that's kind of why I like Sony board I'm ready ever be Mike's on please 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 we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge alance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands Nation God indivisible with andice for all Mrs Werner here Mr venudo here Mr Lewin here Mrs Notch here miss Sheen Mr Walsh here Mr zexer here Mr catalo Mr Bodner here thank you where he would agenda tonight includes a section on general questions and comments I really I wasn't I wasn't tuned into the fact that we're adding that to our agenda I'm not sure it's appropriate to have public questions and comments for a quasi judicial board um so it's on our agenda so we're going to do it but I don't want to imply that I think it's necessarily a good idea because uh we're supposed to um decide applications we're not a planning board we don't have General master plan discussions we don't have you know informal meetings we are zoning board so uh I I the risk of someone coming up and making comments that impact your decision without notice to the people that are the owners of that property or the applicants makes me very concerned um so if someone feels strongly that we should have that on our agenda I need to do some research on that because I think it's dangerous ground um so um I just don't want to it's on there now so it's on there so we got to do it we don't have to but we're going to do it but I don't want that to be something that I implied that I think it's a good idea I got to think about that some more so open to the public and if anybody wants to speak you're going to get a a warning about what you can and can't talk about but you're welcome to open to to um say what you intend to talk about before you say it so go ahead okay for a motion open to public everyone's afraid to make the motion but you can make the motion go ahead all right motion to open to the public for general questions and comments motion motion by Mr zeter seconded by second seconded by Mr Bodner okay roll call Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay so do we have anyone that wishes to speak at this time okay seeing none it's closed so our first resolution is for Lisa Castleton 217 Perry Street can we have a motion I'll make a motion a motion by Mr venudo second second by Mr ledwin Ro thank you Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh this was for Perry Street yes M no okay thank you Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner abstain Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay the next resolution is for the Basset family LLC 701 Kierney Avenue and we have that motion motion motion by Mr zetzer I'll second second by Mrs Notch roll call Mr lwin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner abstained Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you and our third resolution is for Cape home Investment LLC and that is 401 Pittsburgh Avenue can we have that motion I'll make the motion motion by Mr Bono second seconded by Mr zetser roll thank you Mr Lewin yes Mrs N yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner abstain Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you okay our first application tonight is Valerie Allen 604 reading Avenue for variance relief hardship and substantial benefit uh good evening board members my name is Lindsay Nukem from the law firm of monzo catanes delis here on behalf of Valerie Allen uh on the application for 604 reading Avenue it's block 1121 lot 15 with me tonight I have Valerie Allen and Jerome madx the owners of the property as well as Joe Scarpa uh who will be testifying as our expert tonight I don't know if you want to swear them in now would you you please raise your right hand I'm also going to S swear on our board engineer Craig hles re you swear or affirm that you have testimony you're about to give is the truth all truth and I do I do um so the property is an undersized lot in the R2 zoning District which is currently developed with a three-bedroom single family dwelling the applicant obtained zoning and construction permits to add an addition at the rear of the property the new construction does not require any variance relief um and construction is currently underway with approvals in place uh however in 1998 the prior property owner obtained approval from this board to allow the front porch to encroach 3 feet uh towards the property line so the setback would have been 22 as opposed to 25 ft because of the non-conforming front yard saback retaining the porch or reconstructing the porch actually um requires varience relief uh by this board for again a 3ot um reduction of the front yard setback uh the lot size is also a pre-existing non-conformity that we don't believe is exacerbated by this application um uh Joe with that I'd like to ask our expert some questions Joe would you mind qualifying uh yourself for the board yes absolutely um I'm licensed in New Jersey M PA as an architect I'm a graduate of Drexel University and a Bachelor's of architecture I've testified multiple times Inland and along the New Jersey coast I have furthermore I've also testified uh to the Kate May historical preservation committee as well I've practiced architecture for 25 plus years now um and I'm happy to say as director of architecture at the Highland Design Group this is my anniversary of three years there will the board accept Joe as an expert yes thank you can I ask for the last name Joe's last name please I'm sorry I did not hear the last name and it's not in the packet Joseph Scarpa that's s c a r p a I'm thank you you get distracted from are you an architect or an architect and engineer I'm an architect okay so we qualify you as an AR absolutely thank thank you uh Joe can you uh explain to the board the existing conditions on the site including the uh zoning District uh and the house that's currently there yeah sure um as we know it's on 604 reading Avenue fronts on that we are in an R2 Zone District which allows single family dwelling this is a three-bedroom home in there the lot is um right now the only lot between the two corners that means that the house again fronts on reading Avenue between Virginia Avenue and Ohio Avenue the other two corners um would be on that Virginia Avenue and um Ohio Avenue um and then currently as mentioned previous this is an existing undersized lot um and would you go through your plans uh for the proposed construction for the board yeah sure um these these exhibits are not new these exhibits you already have they're just uh I brought them in for help with trying to um illustrate this uh So currently um the residence is a single story three bedroom uh with a front porch and a rear patio the proposed design will be to add another story on top of him the addition is a second story Edition uh and that will have another bedroom and a bathroom so uh the total will be a a four bedroom home the front porch will become larger and the patio uh in the rear um will reduce in size during that construction so uh as I stated uh the an application was previously approved in 1998 to allow the front porch to encroach 3 feet into the front yard setback correct correct uh and the construction that's actually being completed on the home is all in the rear um but because we want that front porch to remain in the setb we need to come in for variance approval correct yes correct um and again the lot is already uh is undersized which is an existing condition that's not being exacerbated by this application correct correct uh variance relief is requested under the C2 criteria can you go through that standard for the board yes um so section 70 C2 it requires us to weigh the positive and negative criteria and the benefits in advancing the purposes of the ml outweigh the negative impacts of the Zone plan and the variance can be granted and what purposes of Municipal land use law will be Advanced uh by the granting of this variant so we're um looking at um section I of that uh section to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development technique and good Civic design Arrangement and can you elaborate for the board how uh how this porch is going to be more I'll call it aesthetically pleasing um and how it will promote a desirable environment visual environment absolutely um so I know this elevation may be a little you again you have all this elevations but existing wise um the home while it's larger towards the rear it is appears to be like a Rancher with a one single Gable that is made up of that front porch that exists right now what we're proposing um in that design is um to incorporate multiple Gables that offset the facade and we're also incorporating more materials into that facade uh to break up the design and fit into the context of the streetcape currently the streetscape does have this design which was part of the impact of what we were kind of going for when we designed it so if we look around um on that street and the adjacent streets you'll find these porches with these multiple Gables and the second story is one larger Gable to make it kind of fit more into the context of the streetcape rather than be a large two-story building and it is my feeling uh that this adds to the appeal of that streetcape and uh where the porch would will sit um if this board uh grants approval tonight is obviously consistent with the streetcape around it um correct yes and furthermore um one of those adjacent Lots uh that fronts on Ohio I believe has a sidey yard porch that is elongated the whole thing so it kind of contexts into that long front porch uh and it is very close to our existing uh porch that exists now that's at the 22 yard setback uh and when you talked about the criteria for the variance relief you mentioned the negative criteria can you um set forth for the board how we meet that criteria yes so excuse me okay for the C2 variances you need to satisfy the negative criteria no substantial determent um detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the intent and the purpose of the Zone plan or zoning ordinance the porch already exists so there won't be any negative impact associated with it remaining again the two front corner Lots no uh no view adjacent property is impacted again it's fronting on their both fronting on the adjacent streets and I've already went in to explain how it affects the streetscape relief is di Minimus in nature no impact to the zoning plan because standard at residential property to the front yard uh and it would also be fair to say that in 1998 the board in fact found you know agreed with all of those conclusions by granting the variant correct absolutely and the porch already exists so um and uh per one of the um Engineers comments in the memo can you speak uh briefly about landscaping and vegetation on site yeah so um we were we understand a street tree is required as part of the application the drawings you have um does not show it Street tree it's something we would add if let me switch over I would like to indicate where I propose that street to be located so this is ready right now our lines that utility lines that connect to our house angle across the street with utility lines one so I would like to put the street tree closer to the driveway side try to avoid those trees and a type that I would propose for this is a um I would think a red maple would be nice but any of the K ma list of City trees would be uh fine and furthermore currently the house has no shade trees on site so um there so we're not really going to change or have any effect to the existing site by adding anything more only better the site I believe that's all that I have from Joe uh obviously the applicants are here to answer any questions that the board has um although I was not planning on eliciting any testimony from them um but to the extent you have any questions we're happy to answer them okay as of this time any board member have any questions just like to point out there's a typo on the Ryder this ISS uh 604 Kierney oh I apologize for that just to make yes it is absolutely not that address 604 Kierney Avenue of 604 sorry about that it is R it is reading where is that uh Mr Walsh is that on this plan where is that it's on the narrative that's attach oh in the narrative thank you all right if there's no other questions we'll open it up to Craig's report good evening everyone I'd like to summarize my report dated January 31st 2024 this is a project located in the R2 low medium density residential district you've heard a testimony from the applicants indicating they proposing an addition to the single family dwelling increases from three to four bedrooms um does increase the floor area however it is conforming and I'll just roll right into my completeness review uh there were two waivers that were asked for um uh based on the nature of this application I did support those waivers um including the Landscaping plan provided um and I have another comment later on um they just verify that the existing vegetation will be preserved in addition to the uh proposed um Street tree So based on that those recommendations I did uh support deeming the application complete uh you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating that it is an existing undersized lot um and they're requesting a building setback variance so uh the lot size requirement in the district is 7,500 ft uh all of the Lots surrounding it are are improved uh the existing lot size is 6,250 square ft um the setback variance from Reading Avenue that they're requesting the requirement of the zone is 25 ft their setback is 22 feet so it's encroaching 3 foot into the required setback um so that's the variance that you have to um consider uh the applicant has given you uh the positive criteria under the C2 uh test and standard um the detriments could be impacts to the streetcape light air and open space they're typically uh things that we look at when there's an encroachment into a uh yard um so those are the things that the board can consider and weigh and balance their decision and I'll roll right into my general review comments that are on page four or five I've asked um under item number one the zoning table should be revised to reflect the comments in this review memo um item number two is our storm water review they did provide a grading and drainage plan we did find that design acceptable so and um there's no issues with that um they also have to comply with the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements that is a standard condition that we affix to all um applications that we consider four there is a street tree requirement um we give the applicant the leeway to sight that tree um you know the only time we get involved is if it's impacts Clear Sight triangle or utilities so so long as it doesn't do that uh wherever you place on the on the plan so long as it's within the RightWay uh we will accept Okay uh landscaping and vegetation plan we would just ask that a note be provided on the plan that they verify that uh the existing Landscaping is going to be protected and preserved six is our standard condition that after the improvements are done we evaluate the sidewalk to make sure none of it is damaged during construction and um it's going to be any damage sidewalk be replaced to the satisfaction of the board engineer seven is a standard condition that they have to provide the inspection escrow and the certificate of occupancy is tied to the acceptance of those improvements that the board grants um item number eight is our standard condition that they have to comply with the requirement and recommendations of the shade tree commission fire department and public works department we did receive