if you want to sign these now or later do you want me to keep them in the back these are the Bills okay I'll do it's easier I know I hear you it's been a long day is there more than three I won't do anything if they don't approv them I'm sure they will though thank you and I need these guys to sign their contracts okay but we'll get that we also had three something we called it a corner lot but it wasn't really a corn it didn't hit the definition of a corner two corners it it was exactly two corn you sign your contracts at the end and Craig we have contracts at the end I don't one person isn't here for the O starting ready 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 have the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right Mrs Werner here Mr venudo here Mr ledwin here Mrs Notch here miss Shan here Mr Walsh here Mr Zer here Mr catalo Mr Bodner here thank you okay we have o of office for some members okay I'm going to read this and then ask those who are being sworn in to say um you agree and then I will sign your I will notorized your forms if you sign them for me uh Norm ledwin Stacy Shan and Marvin zeter you ready uh each of you do solemnly swear that you will support the Constitution of the United States and the state of New Jersey that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States and in this state under the authority of the people and that you will faithfully and partially and justly perform all the duties of the office of Zoning Board of adjustment member according to the best of your ability and that you will not use your office to Grant preferential treatment nor to seek personal gain favor or Advantage not available to the general public do all of you so swear or affirm yes I do okay if you could please sign that and then pass it down I'll notorized it for Karen okay thank you thank you madam chair s and thank you all for your service next we have the election of the chairperson I need a nomination I would like to nominate Terry wner second a second okay nomination by Sam Bono and seconded by Mrs not okay are there any other nominations seeing none we'll have roll call Mr ledwin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zer yes Mr uh I'm sorry Mr Bono yes Mrs wner yes sorry okay next is election of the vice chair I would like to nominate Sam Bono need a second second second nomination by Mrs wner seconded by Mr ledwin any other nominations seeing none will have roll call Mr lwin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shan yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes you Mr rudo abstain yes okay Mrs wner yes thank you okay next we have the appointment of our board attorney I would like to nominate Rich Richard King of King borne's attorneys I need a second second okay motion made by Mrs wner seconded by Mr Bono Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr vudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you thank you everyone you know I enjoy working with you and I really love this city so thank you for letting me uh get paid to do a public service because I really believe in it thank you so much you're welc thank you okay next we have the appointment of our board engineer I'd like to nominate Craig hurles of patino and Associates second nomination by Mrs wner seconded by Mrs Notch Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss shanen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr vudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you thanks looking forward to another year um next we have the adoption of meeting dates and time need a motion in a second so move second motion made made by Mr leadwin seconded by Mr zeter Mr lwin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay next we have the designation of the official newspaper for public notice council is using the herald and the Atlantic City Press does anyone have any comments on that okay we need a motion and a second I just say one thing about that this is just me I don't understand the concept of a backup newspaper um I believe there's just one paper that should be the official paper because the public should know that they can look at one paper or know everything that's going on and shouldn't have to go and see if an attorney missed the deadline for that paper and they happen to go published in the Atlantic City Press so in my view you're supposed to use the herald unless for some reason the herald isn't publishing or something but I just don't I'm I'm not it's not a it's not an either or I think it's the Heralds the official paper and there's an extraordinary circumstance that that is not possible then I guess the Atlantic City Press is the backup but I don't understand the concept of you know an attorney misses the deadline and then they publish in the press the citizens shouldn't have to look at two papers to find out what's going on there should be one official paper so that's just I spin on it so you can pass it as it is but that's my maybe just my opinion but it'll be a published case somay I I make a motion just to make it the herald the heral okay so we're going to go with one newspaper then oh wait hold on I do have to say if we're going to do that I just want to see something else I do represent the herald by coincidence if it said the star and wave in the Atlantic City Press I'd have said the same thing or said the whatever it's I I've said that I've said that in years past some of you been been here a while you know I've said that while before I represented the Harold but I should mention that as well okay we have a motion by missan to make the herald our official newspaper can we have a second a second second by Mr venudo so can I just clarify we only have one newspaper then that's it I'm okay with that I just want to make sure that's I think it's I think the motion should be it's the Harold the official paper but if some reason the Harold is no longer available then it's Atlantic City Press but it's not a month-by-month choice of the attorney basis it's the herald and if the herald is not available anymore then it's the press okay thank you appr motion okay so I'll do the roll call then I'm sorry yes we have the motion in second okay Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shan yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr vudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay next we meet a motion to approve the resolution appointing Richard King as board attorney I'll make a motion this is the resolution part this is I I think Mr Zer motion oh do you want to do the two together we could do two together if you like okay yeah go ahead so you want to do Craigs and I thought maybe Rich wanted to do that is that is that what you'd like to do no I didn't realize we were doing the two things separate probably should have done up in the time it took we what have done okay we're we have a motion to approve resolution for Rich King as board attorney and let's do Craig perus at the same time as great board engineer so we need a motion and a second I'll make the motion make okay motion by Mrs Notch second seconded by Mr zeter Mr Lewin yes Mrs not yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr rudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay now we need a motion to approve aby's Cove LLC 1302 Texas Avenue resolution I'll make the motion second motion by missan seconded by Mr ledwin Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Sheen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr vudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you and now we need a motion to approve the minutes of December 28th zoning board meeting make the motion motion by Miss Sheen seconded by second Mr zeter Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay so now we're up to the applications so our first application is Lisa Castleton 27 17 Perry Street yes uh would you like to come to the table move up to the table and turn on your microphones please if you can introduce yourselves sure good evening for the record Nick talaki Cooper levenson on behalf of the applicant Lisa Castleton also with us is her husband Steve um and we have Andy Schaefer who is our planner to provide some testimony uh Mr King would you like him sworn in now and qualify sure are your clients going to testify as well or no I think U Miss Castleton they okay I'll swear them in just in and I was going to swear our our board engineer Craig hles to each of you I swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the sh up you got I do yes thank um just for the record um Andy You're are New Jersey licensed planner and and engineer yes that's correct and you've been qualified by planning and zoning boards in New Jersey as a planning exp yes including this one okay and um I don't want to go too deep into it but um I offer Mr Schaefer as a planning expert based upon his lure his testimony before this board in the past as an expert and as other boards throughout the state that's acceptable thank you thank you mrakia can you bring your microphone a little closer I'm having trouble I'm sorry is that better thank you yes okay so again um by uh notice of appeal dated September 27th we uh challenge the determination of the zoning officer with respect to a zoning permit so this is an appeal of that determination uh effectively also serves as an interpretation the issue at hand here is the the Castleton property fronts on a double Street uh Perry and Chestnut and the question is and they want to build a shed in the their back we have an 11t setback as a rear or a setback for an accessory structure in the rear would be 10t so that would be compliant uh but the zoning officer determined that the property has two fronts the setback with a therefore be 20 fet for a front and would require variance relief uh I also note that at the time of the application uh the ordinance permitted a over had a higher height uh it's since been amended so our proposed height is now compliant with the ordinance so there's no issue there so the question is in this case um was the zoning officer um an error in determining that our front and our what constitutes the front and the rear in our notice of appeal um and your ordinance does not define um double-sided Lots in terms of what's front what's rear it's silent and there's a number of other definitions that U are not in there that um might might Aid this and Mr hurles went through some of those in his report uh what we focused on is the definition of building front and that's quoted in our appeal letter at 524 of your -4 of your ordinance your land use code building front is defined as quote any wall of a building having a major entrance onto a Street or pedestrian walkway close quote so we argue that if you look at the uh this property and in the adjacent properties that the interpretation in this case not necessarily in every case but in this case should have been that Perry is our front based on this definition again major entrance into onto a street or pedestrian walkway um the rear of our property is fenced our neighbors um when you look look at look at it and we'll have testimony from Andy that that is their rear and we think the zoning officer in this case could have determined that our front is Perry our rear is Chestnut and had the authority to Grant the zoning permit now it may be a case where zoning officer looks and says I don't think that's the major front entrance I look at the neighborhood I look at the circumstances and um he can make that determination and and that's why I mean there's no definition there's no nothing in the ordinance that says what um what happens with a front and a rear for example corner lot is by definition two fronts um and a lot of ordinances will say any street that fronts on a public right of way is a front by definition that's not the case here so we think the intent was to provide some level of discretion to the zoning officer to determine um but we just think um he he aired in this case in determining that um Chestnut was not our rear we think the 10- foot setback applies as I said 11 foot is actually proposed so with that i' like to have Mr schaer go through his testimony but that's essentially our argument that the only definition that's really relevant here is building fronts a closest definition to what constitutes a front there's no other definition um there's building setb uh or building yard which is defined but that's to a property line that's to a street that's to an alley so we don't think that really helps in determining what constitutes the front um again the only definition in your ordinance is building front it's the only one that we could find and again if you look at this case this property um this is the uh chess Perry is the front and we think actually in this case chessnut really functions more of an Alleyway than any kind of a major uh again any ordinance major ENT onto a street we don't think it works in this case so that's um kind of the overview and I'll ask Andy to um provide his testimony Andy do you have some exhibits you want to introduce I do uh the first one is the plot plan showing Chestnut Street and Perry Street and the subject matter of the applic or interpretation is a 10x 24ot shed that we were proposing let let's let's just do some um housekeeping um Mr King for that as exhibit A1 okay does he have a microphone over there yes Andy micophone Andy just grab your microphone from here so you can carry it with you or grab that one that's cool is it on this is exhibit