e e e con testing e e e e e I appes did the house G e e e e e e e You Ready Rich yes all right 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 please Standford Pledge of Allegiance Al the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all Mrs wner Mr venudo here Mr Lewin Mrs notch here miss Shen here Mr Walsh Mr Zer here Mr catalo here Mr Bodner here thank you okay can we have a motion to adopt the minutes from May 23rd 2024 I'll make the motion I'll second miss a motions Mrs not seconds Mrs Notch yes Miss Shan yes Mr Zer yes Mr galain Mr Bodner abstain Mr venudo yes thank you okay we'll need a motion to adopt um our first resolution 627 2024 Steven and kathern Clemens 504 Jefferson Street block 1074 I make the motion second I'm sorry who second it Mr Zer yes thank you Miss Sheen motions Mr Zer seconds Mrs Notch yes Miss Sheen yes Mr Zer yes Mr Catal Mr Bodner abstained Mr venudo yes thank you okay we'll need a motion to adopt uh our second resolution 627 2024 WCA preservation Holdings LLC 408 and 410 Texas Avenue block 1160 make a motion second Miss shean motions Mrs not seconds Mrs Notch yes Miss shean yes Mr Zer yes Mr catain Mr abstained Mr venudo yes thank you okay our first application is Mark jacobe and roxan went went irrevocable income only trust 434 West Perry Street block 1031 please turn your microphones on good evening Mr chairman board members my name is Ron gunis appearing on behalf of Mark jacobe and roxan went as well as the uh went trust this is roxan to my left and Mark is over there in the front row um they are the applicants this evening the property of course is located at 434 West Perry Street which consists of two buildings um the front building contains three units and a smaller building containing one unit in the rear the property is located in the R2 Zone which results in the need for the variance relief for an expansion of a nonconforming structure and use the proposal is to construct a deck over the existing deck at the rear of the front building um here this evening is uh Miss Deborah Sloan white she is our architect and we'll be providing the expert testimony and of course Miss went to my left if we could have them sworn in please okay we're also going to swear on our board engineer [Music] the I do I do thank you okay de Mr gunes can you Mo the mic closer to you sure thank Deborah could could you um just briefly place your credentials on the record of course uh my name is Deborah slon white I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey and a partner with Asher SL white and partners Architects and have you appeared before this board or um I was here last month and you are and were you accepted as an expert I was Mr chairman yes thank you um Deborah why don't you take us through uh the existing conditions on the site what what is there now how is it laid out and uh what the what the proposal is of course um I'm going to take my microphone with me um the drawing that we submitted uh as part of our variance application just to familiarize you with the site West Perry Street sits out here um the site is a long linear somewhat of a rectangle the front building houses three units the rear unit is a single um unit uh in itself the I did a drawing here that we can submit as exhibit number one just to help clarify how the front building is broken up it is in fact three units one unit which belongs to our client the applicant is the entire one side of the building it is a two-floor unit um living space below bedrooms up above the other half of this front building is divided into two separate units one unit being at the ground floor and one unit being on the second floor so the second floor unit is accessed through a side entry door and an internal stair that gets you up to that unit does anybody have any questions about that know it's a little atypical can um can you make sure to leave that with me I will what was the first drawing that you showed it's part of our variance I I just it's page V 1.0 v v 1.3 thank you 1.0 oh 1.0 thank the first page I shared was v1.0 we can label this V 1.3 or I'm sorry labeled v1.2 I just called that exhibit one I thought I thought the other thing was in your packet and this other one was new this is a new sheet so we can call it whatever exhibit one and I described it as exhibit one is a color-coded chart of units one two and three perfect it is the only additional exhibit we brought okay go ahead um she's waiting for a question Mr G say do you want me to do the proposed goad um the proposed development is shown on the other page of our variance application v1.1 you will see here the existing home has a deck at the first floor that spans the width of the building our proposed development is to replace that deck in kind we are not not expanding the footprint we are not changing the staircase we are not changing any coverages with this merely replacing that existing deck the intention is to add a second floor deck creating a roof over that first floor deck and then allowing the client to screen in this rear of the home you can see here as we've outlined in yellow this is the area that we are seeking relief for again it is to screen in an existing first floor deck add a second floor deck as the roof to that space we are not intending to change any building coverage on the lot in fact the client has in an effort to bring the project into conformance um we are actually removing a row of pavers that exist along one side of the home to reduce our overall overall impervious coverage to bring it into conformance with your current codes the deck conforms with all zoning codes we are merely here because this is an existing structure that does not conform with the use of the zone so Deborah when you say complies with all zoning codes um it it fits it complies with the setback requirements and rear yard requirement yes and you you talked about um lot coverage so we're actually um reducing lot coverage to bring the property into conformance correct with the coverage yes um and and the size and scale of the building we're dealing we have three units in this building and then there's a separate unit in in the rear uh I guess Cottage correct call it that floor area ratio if we add all that up together what where does that bring us um as shown on our zoning chart here your existing floor area ratio is at 3,960 Square ft given the size of the lot we are well under what would be allowed for floor area ratio decks obviously don't count towards that and and that would be the floor area ratio 04 which is for a single family home correct so we're not exceeding that in fact we're just a little bit under yes and I think the multif family would be 0.5 but we're not in a multif family Zone correct correct uh and our building height I think that's below what's permitted as well it is again we're not changing that the second floor deck would sit flush with the second floor we're not going anywhere near a building height question here okay so the the the standard we have to satisfy here here is that the site can accommodate this expansion of the structure now this doesn't create or count as habitable space correct correct this is this is a a porch and a deck above yes exterior unconditioned space so in terms of whether or not the site can accommodate the expansion of the structure and the use if that's expanded um do those factors demonstrate that the site can accommodate this expansion yes all of those factors the fact that we comply with everything lot coverage flary ratio in particular do those same factors also um suggest or indicate to you that there's no detriment um to to the Zone plan zoning ordinance or to the surrounding area yes um we are definitely not expanding footprint we are not creating additional habitable space we're not adding bedrooms we are merely enclosing an existing deck and adding a deck above and in in terms of impact on adjoining properties uh I believe on the the one side the east side there there's already a structure there with the deck correct so our propos or the existing deck as it is today sits behind one adjacent home and is heavily screened from the other so this um rear deck would not be visible really from either adjacent property so there's a a pretty big hedge on on the I think it's the West Side yes uh and and then that's really their backyard so it's not that you're going to be uh positioned to to be a nuisance or look in anyone's uh window or anything yes and the decks definitely don't align there won't be the ability to to yell from one to the other so you saw some of the aerial photos I'm sure you've been to the property multiple times um there are other uh similarly situated buildings with rear open decks in the backyard definitely so this is nothing out of line or unusual it's consistent with what we see in the neighborhood yes um in in terms of um I guess some special reasons um is is this a aesthetic Improvement what you're doing the the existing structure and what it looks like when it was built and so the existing deck is definitely in disrepair um we are intending to replace it with historically accurate m materials we have gone before your HPC they have vetted their concerns and we um were able to meet all of their comments but yes I believe this would improve the aesthetic of the rear of the home and it also creates a very nice outdoor space it further the clients have owned this property for a period of time they are invested in the community and this is a great reuse of existing um renewable we're not tearing