the fire department review dated 2224 they recommended approval Public Works recommended approval dated 2124 and the shade Tre commission recommend approval dated 213 2024 and there were no comments within those uh recommendations so um I don't see any issues with that nine is our standard condition that they have to comply with any and all all other state county and local approvals item 10 is for informational purposes but this project is not located in the historic district so there's no HPC approval required and item number 11 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 is applicable and then finally should the board Grant approval the applicant is required to submit a revised sets that comply with the conditions that the board sets um to the board engineer for review and approval that is a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has anyone have any questions can I ask a a question not for Mr Harless but to um to councel or the applicant um according to plans the proposed ask addresses to the architect the proposed porch runs the full length of the house 34 I believe 34 ft what was the what was the the the length of the the prior porch all right just bring with the memory I'm going to turn to that page so the existing is 14 foot 7 now obviously it had chamfered Corners prior now it's just straight across and again this is offset the the rest of the porches back at the 25t set okay but under the proposal it's going to be it's going to go the full the full L full line of the house which will be about4 okay I'll speak yes it's fine so the original existing porch um that was 3 feet into the front yard setback it was 147 that's 14 foot 7 in it did have chamford corners so it wasn't the full out uh the new proposed goes across the whole front of the building which is uh 344 in um but the portion that we're that is newer is at the 25 yard setback line so we still have a little bit of offset to the porch so I think just to clarify the portion of the porch that wasn't previously existing is going to sit at the 25t line the portion that is that existed before that sits at the 22t line is the only portion that's proposed to remain past the setback correct okay why why why oh why because well it's existing uh we feel it f one it we felt that it it was existing so we felt that it already was part of that fabric of that of that streetcape and furthermore while we're adding more porch at the 20 at the 25 yard setback it again gives that layering to the facade that makes it more appealing and be able to give it visually appealing to have it not straight across but rather to correct yes to step back my why wasn't so much why why isn't the whole thing yeah we I like that and I'm sure everybody would agree that that's that stepping of the facade makes it more interesting and appealing the original Varian said that the porch was only to be enclosed by railings and roof not by walls this will be partially enclosed by screens is that going to make any difference are we overriding that variance yeah I okay the proposal is to to enclose that portion with a screen um so I mean by coming here tonight I think we're kind of inherently asking for Relief that that while it's similar to what was previously approved in terms of the setback that condition obviously is not um not what we're proposing tonight uh I would note for the board that the um lot coverage and flary ratio are far less than what is permitted on otherwise permitted on this lot um so while there is a slight encroachment for this specific portion of the porch into the front yard setback we are still um we are at 38% lot coverage where 40% is permitted and in floor area ratio uh 04 is permitted and we're at 0 27 um so in terms of you know protecting the space uh and the uh streetcape I believe that we're we're consistent with that can I just try to summarize that in a sentence because I want to get in the res I didn't appreciate that earlier so it's going to be a screened porch that's correct and the part that is already there is going to stay at the distance from the street that it presently is correct but the balance of the porch is going to meet the I think you're were saying 20 yard think be 20 foot setb back right it's actually 25 it's going to be the 25 foot setback that's correct right so a little jog back yes so the new construction actually isn't in the front set correct correct only thing you're doing in the setback is adding a screen correct we are screening in the the previously approved porch but because again because of the way that K May requires you to come in when there are non-existing conditions on site even though everything new that we are proposing is fully compliant with zoning still required to come and get that front yard set back variance the plan says they're reconstructing it so you're te you're tearing it down and rebuilding it new correct right correct and that and we're enclosing it by way of screen I'm not sure it requires a variance to be honest with you but that's just F you're only going to enclose part of it right just the half the part but oh the whole PCH be enclosed I I thought that's why I see I I Mis I misunderstood I thought the whole porch was going in the 22 foot area no if if everything you're building is with is within the setbacks they they've expanded the porch it it did have angles on it and now they're going to square off those angles so there is a slight increase in it so technically I think they do need a variance it's very di Minimus okay I just want to understand what they're really asking here because I I I I thought we passed an ordinance that said even if you're a non-conforming structure it is that whole serpentelli decision right but we clarified we said if there's a if there's a non-confirming structure and you're adding adding to a non-conforming structure um and it and we also made it truly not we had the thing first we said if it's more than 20 years um that it's been there it's a non-con pre-existing non-conforming structure and if you have a pre-existing non-conforming structure and you're adding to it and the addition that you're adding doesn't violate any setback you don't need a variance so it so in my opinion if they were keeping the porch exactly the same as it was and the part that they were adding didn't violate any setback then I don't think they need a variance but they are screening it which is different than what was permitted under the old variance so that does in my opinion then require a variance uh but you're also um according to Craig it's slightly different can you are shaping it differently so it's covering a little more space so you do need a variance but I just want my board to understand basically what they're here seeking in my opinion is to screen in the porch uh the three feet of the porch that's in the front set back yeah and to whatever Craig is talking about about squaring off something that's an angle it's about n square feet is what they're adding so it's that's it it's a it's the I don't believe in the minimist variances but if there was one this this is pretty close to one so frankly I I agree with you we actually submitted for permits previously and it was denied to come in uh before this board which we are obviously here and happy to do um but my interpretation initially was was the same as yours so we are squaring it off so that I guess that's the variance oh the the the screen because that that's visually different and if someone came in and objected and said well it's one thing if it's open nothing but screened then we could deny that understood legit understood all right good question that was helpful okay any other questions um we can open it up to anyone within 200 feet anyone Beyond 200 ft and seeing none close to the public you guys discuss the motion that I recommend being made how your vote is up to you and we always phrase it in the affirmative is's a motion to Grant variances one and two on page three of the engineers report consistent with the design described before the board subject to the conditions 1 through2 this is presented as a C2 variance with a balancing as accurately outlined by the attorney and architect for the applicant and by your board Engineers so applying that standard I recommend you make that motion and um how you vote is up to you okay questions okay someone want to make that motion I'll make the motion a second motion by Mr Bono seconded by Mr Walsh roll call Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you luck thank you for your time pictures next time I'm looking for that house that you can't find it now the way it looks now you can't find yeah I was like look that house think I was [Music] blind sorry okay our next application is Thomas and Gigi Lord 1239 New York Avenue for variance relief hardship substantial benefits and use everyone have lights on microphones on hey good evening Madam chair members of the board Anthony monzo from monzo CES dels representing the applicants Tom and GG board uh with me um AR Tom lure to my right project engineer to my far right is is L shite and the project architect to my left is Katherine lorence uh GG Lord is also sitting here and I don't intend to have her testify but everybody at the table will testify so if you want to swear them men we can do that okay okay if each of you each of you will please raise your right hand and Mr hurless remains an oath each to you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth of nothing but the truth soie God I do do thank you Catherine do you want to just pass the exhibits out so we get out you want to Mark the whole packet mono uh they're they're marked individually Rich there exhibits what just can you just tell me what they are so I put it in here exhibits 1 through S exhibit one are um before and after renderings exhibit two are also before and after renderings uh exhibit one is from um is from New York Avenue exhibit two our renderings from Trenton Avenue exhibit three are uh floor plans proposed floor plans for the first floor and the ground floor thank you exhibit four are um existing and proposed floor plans for the second and third floor EX exhibit five is a colored rendering of the site [Applause] plan exhibit six is a photo of the existing garage and exhibit seven is a Circa 1920 aial photograph of the area in general with an arrow pointing to where the existing home is is said aial photograph aerial yes okay thanks sir so this application is for variances in connection with the subject property which is uh at the northwest corner of New York Avenue and Trenton Avenue um the Lord family has owned this property since 1914 um over 100 years uh Tom and gigg Lord are the current owners uh before them it was owned by their parents Jack and Judy Lord and some of you may remember um Mr Mrs Lord um who have spent many many years here in Kate May and Tom I'll give a little bit more history as well as um his vision for the project and why we're here asking for the for the variances that are needed for this project um so the home is a two and a half story uh frame dwelling uh along with an accessory detached garage uh photos of the properties were submitted with the application package and as you can see in those photos the garage and also um in the exhibit in fact you may want to just look at exhibit six the garage is in in very very poor condition and it's um barely standing and and it was actually approved for demolition by the HPC uh uh and conceptual approval I should say uh and also they approved the replacement garage that's part of what our project plan shows uh tonight what is preliminary approval for demolition conceptual what's conceptual I'm sorry they received approval for Demolition and conceptual approval I'm sorry conceptual approval to replace the garage typing that I'm like sorry about that uh and also this the entire project that we're presenting tonight was approved conceptually by the by the HPC and that report was included in the reports that Karen submitted to everyone uh so the home currently and by the way the the improvements U meet all the historical guidelines uh the materials are original materials windows are all wood windows and it's a real um it's an upgrade uh in accordance with the standards for uh contributing buildings which this clearly is so the existing home contains four bedrooms and has off street parking for two vehicles uh the applicant is proposing a small addition on the first floor uh with the main purpose of providing an elevator um for the Lords to continue to live there as they age it this will be their retirement home and they spend a significant amount of time there now uh but part of the project also includes extending the Dormer on the third floor that will create some additional living space on the third floor plus some additional uh space on the second floor where um it's intended to be used as an office for Mr Lord so as a result of those um additions and Renovations the um habitable area will increase from 1,972 Square ft to 2517 Square ft and the increase is mainly the result of the larger rooms um and the office there's no additional bedrooms and there's really no substantial increase in the footprint of the building except for the rear bump out which will again be needed to um put in the elevator uh so that's basically the project the garage itself is is going to be replaced with um a new structure in the same footprint there will be a second floor in the garage for storage and um this also triggers um as you can see in the application some lot coverage increases and also flooor area ratio increases which are really the two main variances that we're seeking tonight there are several uh setback variances but they're you know basically as a result of existing conditions uh with respect to the house those variances are triggered mainly because of the installation of gutters uh because the EES are already in the setback 4 Ines of gutter just exacerbates that setback both on um on Trenton Avenue and and um and on the side yard the opposite side of Trenton Avenue and there's also because of that extension of the Eve um and the roof extension that's that's in the setback that also triggers the setback variance uh so it's building setback it's sidey yard setback and also um similar variances with respect to the garage because it's a 5,000 foot lot and there's improvements and increases um that also triggers um a lot area U variant along with lock coverage floor area ratio and the various setbacks uh Craig also mentioned and and Mr shite will address the site triangle issues and we're not sure if that needs variance or not but we'll provide testimony with respect to that so with that background uh I want to just turn it over to Tom L so he can just give you his story and and why he's doing what he's doing and maybe a little bit of the history of the property thank you thank you Tony um think you hear me okay um great to meet you and and great to great to be here uh this is a project that my wife Gigi and I have been planning for a long time and U something looking forward to uh 1239 is a special place it's been in our family for four generations as you'll see in the aiel photograph that Tony referenced earlier when my great-grandfather William mcgomery purchased it um in 1914 we are only house on the Block um so we have a long family history and a lot of special memories at 1239 like my parents GG and I have a dream to spend a retirement years uh in our family home unfortunately for my parents Jack and Judy Lord uh they could not live out the retirement years because they reached a point where they can no longer handle the steps due to health conditions so they had to move out into a single floor