A1 is a plot plan plot plan is there's a date on that Andy I'm sorry is there a date on your plan that you're marking into the record that's the same plan that was in your packet right same plan I wasn't going to mark it if it's in the packet I just said it's plot P it's identical in in case any anybody wants to see it we do have the U isation view also is that zp1 what yes zp1 and zp2 Plum Corner zp1 that's that way we don't have to keep the big post of board fine just in the packet go ahead is it was it 10 x 24t the shed did you say correct 10 x 24t shed is proposed that uh I believe it's already gone through the HPC it's already gone through the HPC in terms of the not it has not to go the zoning was a big enough issue we to get this Zing can you hold the mic up I can't understand you over here still not loud enough okay we you got it thank you so it was not approved by the HPC no we have not gone in yet not gone to the HPC but you can tell by the design of it that it's going to be okay so um Chestnut Street is a 16 ft wide RightWay and it ABS the parking lot and my aerial photograph looking straight down did Escape me on the way down here um but it's 435 ft from one end to the other there are six foot high fences along all of it or a building face and there along that 435 ft there are four buildings that have essentially a zero setback accessory structures uh that exist garage outbuildings that sort of thing and the rest of it is a a wall of 6ot high fence as well as the um the building at the intersection having basically zero setback also and that's a fairly large building of chestnut now I show you this I promise to not try to argue this as a variance because it's not but I I do want to compare Chestnut to an alley and the reason I want to do that is because the alley has a special purpose in the city ordinance so this is the a 16t wide with a slightly narrower cartway just to give you an idea what the entrance of that looks like so these are exhibits or am I missing do we have no these are exhibits and they're not in the pack okay thank you yeah we'll we'll mark those um Andy Mark if you could A1 and identify again what that exhibit shows that's a street view of the entrance to um a Chestnut and then just for the sake of comparison this is the alley known as burrow Hall alley notice the width and the so forth and setbacks are consistent with what exists on Chestnut um hold we got to we got to do the A2 thing so that's so this is every time you do one of these we got it I got it A2 is the burrow alley burrow Hall alley yes excuse me this is West Kate May correct no well yes the western part of Kate May yes no West Gate made home municipality yeah yeah I did cross Broad Street yeah yes it is it's not in our municip excuse me sorry okay did we withdraw that one then yes with you too but still turning back to the alley the alley in the city ordinance is known will have a 20 foot wide um ride of way it doesn't necessarily Define the paving width and it also uh there this one like I said is 16 ft and I want to read to you the definition of an alley an alley in your ordinance is defined as a minor way which is used primarily for vehicular service access to the backside of properties that are otherwise a butt on a street in other words they front on a street so I'm trying to say here is behaves more like excuse me I'm I had to where is that located in the OR definition definition I believe I have that one with me I just want to make sure you weren't going through West Kate May's definition of an alley that's why I I was pretty sure I was in Kate May I'm forgive me please I'm sorry about it's in Kate May a minor way it's it's the definition of Aly this is about the only inference or reference to the rear of a lot that has double Public Access or rideway uh conditions where this does has a front and back uh I could not find another reference to a double front lot Corner lots of course can you just go over what makes that an alley and not a street well by its physical nature in the sense that it does give people access judging by the amount of parking for those homes that front on Parry in the rear so they have access to the rear through those six fo high fences with Gates and there are several out building four out buildings that front on or excuse me a butt uh chestnut with almost a zero setback and the total rway width of chestnut is 16 ft which is actually less than the ordinance definition of an alley of 20 feet okay I guess there's a definition of Street yes and Street says there's five different classifications that's correct arterial collector minor streets which is those which are used primarily for access to the abing properties marginal a access streets and alleys and I guess I'm just I'm just asking and I'm not trying to this isn't cross examination I'm curious now because no you're absolutely right she Stacy you were correct I was looking at West Kate May because because the alleys are 20t wide not because it was in the ordinance so you're right well don't panic because there's definition for the alley is the same in our ordinance I'm I'm I'm in Kate May and it's definition of alley is a minor way which is used primarily for vehicular service access to the back or the side of properties otherwise a budding on a street that's what I read yes so that's I think I'm in K it doesn't NE yes you are but it doesn't necessarily Define the width of it but I I think the more relevant conversation is this definition a street that I've never read before that has five choices five different types of streets Arial streets collector streets minor streets marginal access streets and alleys and I was just asking you why you think this is an alley and not a minor Street and it's not supposed to be a typic difficult question I'm really curious it was the width of it or something but I'm not seeing that Extinction it's not clear I agree but it's because of the width and because it is a double fronted lot and it accesses the rear and it's been behaving as rear access to these properties for many years I hate to use the analogy but it quacks like a duck but but it's named a street right so it's dedicated as a street correct albe it an nrow one but a street yeah yeah but but under this definitions alleys or streets it's one of the five kinds of Street every everywhere a street or public RightWay referred to it refers to public streets rideways alleys it it lumps them all together every reference in the ordinance that's true can I can I I just I don't want us to um go off the track here the the issue is building front the definition of building front and it talks about the ordinance a building having a major entrance onto a street or pedestrian walkway so the question in this case is does Perry Street function as the major the side of the building that has the major entrance clearly and all the houses along that 435t stretch every house does front on Perry and has major access to the uh Perry Street as a front so let me just ask the question the opposite way on Chestnut is there a major entrance onto Chestnut from this property or even the adjoining properties no there is not so by definition um could you when this okay so if if Perry functions as the front what's the setb for a the setback for 20 20 ft and what's the setback for rear um or accessory structure not in the front 10 10 ft and we propose 11 we propose 11 ft yes is that essentially the base is for the argument that for this appeal that the um Chestnut side is not the major entrance and therefore is not the building front and therefore is not the front yard for purposes of the 20 foot setback yes that is my opinion Lisa do you have anything you want to add um not at this point I think you know I agree with everything that's been said for sure I have a I have a question yes you park in the rear and you enter the house how um oh sorry you you may answer at least uh yeah well we we enter it through the back door or the side door at the kchen where do you get your mail front door front door yeah which is for purpose of the record um Parry Street correct yes correct and when we access go out the house go to Perry Street everything's out the front and that's true with everybody on our block and has been for for years for 28 years we've owned 27 and uh and then 15 and then 13 right and it I mean it's been this way as long as we've owned the property and all of our neighbors have owned the properties our backyards are our backyards that's where we park um we have the big parking lot is right behind us and having the six-foot fence having it treated as a rear guard is really important to us um just from a functional standpoint our backyards are useless to us with 4 foot fences we have um a parade of people every summer that lot is big people in and out it's noisy we have delivery trucks uh surrounding the Lafayette Street parking lot are businesses and all of their trash gets picked up and all their food deliveries get delivered so this isn't behind us is a very commercial um atmosphere with a lot of people coming through um and it's um you know almost all of the people that come through are wonderful people we are really blessed to have the visitors that we have in Kate may but there are a few bad eggs out there and it's very disconcerting um uh having had had a few interactions with them to know that the only thing between me and them is a 4ot fence you know my grandkids are in the yard the dogs are in the yard we want to be be able to enjoy our yard um there are K9 sheriffs out there all winter long you might have 10 or 15 sheriff's cars out there with the police dogs which is no big deal but the dogs are barking it's um it's just not a residential area behind us by any stretch of the imagination there are car shows there have been car shows lot very persuasive variance argument okay well good we'll have it for later we'll back pocket that then but um I'm sorry then so I can speak to your point question Okay you Okay so is this going to be um a storage shed what's the use of this out building so the the shed will be used uh a little bit for storage but the main point of the shed is that we have an awful lot of um people in our family our extended family lives in the in 217 we live in 2 13 that are um into a physical fitness my son is a personal trainer and we I wanted to get all of the um equipment out of the houses because we we have pelons and and um treadmills and weights and dumbbells and pull-up stuff all over our homes and it would be really nice to have that out of the house and in the yard and there's there's really no place for it in the house is there going to be air conditioner heating in there um would like to have a mini split in there so that it can be used year round because the equipment shouldn't sit um in in an unregulated environment does that change it from a I just I I just heard something about heating it is that what you yes A Min spit heating and air conditioning yes this is habitable space at this point right yeah yeah that's you going to run water out there no we don't need any water once you start temperature controlling it we start looking at it as habitable space so give that some thought yeah maybe we won't then no that's that's a good it's not going to be a deal breaker has this been constructed already no no no only why I asked CU I thought in here it said it was constructed already construction no oh that that's the only reason why when I went to dve pass I couldn't finded it has not been constructed uh no in fact it hasn't even been to the hbcs okay that that's a little okay I'm only asking if they said was constructed already that's no this is not this is a a new proposal and I didn't see it [Laughter] constructed there my report indicates there's an existing shed on the site yes behind 217 and that's shown on the plan yes right on the left hand side of you go through your um can I ask one question first sure did HBC approve this no this has not been before HPC because the I mean we have the the general design of it in mind but to go through the cost of finishing that design only to find out that this can't even be constructed uh to me was not so we're here first we're here first we haven't gone to HPC yet so we'll go through I have a couple question why couldn't you move that shed I'm sorry why couldn't you move that so you that shed is being for the bicycles the Gard no no no I'm talking about the new proposed oh the proposed shed why wouldn't you move that so you comply with the set bags you mean 20 ft forward because it would be sitting way in the middle of the yard and it renders most of our yard useless not to mention it'll look really weird there's three properties as you as you know so there's 217 and then 215 which we converted to a yard and then 213 which we live in now so so um that 2115 which was going to be built on and we challenged it and we got the property that's that's just a nice yard for and we don't want to a open space so is this on just the one property because you had the three properties there together so is this half on one and half on another okay so it's a little confusing it the properties are listed in the records as 217 215 and 213 and 215 um at one time was a separate lot it was combined with 217 okay so it's really only 217 is one property now that combines 217 and 215 213 um always has been its own lot and still is so this combined lot is where the shed is on so it's not on any other correct so we'll go ahead with the Craig's report