anything down here we're just trying to make a better so that the we're adding a deck but that doesn't get covered that's going to stay open to light air open space yes and the deck underneath just to confirm that's simply screened in correct so that you can sit outside and without the bugs with without the bugs yep um so if if this was a single family home on this lot in this Zone it it doesn't seem that you even need any type of relief whatsoever correct this is simply the expansion of the structure correct if it was a single family home we would not be here be in full compliance correct okay um roxan so tell us a little bit about yourself or and your connection to Kate May in this property my name is RO excuse me um please put on your microphone oh there we go it's on I'm roxan went this is Mark jacobe my husband um we've owned our property for 11 years um I was a lifelong summertime resident and from 1968 I raised my children down here in the Summers and we bought the property 11 years ago I moved here full-time six years ago when our family bought the Bedford in and we've been running that for the last six years um together with Mark's sister um unit two um is my mother um I moved her down here 5 years ago so she would be close and I could take care of her um so we're all full-time residents um and the um Pat and Ron Winward who live in unit number three um they also this is their primary residents so it's not a rental building and the cottage in the back is not used for rentals as well so none of the unit owners we do not owner it's all owner occupied and my neighbors would be here tonight upstairs the windwards except that they are FEMA workers and they've been deployed to many of these flood sites in fact you had to circulate a unanimous consent document getting the uh all your fellow unit owners to sign off an agreement to authorize you to be here today yes yes part of that included the the plan so that they were fully informed as to what they're fully informed in the winw would appreciate very much having a deck um just going back to to Deborah Deborah um the internal layout the Ingress and egress some of these units do they have more than one means of egress or to get out of the building so the first floor unit would unit two as shown in the exhibit um unit three is accessed from an internal stair there's a door in the side of the building um that is their essentially only stair egress this deck would provide an area of Refuge in the event of an emergency so for unit one as well is there one internal stair to the second floor there is so so this having that deck there would allow people to get outside in the event of an emergency correct so that that's a a safety Factor does that Advance the general welfare of the people in there and it does it would definitely First Responders it would add an area of Refuge for sure and also a platform for the First Responders to access we would be replacing windows on the rear of the home with doors so it would be easier to get in does anyone have any questions for um Miss went or Miss slow now the the screen didn't porch that cover um unit 2 as well so does runs the length the back house unit 2 is currently owned by um family so yeah we don't have a divider or anything well I don't know how well you like your mom true that's a question they could always put up a divider yeah I was say in the future a divider could be added the second floor deck does have a railing height divider because it is access by two units mhm but not a toll it's just railing are these units condo yes yes it's a cond so it's those three condos and then there's a separate condo in the back correct they're all part of the same Association um they just have um they're in a different building the back unit um my other question has to do with um I'm always concerned with runoff of water and now that you're putting a roof on that back deck so water isn't going to percolate below the deck it's going to be uh have a roof on it so my concern is where that is that water going to go so we two two answers to that question we are removing pavers along the side of the home to reduce the impervious coverage so we are giving more opportunity for water to to seek a home um we certainly can add gutters and downspouts to the back of that and empty them into some type of storm water management system is is the um what's the current material of the exist exting deck the current deck is TRS or PL a is it wood it's wood with small gaps so so they're there would be no issue with providing I guess Mr herl requires that a drainage plan as part as a construction process corre that was actually part of his review comment and yes we can certainly do that any other questions good all right Craig would you like to uh give your review yes thank you uh good evening everyone I would like to summarize the Palestina and Associates uh report dated April 3rd 2024 this is a project located in the R2 low medium density residential district um the only permitted residential uses in this District are single family dwellings so the fact that this is a existing three unit structure and another structure on in the rear um anything they they would do to that would trigger the expansion of a non-conforming use so that's why they're here tonight um so I'm just going to move roll right into my general uh review comments and completeness review on page two of six um under the general requirements for all applications um I maintain a database of all the applications that I've reviewed for the boards um this one came up so at some point this did come before the board so I asked them to try and find the resolution of approval uh was that able to be done I think it was in the packet was it was it in there okay I just want to make sure that that that was initially wasn't so um so that's been addressed um item number one under the c and d uh variants checklist which is a survey plat the survey that they gave us wasn't uh signed and sealed so we would ask that be provided as a condition of approval of course um items number 27 28 and 33 we did support waivers uh from all of those items um item number 28 I just heard testimony saying that they would provide a drainage plan so that should be a condition of approval now and not waved and then because there are four units here uh I do believe the checklist for preliminary site plan approval uh is triggered um and we did support a waiver of that because of the nature of the project is only a deck it's not really affecting uh too many of the site uh site improvements so therefore uh we did support a waiver from those standards and requirements So based on that those recommendations we did recommended de deemed complete um and I will summarize the uh the zoning review on page three of six which is in the zoning table uh once again um the first item in that chart is the use um it's a non-conforming use so it's a multi it's defined as multif family in our ordinance three units and then it has a single family dwelling which one unit so there's two uses on the site as well as um three units in the front building which is not permitted therefore um it's an expansion and therefore it is non-conforming uh it's an existing non-conforming lot doesn't conform with regards to lot width as well as lot Frontage 60 foot is the requirement in a District 54 is is existing and proposed that there's development on both sides there's no way of making that uh larger it's an existing non-conforming situation but kind of gets triggered when whenever you do an expansion and finally we always relook at the parking um this is not creating any additional bedrooms there's no increase in the number of parking spaces uh the existing requirement is seven spaces there are four existing on the property and there're four proposed so that's a summary of the variances that board should address tonight um I'll head into my general review comments that start on page five of six we've asked them to revise the zoning table to indicate that the uses are not permitted they indicated that the use is permitted so that should be revised uh item number two and three go hand inand and they've agreed to provide a grading and drainage plan so um that's item number two and they have to comply with the chapter 525 the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements um that are in the code four is just update the parking calculations on the site plan as well as in their zoning table five is the standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction and if there's any damag sidewalk we'll ask them to replace that prior uh to them getting a certificate of occupancy item six is the requirement that um the co is tied to the acceptance of the improvements that the board requires item number seven is a standard condition that they have to comply with the shade tree commission Fire Department and public works department and we did receive a fire department review dated 5724 recommending approval public works department recommended approval dated 51424 and the shade tree commission recommended approval May 18th 2024 and there were no comments contained in those recommendations um eight standard condition that they have to comply with any and all other necessary state county and local approvals nine is we've identif ified West Perry Street as a County right away so Kate May County Planning Department approval may be required for something of this nature they may wave that requirement but they should just provide evidence um that they've