home uh when my parents reached that point that was in 2009 gig and I were fortunate enough to buy the house and keep it in the family preparing for retirement years in K may as they call um Aging in place uh is one of the main drivers behind this renovation it includes the addition of elevator as Tony mentioned um so that steps will not be an issue um although you know retirement is a few way years ahead of us um we've already had a need for an elevator as I recently had total hip replacement so we're kind of going down that path already um we will um note as you will note in the architectural design that the elevator Blends in well with the house structure so it's not noticeable uh which is important to us because we're on a corner lot it also includes office space which uh because I plan to continue my Consulting practice in retirement and um it also is a complete rebuild of the uh garage that's currently isore as Tony alluded to and uh is on the verge of collapsing um new garage also includes the second floor uh for necessary storage and um we uh believe our neighbors uh are all in favor of this change uh we share the plans with our immediate neighbors and they're all in support of this um Mr monzo mentioned the tree next to the garage and that's not just the tree because that's special meaning to us and the entire Lord family um CU my parents planted that tree and in memory of my niece who died when she was just 3 years old so the Tre is special important to our family's history um so we appreciate you time and consideration we hope that our project plans we find are reasonable and uh not only making improvements to the streetcape but also keeps the look and feel of the existing structure which is important to also our family history history we believe that these improvements will allow us to fulfill our Dream to retire in Cape May and keep our home in condition so it can be enjoyed for another 100 years for future generations to come thank you Tom just one follow up just because of that tree there's really no other place to put the garage is is that accurate yes without taking the tree without removing the tree we had arborus do an assessment and if you move the tree it will most likely die thank you um next I have um aine lence and she's been here I several times so I'm assuming the board accepts her as an expert Us in the field of architecture so uh m m Len can you just uh We've handed out these exhibits so if you want to just take the board through your plans and explain the exterior the interior and and also the site improvements all right um a little history I've been uh working in uh architecture for over 25 years I've testified in a numerous board meetings throughout Kate May County uh I'm registered to practice architecture in New York and New Jersey uh this is where I live and uh I spend probably 60% of my career working in Cape May City uh I thought it would be easier uh to look at the um exhibits as opposed to the um large plans uh so I thought that I would go through each page with you to Define uh what we're doing and so that you can sort of have a visualization of what the effect will uh the end result would be um when I was called uh to help Gigi and Tom they uh expressed the fact that they wanted to have an elevator uh in uh to be able to get into the house right now the house is uh practically uh a story above grade and I think every individual has a right to be able to uh enter their home so I feel very strongly about uh adding an elevator to help them uh live their older and golden years in this house but I also felt very strongly about maintaining the uh architectural appearance of the house and as was noted we have gotten HPC approval on the design if we look at uh exhibit one uh the top left hand shows you the rear before and the uh top right hand shows you the rear after or the proposed rear uh you don't even know that there's an elevator there uh I think that we've improved on some of the house uh there is a ramp that will take you down and I'm going to go through that in the plan from grade down to the basement level which will then take you up the rear also shows uh the same deck but we've added an additional deck on the top uh to hold air conditioning units because this lot lot is somewhat small and um we thought that that would be a a way to disguise the condensers we've also added as you'll note uh on the top a dormer that matches the other Dormers around the building and that Dormer I will explain uh helps to increase the F of uh the total F so uh if we look at the front uh and we look at the front existing and we look at the front uh proposed it basically looks the same other than the fact that we've incre increased the size of the Dormer but we're going to put in all new sighting we're going to uh repoint and repair the Brick we're going to put in new uh period appropriate windows so that this house which is in a historic house will last another hundred years as Tom has said uh so when you look at the house from the front I don't think that uh there is any change visible and at the rear uh very little change if we go to exhibit uh two I've drawn uh the side the Trenton side and uh the we have the existing house with the um crepe myrtle tree and the existing garage the garage has been approved by HPC for demolition it's falling apart some big wind is going to take it soon but you can see and I'll have a photograph at the end how big this this crepe myrtle is beautiful um and it sits right up uh against not right up but it's very very close to where the garage is um so we propose to uh demolish the existing garage and build a new garage um as you see on the lower uh portion of the building of the drawing and it's sort of a little where we're we're matching the um garage door we're matching the Dormers it's sort of a mini version of the house and I think it's really sweet and the um HPC loved it if we look at the massing of the house on the lower portion compared to up above uh we're maintaining the same shape and feel of the house we've just pushed it out about two more feet so my feeling when looking at the before and after is is that we haven't made any significant change to the massing of the building and that was also the feeling of the HPC uh now if we go to um go to exhibit three I'm going to talk about two things on this one first I have the um existing plan the proposed first floor plan and the ground floor plan the ground floor plan is indicating and that red line sort of shows you where we're pushing Beyond where the building is now it's it's not it's not a whole lot and most of it of what we're pushing beyond the red red dotted line is so that we can add a ramp that will take us down to the basement level and there can be an elevator that will take us up to the second to the first and second floors uh I've also indicated in sort of pink hatching the ground floor on the right hand side shows where the elevator is in the elevator machine room would be then if we look at the middle plan we see that there's the elevator and the foyer to get in and I I just want uh to make note about the additional floor area ratio on the first floor um we have increased the floor area ratio of the first floor about 100 about 120 square fet so most of that additional floor area ratio that we have increased is because of the elevator we have an elevator that's 6x6 we have a foyer that's 6 by6 so we've added a little more space in the kitchen so that it would align with the elevator and wouldn't appear on the rear of the building as like a big bump out um so we have the ramp which is adding a a bit to the uh lock coverage the ramp will be made of um pavers we are doing our best to not increase the uh lock coverage if we can additionally if we look at proposed first floor plan we have bumped in on the left side we have bumped in the new addition so that we forgetting about the gutters we are the the the foundation of the building is the New Foundation of the building is within the setback that is required on Trenton Avenue the whole existing building does not does not comply to the setback we are just aligning the building so it all looks together there's a there's a it's it's it's all one side of the building um there's no floor area ratio included in the basement since that is just an entry point for the elevator and uh it is not habitable space if we go to the um exhibit number four on the left hand side is the existing floor plan on the uh for the second floor and then we show again you see the dotted line so that shows where we where we're pushing out from the original building on the second floor we've got the elevator and we've got the balcony that is not a real balcony it's a place to put uh the condenser units as opposed to sticking them in the backyard somewhere um we have a foyer we've we've added a small office but uh the elevator now allows the homeowners to get from the basement to the first floor and to the second floor uh and we have increased the floor area of this um floor about 182 Square ft remembering that at least 50 square ft or so of that is because of the elevator so uh the area that we're uh increasing the floor area ratio is uh in my humble opinion not significant if we look at the right hand side you will see the existing attic the existing attic um most of that attic was uh below 6 foot 6 in except at the Dormer so most of the atct did not uh comp did not uh was not considered habitable space in order to um allow the Lords to have have four bedrooms because we've taken uh one bedroom on the second floor and made it bigger and added a small office uh what we did is is we increased the height of the dormers on the third floor so that that could be a proper bedroom without hitting your head all the time what we've also done and what has been approved conceptually by the HPC is we added a fourth Dormer at the rear which contains a bathroom so this is an un Suite bedroom on on the third floor uh this is where we've added probably the most uh fa R we've added about 240 Square ft on the third floor and that's because we've increased the Dormer height so that people can uh or their daughter could use this space um there is no elevator uh on this floor uh that was given up uh in order to maintain the aesthetic value of the house towards the rear if we go to exhibit number five this is an extremely simplistic plan uh Lou the engineer will get into all of the numbers and and uh lot drainages and things of that sort but what I tried to show here is two things uh I tried to show uh the garage that we're proposing on the right hand side and if you look at the this is exhibit number five if you look at the right hand side and you look at the dotted reded line uh the red dotted line that indicates what we would be allowed to build within the existing setback requirements you can see that what we're allowed to build would not work as a garage so in any event we're going to have to go for a variant for a garage anyway number one number two is you can see the location of the tree which is adjacent to uh the existing or now the new garage which is in the same footprint as the old garage um this also indicates uh it the uh floor plan shows how we bumped in on the new addition so that we are within the setbacks and it shows how we're aligning with the Trenton Avenue existing setback just on the garage if you can touch on the fact that even though it's in the same footprint it's set back further because of the elimination of that overhang that currently exists is that accurate yes uh the garage had an overhang that was sort of like you had a garage and then you had a roof that overhang that was like a carport we're removing that in order to in it also had a concrete driveway we're removing that so that we can have pavers and have have tried to decrease the lot coverage uh also because this garage is um the uh we're in the existing footprint the new garage will be fire rated and built up to any uh code requirements uh uh for a garage being so close to a lot line um number exhibit number six shows you uh this outstanding crepe myrtle in full bloom and uh we have spoken to an arborist Dave Parker uh and he has indicated in a letter that if we were to build a garage closer to this tree we would undoubtedly um kill it plain and simple um and then I think you all saw the picture it's a little blurry because it was an old picture but this is the uh aerial streetcape from a hundred years ago and uh with the architectural improvements of this house we're hoping it to last another hundred years so that that in a nutshell I think distills what we're trying to do and and how we're trying to accomplish that um I have a couple questions on on exhibit four okay you indicated that for instance to propos second floor increased habitable area by 182 square feet put 50 feet of that 50 square feet was from the elevator yes the El the elevator and the foyer you have to have a foyer to get out of the elevator yes and is that same that same calculation applied to the first floor yes and also the third floor um even though now it's it's it's better suited for habitation but was what's there right now well there I mean there is a right now there is a bedroom okay that is used by their daughter who happens to be about my height 5T so we don't have to worry about hitting our heads the bathroom and the bathroom but because of the ceiling height that bedroom currently is not calculated as habitable area is that correct most of it is not yes I'm sorry you can continue with you can go through the the any is there anything else you wanted to cover as with respect to the plan well with with regards to the exhibit I I think that that sort of uh goes through uh the um what we're doing in a nutshell and do you would you like me to go through some of these questions that you had here no you can you can um Ju Just from an overall standpoint you're your in your opinion from looking at this house with the improvements from the street is it how does it compare to what's there now is it notice different other than improvements obviously but if you can just elaborate on that okay um the HPC has come out with new standards and I've been familiarizing myself with this uh in my my opinion I think that we're we're renovating a an an existing historic home for the future the new addition meets all the requirements of the uh current and new historic design standards and I don't think it's overwhelming I think it keeps within the design of the original house that was built a hundred years ago um from a neighborhood I mean just from a neighborhood scheme how does this home fit into the neighborhood in terms of the size the style the scale and I I think I mean I think it fits in well this is a bit of an undersized lot there are houses that are renovated across the street that are bigger there's houses renovated down the block that are similar so I think this uh fits in with these homes there were about 20 or 25 of these homes built at the same time or about the same time same style uh and I think that this fits in very well um I have no further questions we can is there anything else you need to ask or um let me just look at my note for a minute I mean I I I do I think I mentioned this once but I do think we are maintaining the historic Integrity of the house but I also feel extremely uh I I feel it's very important to allow a homeowner access to their home and just because uh this Aging in place is very important to me the ad a uh came out in 1993 accessible Disabilities Act and I think that it would be a shame to deny someone uh access to their home we're trying to be good neighbors we're we're building an elevator but we're also trying to make this