and then we can ask any other questions okay good evening everyone uh the latest review memorandum that I did for this application is dated October 19th 2023 um this is a project located in the RS residential seasonal District um you've heard testimony from the applicants what what they're seeking tonight it's essentially an appeal from the uh zoning officer's decision um on page two of five I did recommend deeming this uh application complete based on the nature of this application and the information they've provided um I'll move in onto the appeal section on page 205 um uh item number one um this is just States the zoning board's power in uh hearing and deciding those appeals item number two is the appeals procedure is set forth in um the land use code um and M the excuse me the New Jersey statute so we can Circle back to that if there's any questions but um on page three of five uh it indicates the reasons the zoning officials cited uh for for denying the uh the application um under item number one the proposed out building is 10 feet by 24t with a proposed height of 14 foot 8 in two the proposed location is 8 feet from the side property line and 10 ft from the property line AB budding Chestnut Street the minimum side yard setback in the AR s district is 8 ft the minimum setback from Chestnut Street is 10 20 feet per section 5259 B1 the minimum building setback line is 20 feet proposed is 10t so he's saying it that doesn't conform to that per section 52555 a4a the maximum height is 10 feet where it was proposed as 14 foot 8 in and per section 52 5 under number number five per section 52555 a4c no structure may be permitted between the building front and the street line um and then six it says it appears the existing shed was constructed without permits and approvals and or approvals and I I believe they're talking about the existing shed that's there not what's proposed there is no record of this shed on the property file and aerial photos show from 325 2019 does not show The Shed existing proper paperwork must be submitted for the shed review and approval so he's questioning how that shed came to be in that yard um and then said the application is denied okay oh okay because I I I I would like to respond to that because it's it's making it sound like I was trying to do something underhanded and build the shed at some point this is just I'm just citing what the zoning official we're I always instruct the board I'll instruct them now we don't give you a break for having built it and we don't punish you for having built it it doesn't matter we're just viewing it as a zoning application for a shed okay very good don't have to explain yourself I know you say you didn't do it but it doesn't matter okay so and then uh item number four uh PA offers politin Associates offers the following review comments in response to the applicants narrative in support of the appeal so um the application the first um letter A under four talks about uh when the new ordinance 514 of 2023 came into effect um I believe the zoning officer reviewed it under the old standards which I believe is appropriate and recommended denial because at that point the allowable height for that accessory structure was 10 ft um that has now been there is a new ordinance in effect so I believe that you can go back and reapply for that and be subject to those new zoning regulations under subsection B of four the applicant contends that the property sits between Perry Street and Chestnut Street with the front of the property on Perry Street and the rear of the property where the proposed shed will be located on Chestnut Street there's no definition for dual Frontage Lots in the K May ordinance which would control which is the front side or if it has two front sides the applicant offers the definition of building front um so from section I will go through those uh definition of building setback line an established line within a property defining the minimum required distance between the face of any structure and an adjacent RightWay Street line or property line this face as measured to the structure includes Sun parlor foyers bay windows porches and protecting Eaves Dormers gutters steps a pertinent structural and mechanical systems and any other solid projections or and entrances corner lot um this is not a corner lot but um it's very similar to one and and the corner lot typically has Frontage on two streets um and the definition of that for corner lot any lot which occupies the interior angle formed by the intersection of two or more streets the street line is defined as a RightWay line uh yard comma front is an area extending across the full width of a lot and laying between the front property line of the lot and the nearest wall or face of the building building as defined in this section comma building setback line and the depth of the front yard shall be measured at right angles to the front property line of the lot uh rear yard is an area extending across the full width of any lot and lying between the rear property line of a lot and the nearest Waller face of the building is defined in the section building setback line the depth of the rear yard shall be measured at right angles to the rear property line um side yard um is less appropriate for this but I can go through that if board desires um so utilizing the definitions of yard comma front and building setback line uh we believe that um we have historically reviewed the applications and considered building setbacks for principal structures based on the presence of adjacent rways whether they're alleys whether they're uh streets Avenues Etc the language for controls for other out building is less clear the following is stated in section 52555 A4 and I believe that this is another out building uh so under a the maximum height is 10 ft under B no structure may be within 5 ft of any property line subsection C no structure may be permitted between the building front line and the street line and subsection D in no instance can the amount of lot cover coverage by the principal building and out buildings exceed the percentage specified for the district in which the principal building is located okay there is no definition of building FR that's absent that's not there's no specific definition in our code um so in in that absence we have consistently and this is talking about my office I'm not talking about the zoning office uh we have consistently applied the building setback line definition because we believe the intent of the ordinance is not to allow any accessory structures between the principal building structure and any right any uh RightWay line um it's consistent with our treatment of pools it's consistent with our treatment of accessory structures um we believe that the intent is to preserve the streetcape along any RightWay line so I don't um so that's just how we've done things in the passed and I believe the the um the intent of the ordinance is not to have accessory structures between the face of any structure and a street line um Madam chair may I respond briefly to Mr H let me just let me just finish and then the board can ask me questions and then you can ask me questions sure okay um so that that is my belief as a planner that the that what the ordinance is the ordinance intent is um and that's just based on all of the definitions and treatment of accessory structures throughout the code um preserves that it's I think it the intent is to preserve the streetscape so that there's not accessory structures pools Etc within that within those front yard setbacks right great can you talk about briefly the U I'll do it never mind oh wait you can ask actually I have a question for Mr haris is there in our ordinance is there any other definition of of an out building I mean we I preface that with with this we have you know pictures of these the diagrams that we have here and it's been described as a shed but it's also it's a 24t x 10t building over 14 ft high with a cupula on top so I guess it's with a single door could call it a shed but um it also looks there's there's a lot going on here as far as this particular structure so um my question is is there something that gives us more guidance as far as an outbuilding no there's no definition of other out buildings um and I'm I'm looking up the requirements for this for if you forgive me for one second while I reference our code yeah yeah I guess to expand on on bodner's question is there a limit on how big a shed can be you asked about a shed well that's oh okay yes the answer to your question is yes there is a limit to how big a shed can be other out buildings I don't believe there is so but let me I understand something are you are you saying that there's restrictions on sheds different than the other out buildings I'm I'm let me look up I'm going to go I believe garages I'm going to go through the difference between the difference of standards and code requirements between sheds and other out buildings let me look let me just find that for one second well accessor is 55 yep okay just want to make sure I'm referencing in the right section okay so section 52555 is titled dwelling accessory uses the first subsection a is deals with single or two family dwelling accessory uses so that has uh standards for professional offic es within the structure animal shelters detached garages other out buildings patios Terraces and decks and other accessory use controls so the other outbuilding section um has a maximum height requirement a setback of 5 feet from any property line no structure is permitted between the building front line and the street line and no instance can the amount of lot coverage by the principal building and out buildings exceed the percentage specified for the district in which the principal building is located which essentially says it has to conform with the lot coverage requirements let me find the sheds and in that section there is no control for sheds it's going to take me a moment to find the shed section shed section looks like it's in different different zones that's what that's where I'm looking for I I see it in the R4 modified medium density residential district I'm not coming up with sheds and other districts so this is a project in the RS District correct yeah the word shed doesn't appear in the RS RS District correct unless it's Incorporated in that thing that says guest house and multi family dwellings off this matters much yeah be honest with you I mean as much as it's curiosity it's either whether you can put stuff in the whether this is a front yard or a backyard that's what you you're deciding whether it's a front yard or a backyard well wouldn't it be also if the building's larger than it's allowed to be it doesn't matter that's not what the the zoning officer didn't cite that so their their appeal is from the decision of the zoning officer so he's only he he classified this as an other out building um and I just read the standards to you so okay but you also you also mentioned in the standards that it's 10 feet right right right and this is and this is almost 20 feet so he he he cited the fact that they were over the height requirement um as a reason for denial so I believe he got that right and you know it's at that at that time the ordinance may have changed since then and the applicant is allowed to reapply based on whatever the standard is but at the time of application these standards were in effect and I believe that he got that right well aren't they still in effect when you say that it has to be at 10t because you just read it from the there's another another ordinance 54-22 3 came into effect approximately around September 12th of 2023 okay and that but that still says it can't be greater than 15 feet right and they're at 14' 8 in but they're at 20 ft setb the set the setback is 11 20 ft is the setback the ma maximum the height 14 well I guess when I saw it was 14 then another 5et on top of it that up no no it's 148 total I I just 20t was that the WID I mean I'm just looking at this picture here that you that you gave us it has 14t and then 5 feet Thea so it's 20 feet oh then the KOA should not be young I mean unless I unless my architect knows something I don't know that kopas there's special SE not counted they're not counted what on an accessory structure I don't know about an accessory structure but they're typically on a principal structure they're ornamental and they don't count towards it oh that must have been what the architect was thinking then I'm I'm not I'm not I'm not going to offer an opinion on this because I believe the zoning officer got it right at the time where he said this is denied because it is 14 foot 8 in where only 10t is per permitted yeah but if it's a 20 structure he got it wrong we he denied it for exceeding the height right but he he denied it exceeding the height at because it was greater than 10 feet but I think the thing I think the height thing at red herring because now it's 15 feet okay but it sounds like the plans that are before us are 20 feet and we're not saying that's okay we're not ruling on that tonight Mr cron apparently has a Koopa on top of an accessory structure and if I live next door to it I mean it's a 20ft structure in the rear of a building 4 feet from the sidey yard I I don't I have to see where Koop is yeah I don't think the board is is tasked with evaluating I understand but I don't want us I don't want us to um if if we say that the I think that the limit that we should be applying