approached the county with that 10 this project is located in in the historic district so HPC approval is required 11 is our standard condition that they have to comply with any and all affordable housing requirements at the time of approval issuance of building permits or certific certificate of occupancy as applicable and finally should the board Grant approval the applicant is required to revise the plans consistent with the conditions that the board sets and submit those requisite number of sets to the board engineer for review and approval is there any questions from the board no um I just have one question related to uh their other application that they had in 2008 okay um I guess from what I'm seeing here which I guess you get is that it was denied my records um my records are not official um but um in my database it indicate that it was denied at first and then it was overturned on appeal okay so they won their appeal and and had whatever approval that was for I'm not sure what that application was exactly for so something very innocuous on first appearance simply just a a pitched roof on the back building uh which really didn't explain the uh the the the vehs of of the opposition to it so I questioned my clients about that if they knew anything about that apparently the person that was involved with that or develop the property at the time was not well liked in in the neighborhood for one reason or another um and and I guess that it's all we really know about it well I mean I just have a qu it seems like they were trying to add it to like six feet ceilings in that attic area I and I think what they were concerned about from what I read through this is that they're concerned that they're going to put another bedroom in there I I here's what I think we should do about that I think we should make a condition approval some evidence that what they have there now is was permitted because you're seeking to you're you're you're applying the standard of expanding and non-conforming use okay and as I've mentioned before a common misunderstood it thing is the fact that it's there doesn't making doesn't make it an existing non-conformity it may be illegal so it either has to predate the zoning ordinance or it has to have been approved by a variance there're the only two ways you can have so I think Craig is right I suspect that that was denied so what you have there would be under that what under the resolution have now would be illegal so I don't we don't know how this thing got to be there or can I give a little bit background on that yeah you can give any testimony your attorney ask you to give so if you want to talk to First please thank you um the opposition from Neighbors was the cottage in the back not the main building and they wanted to raise the roof to have storage and again the people behind them thought that they would be adding additional bedrooms the cottage has one bedroom one bedroom one bath um so he had to take the roof down and the roof down was it ever changed is the roof down yes he took that off and rebuilt it to meet the the requirements I don't know how to prove a negative so yeah it's not it's not our burden to Pro to show that it's an existing non why it's an existing nonconformity so I just want to but it sounds to me like what you're saying and this is your testimony that would be fantastic is that there wasn't a reversal of that decision but that they actually redid the structure to conform to having lost that yes and that had nothing to do with the front of the bill it was just the cottage section but it's part of the association yes so and at that time they see to have accepted it as a pre-existing non-conforming structure I guess maybe they built four units before they weren't allowed to or they got a variance for that at some point because that resolution didn't raise that as an issue so we'll take that we'll take her testimony that that resolution didn't raise the fact that it was an illegal structure but assumed it was pre-existing and then they reconstructed it consistent with that decision and now you're doing work on the building that doesn't have anything to do with that building machine are you satisfied yeah I just was I just wanted Clarity no that's fine there go I I'd also add to that that I went through that resolution to see who the the persons were that appeared at the public section to object to it check the tax record um they're all still there uh they all received the notice so they're not here tonight so I think that says something that whatever was going on back then over was was well it's over and it was unique to the relationships were happening at that time okay any other questions uh Craig I just have a question with the um porch not having with now being covered and that they're going to have drainage accountability for that so they they've mitigated it by removing so there's no increase in lock coverage they balanced that with removing the pavers on the side if I'm making sure we actually brought it into conf they actually reduced it so right it was non-conforming it's almost 41% and they're taking it down to 39.5 so there's a lot of papers I guess on the side so they're yeah so the plan shows them removing those okay so the net increase in impervious has been reduced but if they're going to provide something you know she mentioned gutters or something we can at least make an impact in that neighborhood right because that's why I'm bringing it up because I know there's a water issue in that neighborhood and I don't want to create more by making roofs and then just run off this is the this track is where the old Cape Island Creek flows through there's existing drainage issues there so anything that can be done the better the situation would be appreciated and that's and that is going to be taken care of yes we will provide a drainage plan for Craigs R for Craig's review okay because they I don't know because that is an issue now that people can come the neighbors can come back and requir them to change it so that's why I always add every application that we see I refer to that chapter 25 the minimum stormw management and Grading requirements because that runs perpetually with with the law so if you if your lot is ever discharging water onto the adjoining Lots the neighbors have recourse to go to the city say they're you know they're negatively impacting me and the city can require them to do something about it okay any other questions okay at this uh time we'll open discussion up to the public anyone within 200 ft anyone Beyond 200 ft okay okay the motion that I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you is a motion to Grant the variances listed one through are we didn't address parking I'm just going to say in the record that I the testimon is that they're not adding any living space so I don't know the deck would increase the parking right Mr gunis it's a parking variant so you're you're not changing well it's a pre-existing condition I I listed all of the pre-existing conditions including the ones Craig went through with the undersized lot and one of them was was was parking I'm just saying that adding a deck isn't going to impact the parking is it no yeah okay good all right so uh with variances 1 through three on page four with conditions strike that waivers 12728 and 33 with conditions 1 through 12 on page five and six of the engineers report we're not waving 28 you're not waving 28 I what you because they've they've asked the board has asked them to provide a drainage system so therefore they're going to provide drainage I apologize CRA I miss her I I crossed out number 10 as the one that I heard you say we weren't doing gotcha but they got the resolution wor condition so restated the conditions are 1 and 28 um on page two and that is the drain the runoff calculations the drainage calculations thank you Craig um and then one through 10 on pages five and six okay okay would someone like let me just remind the board this is a use variance so it needs five votes to carry isn't it 1 to 12 on on the the six voters yeah so I just want to make sure I mean the condition the conditions are 1 to 12 I thought it was one we did we cut some off 1 through 12 on page six okay thank you it's okay Craig distracted me by correcting the other thing I want to be on the same page Rich that's all right so we need a motion good okay would someone like to make a motion as Rich explained I'll make the motion do we have a second second Mr Zer motions Mrs no seconds Mrs Notch yes Miss shean yes Mr zexer yes Mr Catal yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes thank you thank you Mr chairman board members for your time thank you thank you [Applause] yeah okay all right our next application is 1134 Lafayette LLC 11:34 Lafayette Street block uh 1113 hi one second let me just get myself set up here for I Don't Want To Miss A I Don't Want to Miss a second please turn on your microphones thank you okay uh you are an attorney correct yes B Donado Burke on behalf of Thomas T Donado okay would say your first name Thomas no your first name Dawn thank you Dawn and I have an exhibit I'm going to pass around before I start Mr D can I swear you in while we do that yes sir sir do you ass swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so you God I do thank you sir our engineer remains under oath so we are here for variance relief uh there's affordable housing which is the first that's ever been in the city of Kate May and that was placed on 11:34 left at