elevator blend in with the historic nature of the house thank you um Mr sh um I'd like to I know he's has been here before do you want him to place his credentials on the record I would just like him to spell his name I memorize it s c eii DT last name first name Louie l o u i s and we accept you we you've been here before so Mr Shay can you just first go through I know we have um nine possibly 10 variances so can you just summarize in please be happy to the far which we've been talking about um um which was I think very well explained uh in accordance with 525 d52 the maximum for permitted for single family deat dwelling is 04 the applicant has proposed an increase in far from 394 to 503 the lot size in accordance with 5251 15 B1 table one the minimum lot size required is 7500 ft and the 500 or 5,000 square fet is exist existing lot coverage in accordance with 5255 B2 the maximum per permitted lot coverage is 40% the applicant has proposed improvements that will increase the lot coverage to 50% from 44.8% the building setbacks New York side in accordance with 5255 B1 table one the minimum building uh setback required is 25 ft is measured to New York Avenue the applicant has proposed a renovated cover porch that will set back 7.9 ft where 7.9 ft exists currently the building setbacks on Trenton in accordance with 5255 B1 table one also the minimum building uh requirement is 25 feet is measured to Trenton Avenue the applicant has proposed additions at the rear of the structure of setbacks of 04 and 2.4 feet measure the proposed improvements addition where 09 ft setback exist currently just to can I just pause you for a second I just want to direct your attention to the board Engineers report yes because it's my practice as Mr monzo knows is that I take Mr hur's chart from his yes document and I put it in the resolution yes so to the extent that anything you say is inconsistent with this chart it'll become a problem later so I just want to go over I think I do EES but the numbers you just gave for the variances are different than Craig so I just want to make sure that slightly well my understanding is that they agreed where is are they what did you just you just said something about 04 and two point something 05 and 2.4 feet we're 0.9 feet he has 0.5 and 2.9 feet right I was just going to say that difference is because we had to put gutters on okay what numberers go your variance is going to be this chart so I just I'm not sure your hard time I'm sure everything you're saying is accurate I'm just saying that I'm going to put this chart in there and if it's not not what you want it to be then it's a problem when they go to do it well I just want to add that one item on here and that um when we put the uh our numbers together we checked the architect Craig's numbers they all be convergent the one thing that was up in the air is we're we put subsurface drainage system getting a little bit ahead but we had to get the water there and there was considerable disc discuss you know traditionally it's to do gutters we were trying to look at some other way there wasn't really any other way so that differential the extra few inches are required for gutters so that would be the only thing that I think we would it's a great explanation I just want to know what to put in the resolution should I change it 2.7 or should I be 2.9 2.4 yeah I'm looking at I'm looking at item four Craig on your report on page four of seven right it says 0.5 F feet and 2.4 feet right where not 0.9 ft currently exists is that you have9 I would rely on the testimony there I you know often the engineering plans and architect plans are slightly correct the testimony is that you're proposing 2.4 feet set back to the gutter correct along and 0.5 and 0.5 so that's what I would modify it strike the 2 9 to that's fine I just the building inspector looks at the resolution and then measures it and you're half a foot off and then all hell breaks loose so I just make sure we certainly don't want hell breaking loose so 2.4 is we're going to put in the resolution thank you I'm just go sorry to interrupt you but and uh we looked at uh we're getting ahead on on the drainage looked at a number of different Alternatives but really to get water into the subsurface drainage gutters work the the uh side setback in accordance with 5255 B1 table one the minimum side setback is 5 ft on each side that app is pro proposed additions to structure that will have setbacks of 0 Z as measured the proposed addition where point4 setback ex exists and that's the same situation the garage building set back in accordance with 52555 to detach garage are not permitted in the building setback the applicant has proposed a new garage with setbacks of 20.2 feet where 25 is required in the garage rear setback in accordance with 52555 detached garage is required every rear setback of five the applicant has proposed a new garage of 2.4 where 5T is required a variance is required um and then the Garage side setback detached garages are not permitting the side set back applicant has Pros a new garage new replacement garage with a side setb when we're 4 feet is required a set back of one you said a setb back of one one0 per four feet and as mentioned there's a number of reasons for this one is a a crepe myrtle um that was planted in honor of a family member um just interesting we have uh a very large CRP mle in our yard in a somewhat similar situation um so I certainly could relate to that the um structure is uh don't like to put anything down but the structure is uh in uh very poor condition and not only be replaced it'll be fireproofed and later on the conversation I'll talk about how it's actually the lot coverage is being reduced there under the um safety regulations on the site triangle that front porch is pre-existing um for at least a 100 years so um I don't know um counselors uh if we need a variance but that is there there's work being done on the front elevation but basically it's like flooring and that type of thing the basic structure that's there is in the site triangle today and that site triangle has been provided on the plan correct um the first variance I'd like to go over is a far and the whole intention of fars is that they don't people don't put mcmansions on small lots to avoid avoid large scale homes on small Lots we're certainly not doing that in this case we are increasing a far but we're we're not certainly not trying to create a mcmansion on a little lot here um the underlying objectives of far I believe are met here in that this structure even though that on three sides there there's no change the only place there's a change is in the area between the back of the building and the garage which has a large open space a lot of air light and uh the major emphasis is to add an elevator so I believe the intention of the far is being met can you uh State the standard for a floor area ratio variance with with uh F variances even though a de variance which requires special reasons um in the New Jersey Supreme Court in covery versus Westward zoning an applicant for a far variance must only show that the site will accommodate the problems associated with flary larger than permitted by the ordinance and that um even though D variance traditionally is is thought of as use that you're going to use something that you're not supposed to there's two cases a conditional use variance where you meet all the conditions is not a strong requirement nor is the this far variance not as strong as requirement as a d variance where you have to prove you're trying to put a commercial in a residential area so that that I I believe the uh architect has has made that clear and that the the the basic footprint of this building except the bump out in the back really for the air conditioners for the um just a small area in in the kitchen and for the elevators um certainly um meet this criteria any other reasons for for meeting the criteria can you kind the home has uh been there for a hundred years um put that in perspective that was prior to World War I was prior to my mother and father being born of which they're in heaven so this is a a number of years ago um I think it might even predate Municipal anu's law is that correct that's correct okay I just I didn't had to check with the attorney on that um and um this statement is only to mention that it's consistent with the area there was on a northwest corner of reading in New York a similar um design uh structure that in 2019 had a 52% far and 48% lot coverage with no substantial in footprint no increase in parking demands same number of bedrooms this is isn't like we're aing four bedrooms or adding basically it's the same structure and almost reconfiguring it to to more modern standards so in your opinion this site will can accommodate um any of the issues associated with increasing floor area absolutely requ um and one of the simple sir can you go back to the thing you said about reading in a 52% far can you are you saying we granted a variance for that yes so I'm not saying that that's precedent to this but I'm saying this is consistent with that in the neighborhood I don't know enough about it to say if it is consistent what what is there a resolution or something yes I have councelor has again we're not I know each application stands on its own but we're just doing different comparison this one I understand why you're saying it you're saying in terms of massing there's something similarly massed nearby I just okay it's it's resolution circumstances that led to that so whenever there's something mention I like to read the resolutions and this is the same corner just one block east or west I'm sorry at reading in New York it's resolution 0328 2019 50 foot lot same house same exact house and and floor area ratio in that case was approved at um 50 2% at 51518 so close to 52% and lock coverage was approved at 48.3% and also a two-story garage it's very to um those added does that have a one or a two or a three after that cuz I 0328 0 3-28 d2019 colon 3 I have a question the house is not being raised no no and the height of the house is staying the same correct how is the attic height being raised there are exist existing Dormers that are that are low but the roof goes up higher okay so we're going to rebuild the Dormers and bring them up to a line at the top of the roof so we're not increasing the height of of nothing's being increased the roof yeah I just this when the was reduced spread yeah but I think they I think they had already were using the third floor already I I just want my board understand it wasn't but in terms of massing I understand your your point but I do think that's a significant you can I have extra was I appreciate the fact that you took a look at that thank you 2019 when was that 2019 2018 2019 so um for my current partner Mr sh you wanted to move on the lack coverage and do lot coverage and lot size I think you can take them kind of together since there's a few numbers I need to get the plans out one thing is is um significant bigger picture here the the size of the building and the uh the far and the coverage aren't inherently the problem inherently the problem it's 5,000 ft instead of 7500 so when you when you do all the math you have a problem if if the lot were I know the lot's not larger but that's that's part of a a challenge as I put out on my board before though that's why it's a ratio that's right correct exactly understood the main dwelling um is uh the lot coverage is 1082 it's going to 1204 that's 122 square feet that's equivalent of 12 by 10 the um and I won't go through every numbers because some are 8 feet 4 feet that type of thing just highlight the major areas on a lot coverage the the um garage um was 35 it's going down to 231 so it's actually decreasing 74 Square fet the the total lot coverage when you when you summarize um the total amount it's at 2241 and we're going to 2500 in that a fair amount of the contribution is that um which was shown on exibit three on the proposed ground floor that we're adding uh 247 Square ft which prior was 152 Square ft and that is the pad and concrete area for the um staging area and the elevator and that's underneath the deck is it that's underneath the deck before that was more impervious it's you can't have uh that uh dirt area working with an elevator so that can you just say that again the the not the whole thing just how many feet are dedicated to the elevator pad so I can write that in that I thought you said 120 or 247 uh square feet are in that concrete uh pad area if you want to call it that and your testimon is that that's dedicated to the elevator use well it's it's an elevator and the area around it it's not all it's not all the elevator but it's that area for the elevator and the area surrounding it not including the ramp that has um uh porous pavers that also added area I think Miss Len just want to add something to that uh I mean some of this area that we're talking about that's being added is is the ramp the from the ramp to get to the elevator and originally underneath this deck it had been dirt and we're going to pave it pave it underneath so that we don't get water coming in here so that's that's an addition to with a lot coverage so Mr sh can you just go through the hardship criteria as well as the C2 balancing um it's a lawfully existing structure and a contributing building in the historic district we're restoring the building and increasing lot coverage for the purpose of storage underneath existing decks because an existing undersiz historic home it'll trigger any increase will trigger a variance we believe this is an extraordinary and exception situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property where the structures lawfully existing thereon where the strict application of the setback requirements would or or um coverage requirements would result in Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties applicant and would be exceptional undue hardship upon the applicant and and just clarify this storage as well as the area for the elevator and access to the elevator under the decks and under the SE to balancing purposes of zoning would be Advanced um and granting this variance to encourage Municipal action that guide the appropriate use or development of lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety moral and Welfare it was mentioned about the Ada accessibility and bringing the building into conformance hopefully last another 100 years provide adequate light air and open space the whole area between the garage G and the the uh ramp going down to the elevator is still a completely open area um to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial industrial uses and open space both public and private according to the respective environmental requirements where meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens ml that's G to promote a uh desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design Arrangement if I just add on this I think it's a highly creative highly efficient uh way to uh achieve this that uh um the the architectural are are very attractive and and Jay very important toote the conservation of historic sites and districts open space energy resources and valuable natural resources the state and to prevent Urban spoil and degradation environment through improper use of land and um making this home suitable um to retiring is um I think more than admirable what about impacts negative impacts I I don't see any I I uh looked at this I looked at this project quite a bit and I don't see any negative impacts to the public goter Zone plan and I was mentioned the other location it's this is very much the other is not