is the 15 ft okay I want this record to be clear though that machine is point at that it's actually the picture we were given is a 20ft structure and we're not saying that that's a 15t structure and eliminating the Koopa so that's a whole another convincing that someone Mr Crossland will have to do is it possible that kopas uh don't count that they're ornamentation I mean I can't imagine not that's not tonight what I'm saying is we're not saying we're not saying it's okay to put a 20 foot structure back there okay and we're not saying the Koopas can be on Accessory structures and that's okay we're not deciding that tonight okay okay so so just for clarity um on the height issue our proposal is 14.8 if the plans show more than that that's an error for right now and we'll deal with that and at the plan show Koopa we're not saying that that's okay I get that exactly for purposes of the appeal um you know the case law says that under the time of application we really get the benefit of the new law I don't think we have to reapply for height so I think 15 is the correct height there's a case on that and and Mr King and I discussed that point so I I I think we're good on height I you men mentioned that I think that's right the sole issue I think is is this a rear yard or is this a front yard and what setback applies is it the 10 foot for accessory setback or is it 20 foot and I just if I may address briefly two comments in Mr heres's report because I think they're important Mr huris points to yard front and building setback as as the um should be reviewed those definitions but I don't think they get us anywhere building setback line talks about the minimum required distance from the building to either a street a right of way or a property line but it doesn't tell you what the setback is in other words it doesn't tell you building setback line what the front side or rear is it just tells you that that's how you measure but it doesn't tell you what it is so I don't think that gets us anywhere similarly I don't think yard front gets us anywhere because that just says that the full width of a lot lying between the front property line of the a lot that's the question what is the front so again I I I don't think they answer the question the closest thing that answers the question or what constitutes the front the only thing that we could find is the definition of of uh building um Frontline not building I'm sorry is uh building front and building front is the definition in our appeal any wall of a building having a major entrance onto a street or pedestrian walkway we argued that our Perry Street entrance is are major we think that's consistent with the neighborhood and we think a zoning officer can look at this ordinance in any specific application for zoning permit and determine what the major entran is um we think he AED in this case but um the the definitions of building setback line doesn't tell you what the front is because it could be a side yard if because it mentions property line and similarly uh yard front doesn't tell you anything it doesn't tell you what the front is you don't know so it's just telling you how to calculate something but it doesn't tell you what those things are it doesn't tell you what the front is in either case so again the one thing the only thing in the ordinance that um talks about a front is the definition of building front and building front is I I I think as our testimony and our belief is Perry Street if if that's the the ward concludes that Perry Street's the front Chestnut can't be the front then because there not it can only be one major as far as I can tell that has to be the rear therefore the 10- foot accessory setback has to apply not the 20 foot so that's our case in a nutshell I give you my thoughts on it if I could um remember this is just my opinion okay I'm not the decider and I'm not an advocate until you guys decide something then I advocate for what you decided but until then I just try to call like I say him sometimes I agree with the interpretation of the attorney the applicant sometimes I don't in this case I I respectfully don't um and I think the problem I think the confusion I don't if confusion is the right word but you can't think of a lot in isolation a lot exists around other Lots okay um an example is the vento application that we had where that is a lot that fronts on vento and New York Avenue and we treated that as having two front yards why bunch of reasons um there was a street on each side but also for the people that lived across from that street from where they're sitting they're viewing a front yard of the house across the street from them so in one sense this thing about having a what we call a through lot generally is what it's called a through lot that touches two streets you have to think of the houses that are on the other side of the street that are looking at that house okay you also have to think of the houses on the side of it all right because the reading that they're giving to the building front that tells you what's the front of a building not what the front yard is so if the front of the building is determined by where the particular house puts its exit and entrance which by the way the testimony of this record is that they enter from the back but they're leaving that aside the where that means each house can decide what their building front is which would mean each house can decide what their front yard is so if you have three houses and they both through Lots one house could have their front on Perry the house next door may have their their building front on Chestnut and now when they're in their front yard right 8T from where they're from them is a shed so it's a streetcape issue and I think the although this applies to Corner Lots I think a section that no one cited yet 52559 common development standards which is an interesting category but it talks about Corner lots and what it's says think about the concept that it's addressing when it says this the building set back line for a corner lot shall be the same as required along the same street for the adjoining lot when a lot line AB buts a street it shall be treated as a front yard and respect to setbacks now think about what they're saying there they're thinking about the lots that are next to the corner lot because there's a streetcape and they treat those two as front yards because of the people next to them it's next to their front yard right so in my opinion um this front back concept when you're on two streets and people kind of pick which one's their entrance you have to treat them both as front yards because to the people around that property it's going to function as a front yard they across the street I live on Grant well I live on Windsor my address is Windsor but it runs through to Grant some of you might remember there was an application right behind me the other day the other month well to to me that's clearly the backyard of my house but to everybody on Grant that's a front yard so if we stuck a shed eight feet from there for the got people who live on Grant there's now a shed right next to their driveway as they pull out onto their street okay now ours happens to be two lots and theirs is one lot so it seems different but it's really not because it has houses across the street and houses next door so I think the intent of the ordinance is to treat yards with consideration of the people around them for the people around them this could function as a front yard I think the testimony they've given is persuasive that on this particular property which starts to selling variance language on this particular property this functions more like a backyard it's like an alley there's a liquor store behind it they didn't mentioned that so if they come in for a variance and everybody around it gets notice because I don't think this requires 200 foot notice we did send notice you did send a notice but doesn't require it right we said it Bas we gave notice that we won the would build a right but we can't we can't function on that L um so if they give notice to the houses around them and the neighbors don't come out and say hey we don't like this front shed in the front yard maybe one will maybe one will say hey that's like our front yard and we use that and we don't want to shed there you have to listen to it but I think I think this is a variance application and I think you would be going against a bunch of other applications you've done in the past I could only think of one but I know there's more there was a swimming pool with three fronts uh that that we treated all those front yards so I my personal opinion is that you should treat this as a front yard but that's just my opinion you guys are going to decide they've made their arguments credible attorney make your decision can we make can I make a few comments absolutely all right thank you for listening and that's good so first of all behind first of all if you go down the Chestnut Street alley and you look at every house as the photograph showed there there are houses right on it every house on Perry Street and our houses have been there for over 150 years obviously the front is Perry Street every house would be in violation of this everyone there are structures Way Beyond you'd be every single house would be in violation there is nobody in the back of us there is a parking lot that leads to a liquor store there is no issue at all about that in fact the the parking lot goes right up to the there's no there's no back there's no space between the alley and the parking lot and the people drive right out forward if you were to put a curb along that you'd be taking out a whole bunch of parking spaces so in the context I mean put inside the legal issues because it's not defined but in the context no one would look at this and think this is a front yard no one I I understand but you have to you have to understand we know a little bit I ex I know a little bit about zoning and right what you're talking about is a the particular characteristics of of your street and your property right but that's not how you do ordinance interpretations right that's not that's not how you do that's how you do Guan so your argument is a very credible one but for a different kind of application in my opinion you know I I understand I mean I don't think I actually don't think the code does address this issue and I think the arguments we make are actually talking about the language of the code um it's better yeah but but right and um if if I could just address the corner lot issue um Corner lots are uh treated very separately in the code and for good reason because very often on Corner Lots you're facing another residential district and you want that side that's facing the residential houses to look nice and and that's good code um I think this code is actually a pretty good code has a few little changes that need to be made but it's a good code the quter lot um code also says that of the remaining two two lot lines that are not facing streets not AB budding streets the shorter of those becomes your rear yard and the code does this because Residential Properties need rear yards if you don't have a rear yard the rest of the code sort of implodes and you end up with these odd issues like is it the front is it the back is it where do I put this where do you put your Mechanicals you can't have a 6ot fence if you don't have your rear yard where do you hide your trash cans from your neighbors where do you hide swing set I mean and and then you can't have a swimming pool so for the homeowner if you don't have a designated rear yard your your land becomes much less functional really you can have a much more functional property if you have a rear yard um and I I mean I think you could I understand what's going on over near poverty be the shed on do you think you put the shed on Perry suppose you want to put the sh absolutely not absolutely it's a but if you make the back your functional main entrance it is not our functional main entrance suppose tomorrow you board up your door on Perry and you you do what you said what you've testified you're doing you pull in the back and you exit in it you go in and out the back door make that your we go in and out the front door way more than the back no but no let me answer this let let me no you're you're but the problem is your interpretation your interpretation is one in which there will be no backyards and there's nowhere in the code that says that it's never been the case in 200 years here you know yeah see I guess if you take that interpret if you take um through lots and say there's no rear yard those would be the only Lots in Cape May that don't have a rear yard even Corner lots have a designated rear yard and for good reason because the rest of the code is written so that um all the other aspects of the code like the Mechanicals where do they go blah blah blah all work you take away the rear yard and you've thrown everything else in the code into dis Ray I understand you don't want people saying this is my front this is my back I think that happened on uh West Perry with one of the homes it then it doesn't look right but you as the zoning board certainly have the ability to say to a developer and this will be the Front Street this will be the these will be this will be the front of the street this will be the back of the street if all of the backs of the streets have six- foot fences and you can have Landscaping coat if you have a 6ft fence you have to