um as a condition of the approval uh the applicant was required to get the permission of the uh historic preservation commission which he did and in the first P page of your exhibit shows you they requested that a false roof in front of the building over the window and front door to improve the facade of the building as a result of that my client did do that um what I have also in the exhibit is a picture of the building without the facade and then in the last pages of your packet you have a picture of the buildings of the building with the facade so you can see the difference with the roof overhang um and the result of the roof overhang is taking the set the front yard setback from the current 18.8 feet which is non-conforming uh to 15 ft 25 ft are required and Mr detonado is going to be my expert okay Mr gonado how long have you one second man he's going to be your you want to be your expert or just a witness well he's going to testify as to the uh the conditions the positive and negative an expert to do oh he doesn't no because I don't know what i' make him an expert of okay You' be an architect engineer something like that so let's just have him testify as a witness and do you swear everything you just testified to is true yes sir okay we'll start there go ahead uh Mr Donado would you agree that the location at 1134 Lafayette by reason of extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting that property um would cause the strict application of the zoning regulation to result in Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship upon you to create what the um what the historical commission had requested yes yes um okay and would the purposes of the ACT be Advanced by deviation from the zoning requirements and benefit and any benefits from the deviation would that substantially outweigh any detriment that a grant of the variance would provide yes okay and um the variance is obviously needed it advances the purpose of the municipal land use law because would you agree that it is more aesthetically pleasing with the roof overhang it is and is it your understanding that the historical commission requested that to be more requested the overhang so that the building is more in character with the neighborhood yes okay does anybody else have any questions do you believe this has any negative negative impact on your neighbors or the Zone plan I don't seem the B excellent all right no that's all the right questions okay and you will see the certificate of occupancy is also been granted that's also in your um uh in your in the ex and the exhibit I presented any questions I have one when when are they going to be at the people going in there you have the certificate of occupancy yes when are they low we have to work with a um a I forget what they're called it's a company that works with the city um to locate renters that are qualified to go in there so we're under contract with that company uh I have to say they're a little slow in getting back to me this has been a very slow process yes it has um when the other houses that were built on Pittsburgh Avenue already sold and people living in them and the non affordable housing project has not been finished and people are not living there well I have a real problem with that the deed restriction is in place I it just took some time to get the rest of it going MH and it's still taking time I don't controler government red tape so there is a market to Affordable portion they have to advertise the the applicants actually don't control who rents there right um it goes into a lottery system um and they have to advertise there's a lot of advertising requirements um there has to be background checks to make sure that the future the potential renters are meeting the affordability requirements um so it's not exactly a normal quick Rental process right but it's going to be within this year I mean this has been delayed for a long period of time we live in the neighborhood and I'm not happy with how long it's taken I mean this has been a long process beside the fact I was I I was notified when I went before the planning board and it was very interesting that I did not get a notification this time as of this meeting and this coming up I personally went to the post office and sent all the are you seeing you live within 200 ft of this application I live I think it's within 200 ft because I got it I got the letter before when it went before the planning board and I didn't not it stopped at my next door neighbor okay all right we're going to do two things first I need you to verify that you sent notice to the all the properties within 200 feet and I'm going to ask you to strike everything you said and to step off the podium because you're within 200 feet you can't participate okay I 100% did I and I I have the receipts and I let's break out the list and the receipts cuz on the list what's that she's not on the list the list I'm not on the list the list is in the packet how okay okay well did you do you live within 200 feet of this or no I think I do I mean we were notified for the planning board but I see my name wasn't on the list for this time I was asked a question about notice a week ago on this application which I rarely get asked questions and the it had something to do with the fact that the names just last names and not the full names and I said I think that's okay the notice is get if the notice gets to the house because the notice was a little little funky looking in this thing it was kind of like handwritten with just last names so can I can I see the I put I put exactly what's on here on the envelope I did them myself okay all right let's see s what's your address 11:15 Washington I don't see it on the list 11 17 was on there yeah I know I looked is this a single lot lots 1113 Lot 8 that's the whole property our property yes it's one property one lot yeah yeah I think you're close but you're not in okay I think it stops at 17 you're NE neighb you're next door neighbor but you're not in that's what it looks like to me but all right it's the official list and as long as you send it to the list we gave you you're good even if it's wrong so as long as you search from the right property and you use the list that we gave you I think there's even something in a statute that mentions that that you're you're good so Mr not um giving your um I don't know what to do with you now uh so I'm gonna ask you just out of um okay I'm gonna ask you to not vote okay okay I'm not going to strike your testimony or anything like that I thought you were within 200 200 feet it made me nervous but you've expressed a personal interest in this and have got notice about it before so I think it's you're right on the edge of this so okay you know I know 200 feet is supposed to have this magic number but if you feel impacted by it you probably shouldn't vote so I'm going to ask you not to vote okay and hopefully it won't be um a three three Vote or something like that okay what is this this is your notice all right thank have one question I may um I noticed Mr huris requested as a condition of approval that the sidewalk be replaced um by my client and I would just like to ask a question as a followup to that do you know uh what the condition of the sidewalk was when you got your Co it was good okay and do you know what happened to it after that they were working a lot of work was going on on Lafayette and one of them trucks went up evidently I wasn't there all day every day but they broke it the contractors there and whose contractors were they they the state or the city somebody like that okay I think County that's that County right away I actually we don't have jurisdiction over that sidewalk so um I would I would move to strike that recommendation any questions or any other questions for the applicant I'm just confused about the sidewalk is the sidewalk getting replaced or not getting replaced it's it's I'm sorry I just it's a count it's controlled by the county not by the homeowner so we can't make them do anything to it oh so even though usually Craig puts in there that the sidewalk has to be replaced up to standard but but it's a county jurisdiction I typically put it in there but I I I would strike it if I knew that it was County right away I forgot on this one and so it really should be stricken they're they're they're responsible for their sidewalk so could we just ask them though in that I think when the county was doing the work if they did cause any damage I I think that they were coming back to address or replace some matters so just as an accommodation to the people that are in Cape May to at least reach out through the city in whatever manner to see if the construction company will address that what we can do is uh myself and Mr dado can coordinate at least contacting the county about fixing that damaged sidewalk and I think that would okay effectuate what the board wants to see okay is that is that acceptable that's fine okay I and I just have one clarifying question um I I see here at one part that was saying that the planning board requested the that was my mistake it was the horse when I found the document I said oh it wasn't planning it was historical but I had already submitted my application okay okay I just wanted to clear I think I understood I think I know what was the planning board required the HPC review and then the HPC required them to get the roof so I think that's what she was kind of at first I was confused but I think that's what you were thinking when you did