precedent I clearly understand that in law but it it's consistent so in your opinion both lot area and lot coverage variances meet the criteria under C1 and C2 yes they do can you go to building setback and Side Y before we go to the next thing can I just back him up for a second I just want to get a little clearer testimony in my notes on the C1 lot coverage analysis I I thought I thought you said something about the lot lock coverage is afforded by the C1 and C2 and then you said something about C1 but I really didn't know what I'm not disagreeing with I just want you to articulate for me for the C1 standard how does the lot coverage how is the lot coverage supported by the C1 standard I didn't understand your Testament I didn't write anything useful down well the uh increase in lot coverage if I could go through the numbers the increase in the main dwelling was only 122 ft a substantial portion of the total increase between 2241 and 2500 is due to the uh area of impervious that's by the elevator and the in the most lower level and the ramp going downward to get to that level from the ground level and and that um creates a requirement for the increased lot coverage where we could improve it as an example of the garage where we removed 74 square feet is it for see1 can I try to help I think it's the height of the house as an existing condition the ramp has you have to get to that height and you believe the ramp has serves that purpose and the height of the house is actually an existing condition that creates the hardship that requires the ramp that's correct the ramp I guess just let me and let me yeah the ramp is going downward has to go downward from ground level to meet the basement level to have the elevator go to the subsequent two floors okay so because of that existing building as was mentioned before this is significant this I got it predate Sandy but the people who designed it it was fair highly elevated above uh flood level I mean I want you to focus on the fact that you have a lot that's pretty much already at lock coverage requirements is that correct corre so and it's an historic building so any any anything you do would increase would trigger variance for lock coverage is yeah I tried to say that but if I didn't make that clear I mean if you added something literally almost anything because that building was predated zoning the zoning Wall New Jersey ml so literally anything you do to it is is going to trigger we would be here and that in your opinion creates the hardship under C absolutely thank you that's much clearer if it was clear before it just wasn't clear to me maybe everyone else understood it I'm sorry I I just want to get it down to give you full credit for it thank you so you're going to move on to yes setback and this is for the um main house you have building setback and sidey yard set back it's not not the garage so if you can elaborate on that the uh um the only place where really making any significant changes is uh in in the rear of the property between um where the ramp is between the U building and the garage We There are as we you mentioned to highlight the numbers before the installation of gutters going to Eaves and expanding the roof line it's still at the same distance but those gutters have to be included in the setback so we're literally adding inches but the other side of that that is the only really way to convey water to the subsurface drainage system which every subsurface drainage system helps the drainage issue in this town and it certainly helps the drainage issue on this property because the water comes off the eaves literally um on the property line between the Lords and their neighbor so that's truly I think a gutter and a few inches it's the Minimus there's no gutters now no okay no and I we we really try to look at other Alternatives because of the Aesthetics and there really isn't any viable you could make a gutter on the ground but rip off the landscaping and it it's not a good way way to move the water the best to do was off the roof that's when they invented gutters and we see all the commercials on TV about gutters can you apply apply the hardship and see two balancing right yes that one as well um I'm sure the board is familiar with what I just said before it's the same items uh that I mentioned before and which are open air light space good design it's the same same and what about hardship same same same with respect same yeah I could go through it again but I don't want to be repetitive and waste people's time so no negative impact to the public good or or absolutely dimin actually there's a positive impact the the only negative is a few inches of gutters the positive impact is is uh significantly improving the drainage so in your General so in your opinion the building setback and also the sidey yard setback variances meet both C2 and and C1 criteria that's correct can we now move to the garage because we have a similar situation with three different variances can you kind of go through that as well yes uh I think the the one key issue I'll get the plans out again is long set of plans the garage as is shown on sheet two um is 305 ft it's being reduced to 231 ft which is a 74 sare foot reduction in lot coverage um so the um lot coverage on the garage is being reduced as was demonstrated um in exhibit five it's just highly impractical on this lot to put the garage in the setbacks you'd have to have a Mini Cooper or something drive across the lawn to go in the end it just it's it's not really feasible the other thing is it would destroy um that beautiful crepe myrtle which I believe is literally integral to the property one of the getting ahead a little bit one of the notes is that we're preserving all the landscape and the property except possibly where the ramp is going down there's a couple arbores there we'll try to move them if not they can be replaced but the Roses the hydrangea the crepe myrtle which are just um classic Shore um plantings will be maintained and to um to try to put the garage that's that's where the garage has been for the last 100 years and it looks like it's been there for 100 years it's fairly poor condition um a a replacement or new garage will be put there it'll be safer it'll be more aesthetically pleasing it'll be more structurally stand and it will preserve that crepe myrtle so so would would it so it creates um difficulties practical difficulties in putting it anywhere else because Main because of the Crate Myrtle that's correct and that would in your opinion satisfy the hardship criteria yes and what about the same purposes of zoning as pre previously articulated yes so historic district open air and light the same the same five and as to the garage impacts can you touch on that negative impacts it's an old garage in bad shape that potentially um could be a fire hazard you know so soing it in it in it's current place has no substantial detriment to the public good none whatsoever I think there's only upside I don't see any downside the alternative would be to leave that old stru it's it's replace it or leave that old structure there and I I think replacing it as a far um more positive um so so in your opinion the the garage setbacks also satisfy both the C1 and C2 criteria for that's correct that's that um covers our at least our Our Testimony as to the variances I know we have items um in Mr hur's report so we can go through that now and you can entertain board questions as well should I address it as Craig you want to read your uh just for the record uh everything in your report we agree with I'll make make it easy yes do you agree with all the comments in my report yes I do okay yeah and um we'll go through we'll highlight those when I go through my review memo are you going through your M now um if that's the board's pleasure I wasn't anyone that wants to ask a question beforehand I have a few questions if we could just return to the issue of lot coverage just for just for a moment um so the maximum this permitted lot coverage is 40% you're presently at 44.8% and the proposal is to increase to 50% of of lot coverage so just if you could just sum up for for us what part of the proposal for increasing lot coverage is not attributable to the elevator and to to the ramp would be that um first number that I gave basically I think the question is how much is the building the building is going from 1082 to 1204 122 increase well what actually what I'm what I'm getting at is is there's other is everything that you're proposing as far as for the loot coverage Inc increase directly attributable I know it's all all part of The Proposal but you have indicated you're you're doing an improvement to for the ramp you need the ramp because of the elevator you're adding the elevator as a major a major component of of the of this proposal what if anything from the lock coverage is not attributable to the elevator and to the ramp well as including including the mass of the building that's being that's being built the the the uh building is going from 1082 to 1204 which is 122 Square ft the garage is going downward from 305 to 231 decreased 74 ft the um generator PL I mean there's some that that are fairly small generator platform form six square feet I mean do we want to how about the deck well that's what I mentioned um that area 247 Square ft is the um under deck access area that would be there's a deck there's a ramp and then there's that concrete area that is the elevator and access to that as shown know in can we just have Craig talk about that Craig can you give your best answer to the gentleman's question so Bas on your understanding and I I totally I didn't understand sorry I didn't understand the question exactly um but the deck over another the uh concrete area that's underneath the deck by the elevator right is the and now that's going to count as 100% lock coverage one of the things what's the square footage of that underneath is 240 247 and What's the total increase in square footage the total increase goes from 2241 to 2500 so that's that's that's 545 Square ft that we have increased the lock coverage no no go go through that again what what may be helpful on sheet two of the plan there's existing lot coverage calculations which show in other words it isn't just one or two items there's a whole host item some are only like 4 feet 6 feet what I try to do is highlight using the plan you mean the the engineering plans yes not the both sheet two it's 260 I'm sorry item sheet two item 14 shows existing lot coverage of 44.8 sheet three under General notes one shows proposed lot coverage Cal my attempt was in explaining it rather than going through a through t every item because some of the items are like the HVAC platform now is four square feet it's uh going to six square feet that type of thing um we could be here for quite a while I tried to highlight the dwelling the garage and the under deck which are the larger items if I can every every question you have is is is there b based on these plans let me just try to summarize there are Maj two main components I think the question was geared to the the main dwelling increased from 1082 to 1204 and the under the deck space was 247 those two items together actually exceed the total increase in lock coverage those increases were mitigated by removing some hardscaped surfaces with pavers getting rid of the large overhang in front of the garage which so there were many parts of of this plan that actually decrease lock coverage in areas to kind of mitigate the increases which were necessitated by the underneath concrete area and the dwelling expansion so we end up with actually reducing the two items that you had questioned about by the other mitigating and the net is 259 so tot increas of which that's where I tried to mention the three big components of that is the building of 122 plus the garage of - 74 negative and and the uh the uh underneath the the deck which is somewhat substantial in the ramp going down which is permeable which is 50% but all the calculations item by item all the way down to four square feet are laid out on sheet two and Sheet three so the net increase is 259 cor yes 259 and at least how much of that is the ramp and the concrete pad for Works numbers more than that yes can you summarize that yes the 247 for the for the area under the deck yes and the P ramp is 54 square fet but there's but there's also which is just beding to the to the Finish ble the P ramp is item n in the general notes on sheet three that help yourself rich did you get everything you needed um what I got all that is a net increase is 259 in the area under the deck is 247 and the paper ramp is 54 squ feet so you know it's the net increase is 260 and there's about 300 sare ft that is according to the applicant directly related to the ACC in the elevator that's the garage had a negative increase or decrease well there's a bunch of negatives but get all those gist of your testimony is that the elevator attributes most if not for the elevator they would meet the lock coverage under the current plan that's their position yes question about the garage um in the HPC notice of concessional approval that you receive um under the conditions it indicates that the proposal includes um an HVAC system in the garage why is an HVAC HVAC system being included in the garage uh it was my recommendation that if you're having any kind of storage up above in the garage that you need to have conditioned air I have stored my suits and clothes and after about a year they're filled with with green mold uh any kind of sales uh Tom uh uses the upper portion will be using the upper portion of the garage for his canvas sales they will rot if the con if the air is not conditioned is that upper space included in the F no the garage itself isn't going to be it's conditioned space isn't it isn't that included in the should be included in the it's not one of the if I can add one of uh actually item one in report no habitable Living Spaces permitted by the garage we added a note that effect I believe you add yes we have a note and there's a pull down ladder not habit what makes it not habitable because we agreed not to have it habitable well a garage is not allowed to be habitable and we're not we're not proposing it to be habitable so it's it's not habitable there's no staircase to it we agree to it plus physically a a pull down ladder is not traditionally a a habitable space but we're agreeing not to do that is there any running water I'm sorry is there running water to it no there might be a hose bib outside for the garden there's no running water inside the garage I I have the same question that was raised you said it was for storage only and so then I would assume there's no storage no water no hbac I I think the the unless you're willing to testify that there will never be habitable space in that garage then I have difficulty with this um we've already added a note to that effect the architect has noted that don't we have Mr Lord Mr Lord will I can testify that we have no intentions of making that habitable space no water no sewer no water no sewer sewer just just just air conditioning air conditioning for we we are Sailors and um Captain's right we we like to store our sales and in uh in air temperature controlled space great you allow to have that in accessory building or I know you're looking up the definition that's what I'm looking up the definition a habitable area and I think it's good to just go through that with the board so the definition of habitable area reads an interior finished room enclosed by a floor ceiling and permanent weather resistant walls which has a minimum floor to ceiling height of 6.5 ft which is intended primarily