have trees whatever it will look lovely and it will hide all of the stuff that everybody needs to put in their backyard like sheds and pools and and everything else so you have a code that works if you follow it and don't start creating uh rules like uh through Lots don't get rear yards that's where I think things start falling apart and Things become complicated and there's no reason for that complication I I just don't think the zoning law in meant to have a situation where you'd have no rear yard that to me sounds absurd and nobody lives like that so no because part of the zoning code is to create um Street Scapes that are not just nice they look nice but they need to be safe and they need to be functional they need to allow the homeowner to have a functional use of their property can I ask a question clarify question here we are not giving any variances out here tonight correct because this is just to say none of them requested right this is just say was the zoning officer correct in what he did right cuz I'm I'm getting a little bit more clarity here because I was asking questions about um the height and things like that which isn't what we're giving here like and also with the fact that the uh resolution you included in here talks about no out building may be used for human habitation or living accommodation and you want you want to put heat and air in so my question is we're not approving any of that we're just saying did the zoning offer say what he did and if we agree with the zoning offers then they might come back to us and we might approve it underneath variances correct correct yes okay so we're just saying did the zoning offers do what he did and if we agree with them then they can apply for a variance and come before us and get the variance the the the next application on the agenda is an appeal and in the in the case where the appeal does not not um go their way they've asked for the variant to be granted tonight okay this applicant is only dealing with the appeal so we're only seeing whether the there was an error of the zone and then my next clarifying question has to do with when the lawyer said he doesn't have to reapply and I don't understand why he wouldn't have to reapply for that other height variant I didn't understand why cuz we're not giving it anything he so to me he would have to reapply correct if I could clarify I don't think because we're at 148 and there's a case that says that we get the benefit of the current law if you decide in favor of us in on the setback issue the zoning permit should issue we have to reapply for the for the height because the current law is 15 ft right but your plan state 20 ft well that I that I didn't realize that's a mistake but so that's what I'm saying so your saying you have to reapply but your plan say 20 we would have to correct then I was I was referring to the 15 or 148 I think we need clarification too as to whether a Koopa is included in the height of an accessory building we're not making that determin no no I I understand but um I think if we could approve this on a building height of of 148 eliminate the Koopa um I would be fine with that and go forward and if a Koopa is allowed we could come back and and deal with that because I mean this still has to go through the HPC I I don't want to make more of the the height issue I think all I'm trying to say is the I think the only issue on appeal is the set setback whether it's 10 foot or 20 foot I I think the height and as your attorney mentioned is no longer an issue because there a change in New ordinance the process whether we apply or not apply to me that's not really that's a procedural thing so I I I don't want to make it more complicated than it needs to be I think it's just an inter or an appeal of the setback for this uh proposed structure if we overturn the zoning official tonight can they go ahead and build this no no HBC I mean without HBC yeah if they didn't have to go to HBC they could build this like it is if you overturn yes the zoning officers right if we tell them the zoning officer was wrong they can use this where they can leave where they want to leave he that the zoning officer will abide by your decision and he'll look at no I'm sorry he'll look at he won't look at the height there's other questions about this they still have to comply with all other zoning Vulcan area requirements um but as far as his decision you're just saying he ered and this spe this is a specific error right that's what you would be doing today or are you finding that he did not ear and he did not Grant approval for this for all of the reasons that he Grant and you're you're saying that those were legitimate reasons Craig then they have the right to come back to us and ask for variance yes on those issues if they're denied they can come back and ask for variance and they've already I mean you heard some testimony tonight that kind of leans toward the variant side I mean there you're a vote you're a board of adjustment because no zoning ordinance is perfect and in these specific cases your your code is really unclear and murky with regards to the treatment of these through Lots there's no mention of through Lots in anywhere in the ordinance so um so so if we we overturn the zoning officer by de facto they get a variance no well no I they need one you no don't don't over don't don't overthink it okay all you're deciding is whether in your opinion based on your ordinance okay the zoning officer was correct when he said that because this is because this yard above the street we're treating it as a front yard that's what the zoning officer saying and your engineer said that's what historically what we've done that just like a corner lot touches streets anything that touches a street we consider a front yard okay they've made cogent arguments that they disagree with that they said that the building the building front is where the main entrance is therefore the back of it the opposite of that is the is the rear yard these folks have also made a cogent argument that you have to have a rear yard somewhere so if it's a through lot and both are fronts then you've said there's no rear and how can that possibly be so those are the arguments that have been made they're legitimate arguments I've offered my opinion I could be mistaken but that's just my opinion Craig offered his so all you're going to decide now is if the zoning officer was correct in treating a yard that UPS a street as a front yard under your ordinance and then you say we agree with the zoning officer or we disagree if you disagree then that means you should treat it as a rear yard and issue a permit in the ordinary course that they comply with what a shed is or an out building whatever this thing is is a supposed to be in a rear yard so if you decide that he did the right thing then he's going to go do his job he you decide he did the right thing then the permit denied if you say he did the wrong thing then it's going to go back to the officer he's going to issue the permit and it's he's going to they're going to build a shed in that yard Mr King uh for clarity just on the height issue that we're conceding that right we're not proposing more than 148 right now the coupal issues is separate unrelated issue not before the board and given the change in ordinance it should not be part the only issue should be in other words on the appeal is the whether it's a front or rear yard whether it's a 10 foot step back or 20 I just just want to clarify that the height issue is not part of the should not be a part of the appeal I don't want to confuse anybody no we're not the height issue is is to me is a red hering I mean it's we're not approving anything at 20 feet and when the officer if if we agree with him and he goes to issue the permit and he pauses and says should I issue this permit he should look at the Cent are an ordinance and if it says 15 ft he should issue the permit because that's the law now it's 15 ft if there's is 14 then it's fine I don't need a case to tell me that that's that's common sense right you tell me there's a case I believe you the judge got it right okay so the the ne the next issue is so what you got to do is someone's got to make a motion um make it in the affirmative a motion to confirm the zoning officer's position I just want I just want to clarify that there's no one in the audience that is within 200 ft and no one Beyond 200 feet that wishes to speak so that's closed I I would ask that how would you like yeah I I just think for clarity whether or not it's a 10- foot setback applies or 20 foot setback for this proposed structure I think it's that's simple right 10 foot would be mean that it's it's an a we got to do something in relation all right so the part of the decision say either affirm you know what affirm means everybody either affirm the zoning board officer or reverse the zoning board officer so if you affirm him his decision denying the permit stands if you reverse him then that means you disagree with the officer and just so I can clar so if affirming means you're viewing that as a front yard yes affirm means we agree with the zoning officer that the back of our house is a front yard affirm front yes okay everybody understand that yeah or and reverse means you it's a backyard it's a backyard reverse means it's a backyard a firm means that our back of our house is the front yard now I make the motion motion by Miss second second by Mr venudo can we just read that again can you just state it again affirm means you're going to no I mean State the whole thing you affirm with the zoning officer correct that's what saying if you affirm it means you agree with the zoning officer and this is a front yard right if you reverse that means you disagree with the zoning officer and this is a re guard okay are we ready okay Mr leadwin firm Mrs Notch confirm Miss Shan affirm Mr Walsh confirm Mr Zer affirm Mr vudo affirm Mrs wner affirm thank you all right thank you thank you hope to see you again soon where's everyone remember that application when we do the year- end review of things we got to address in the ordinance it wouldn't be a bad one yeah there's there's lots of holes that need to be yeah cleaned up it's a legitimate question yeah I think when we no good you know when we had done um Beach Drive subdivision we stated what the front was in that subdivision remember on the manor they were both fronts you put what East Drive remember was right by Mount Vernon I think down that area when we said the three we gave them three lots we said they have to face the front the front has to be the beach yeah I don't remember oh oh well that one oh yeah yeah yeah yeah but but that was a corner lot yeah we said what the front should be yeah we that was for Ingress and egress and stuff the best one there pooled and the new developments that's the best we've done three of them yeah this Pittsburgh our application is the B 701 Avenue this is an appeal from the decision of the zoning officer Vari say Okay evening members of the board my name is Ray went I'm a partner with the law firm of NAD Davis and Goldstein I'm here this evening um on an application that has two requests the first is a an appeal of the zoning officer's determination regarding um second floor addition we would like on second part of the application is a variance request uh as you may as I heard during the previous application you had an appeal before you uh we have an appeal before you but we also have a variance request by way of background we were here in December of 2021 requesting this addition to the second floor which is not along the street it's between uh us and and our neighbor we obtained variance relief for floor area ratio the far and some setbacks however during that application it was not raised that there was a roof pitch issue in that we were not in the 12 to4 ratio that is required under your ordinance it was not raised by us it was not raised in the Professionals of rep reports and it was just something that came up and Mr Bishop your zoning officer who is reviewing these approvals said look I cannot issue um a permit because this roof pitch was not specifically addressed in the 2021 variance application so we had to come back according to him and according to your professionals although we have asked for an appeal of your zoning officials determination without waving that appeal we want to set that aside and simply ask for the variance first we um met the criteria necessary for the variances on this plan it's the same exact plan as shown we've highlighted it at exhibit 7 it's the same exact roof pitch and plan that was approved back in 2021 under the same criteria of meeting the positive and negative criteria that is necessary for you to approve a variance and I think the most expeditious way to complete this application tonight is to first ask for the variants I don't see any difference in what we asked for last time we came back cuz it was missed it just the roof pitch was just missed last time we've gotten HPC approval for this and the extension of that approval from two years ago they are fine with it we submitted that as well as part of our application package there are nine exhibits attached I'd like those to be recognized as exhibits for purposes of this application HPC is fine with this uh and we hope that you're as well can I just ask your qualifying question sure the HPC reviewed and approved the plan showing this roof pit yes propos they did two years ago and they approved