that which is true other questions Craig certainly I'd like to summarize my review dated May 20th 2024 this is a project located in the R2 low medium density residential district um affordable housing uh units are permitted use in all districts within the city um so that's a permitted use um this application um there was let me back up for one second uh there was one checklist item the tax city of Kate May tax collector certification and all taxes were paid has that been provided yes it has did we get that okay all right so that item number five on that checklist has been addressed so therefore we did recommend deeming it in complete the front porch addition to this structure it's an existing non-conforming structure the face of that structure um is within the the building setback line along Lafayette Street so any projections from that would create a front yard setback issue um so they're making the case that's saying uh you know to provide that porch um is consistent with the hpc's recommendations um it's anthetic value um I would also argue that it met one of the other uh purposes of zoning in the fact that it promotes um affordable housing um you know it's certainly uh if you're accessing the front door you're going to be standing in the rain without it um so it's a better situation for those uh people that are going to be within that affordable housing so therefore um I did believe it me that purpose also so you heard testimony with regards to that so that is the only variance that's necessary so 25 ft is required in the district 18.8 ft exists and that projection uh at this nearest point is 15 ft setback uh so those are the variant that's the variance um with regards to the general review comments on page three or four of my review um we asked them under item number one to revise the zoning table because it indicates R3 District requirements instead of R2 District in which it's in item two we've asked them to put the approval signature uh lines and names on the front cover sheet item three we've asked them to revise the zoning table consistent with the viiew comments in the review memorandum item number four we asked for some setback Dimensions be added to the plans just uh measured from the structure to the front building line um just to verify that the plans are consistent with the approval of the board grants um item number five is our standard condition that they have to comply with chapter 2 525 the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements item six we've modified and that uh the applicant along with myself will uh contact the County and ask them to repair the damaged sidewalk uh item number seven is comply with the requirements of the shade tree commission fire department and public works department we received review memos from the fire department dated excuse me 52424 Public Works recommending approval dated 52324 and the shade tree commission recommended approval um they did have some notes here but I don't think there's any conditions um and that approval was dated 6624 and then there was a copy of the historic reservation commission's uh approval and that was dated March 2nd 2023 where am I back took care of that one uh eight is our standard condition to comply with all other necessary State County local approvals nine is just referencing uh HPC approval is required 10 is the requirement to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements this is your inclusion area so you're not required to pay any fees for this um and under item number 11 uh should the board Grant approval they're required to revise the plans consistent with the conditions the board set and submit the requisite number of compliance plans to the board engineer for review and approval that's a summary of my report any questions for okay now at this point we'd open discussion to the public within 200 ft anyone Beyond 200 ft okay Rich okay the uh motion I re recommend be made but how you vote is up to you as a motion to Grant the variance for building setback on p number one on page three subject to the conditions 1 through 11 but striking number six relating to the sidewalk as outlined on page three and four on the engineers report okay will someone to make the motion I'll make the motion second Mr Mr bider motions Mr Zer seconds so I'm not calling Mrs KN so miss Shen yes Mr Zer yes Mr catalo yes Mr Bodner yes Mr vuda yes thank you thank you thank you n that's my stuff okay our third application would be Ronald Fuller and bernet mcglade 1326 New York Avenue block 1147 Lots 20 and 61 okay all set yeah you can introduce yourselves members of the board good evening uh my name is Robert bolasco I'm an attorney with an office located in North Wood I'm here tonight on behalf of bernardet mcglade and R Fuller I have Miss mcglade seated to my right I also have Ramy Nasser our professional engineer and land planner here's here uh to provide testimony if necessary um this property is located at 1326 New York Avenue it's block 1147 Lots 20 and 21 we're located in the R2 residential zoning District the existing property is an undersized lot it's 6,250 Square ft whereas 7500 Square ft is required I just want to give the board a little bit of background we were here in October of 2023 we received approvals uh some C variant relief in connection with the existing lot size that pre-existing non-conforming condition we also received C variant relief with respect to the building setback line to Pittsburgh and New York Avenue uh the previous structure was a small 980 square ft really Cottage it was built in the 1950s uh it had kind of um uh fallen out or if you was it was inconsistent with what had gone on with respect to development in the surrounding neighborhood uh the uh applicants decided to renovate the structure to bring it into compliance with current building construction codes fire codes really they they did a nice job in my opinion uh renovating this structure if you've gone by the property it's it's significantly uh different than what it ex what it looked like back in October of 202 23 the Aesthetics have been tremendously improved um we reduced the number of bedrooms from three bedrooms to two bedrooms in connection with that application still limited it to a single story the board did find that a hardship existed to the applicant relative to the fact that was an undersized lot and that there was a frontage along Pittsburgh and New York Avenue uh so during the construction process uh the applicant submitted construction plans there was originally a modification to add a dormer to the second floor where an attic was located uh the zoning officer uh correctly in my opinion indicated that that Dormer was an expansion of that non-conforming structure the applicants elected to eliminate that Dormer um during construction they identified that there was an existing attic space which was significantly larger uh than they had anticipated or that they had ever realized they simply had never gone up there before uh Miss mlade will testify to that shortly during construction when the home was renovated the walls were removed looked at this attic space realized that it was usable I mean they had spent substantial money uh thought that they could possibly Garner some additional habitable space up there we wanted to be up front with the board not pull any punches the intention here is to utilize this as a study uh there will be a bathroom up there but there will be a small sleeper so sofa in that room so it may be utilized as an additional bedroom at some point we noticed that accordingly nevertheless we still have compliant parking under the residential site Improvement standards two parking spaces are required with respect to a three-bedroom home and that's what that what exist that's what exists so uh when I went through the code and I'm sorry I made a little long winded but I think the explanation is warranted in this situation there is a section in the city's ordinance uh Ates an additional review and approval by this board uh we didn't necessarily view this as an expansion of the structure the attic space existed previously um it wasn't a part of these new additions that were added to Pittsburgh or or New York Avenues um the plans which we provided highlight that that and it clearly shows that it was an existing area of this structure uh nevertheless uh the zoning officer indicated that we should return to this board to seek approval and and and that's what we're here for tonight so uh I that's the sole piece of relief that we need um I I didn't want to get into a debate with his zoning officer we felt it was just more appropriate to file this application and come back before the board I would note that the setback variances that were given previously um we couldn't use a lot averaging formula in this situation because there simply Aren't Enough properties along Pittsburgh and New York Avenue we did provide a block study however in connection with that prior application uh so the variances which we received were uh a 15.8 ft building setex variance to Pittsburgh Avenue that was actually increased from 8.8 ft so we improved that condition if we were able to use lot averaging a 17t building setback would have been required and along New York Avenue the setback was reduced slightly it's 3 31.8 ft it was reduced to 23.75 Ft 25 FTS required if we had been permitted to use lot averaging 2397 ft would have been what was required so we were close on those variances but there's no expansion this structure exists as it