for human occupancy that's it m portion that's the definition above 6.5 the last part Craig intended for human which is intended primarily for human occupancy I think we address that with the testimony that it's just for storage I understand I'm not trying to persuade the borders what the understand we get people tell us all the time that they're putting this we had someone who was put in a 10 by 30 foot room between two Dormers in the front of the house drywalled air conditioned and said well it's not habitable space I'm stor we're storing stuff there and that was like really so we have to be very careful about what just because someone says we're going to use it for storage and not being there we have no way to know if it's a bedroom the next day so this is in a garage it's above it's an attic it's got a pull down ladder so I'm not say it's the same thing I'm just explain to you why we're when we hear air conditioned it'ss everyone's attention there we also just uh just to note is this is a a dor gabled roof 3/4 of this space will be well below 6'6 I mean you know the roof goes like this so only in the middle is it going to be tall enough to stand what width of the garage would be the standing area do you believe uh from the center out I mean the garage is only about uh is I I don't have the exact dimension of the garage but I would say that it's only about six foot there dormers on it that you that six foot in the center of the garage you could stand above not not on the sides there's Sid they knee walls so you have about a six foot wide area where there may be standing that's right pip so let's go ahead with Craig's report you'll accept the condition that it won't be absolutely it's already on the pl I understand that but the people who buy the house use it for they want to use I know you've owned it a long time but we can't go by that all your questions answer no not yet is that is that garage is that large enough to park a vehicle in it's the reason I asked that is the reason I asked that is this it's it's a four there a four-bedroom house requires parking for for two vehicles on the property so the garage counts for one and then the driveway will count for the second parking thank any other board question okay I'll highlight my review memo dated January 18th 20124 this is a project located in the R2 low medium density residential district you've heard testimony indicating what the applicant is proposing so I'm not going to rehash that I'm going to roll right into the completeness items on page two of seven they're asked for waivers from providing the utility layout information and from providing a landscaping plan we did support those waiver requests we do have some Landscaping comments further on but uh so we did recommend deeming this application complete detail the variances that are on page three of seven so this is an existing single family dwelling it's a permitted use in the district the Lots it is an unders siiz lot in the R2 District 7,500 Square ft is the minimum lot size where 5,000 square ft exists they're requesting setback variances for both New York Avenue and Trenton Avenue on the New York Avenue side 25 ft is the requirement 7.9 ft exists 7.9 ft is proposed to the proposed improvements on the Trenton Avenue side 25 ft exists .9 feet is the existing setback 0.5t and 2.4 feet as measured to the gutter so there's a correction in my report um and that's those are the variances I believe the 0 five is um has a gutter two so that would be reduced down to zero that's what he said guess what he said okay so that's a zero foot set back on that no it goes from point 0.9 to 0.5 right I think you're right I'm you're you're we we only corrected the one I yes correct I'm sorry let's make sure we got it right so because going in a resolution and we have to enforce it okay excuse me that was my mistake all right point 5 and 2.4 is that correct yes okay so those are the setbacks there lot width lot Frontage meet the requirements uh rear yard setback is met this is a corner lot so it only has one side yard setback requirement of 5 feet on the one side 04 feet exists 0.0 feet is proposed lot covers requirement in the district has a maximum allowable of 40% 44.8% exists and that is being increased to 50.0% the floor area ratio uh has a maximum for single family dwellings in this District of 0 4 394 exists 0503 is proposed uh the applicant meets the parking standard there's four bedrooms they're required to have two Park on on-site parking spaces um that is met and that meets the residential site Improvement standards the new garage um encroaches in all of the setbacks the front yard setback requirement is 25 ft where 20.2 foot is proposed the rear yard setback of 5 feet where 2.4 feet is proposed the side yard setback of 4 feet where 1.0 foot is proposed um it should be noted and I didn't hear it in the testimony that the location of that garage is um at a loc where it's at a location on a lot where four different Lots come together and all of those lots have garages in that viscinity so the impact to light air in open space is relative to other garages and not it's not impacting someone's dwelling so if you if you look at Mr shite's uh plan it it illustrates that but it just was not mentioned in the testimony okay um let's Circle back to the big variances um lot coverage so the board has used that as a test um is the lot being overdeveloped so that's part of your consideration in the variances um lot coverage has a relationship to stormw so in this case one of the potential negative impacts would be stormwood Mr shite has designed a storm water management plan that addresses storm waterer runoff consistent with the requirements um we found that adequate but lot coverage is not just storm water it's a me it's a it's a planning control that establishes how much you can do with your lot so whether that ratio is a garage parking a pool you know a patio whatever so it's that's that's the control but it had does have a relationship to stormw floor area ratio um if you take a look at the master plan when the floor area ratio recommendation was in was put in place with the with the master plan it was a control on the massing of buildings so that impact on the neighborhood and streetscape was a consideration um and that why that floor area ratio uh controls was implemented into and put into the the ordinance so you've heard testimony in support of that from the applicant um I just wanted to make sure that the board was aware what those controls were so um I did have one other variants that isn't in that on the table of page 37 um they mentioned whether it is or is not a a variance um so there's a Clear Sight triangle requirement this is a corner lot um at every Street intersection in the City of Cape May there's supposed to be a 20 by 20 Clear Sight triangle that's provided um the existing front porch is well within that and it's said that they're reconstructing that so I just had some concerns I didn't realize that the building sat up so high um but um the exhibit number one does a great job of showing how high that is um it's not really being changed or altered um I really don't have a safety concern with this I think it's more of it doesn't meet the requirements of the code so I think we should Grant the variance um whenever we have this type of issue I always ask the engineer to provide the ashto site triangle so and I'll explain that our code site triangle requirements are just very crude for it's just plain 20 x 20 the ashto site triangle goes into a design criteria with the street geometry right away with where the Stop Bar is whether there's parking on street parking or not um and it also looks at the speeds of the the the two streets that are being involved um so it's in my it's it's more widely accepted and more of a Modern Standard um so to justify that I would just ask Mr sh did you take a look at that well happy to do you do you see that there's going to be any safety issues with that intersection no um I think there's two key things it it's existed for a very long time and the second thing is it's not a high-speed traffic area and that um especially esecially people that live in the area recognize these porches exist so they drive accordingly I think those are some of the key issues yeah um in my 25 years of of practicing engineering um I would say that there's not a safety issue being created here because of the street geometry the width of the road the width of the rways and the location of the stop signs I would just ask as a condition of approval that they put that ashto sight triangle on the plan plan just to demonstrate and show um so that we have a document uh verifying happy to do that okay all right um is there any questions with the variances okay I will I'm going to roll right into the general review comments these should be conditions of approval and I believe the applicant has indicated that they will agree to this so item one we already talked about uh it should be a condition that there's no habitable Living Spaces permitted over the garage item number two um they're taking advantage of the 50% credit for pervious paving materials so they need to provide those construction details on the plan so we verify that those um that credit can be taken item three we just asked for some additional setback information be added to the plans item number four is our review of the grading and drainage plan and we did find that plan acceptable they also have to comply with uh chapter 525 the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements and that remains a condition of approval item number five there is an existing landscaping and vegetation plan that has been provided that shows the preservation of trees we would just ask that a note be indic a note be provided on the plan indicating that all vegetation will remain um and if not then we would ask for a new vegetation plan Craig if I may just a reminder as well there's because I know the applicant they they've talked about the you the tree that's on their property and they're certainly going to be taking steps to um to take care of that but um they're also there's a there's a tree right on almost the property line as well and I think the shade in shade tree they mentioned Tre mentioned it right all trees so just as a point of emphasis it's not just the trees that's on their property but particularly since it's right next to to where the garage is going to be taken down and rebuilt steps need to be taken to address all trees I mention that because that's something that just came up before city council even just this week where someone had mentioned a project similar to this and on an adjacent property they're they ended up losing a significant tree um as a result of a of a construction project on a neighboring property so that needs to be addressed by by this construction as correct the the shade tree commission made similar recommendations um so we'll incorporate their their requirements um it should be noted that the planning board just took a look at the pending ordinance uh that clarifies the tree requirements within the city so I know that that's pending I don't know whether it's been passed for a second reading yet um but I believe it passed on I believe it passed on Tuesday right so then next month we'll be enforcing that all right um item six is our standard condition that they have to post and inspection escro and the certificate of occupancy is tied to the acceptance of those improvements uh the applicant is required to comply with the requirements of the shade tree commission fire department and public works and we did receive copies from the fire department they recommended approval dated 2224 the public works department recommended approval to 124 and shade tree commission recommended approval with the following conditions there appears to be no removal of existing trees on lot planned for renovation care should be made to protect these prot protect these and existing is existing Street trees on Trenton and New York Avenue during construction I'm going to ask that they have to and that they was [Music] 2824 and then we did also receive notice of conceptual approval from the HPC so we would like to see um that wraps into item number nine uh we have to get uh evidence of final HPC approval um I'll jump back up to eight standard condition that they have to comply with all other necessary state county and local approvals item number 10 they have to comply with the affordable housing requirements and finally item number 11 should the board Grant approval the required to revise all the plans um to satisfy the conditions that the and any conditions that the board sets um and submit those to the board engineer for review and approval that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has okay um we can open it up now to anyone within 200 ft of the property I just like to be able to see the people I'm speaking to respectfully good evening I live within 200 F feet my name is Patricia grey Hendrick I live at 106 Trenton Avenue I've lived there for 39 years and one of the first two people that met me on September 6th 2ou uh 1985 was Jack and Judy Lord welcoming me to the neighborhood and that was just the beginning because they they really and truly made me one of their K May kids at the time I was about 32 years old and now I find myself being the senior to Tom Lord and the rest of the Lords um through those years Judy and Jack were always there the story about the CR myrtle tree is sad but yet Judy and Jack turned that in grief into something that was much more memorable because the beach chairs that you see for handicapped in this city which have been a joint effort of the city over the years and now the generosity of the disatnik foundation was started by Judy and Jack Lord because they had wanted so much to bring that little girl to the beach and they understood how even though she was young it was difficult but they wanted others to experience that beach and and over the years I saw Jack Lord delivering meals to Wheels um meals free meals the meals to to those that were homebound Judy always doing things for people at the church these were people that were an example to me and at this point beyond that I feel as though um wearing another hat um as a real estate broker as a former plan planning board member as a present member on the Kate May County planning board in addition to looking at these plans I also spent time thinking about the due diligence that I would want in any plan whether I knew the Lords or not and I find that I find it exemplary that for example the condensers are in compliance with the new FEMA ordinance it's going to make it much easier for them and it's uh a feather in the cap in this city to have someone take seriously the new FEMA ordinances I also feel strongly that this house and the streetcape will remain the same and that house sits there majestically and all they're going to do is dust it up and make it so that it can go that next 100 years as a neighbor I'm it's important to me to see that the storm water um ordinance is fulfilled and they have done that as well because so many times you hear someone worried about the construction or the renovations that are going to alter the the the situation for their their their family's house with regards to drainage um as a safety Factor the garage min included when it was I have a 1915 house it's important for a garage that that close as the engineer pointed out to the neighboring properties where there are so many garages back to back that it be brought to the present standards and that would maintain with a firewall um I also think that when people move here they forget