the two-year extension that we requested okay and is why the record is crystal clear that they are reviewed they reviewed and recommended approval for this roof pitch correct thank you and just against the record was clear on November 28th 2023 they approved a two-year extension of that same approval you're seeking to your extension as well right exactly as part of the variant our plan is to get the permits as soon as possible and be built by Spring early summer uh but yes we are also requesting a two-year extension of the 2001 variance approvals and we're requesting the actual variance approval for the roof pitch this evening so since the entire basis for the last approval was that this was aesthetically pleasing historically accurate and architecturally sound and balanced the project you believe those same purposes of zoning are Advanced at this time correct correct and that resolution advanced ing those goals are attached um I just want to confirm this is for the the overhang the extension right because in this I see that there's also um a porch expansion is that the porch expansion or is it for the roof or I I guess I'm just clarifying because I don't see the porch in the front of the house being expanded on any plans the porch in the front of the house is not being expanded in any way okay then it is the exact plan that was approved in December of 2021 no more and no less okay because when I see on his comments in 2020 Craig's comments on number four it says um a proposed front porch expansion on the structure and I just want to make sure the roof we're talking about is that one roof and not the other roof if I may we approved this the last time the porch that faces gurnie gurnie the top porch has no roof on it they want to put a roof so they're considering that the front porch right roof on top of the top deck I think that's what yes that okay that's correct because I didn't see on the plans but when I read it says front porch that was why I was we appr the last time right okay again we're asking for nothing more than what was approved back in 2021 just we needed another variance and we did not get it last time can we go ahead and have your report correct certainly so latest review memorandum that I did for this application is dated November 1st 2023 it's a project that's located in the residential seasonal District you've heard uh Mr went explain uh what they're seing tonight um with regards to the uh appeal they're putting that aside um just just so we qualify the variance um the roof slope proposed has been indicated at 2.4 in and 12 uh the requirement of section 52560 j6 says no residential structure shall be constructed with a roof having a pitch less than 4 Ines and 12 so the standard is 4 in and 12 and they're only at 2.6 2.4 and 12 so they're Bel they don't meet that minimum roof slope requirement um which tells me that the Z officer caught something that we missed during our review so I think that the zoning officer made the appropriate determinations or in case of appeal I would I would think that the board you know obviously that roof slope is less than the minimum requirement he caught something that we missed the applicant didn't ask for um it was omitted and now um they're asking us to Grant to Grant this variance um alongside with the eight that were granted uh in resolution 1216 2021 um and those are highlighted on page 3 to six of my review memo um that's just for historical purposes so that you know what you granted um this is quite simply just granting one additional variance for that roof SE roof minimum roof slope requirement of section 52560 j6 and just one other comment um the roof slope that we're asking for on the North side of the house matches the roof slope on the south side of the house so it's a balancing situation and there's a symmetry that's involved with that which is in part of my narrative that we submitted yeah I don't need to go any any further detail um any approvals that are granted should be conditioned on the approvals the conditions of approval that were set forth in the original uh board consideration um and uh and indicated in resolution 12 2 okay just in case this ever comes up again I have to say I have some question whether this is really a roof but that'll be for another day I'm not sure that this is directed to um there's there's things called extended facades and parapets and I a roof to me is the top of the main structure um and I I didn't know that everything that sticks off the cover a front porch or something like that has to have the pitch of a roof um and if that's the case I thought a lot of things that are over a front door didn't match the pitch of a roof I thought they were just things that were overhangs or facade extensions or something so uh if this comes up later I I mean it's appropriate to ask for the variants and I think it's the easy way out and I told Ray that when that when he called me but I I do have some questions about whether this was directed to things that stick out over doorways so um this one's a little in between but I have some questions about that because roof line is the top edge of a peaked roof or in the case of an extended facade or parapet the uppermost point of said facade or parapet what's an extended facade but but I think they're also talking about the addition that roof pitch on the addition yeah there is this one is kind of in between um so it's a it's a little thing that sticks out from a house I didn't know that was so it it's a little no no on the other side of the house they putting on those two bathrooms and that has a pitch roof that's I understand I guarantee though in the next six months to a year we're going to have someone who's going to have the front thing sticking out from their front door and it's not going to have the pitch of a roof and there's going to be some question whether that's a roof or what that is so I just I see that coming so in terms of our list of things we want to think about this pitch thing I did didn't didn't the board just approve a similar application yeah for the property yes you did yeah so that was that was a Porche of some kind and this was a new wance they just put in about the pitched roofs they had just upgraded it or so I think yeah so anyway I I don't know because it's it's not a drain it's it's AR it's an architectural consideration because you don't want flat roofs okay I just didn't know that that applied to things that cover doorways or porches and stuff so I just something to think about but anyway um we're open to the public within 200 ft and open beyond 200 ft and closing okay the motion we're going to do first the applicant's request which I think is appropriate is a motion to approve the variance um for the roof pitch testimony uh is that you've already approved this once and thought it looked okay so um it's the same thing you approved before so they're asking you to uh approve that based on the same basis which is desirable visual environment balancing out the structure which was the main reason we granted it before was that it created balance so they want to keep it that way so that's the um that's the application okay can we have that so move moved by Mr ledwin second seconded by Mr zeter Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shan yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zer yes Mr Veno yes Mrs wner yes thank you attention that should be the next motion yep and can you just give some reasons why you need the two-year extension my client applied for the permits back in September the goal was to have the addition completed by November um the delay was in part from contractor supply issues uh and just some timing issues but we did apply and we were planning to complete the addition as approved within the two-year period and the only reason we were not able to apart from the fact that we didn't apply till September and we admit that but we could have gotten it done was because of this issue that was caught by your zoning officer we fully intend to get this done by Spring early summer uh at the late um but we're requesting the 2 years just in case because we all know calamities happen and we fully intend again to just go as soon as we get the approval 45 days expires um and there's no appeal issues to apply for the permits again and have this thing done by late spring and that's why we're asking for the two-year extension respectfully can I just ask a clarifying question only because I know in the past the board has been giving extensions without notifying the neighbor so I just want to make sure that cuz I know Council passed a resolution that neighbors within 200 200 ft had be notified so they were all notified correct of correct of this extension request that's absolutely correct that's right thank you okay motion and it never expired correct I'm sorry it didn't expire right the notice doesn't matter it doesn't matter as long as they apply before the end of the two years right they they app before it expired the way yeah we applied within the two years for the two-year expension extension so we're fine even though we're in January we technically expired in December so we're under the under the ordinance we're okay your two years will go from December not when we approve it so you correct it won't go from today it will go from December 12 2023 read that motion or just if someone to make a motion to Grant the extension and then vote on it y I'll make the motion I'll second okay motion by Mr zeter seconded by Miss Sheen thank you Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Sheen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you members of the board for the record my 14-year-old daughter Kendall is watching tonight live stream so I'm glad that you approved this application so she actually knows that I do an okay job as being a lawyer other than that guys thank you very much say in the back of your head they always this easy this is what you do living easy applications and you just come in Cruise get approvals and leave that's what you do all the time exactly that's it folks thank you very much good job Mr W thank you thank you for being brief our next application is Cape home Investment LLC 401 Pittsburgh Avenue applying for variance relief yes good evening Madam chair me members of the board John amuser of the DSE Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicant cap home investment 2 LLC as indicated this is an application seeking variance relief uh at 401 Pittsburgh Avenue it's identified on your tax map as block 1165 lot 4.02 and it's located in the R3 uh medium density residential district the property is currently situated as a vacant lot uh it's on the corner of Pittsburgh and Idaho Avenues uh and there it as a corner L it has frontages under the ordinance on both of those two streets the applicant's proposed development would conform with all Bulan area requirements of the R3 Zone aside from minimum required front yard building setback along Idaho Avenue again this being a corner lot um we are fronting on both Pittsburgh and Idaho the front of this proposed structure as is indicated on the architectural plans will front and face on the Pittsburgh therefore we we technically View Idaho as a sidey for this particular proposed development um representing and speaking on behalf of the applicant tonight is Brian Murphy Brian's a professional engineer and principal with the firm of MB engineering I know he's been before the board before but I'm happy to elicit credentials if necessary uh and then also with us this evening is Marcelo mavo he is the principal managing member of cap home investment 2 the applicant here I don't intend to elicit testimony from him but uh if he can be sworn if the board has any questions I think he'd be happy to answer them okay gentlemen our board engineer remains under the RO each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth and nothing but the truth sh God yes okay would you like renals of Mr Murphy that's fine thank you thank you um Brian if you can uh just for the benefit of the board can you go over the current conditions a lot and then what we're proposing to do through the application here m me or I'm sorry okay my can you quiet down a little bit I will I'm sorry I'm going to stand up anyway if I may and refer to bring your microphone sure I'm referring to the site plan that was submitted as part of this application and at the bottom of my pencil is uh leaning is Pittsburgh Avenue and uh to the right is Idaho Avenue the structure the main structure is uh shaded there are photographs so to answer your question Mr amuser the existing condition of the lot as shown in the photographs is a vacant lot okay and the as I indicated our proposal here is to construct a single family residential dwelling which is permitted in this Zone correct that is correct it'll it will look a lot like a lot of the other Homes at front on this side of Pittsburgh Avenue it'll be consistent with the neighborhood so Brian in terms of the the Bulan area requirements of the Zone it's been identified we've applied for and Mr huris has identified that that we need a front yard building setback uh for the dwellings how it's situated along Idaho Avenue is that right that's correct now 20 ft is required for a front yard setback we're proposing eight along Idaho correct that is correct now can you provide testimony to the board as to why you believe uh the relief we're asking for would be justified along Idaho Avenue given how this