exists whether this application is approved tonight or not no change to the roof Lines no increase in height nothing along those lines um so I thought thought it was important to recap that I would like to entertain some testimony for Miss mcglade in terms of how we got here uh and then if necessary I have Mr nser here who can provide some testimony relative to the C variance criteria you please Mr n sir and do you uh also uh raise your right hand do you uh swear to tell the truth told truth other but the truth s guy I do thank you are you okay perfect so miss mcglade you're an owner of this subject property correct yes and uh everything I said in regards to the approvals we received in October 2023 they were accurate yes older structure you guys uh completed significant Renovations is that correct yes now uh during construction uh you made a decision uh to potentially um try to add some habitable space correct habitable space meaning an additional Abed and uh where uh exactly was that space located is it located on the second floor yeah and uh how come that wasn't a part of the original application well we didn't know the space that was we didn't know how much space was there H and can you tell the board you own the house how how did you know that there that that space was usable at the time well it was only accessible by one of those pull down type of ladders and to be honest with you I never looked up there and it was a crickety type ladder and it wasn't until the construction started that when it was all opened up obviously there was as bestus and a lot of things that were not anticipated and so there was a lot of work that had to be done on the house once it got opened up that attic space was quite large so your intentions for this space tell the board in your own words how you anticipate uh that you'll utilize it I think it'll be it will definitely be used as basically a small type of office area we tend to put just a small working area up there obviously we need to be able to have access to it and how do you intend to access it well we would need to have a set of stairs internal stairs so an actual set of yeah just internal stairs to get to it and um I know during our conversations in preparation for this application uh it's conceivable that there will be a sleeper sofa in that room as well correct yeah we could put a sleeper sofa so you it's a large enough area I mean I'm right at six foot I can it's got headp space it's a pretty spacious area and with respect to off street parking still two parking spaces that exist on site yes all the all the parking spaces are there and the structure uh the exterior of the structure is pretty much complet at this strcture correct it is completed there's no expansion and the only aspect that uh that you're waiting to complete is that interior component the interior areas which where the staircase may be located and if approved by the board the attic space as well absolutely we everything's been held up you know to do it the right way and to come before this board I don't have any further questions for Miss mcglade I'm certainly happy to entertain any if the board has questions if not I can entertain some brief testimony from Mr ner so I just have a quick question so when they the work was done on the house and I had noticed that it was it was being done because I dry past it um that roof height or anything configuring the roof was not changed at all no okay there were that was all permitted uh the applicant submitted permits to the zoning officer I want to be a front machine there was an application a set of plans that were submitted that proposed the Dormer uh Mr Brittain uh indicated that that couldn't be approved without board approval it was eliminated it was resubmitted with the exact same uh roof line that was approved by this board back in October of 2023 the only change was this 156 approximate square footage of habitable space why I asked is I noticed it took a long time to get the roof put on and that's why I was asking if that roof line was changed not not at all back to what was approved once you discovered this area under the roof that did you change the plans to be able to sheetrock it to insulate it to put HVAC into it to put smoke detectors into it I would imagine so um that's not I I can't specifically answer that nothing's been constructed up there at this point in time because we got us they were told they couldn't do this without board approval but I would imagine it will be we would certainly make it completely safe and yes everything you just mentioned MH so is there stairs now in inside the house to go up there no there's not not permanent stairs they'd like to put them in if possible but yeah in anticipation of this the um possibly adding this additional habitable space upstairs have you U prepared some type of updated plumbing and electrical plan for consideration by I don't think that's been submitted the Construction office obviously it would have to be if it was part of the permitting process so permits weren't issued for this when it was orig originally applied they were denied uh and they were denied because this this habitable space which we're proposing was not on the original plans we're not part of that original approval um I had a brief discussion with Mr Brittain about it I didn't think board approval was required since it was limited to just an interior modification um but he insisted we go before the board we agreed to do so and if this is approved we'll have to submit construction plans which would include all of the features which you just identified if there's no further questions I can entertain some brief testimony from Mr nser so Mr nser I I know your office was here back in October 2023 when we received the original approvals correct that's correct you've reviewed the plans that are before the board here tonight the plans that were previously uh submitted and approved by this board in October yes any modifications proposed to the exterior of this structure I didn't see any any further encroachment into either setback no we kept the same setbacks that they were approved previously at uh at the Z no increase in Building height no nothing and we're below floor area ratio in this situation yes we are the structure as you see it if we get this approval or we don't get this approval it's going to be the same structure nothing will change physically on the outside of this building and back in October 2023 uh there was testimony presented that the applicant was experiencing a hardship relative to the undersized nature of this lot the fact that there was two front yards do you think that situation still exists yes nothing changed the physically on this on the structure or the surrounding properties and have you uh had a chance to review section 525 73e yes and uh would you agree uh that there is an argument to be made that this expansion is an expansion of the footprint and does require relief from this board uh I don't personally I don't think it's it's this applies we don't need we should not have been in front of this board but I think the zoning officer made that determination and here we are yeah exactly I mean I don't see what variance we are requesting at this point do you foresee any uh substantial detriments to the public good if the board were approve this application no sir it's based on the previous approval we just we stayed within the parameters of the original approval and uh any uh substantial detriments or do you believe that this would impair the intent or purpose of the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance no sir we have no impact on the parking we have no impact on the structure or the neighbors so the variances were previously granted there's no expansion and non-conformities and there's compliant parking with the addition of this uh additional room which may function as a bedroom at some point correct I mean that space was there originally it's not maybe they would was not noted on the plans but that space was there we didn't create any additional space just uh they found that they can use it that's all what it is and on the the plans that were submitted would you agree that this specific area was a part of the original structure it's not a part of the addition to the Pittsburgh or New York Avenue sides of the structure based on the plans I saw yes sir I don't have any further questions for Mr nser okay any questions I just have one question um I just wanted to ask about the hital ground floor area of the twostory it's now going to be 1,600 with the addition on the second floor the entirety would be 7 uh be 7 68 it'll be 1760 uh 1768 sare ft okay so the 1610 is wrong that was the previously approved yeah that it was a it uh I'm looking at the chart that Craig has here habitable ground floor area required 850 Square I think that's a minimum so the minimum is what is required there I'm what was proposed I think I think we're just starting with a new existing oh I I understand what you're saying now we're Shifting the 1610 over to existing correct 68 propos right correct 1768 should be the proposed 16157 should be existing sorry so okay that's all I want to thank you good catch U I will just I don't want to belabor this this is relatively easy thing I think but I I I agreed with you until I heard the testimony about whether you needed a variance or not I didn't think you needed a variance but now the test ton is that it might be a bedroom and the prior variance was granted with the testimony