that if they're putting groceries in from their car to their house going about when you live here year round gutters are really important so I think that even though um gutters are adding to something it's it's it's kind of dressing it up and making it very very practical I also find that um having um storage space that's conditioned for healthy storage is important any one of um persons that go and look at a storage center in Kate May County if you have climate controlled storage it costs you in excess of $300 a month calculate that over the next 20 years so I think that um we all want our things whether they be our outdoor things or even shifting to be able to store clothes as as as their architect pointed out um are important beyond all that family lore and beyond all that due diligence that I point out I think the one thing that is important to me is the longevity and that longen longevity you know we talk about Kate may we talk about the fact that you know earlier Generations grew up in communities where everybody knew one another and where neighborhood kids played together and where families were close by we know that in our town the typical American family structure and the nature of our neighborhoods is changing this is an opportunity to reinstate some longevity in a small little neighborhood that I've lived in for 39 years that has mostly those of us that are staying here year round and we're not renting our houses out and we are a true neighborhood and the other thing that's important to me and I've heard it several times and I know it's the reason why I get listings and I sell listings is because people can't age in place you know the the this application in front of you is a thoughtful approach that allows the Lords to remain in their own home in the same community that their family has maintained for all these years and allows them to grow older you know there's all Health Care issues that we all don't know what we're going to have but somehow they are moving forward with proactive steps to create a home and I want them to know that they have a supportive environment in our neighbor neighborhood thank you thank you Miss Henri can you return to the podium for a moment do you swear the testimony you gave is the truth told youth another the truth OB be God I do I should have known better I should you did everything else so so right you said your name and you gave your address and I just skipped right through it I'm sorry go ahead sir are you within 200 feet I am okay so do you swear uh the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name and give me your address my name is j I lied can you give me the spelling your first name too called JNS and we live at 108 Tron across from we lived there for about three years although we've been in K AER excuse me one moment can you um make sure the green lights on press if ohk that better all right should I start over did you get all that before good you did okay great um yeah no so my wife and I we support this project um we think it's a uh a very careful approach to what they want to do I think they've tried really hard to uh minimize the impact uh but at the same time give them the things that they need um you know I recognize the challenge that the board may have in considering that it's a smaller lot but again I think it's a very thoughtful approach and my wife and I are in full support of it uh we have an elevator in our house house uh I had back surgery last year I know how important it is to have it as you're getting older and so I understand full well why Tom and juji would want to do that um Tom didn't mention it or or I don't think it's been mentioned but he has a brother and a sister also living in Kate May uh they're fully committed to the area I know that's no guarantee that they own the house forever and ever to your point but uh they've shown a commitment to this town for a long time so again we're in full support of this project and I hope you approve it so thank you thank man' do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth old truth truth sub guy I do um I just had to speak for yourself John Alden moment um I again I I've known Tom for 54 years this year and um I'm very excited living across the street from him to know that he and Gigi are planning to live here year round I could be wrong but I think I remember that our census in our census from um the previous whenever it was 2010 I forget the year anyway um we've decreased our population has decreased um in Kate May City and I just want to say every single person who changes from a summer home to a year- round home is a blessing for Kate May City so I completely support the project I Have No Reservations whatsoever thank you thank you anyone else within 200 feet anyone Beyond 200 feet okay closing to the public any members of the board have any other comments questions I want to point out exhibit seven oops exhibit 7even is an awesome illustration of why we have storm water issues in this neighborhood you can you can see all the houses in the background are along the spine of Washington Avenue and you can see between there and the beachfront was all Meadows it was all filled in and developed so thank you for that that was from uh Peter Shields was the developer and that's the in in the front so one picture yeah if I can just just wrap up rich if I may Mr chair I mean I think the testimony was was supportive of this application I think we've established that this is not a massing of buildings that um was what the F ordinance was was intended to prevent you know when I look at the elevator area and I look at the just basically refitting that third floor to make it more livable you look at the square footage of those areas and that floor area ratio I know the the variance request is for 50% uh or 50.1% 51% but when you take those areas out it really brings it down into the low 40s but we're not putting that as as what our variance request is um from a lock coverage standpoint I think all these improvements that increased lock coverage um beyond what the the total lock coverage increas is has you know they've been mitigated by a lot of the efforts to reduce lock coverage in areas by putting paav surfaces in by eliminating some Hardscape areas and by eliminating the overhead area on the garage um so I I think you know the side the setback variances are what they are most most of them are because gutters have been added and all those gutters added an extra 4 in um which created all variances because we have pre-existing non-conforming setback issues um and the one thing that struck me when Tom said well we're Sailors and we keep our sales there and all I can think about it's kind of a personal thing for me you know I all I think about is the Kate mthi and yah Club when I think of Tom and his family they were such an intrical part of that over the years they've done so much for Kate May for the sailing program cleaning up the harbor and um you know my kids were part of the sailing program and Jack was just a great guy and Tom and his brothers just followed suit so on a personal note I wanted to add that so with that uh we would respectfully request that um the variances be granted um as presented thank you thank you well um I'll give two elements of instruction you you know the standards to apply so won't repeat all those Al the D variance is is the floor area ratio variance is always the tricky one for us uh the courts have given us virtually no guidance on what to do I know the one case we speak about has to do with a supermarket and a big development that has really no application to a house but that's the only case they've given us um so you have to decide whether the site can accommodate the problems created by deviation from the FL ratio and you know sometimes that has to do with drainage and things like that but it's also massing um and I know what I can tell what the board is struggling with it's the elevator is a great idea but are they doing things beyond the elevator that make the masing a problem could they do the elevator without having the other problems that are associated with it that's what's on your mind and that's the decision you have to make that's why you get the big box uh they've done their best to explain explain to you you know there's an elevator I have some question about elevators and flare ratio by the way I I I I don't think the whole elevator you can only occupy one floor at a time the rest of it's empty now but for terms of massing it does create more space but there's plenty of things that create space that don't count towards FL ratio so I have some real you know I you could write a thesis on elevators and FL ratio I didn't realize they counted it more than once I typically only count it once yeah so um same thing with a stair tread you can only occupy it on one floor so like it doesn't it doesn't count yeah so so I think their number might be a little lower than they' they've asked for um so so the elevator is is a squirrly thing and then the elevator adds some space next to it and then their argument is well for architecture you don't want this big Square thing sticking out of the back of a house so they' tried to even it up as best they can the upstairs they tried to justify by saying it's already there mostly now so it's adding more space but it's not adding more usable space in the house it's just the ceiling's higher and it's more like a real bedroom throwing a bathroom up there that might that's a thing but but as I I share all this with you not because you know I don't vote and I try not to persuade you but I do think it's important that we distinguish why we might Grant some flare ratio variances and why we don't because there's people come in at 41% and we say no all the time um so if you're going to Grant one I think you really have to you know think think about and explain why you're doing it this is also you know I have found that some of the times when you Grand FL ratios it is on the older big houses on smaller Lots um and it's usually in the rear of the house we did that on maybe Hughes um uh it was kind of like a donut in the back of an old house the one they said they they were going to they're bringing the kids in the neighborhood it was going to be great and then they put it up for sale six months after they built it that house um so you know but but that's another example of a big house on I know that feels a lot of the lot and then they're kind of doing something to the house and it triggers a flare ratio variance so you know you have to give some consideration that they're starting with a big house on a small lot that's 100 years old so whatever they do to it going to exceed some numbers you know they're not starting at zero they're not building a new house um so but I do understand that to put in an office and a bathroom and all those things that aren't the elevator so that's what you guys are trying to do and you have to decide if the if those things beond the elevator are too much massing for that for that size lot and you know that's your discretion that's that's what you do that's what you get that's why you're on the board so there's other variances the sidey variances I'm not telling you disregard those but it's an existing structure they're putting on gutters I think it' be arbitrary and capricious to to deny a side yard variance or 100-year old house because they're putting on gutters that mitigate storm water so that would be that would be you know a difficult sell the garage is the garage you heard the testimony I gen Mr mon I'm going to let you pick your poison I generally have everything voted on all together because the application's usually presented holistically right so they want the full credit for the whole application therefore I vot on it all together you need five out of seven for the whole project if you if you ask me to I will consider voting on these separately the garage separately because the fler ratio issues that they might struggle with the garage is truly separate from that right that doesn't impact vo ratio does it does not so you know I'll let you vote on that separately if you want and and do it just a majority on that I really have trouble separating the lock coverage from it because a lot of the lock coverage justified by the elevator and you know the whole project the whole big building so I think that should be all voted at once um and giving you lot coverage variants without approving the building doesn't help you much anyway so if you want me to vote the garage separate I will or you just want everything together you need out of seven so tell me what you want to do well we need five out of seven for the floor area ratio right variance and the others for the for the garage you need four out of s so and for the house too for the lock coverage you you you do for lock coverage but I thought you Justified the lock coverage by the house you were building so I generally think you should vote on that Al together and giving you a lock coverage variants without a house design being in there I wouldn't do that it doesn't make sense because then you could put anything there and it it'd be block coverage so I think that has to go together so in my opinion I'll separate the garage from it if you want but the rest I think it has to be voted together okay okay that's fine all right so um let's do the uh that what we'll do is we'll vote on the what do you want to do first we'll do the house okay so we'll vote on the house first that's okay with everyone so the motion that I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you is a motion to Grant the variances [Music] one through six and 10 on the list on page three which to my understanding is everything but the garage to Grant the house project they proposed with the adjacent um ramp that impacts coverage that whole thing all together fla ratio I remind all of you that as you vote they require five out of seven so if three people vote no the project is denied doesn't mean the can't get back with a different project so you know and applicant understands that but I'm just saying that that that would mean that you voting no so the motion is to Grant uh variances one through six and 10 with the conditions outlined by the board engineer 1 through 11 which the applicant is not objected to including well number one has to do with the garage we'll get to that that later um so uh that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you and I would ask that um particularly if you're voting no and I I'm not taking issue with voting no I'm just saying if you're going to vote no please articulate your reasons the reason I say that is because there hasn't been an objector and there hasn't been contrary expert testimony that doesn't mean you can't vote no I think your vote note would be within your discretion my opinion but I do need you to explain the reasons why you're doing it so if I have to write a resolution for the reasons I at least have I can draw from the existing record but I also like to draw from your comments as well so explain explain the reasons why you're voting no and you can explain reasons why you're voting yes as well but particularly if you're voting no I ask you to help me um create a more defensible and legitimate resolution by doing that okay any questions from anybody all right so that's the motion I recommend you makeing how you vote is up to you okay can we have someone make that motion okay motion by Mrs Notch I'll second second seconded by Mr venudo thank you Mr Lewin yes Mrs not no I believe because thew cage up to 50% um and also the fact that I live in a historical house that's 132 three stories high and we do have elevator and we are aging