uh dwelling is proposed to be situated on the lot sure as we know Pittsburgh Avenue is to Main Street runs towards perpendicular to the ocean we have Idaho Avenue in this situation is very unique and that it's only partially improved and uh if you look at the photographs as well as the KE maps you can see that it's all uh vacant land in the back undevelopable land um I believe it's all open space there is a defined Wetland area to the back so it will not be developed further so there was a discussion in the earlier application about Corner lots and that like on Idaho Avenue you would want the front of this structure to be consistent with any homes that would be down Idaho Avenue and that would be reasonable but in this situation there are no other homes going down Idaho Avenue the only other home on Idaho Avenue is directly opposite which came before this board for variance similar to what we're seeking this evening so at 20 ft our lot is only 50 ft from uh Idaho Avenue um having an 8 foot on one side and 20 on the other would be a long narrow property so to have a uh a structure that's consistent with the other Homes at front on Pittsburgh Avenue we believe that the uh uh the setback the front yard setback on Ido Avenue is very reasonable for the motoring public for driving out Pittsburgh Avenue it will look act and appear as it's a side yard but technically it is a front yard because it does front on Idaho Avenue so Brian a lot of what you just went over um could be considered as as a request for Relief under the C1 standard is that right that is correct is it also your opinion that if you evaluated this application under the C2 substantial benefit standard the board could also find reasons to Grant this application I believe that it would be very reasonable uh there are a number of uh special reasons that would play into this that would say the benefits in my mind significantly outweigh the detriments for this application and and would some of those be the fact that that right now there's a vacant lot what's being proposed is in line with a lot of the existing development along Pittsburgh Avenue correct it'll be very similar to many of the other homes that uh currently are on Pittsburgh Avenue so it will be in keeping with the neighbor neighor this immediate neighborhood of Kate May City and aside from the positive aspects that you believe would be promoted through through granting the relief is it also your professional opinion that granting the application wouldn't result in any sort of substantial detriment to the public good or to the Zone plan or ordinance here in the city of K man no I don't see a detriment uh again it's a very unique uh situation where Idaho Avenue only goes back um not even goes just about to the to the rear of the house and it will not be developed because of environmental reasons So based on that I see no significant detriment to the Zone plan and zoning ordinance of the uh city of Kate May okay any any idea of what the uh setback is on the house on the other side of Idaho to Idaho believe it's 8 feet similar to what we're seeking this evening yeah I the board's resolution for that application indicated the relief along Idaho was 8T okay and then they had the uh similarly 20 along p um Brian before you presented the application tonight did you have a chance to review Mr hur's review letter that that he sent to us at date of January 2nd yes I have so I know there was a response that you provided to that letter but there was indicated in there that we also need relief related to uh parking within the site triangle without cutting Mr helis off can you kind of go over um whether you believe that's appropriate here and if so why you think it's it's appropriate to Grant such relief um I believe it was an appropriate comment because I made an error on the on our plan the error is there is parking in the garage we show two parking spaces in the driveway we also show the site triangle associated with Idaho and Pittsburgh Avenue as required by the city ordinance my error was these parking spaces really should be 10 foot closer they would park underne underneath partially underneath the deck it's a 10-ft deck so if we were to move these cars 10t closer to the building which it would be able to physically be able to do it would be outside of the city's required site triangle requirements in response to Mr hur's letter he asked me to look at the ashto American Association of State Highway Transportation officials site triangle which a little more complex to draw suffice it to say that it would be a car coming down Idaho Avenue and looking to their right down to the cars coming down Pittsburgh Avenue and the way that is set up the key part of it is is the is the either the curving or the crosswalk extended back 14 ft and if you were to draw that triangle which I did not here on this plan but in my office it does not touch our property so in my opinion the ashto site triangle does not apply to this that being said we have uh shown on the plan and it will be a restriction to maintain the Kate May City site triangle requirements but we don't need a variance in my mind okay is there um anything else you'd like to add U regarding the application or in response to to the review letter by Mr Earles no I I think that um this application There is almost a very similar uh structure that was currently being developed near the adjacent to it as we stated earlier there is a structure on the opposite side of Idaho Avenue which is uh similar to what's being proposed here this evening I believe that this structure the way it's been designed um meets the ordinance requirements with the exception of the front yard setback of Idaho Avenue and I think it is in keeping with with this section of the neighborhood of Kate May City and um if approved this evening would you be agreeable to uh abiding by the remaining uh comments and notes Mr H's letter is a condition of approval absolutely okay these are all very reasonable uh Mr chair I have nothing further of Mr Murphy at this time so let's have your thank you board members the latest review memorandum for this application is dated January 2nd 2024 this is a project located in the R3 medium density residential district you have a what is a proposed single family detached dwelling which is a permitted use in the district uh we uh there were no completeness items so there was no waivers necessary for the completeness items they have provided a complete application and we did recommend deeming the application complete this is a conforming application with the exception of one bulk requirement which is the building setback line for Idaho Avenue 20 foot is the requirement of the R3 District 8 foot is proposed this is a vacant lot so there's no existing condition um so that is the variance that you're considered I agree with the engineers testimony that the parking in the site triangle issue that I raised can be mitigated by pushing those parking spaces closer to the actual driveway I mean the actual garage door um and alleviate that variance um but the testimony would also support granting that variance from the ashto standpoint our site triangle requirements are a bit dated the more acceptable engineering standard is the ashto sight triangle which is based on geometrics as well as the speed limits on the on the appropriate uh roadways uh you have sufficient width on Pittsburgh Avenue the board is has had numerous applications in recent history um and Pittsburgh Avenue is 100 foot wide a normal street is typically 50 or 60 foot wide so the width there and you can see it um on the plan there's a very wide area between the front property line and the curb line so therefore I don't believe there's going to be any sight issues there and there's no site variance or site triangle variance from that section so we can strike that from my review comments I'll move on to the general review comments which all should be uh standard conditions of approval these are very uh typical of this type of development item number one is providing the first floor elevation on the plan and complying with the requirements of the code as well as the flood damage protection requirements item two uh in I think our initial review we asked the applicant to provide some storm water mitigation and they have done so and we found that an acceptable that's an informational uh and we'd also ask that they have to comply with chapter uh 525 the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements um that that's a standard condition that we apply to all of our approvals um let's see item number four deals with the connections for utilities uh we cannot we had a hard time evaluating whether there is existing meters and services for this lot uh so we would ask that the applicant clarify that and also provide evidence that they have gotten city sewer and water department approvals item number five is sidewalk so in this case they have provided sidewalk along the full Frontage of Pittsburgh Avenue and partially along Idaho Avenue um I don't know whether they need to extend that all the way to the full length of the lot I think they've stopped about 40 ft short of that um I the likelihood of that ever being developed is unknown at this point there are environmental concerns yeah to those lots um we may want to just AIX a condition that says if there if that lot if that street is ever extended then this applicant or will be required to extend that sidewalk to the rear of the lot is that if it's ever Oh you mean end of the marsh yeah towards that yes that would be f as a condition we'd agree to that and um our standard condition is that uh the applicant is required to replace the sidewalk in this case um to satisfaction of the board engineer we evaluate it prior to issuance of a c certificate of occupancy um item number six uh they proposed additional curb Cuts so as a condition of approval they have to submit plans to the superintendent of streets and Roads and comply with any requirements for improvements along the city right away it should be noted that Pittsburgh Avenue was recently repaved may be under moratorium so you're going to have to comply with any requirements that the city has for that street opening understood item number seven is our standard condition that they have to provide the uh required inspection escrow and that ties the certificate of occupancy issuance to the acceptance of the improvements item number eight is compliance with the recommendations of the Cape May Shay Tre commission fire department and public works department we did receive letters from the fire department dated 11924 recommended approval with no comment ments public works department recommended approval dated 11124 with no comments and the shet Tre commission recommended approval with the following conditions it's it's placing a their uh penmanship needs to get better 8 in deciduous tree to the right rear of lot should be protected with a mesh or solid barrier I one foot per in diamer of diameter to prevent root damage during construction so I would ask that the applicant revise the plans to incorporate condition um January 9th I'm sorry the date of that is 1 1924 and I assume that that's radius Associated yeah it's because the roots spread out I a lot further so it's just so whatever the diameter of the tree they ask for one foot of per inch corus correct and you'll show safety fencing around that tree to show it protected it's about the drip line correct yeah okay that that's what they're trying to they're trying to establish what that drip line is y okay so the plan should be provided consistent with that um item number nine uh any approval should be conditional on compliance with all other state county and local approvals item 10 is for informational purposes but this project is not located within the historic district so there's no HPC approval required 11 is our standard condition that they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements at the time of approval issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy whichever is applicable and then finally should the board Grant approval the applicant is required to provide revised compliance sets that comply with any conditions that the board sets that's a summary of my report I'm happy to answer any questions questions Craig I have one question on um the storm water system is there a reason why it goes at the rear uh in this case the topography grades from front to back so typically we like to bring it out to the street and collect it in the system in this case the discharge is out the rear because the Topography is and taking it that way okay I just want to make sure that we're not putting it out there to flood other people's properties down the way this is they mitigating they're they're providing more um retainage of the storm water so they're discharging less from their site than what is existing in this in the condition that the site exists now okay just so they're they're making the storm waterer situation better okay then I also have another question um I noticed the house that's on the other side of Idaho there that the parking is coming out onto Idaho and not onto Pittsburgh right um and I'm not familiar with how that was granted okay there was an if that was the old realtor's office if I remember correctly and there was already a driveway curb cut that existed there and the applicant took advantage of that okay I didn't know if it was because of the site triangle also gone