that one of the benefits you were providing in the application was that you reducing from three bedrooms to two so those plans that was part of the holistic variance that was approved was the plans that you showed us and that was reducing from three bedrooms to two now that you're putting it back at three bedrooms I do think that deviates from the variance you were granted because that variance was based on the plans you submitted for that variance that's what we granted as a project as a whole so I would agree that if this wasn't a bedroom and it wasn't that offered as a benefit the last time you got approved I don't think that when you expand the interior without affecting the structure under that ordinance that we just read that what 525 73 that I don't think that requires a variance you're not altering the exterior the structure at all you're not like not you had a far violation before and you did that yes but I don't see this expanding in Conformity at all so I don't think you would need a variance but I do think you need a variance because you're violating your prior variance I'm I say it's a horrible violation I'm saying you're deviating from your prior variant so I'm not trying to say you're doing anything bad I'm not trying to say it's a bad application I'm just saying that the last one the last variance was for a two-bedroom house and that's why I I thought it was important to provide that history as well and when I met with the applicants I said what's your intent to utilize this upstair space and they said well we'll probably use it as an office to study it may function as an additional bedroom I wanted to be up front about that I didn't want to come in here and tell the board oh no it's an office it's an office and you look at the plans and you see a bathroom up there and you think well wait a minute that's a that's a disguised bedroom here so we wanted to be candid with the board to other with the building inspector then F an appeal and then spend $30,000 get done you're going to get done I want to be up front that's how I like to practice law you know in an application that's why honesty is the policy yep I would like to Just Bounce something while we're talking about this Mr King so when I looked at this from a planning standpoint you know I I indicated the variants that were just granted which was the lot size and the two building setbacks one from Pittsburgh and one from New York Avenue um so when I read section 5257 3E you know it's it's referring I think the zoning officer referred it back to us properly now it asked that section says the board should approve it but I like at first glance I was like is is there really a variance here and like what is that approval so I'm like okay okay does whatever they're doing additionally change the testimony or justification for the original variances and you mentioned the one where they you know they they said we're reducing the number of bedrooms now that that bedroom count has come up so if they were to disapprove this then that throws them back into the variant situation what I don't think I don't think 73 requires them to if you right 73 doesn't require them to get a variance it just says approval does even require them to come here they don't have to come here at all if they if they're at 525 that's 73 this is designed because we have a million structures that violate all kinds of setbacks okay that are always around and if someone is putting if if they violate the sidey yard on the west side of their property and they have 40 feet on the east side of the property and they're going to put a twoot addition on the east side of the property they're expanding a non-conforming structure but they're not not expanding it in an area that enhances the non-conformity so this is intended to make clear that you don't need a variance for that just because you have a deviation in one part of your property doesn't mean you need to get a variance when you TV from Another Side it so that's what this is saying so when you make an expansion that that doesn't uh increase the non-conforming aspect of the property you don't need to come here at all you get a building permit that's what's designed to eliminate variances to make them not have to come here for this it's no less expensive really not much less expensive come get an approval than a variance I mean it's a cost of notice so no it's designed to not have to do that but the problem in this case is once you start once you get a variance and you get the variance based on a particular set of plans that you're going to do like reducing a bedroom that was one of the benefits they gave us last time I think if you going to build something different than that then you don't have that variance you don't have a variance for that you had a variance for a two-bedroom expansion right so now when they called me the first time they were doing the Dormer and I said listen if you're doing a dormer you're changing the exterior you got to come back to the board okay okay so let me ask it very simply 525 73e is what they've asked for approval from that section I noticed for any and all other Varian so follow me so so that that's the section that they included in their in their application what is the standard for granting that approval wait a minute hold on C you're pointing me to section e i was focused on D which that's kind of where my question was originally based at so I'm trying to simplify that make oh you're you're hold on one second and I think the important I'll let you read but okay here's what I take that to mean and I don't think it changes the end analysis um okay all right here's what's going on so the situation you and I just had our conversation and we're boring everyone to death I'm sure about right was was the typical situation where there wasn't a variance it's just one of these thousands of old buildings that we have that have a non-conformity and a side yard or a rear yard okay and then they're doing an addition like I said on there's a 5 foot space on the right A two foot space on the on the right side 40 feet on the left and they're adding two feet on the left side they've never gotten a variance it's just built there 100 years ago that's section D which is the one that I was focused on in our conversation okay okay now this one I guess now Falls in a because this is talking about when you get a variance and it says a further expansion of the structure whether or not expanding the non-conforming portion that's getting to what I'm talking about I think I wrote this disord actually and that one was talking about I did what that's talking about is the thing that I just said to them that is when you get a variance you're different than a regular property that exists with a non-conforming set setback or something because now you've gotten a variance based on something you doing okay so that if you come people come in and they go look we're putting a nice Cottage and even though it's only four feet on the sidey yard it's a tiny little cottage don't worry about it we say yes we give a variance but then they start expanding it all over but they don't expand the side here they expand it all over the place now it's not the nice little cottage we approved to me that is now you're getting away from the variants that you told us we were doing okay how you sold it the the way you got your relief but even when I read so that was designed to capture other parts of the property that aren't in the non-conforming section right but I still don't think they're expanding a structure well this says and and this is where I'm hung up on and the last part of that sentence then any further expansion of the structure whether or not expanding the non-conforming portion St pause right there for a second okay that whether or not exper not conforming portion is addressed to the fact that they're putting the addition on the left side of the property where there isn't a deviation as opposed to the right side where there is a deviation so that's just saying anywhere you start adding stuff to the structure if you're working on a varant you got to come back because now you're change making the structure bigger or different than it was before okay but I don't view this as an expansion of a structure how is it not an expansion of a structure we have floor area ratio controls and the floor area ratio is increasing the square footage is increasing the habitable floor area is increasing yeah I think that's an intensification of the use but not okay that so that's that's why I was kind of I wanted to try yeah no I agree I don't think that changing your habital area is an expansion of a structure it's an intensification of a use so but it may variance a PRI May violate a prior variance okay so what are we going to be asking the board to Grant here tonight tonight they're granting a because they're they're violating their prior variant in my okay so we're pretty much before now it's three so you're we're pretty much reconsidering the original variances that were granted with these new nuances to that yes okay that that's where I thought I was going with this but I agree with you I just don't know that that is what I I get it it's it's quirky and but it says that the Board needs to Grant approval without you know so they can get this further expansion but I didn't think we needed any variances for building setback or lot size cu the structure is the structure it's still going to exist as it is but to your point we're expanding the habitable floor area