in place the last 54 years so I I don't it's necessary Mr Walsh I'm GNA vote Yes um I'd like to say when I first saw the zero setback for the side that number really jumped out but knowing that it's gutters that's going to help correct a drainage problem between this house and the neighbor and there's just rainwater splashing down it's going every place and also where the garage is are set in the back corner there's four garages as Craig said that are touching each other that's still going to allow them a good expansive space behind the house so still good size yard so it won't look too intrusive so I vote Yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner I'm voting yes also but when to um my reasons are as follows um I find this to be a small lot that didn't of itself is is just a factor but the but the fact that the residence that is there the dwelling that's there predates the land use ordinance to me is a signif significant factor um other factors that the the floor area ratio to add the being increased to add the elevator and the ramp I believe justify um voting yes and justify the variants the other increases that are um being proposed that would increase the the um floor area ratio I think as well as the lock coverage I think are they're they're small and they're incidental and I was looking to see if there was a way to somehow cut those out and I didn't necessarily see that being cut out in the the residence itself or the dwelling itself um I also find significant that the the massing of the of the residen is is almost within the existing footprint and I think that's a there's something compelling about the design of the house and the fact that it is very close to uh to the to that present footprint um significant to that the building height is not just conform but it's less than the the max that's that's allowed I think there's been a significant issue with houses that are trying to exceed what um the what the height is is um is permitted and I think the fact that this does not um exceed that is is a factor that makes the house look less massive in that way as well so those are my reasons for voting yes Mr venudo I'm going to vote Yes as well and reason being I'm often very concerned about U the floor area ratio um especially this one that's uh essentially 10% higher than you know what the max would allow um however looking at the project I don't I don't feel that you know the the development intensity is all that high and it seems like everything kind of fits into place uh on the property so that's the reason why I'm voting yes Mrs wner yes on voting yes um it's a very nice design and I like the fact that you haven't tried to raise the entire house up as so many are doing now which just makes that look so massive and the fact that most of the increase is this elevator and um I wouldn't mind having one in my own home so yes thank you okay application passes thank you good job the garage is that it oh the garage okay oh you want that too nope no garage for you all right go uh the motion I recomend for the garages Varian is one seven to N I think oh what I do seven oh yeah one is the condition 78 variant to 789 with the specific condition that the um and this is how I'm going to write it no habitable living space is permitted over the garage there is not no running water on the second floor uh no stairs only a pull down louder and no sewer line okay fine that's the motion I recommend be made subject to that condition the others okay can we have that motion I'll make the motion motion by Mr zeter second second by Mr leadwin Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr vudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you thank you thank you very much thank you thank you next we need a u motion to approve the payment of the bills I'll make that motion motion by Mr Walsh seconded by Mrs not okay Mr Lewin I I have a question okay I have difficulty approving something I had I know nothing about you know I guess my question is if this is an es these are escro counts correct for the most part yes for the most part yes yeah so it is so the question Richard is why isn't the CFO approving these rather than us I mean I I'm voting to approve something I know nothing about I know that this I agree with you can I answer well I'll answer that question um now listen it's a there's two different parts of it okay the part about the escros I don't really think that you have the information necessary to vote competently on um guys we're still we're still in session if you could um the um but as to the monies that are spent on nones activities charges for board all I charges for board meetings charges for Resolutions and if there's litigation well a little bit of prep for the the meeting I usually put like a half hour to prep reading the application and then litigation expenses okay it's appropriate for you to see what you're spending on litigated matters pertaining to the board so if things were out of hand you could say wait a minute there's nine resolutions here and we haven't had a meeting in six weeks what's going on so it's appropriate for you to see that so on one hand on that stuff it's appropriate for you to see it and approve wait and say oh that makes sense and okay um you're not really spending money but you're saying that those charges seem legitimate to you so I think that's the purpose of it and I have no problem with that what I have problem with is is some of the the entries here that I have no knowledge of whatsoever and I'm approving it I mean somewhere along the line we ought to we ought to take this up with whoever I I understand that Karen put this back on the agenda because one of her superiors wanted it on the agenda but I think there ought to be a differentiation between those things that we have control of or say yes or no on and those things that we know nothing about I agree with you I I don't know that this board has spending Authority I thought so would you guys like to make a motion that we bring it to the uh city manager that you would prefer not to do this I'll talk to him I I I'm going to talk to him when he's going to call me about this this open to the public um thing because I got to I got to deal with that if we're if we're going to do I don't like the opening to the public because zoning boards are Quasi judicial boards meaning you're supposed to be very careful that you only base your decision on what's presented to you on the record under I'm supposed to regulate what comes in right so hearsay the opportunity for cross examination all that if someone comes in and then I've seen other towns where they say they limit it to things that aren't on the agenda well that's nice but that doesn't make any sense to me either because people know what what's coming or they're going to comment about things that have happened so when they come in and and say oh that pool on 20 fish street that they're putting in that's outrageous and then two weeks later we get an application for a pool uh you know and it just it just gums up things now if someone wants to come in and say Zony board I think you're doing a terrible job I don't I think you're granting too many variances okay I guess there should be an opportunity for the public to kind of say that I think they should say that to the Town Council but if they say it to us I could see where someone wants to say there should be some public opportunity to comment on the good things we do the bad things we do um they don't like our fees stuff you know stuff like that which again isn't our decision either can I say something so Mr Bodner was present when I was approached with this question so I don't want to put bless you I don't want to put Mr Bodner on the spot but maybe he could illuminate what it is that Mr van wson wanted to say to to the board if you feel comfortable I you don't know I don't know okay I okay so that would um I mean um okay that's that's why I thought I would ask in case you knew what comment he felt we should hear so so if we okay I don't think we should do it but if we're going to do but I'm I'm not trying to hide from comment it's just I'm supposed to protect the record it's one of my primary jobs take notes protect the record that are the two things I'm supposed to do and so if we're going to do it then the agenda's going to say something very specific that you can make comments but not about any specific piece of property or about any particular application because I just don't think it's appropriate to to hear that I mean if someone comes in and they come in and they say uh that Garage on 10th Street looks too close to the sidey it needs a variance we're not supposed to hear that stuff like that's not appropriate that's not on the record that's not what we do we're not enforcement so that's why it's just almost nothing they can say that's appropriate for us to hear as a zoning Board in my opinion so that's why I'm not in favor of it so you know maybe we could do something they could submit a written question to me and I could look at it first and say no maybe at the end of the meetings rather than at the beginning of the meeting they can say just horrible things at the end they can say I'm just say they'll say things about things that are coming up I know because another Township that does it and it makes me crazy West Kate May has a good of the order or privilege of the floor and I say I don't like this and they do it and then inevitably someone comes up and they start to complain about the obligation we just heard something that's going to be happening and I'm like the difficulty there is that's a combined board so I feel like I have to allow it because it's both a planning board and a zoning board so I kind of let it happen but I'm just kind always like stopping people so you but we're zoning boards I kind of want to take a stand on that a little bit all right thank you well I I'd be more comfortable if you'd ask the question of whoever the city manager whoever uh determined that this should come to us and again I I don't have a problem pay a bills right paying the bills if if it I understand if it's applicable want to see it but I understand why I wouldn't vote on something I'd abstain you don't know if the charges of Craigs escrow are appropriate I'm sure they are but you don't know that well that's right so I so it really shouldn't come before us is my feeling you don't even have the bills well I said at the very beginning that I have all the bills that anyone can come see me to see the bills I have the bills I have all the bills I understand but that that's not what a board member should be voting on it's not even within their expertise to know Craig is doing appropriate inspections it's not something the zoning board does Craig did say that other boards do it is that true very few okay okay well thank you Rich for bringing it up with the manager they can also be giv the information without voting they can look at it if they have any questions they can ask them but to ask someone to vote on when they don't have the necessary materials to do it is just dangerous business ju it's just a lot of paper and that's why I don't send all the bills because there's a lot of paper trying to save a tree but um do you guys want to vote on this tonight or not should I can we table it finish the call or not finish the roll call on this motion and second why don't we table it rich until you find out from what process is doing is delaying payment for you folks extending the period like so there's already you know there's already lead time bills whe you know has to get so now I've had them since February 8th this board endorsing it before and six city council will approve the bill proba is Polly asking you to vote on it yeah just saying that know table it to next month and that yeah well could we reserv I was going to say I Norm's right I mean my thought was the same thing why are we vote I don't even know what these bills are about having said that and agreed with him you've done this forever it seems so to no oh okay well so am I relatively so I I didn't realize oh because I was about to say if this is years I was about to say if this is something we've been doing why are we deciding now we're going to table it if that's the case then I'm back with Norm it's like why are we approving something that we don't maybe we shouldn't even be approving it to begin with I think we've done it the last somebody else should I think we've done it the last four or five meetings I mean one thing we could do is I mean it it is it is a good issue or we could consider that we're satisfied with the practice that we've been doing up to now and voting on it but ask that Mr King talk with someone to address it for the for the future I mean I I don't have a problem with that I don't want to delay their because they've got cash flow problems in their organizations too but on the other hand I think Rich you ought to you ought to raise this issue I admit I didn't know it was theay I raise the issue with it if if there's applicable bills or payments that apply to us then I think we ought to vote on it if it doesn't apply to us it comes out of an escro account somebody in the front office the CFO or somebody ought to be looking at that to make sure that the escro account's paid yeah my bills are more appropriate for you to review than Craigs I don't know how you could possibly know yeah mine are Craigs are so you may see bills from me that are free application before they've been deemed incomplete and you won't even notice the name you wouldn't even recognize the name or address um because they're incomplete and they haven't been scheduled for a board meeting then I do you know compliance reviews and then after that there's inspection to make sure that they did everything the way you guys approved it so there's three layers of my reviews yeah mine are different I I don't care if you vote on mine or not it's appropriate for you to know how much you're spending on Legal Services it doesn't matter to me because you'll understand my bills the way my bills work are I don't send a bill until after the resolution is submitted to Karen so there's no there's no applications that I bill for really that you don't see there may be one or two minor things if I get a question in the middle of the month or something with someone and I bill only Bill $50 an hour so it's like a $30 charge or something and then litigation you should know how much you're being build for because you're the ones who decide whether to litigate so it's appropriate for you to make that decision as part of your analysis so my bill I just always wondered about Craig's bills because he's doing things that have nothing that you have no not even jurisdiction over compliance reviews that's not what you do so I didn't I don't know why you would be asked to vote on that my stuff it's fine I don't care okay so we'll vote to approve tonight's bills okay so we can expedite them get it done so we had a motion change something okay we had a motion then raise the question why are we doing this to be you need a motion we have a motion we have a second so I'm going to call the votes and you vote how you feel right okay so Mr ledwin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you everyone and we just need a a a motion for motion to adjourn do we have a motion to adjourn you approve okay all in favor we don't have them's wait do we have something else did someone want I'm sorry Mr bner did you want to speak before uh we adjourn no thank you are you sure yes okay so we have motion to adjourn all in favor I thank you everyone good night she couldn't get them done in time and'll they'll be they'll be next time or so