into Pittsburg no um and if if memory serves me correctly the board at the time when we granted relief for that required that the building front be oriented towards Pittsburgh Avenue um so there was there was a condition that was set forth in this I think we made them have the building front both we like a wraparound yeah so we had we had unique characteristics with that I didn't see that I would have raised that condition in my review memo for this one but it seems like this is a front loaded oriented towards Pittsburgh design yeah um that's correct if I may add to that too the the property across the street two of the cars they Park in the right of way of Idaho Avenue there's only a couple of feet it's 8 feet from the building so the rest so we would need a a variance of parking the street the way we show it here we have all four parking spaces are on this property I know I I have concern there with the fact that where we we're going to have to tell people that they have to pull up 10 ft in order for that site triangle to be good to me that's I don't know how you're going to police people not parking in that site Triangle Well that well that's why I mentioned the the site triangle test testimony that Mr Murphy uh put on the record even if they didn't there still wouldn't be a safety issue okay cuz I didn't know how we could circumvent and Grant something that that's a safety issue yeah so that that's why I was concerned about it and that's why I asked you know all right so is there a way I mean you said um is there a way to confirm that we are not granting um M Mr Murphy's going to be required to revise the plans to show that parking pushed forward out of that site triangle yeah but if the if these cars don't pull up are they are they going to be in that site triangle they will be in the city site triangle but the ashto site triangle demonstrates that there's not a safety issue okay but but we're going against the city's site triangle if if they're not complying with the approved plan they theoretically would be in the city site triangle and that's an Enforcement issue you can that's a code violation they could you know handle it that way because but there's a factor of safety that's built in to me because of the sufficient width of Pittsburgh Avenue and the sufficient width of Idaho Avenue in the G this geometry of the site demonstrates that even if they were to have a violation there it still would be safe from a traffic St Traffic Safety standpoint even with the um vegetation that's there yes okay yeah the site triangle wouldn't even encroach onto the site Mr Mr Murphy testified okay so but they can park in that apron then is what you're saying they they can't park an apron if they're complying with the site plan that's the city right away okay Craig how does it work with their sidewalk the applicants agree to extend That Sidewalk it need be someone develops that but we could be talking you know 15 for a deed notice so that any future property owner knows that they would have to extend it we've done that in the past I hate to see I don't want the city get stuck with it then I'll right don't want to see that's that's why that's why I recommended it is like so are you acceptable to we'd be acceptable to that okay a deed notice would be fine with us in order to do that put anyone on notice future owners good bar mix good point thank you okay I'm just going to open it up to the public within 200 feet Beyond 200 feet seeing non closed I think Mr lein has a question I have a question just it's nitpicking but if you look at the U A4 .1 drawings for the deck okay you you just need to make a whoever the U MV engineering is that your firm yes it is well you need to make an adjustment on the uh support for the deck that's for the second floor second floor that's the support for the second floor I understand that but you can't get you can't get the cars up moved up with this the way you've got your drawings no it's I I know I know exactly what you're looking at they that's a support for the there's a a a roof over top of that deck for a portion of that deck it it's not at grve can you can you just add a note to the plan showing that's a second floor support post correct just to clarify the plan it is well that's exactly what I'm pointing out is you've got these these uh supports and you're going to move the cars up right where they're not going to be able to move up because of the supports so your your drawing is in conflict with uh the uh a41 we'll clarify that yes thank you anyone else have any questions comments I I have a question about the paper that we received saying old and new when it talks about the the lot this part here are we changing something when it says old was Lot four and lot five and it says new is lot four 4.01 4.02 is that from that was by the tax assessor and it seemed that the board's been asking for that when there's so they know that the new this lot is the correct number the block and lot okay this isn't a minor subdivision plan though it is not so just to give the uh some clarity I know Mr H I think I provided you this info previously there was a a dwelling that's that existed on both this lot and the neighboring lot which would be four and five yes so there was a lot if you look at 4.01 and 4.02 which how they're identifying now there was previously structure that straddled that Center lock that structure was demolished but there was never a need for a subdivision due to the fact that both of the underlying Lots were conforming so they never would have merged so they were both conforming at 50 by 100 I think is what the required uh minimums are in the zone so when that building was taken down we never needed to subdivide to create two lots because they always actually existed as two and the city solicitor confirmed that with me that was a discussion I had with him well before we filed this application in order to ensure that we didn't need to get that relief and bring that application so then it's not a subdivision because it's not a subdivision so there's no creation of lots or numbering of lots if the tax assessor wanted to renumber the Lots they could certainly do that as as they're permitted to do so um and and my other question has to do with the just confirming that house is only 8 feet that's on Idaho the other one I I can I have a copy of the uh somewhere here I have a copy of the board's resolution from 2017 I'm happy to provide it um but if you could just I don't I don't have that information with me I mean I just have my concern is we're allowing we're always saying that we have to conform form with setbacks on both sides and here we're not going to it's supposed to be 20 ft but we're saying oh8 is is sufficient I just don't know where where we draw that conclusion when we we have when we enforcing it in other places for that setbacks lot with a bunch ofac correct area around it so I can just review their reasons again I mean they can do that I mean I just I just I'm not I'm to me it's not very compelling for this when it's a new house I understand you know we talk about people that are on Corner lots that are not new houses you know we we the other house on Pittsburgh that's down a little further we just had that application before those two houses I think it's between Maryland and New York had to comply with their setbacks of 20 and 20 but here we're not um we're not going to enforce it we're happy I can address that if we can so um well I guess first Mr I have a copy of that resolution not typical to Mark a prior resolution do you want me to mark this if I'm going to provide it okay can I show it to miss what's the number can I write down the number yeah sure it's resolution number 11- 09-20 2017 and then colon one thank you and the address it has is 311 Pittsburgh Avenue so it's the other side of idah okay and you can see here that the only relief they saw in Granite was exactly the same as we're asking for for how is this property it's 50 feet wide and I think we were just going to go over that under the hardship criteria if I thought he did it already I think so too but just for 8 feet if it were 8T on one side and 20 the other that'd be 28t so then you'd have a a 22 foot wide house but if you considered Idaho as a front wouldn't you actually consider that a rear okay your testimony is that's inconsistent with the neighborhood are there a lot of 22 foot white houses in this neighborhood I don't recall seeing any but this house previously before they knocked it down was facing Idaho so you can I mean it's not it's say oh they're all facing Pittsburgh but it was originally facing Idaho door yeah yeah well I guess so how would that change the Dynamics of the width of the property it does in the that house that existed there was situated on what would have been 100 by 100 lot it was situated in the middle I shouldn't say that right there were two 50 by 100 lots that it straddled so the way that it was situated at the time wasn't as if it was situated on a 50 by 100 lot it was actually sitting on 100 by 100 worth of space so it's much easier for it to conform to those requirements under that situation on I guess the other thing I hold on I thought is there a picture of what's around this house there is can you show that picture um it's only it's on the site plan if you look at the bottom picture you'll see I it's an aerial shot of Pittsburgh Avenue and you'll see that one two three four five six existing homes um that are similar in size to what's being proposed here this evening are those explain it this way are those lots 50 also there lots are 50 also so the purpose we this is this talks back to the last application where the reason on Corner lots that you treat them both those front yards is for purposes of the street gate so that the people on the adjoining properties uh have the benefit of having front yards okay next to them I believe in this application the area where they're going into the 20 foot front yard I don't believe there is anyone on on the next lot that would now have the front yard next to them be8 feet there's nobody there so I thought that the primary basis for this variance and what makes it different than some of the others is that on the corner lot there's no one there who now has a house jutting out 12 more feet which is what the corner lot restriction seeks to avoid here so that's why in this particular application it may be appropriate the grain of variance whereas other suppose the corner of pick Kierney and well I'm I'm talking about Pittsburgh and New Jersey where we required them to be 20 ft in but aren't there houses on each side of them no they're a corner lot right and on a corner lot there's still houses next to corner lot right okay that's the point so those houses have front yards so the house that's to the on Pittsburgh to the right of them that that person next to them wants to be 20t back on what was the road at intersection what state it was New York York New York on New York the person who's next to them on New York wants it to be 20 feet back I thought in this application the point was that on Idaho there's no one next to them who would want it 20 feet back isn't that the testimony it's correct and and not only that there's there's an essentially an encumbrance to the land behind it with all the wetlands that exist that's what I thought the T that's what makes this a an application that they believe justifies a variance because there's a unique circumstance that affects this lot that may not affect other Corner Lots okay okay so that's the basis for the if you're to granted so that's the distinguishing feature of this I thought that's correct and I think that was the distinguishing feature of the property on the other Corner because they have the same situation right across the street which we granted a couple years ago yes okay so good us what we're saying for me yes sorry awkward pa um Ty the resolution the motion I'd recommend being made and how you vote is up to you but he always making the affirmative the motion I recommend being made is to Grant the application advances numbers one like triangle they don't need right all right so the grant Vance number one on page two of the engineers report subject to the conditions outlined by the board engineer including those relating to the shade tree commission and uh the sidewalk deed notice that they'll extend the sidewalk if anything is ever constructed down I and they will revise the plans to move that parking forward out of the site triangle and revise the plans to eliminate what is perceived as showing the post conflicting with that parking space yes correct yes agreed I didn't do the post all right I'll I got that one okay somebody make that motion okay motion by Mr ledwin second Sorry seconded by Mr vudo thank you thank you very much Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shan yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Veno yes Mrs wner yes thank you thank you very much thank you very much nice night thank you another item of business is to approve the bills for our attorney and our engineer if someone would like to make that motion I'll make the motion I'll second it okay motion by Mrs Notch and I'm not sure who second it seconded by Mr venudo thank you Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you and a motion to adjourn I'll make that second I want to stay here a couple hours long Mr Z okay thank you all in favor yes thank you good night everyone why doing one hour hey Craig