here right so I kind of viewed it as an approval by the board of section 525 73e so we're approving the expansion if you you will for lack of a better term so and then and my mind is Works in that I'm like okay if I'm if I'm proposing this how I'm going to justify this so in my in my like what is the standard that the board is is saying essentially by approving they're saying this is not really affecting how we granted our original variants right the Jus it's not really a changing the justification for that we granted if they deny it we we we're stuck with what was approved back stuck with original and have to fall back to the other okay I I I allow for the fact that I'm just wrong it may be that if you're changing the habitable space inside something you got a variance for you may need a VAR I mean I I just didn't view the habitable space as a critical part of the prior variant but the bedrooms is is it a meaningful change you know if they were adding another CL if if someone had an area that wasn't a closet before and they're making a closet and they got a variance for their sidey guard at some point I just don't think they need a variance but I think we you have bedrooms as a basis for reducing the intensity of the use and then you add a bedroom you're not under the old variants like it we just can't have people saying coming in and getting Varian and saying look we're going they're going down for five bedrooms to three bedrooms and then finish their attic and add two more bedrooms like we can't have people doing that right so I I just thought it was important to have this discussion because it's a little quirky the word the word approvals there is is variance okay or whatever else you might need you're going to need other approvals you got to get the Poli all the things that come with an application you got to come before the board and get whatever approvals are needed they might be variances and conditions all this is in a section that we do we see very often so can I just add one thing so when when we came in before this board this was a like a 980t home it was very very tiny so we were removing the removing the bedroom because the space that the the Mrs Fuller and Mrs mcglade had was not functional so they wanted to increase the size of their kitchen increase the size of their living space increase the size of the existing bedrooms so eliminating that third bedroom was the way that they were able to do that the the thing that I would add is we we understand that we're adding a bedroom back we have compliant parking two parking spaces exist so pursuant to the res residential site Improvement standards we're not asking for a parking variant we're not increasing the height of this structure there were uh two neighbors who were here at the last meeting who were concerned about this building the height the impact it would have on views uh they're not here tonight they were noticed they were they were advised that there was no exterior modification proposed that this was just an the addition of 156 square fet of bedroom and of a bedroom office SL bathroom as well so I think the C1 criter still applies and I think if the board were to consider granting the relief that we're seeking here tonight there is no you know negative aspect to a parking detriment in this situation it's just a very small room which out of an abundance of caution we identified as a bedroom you're all you've all been doing this long enough you're smart enough to know that that room could function as a bedroom we wanted to be upfront about it I'm I'm not going to make your case for you but I I the the problem of the last applications object if there was anything objectionable to the last application it was that you were expanding the structure okay you're at 0.16 well you were at 0.16 now you're at .26 so this isn't the problem with the last application so to speak wasn't the amount of habitable space inside the building that wasn't what the objections were about and the the discussion was about it's never been an overused property it was that you were blocking somebody's view of the ocean theoretically I mean correct you know we have to was okay before what's so different now yeah we're below floor area ratio which I think is is obviously a positive with every application I typically don't bring floor area ratio variances before this board they're very difficult to get I understand that um but you know we thought that this was a small ask a modest request you know we have the compliant parking the footprints the footprint uh so we hope you see that this the way that we see it and then we get uh we can receive your approval here tonight well I think you know the last time that we had looked at this application it was like oh we're going we're not going up we're not going up you know and you I think was the sun room was expanded with the porch y I don't know another ba bathroom so they each had their own bathroom each bedroom and now we're doing another bedroom and another bathroom you know and to me we're just you know they keep saying they're going to live here but when you're adding on another bedroom and bathroom to me you're you're looking for a rental property I don't I mean I don't think that's accurate I mean are it's irrelevant occupancy it's irrelevant we we can't well the the re my point was the reason for the expansion was before was for livable space but yet they were take you know making things bigger and everything else but now you know we didn't we didn't have to give them the expansion on the sun room at that point we could have just said use the third floor as the extra bedroom you know what I'm saying that that's what we were we were told that they're expanding out because they couldn't do anything else you were told your opinion I I I just didn't like the rental comment that's all just I just don't I don't want the record to be clouded that if you vote against it that you're voting against it because it might be a rental the last application we had people testifying that they live in the units I don't care we can't factor that in we can't punish for rentals and and all that so I just want you to I'm directing you not to base your decision on a rental consideration it was more on livable space on what they were expanding out I'm tell you that's an improper yeah so can I ask a follow-up question to miss mcglade here I I miss mcglade just to reiterate how you didn't know that this attic space was usable or functional space at the time you you you submitted that prior application correct no and and the property is never going to be used as a rental property at all and in all honesty when we saw the size of the space if we really were looking to do to put the steps in there to be able to use it to be able to put a desk and an office I still work and you know all the information was oh all you're trying to do do is at a third bedroom and sort of do something shady and that's not the situation you know I know this is turning into a conversation of you know it's just a third bedroom and now it's a rental property and I I just want to you know say that's not the intention at all it was to be able to use space that we didn't realize it was there and it it wasn't build out new it's the existing space question on the on the sun room the sun room's just not heated or air conditioned I can't answer that is the sun room heated or air conditioned yeah yes ma'am it's enclosed okay so is that considered part of the livable space it's on your your it would be livable space I have nothing further okay any other questions Craig would you like to do your review absolutely thank you uh uh I'm reviewing my May 21st 2024 uh review memorandum for this application as the application applicant indicated it is located in the R2 uh low medium density residential district um they the way that the application um phrased the addition was a study sl3d bedroom um a totaling an additional 157.6 ft of habitable area so that increased the total habitable area from the previous approval of 1610 ft to proposed 17 68.2 Square ft um so that's just a summary of what they're proposing uh the completeness review they ask for some checklist items from items 4 20 21 26 28 33 um8 number 18 should be provided as a condition of approval and that is a fixing the approval signature lines to the cover sheet um there and by that we did recommend deeming the application complete um so you know I don't want my comments to Mr King this is a quirky part of the ordinance um you know it really says the has to come back to to the either planning board or zoning board whichever is applicable um and and you have they have to get approval um that so that's why I was asking Mr King about it was more about the logistics of this what the board was doing tonight as to rais red flags so but when I look at these approvals I'm like okay what are the potential negative impacts does it change the like the the reasons the board gave for granting the original variances so in this case um they're increasing the floor area so the floor area ratio is increasing the maximum permitted in the district is 0 40 what is what we previously approved was 26 six and they've increased that to. 28 so it's significantly under so and so we look at okay habitable I mean floor area ratio is a control on the massing of the structure is the permitted square footage the the the additional square footage that they're asking increasing the massing no it's going to fit within the roof line of what was already approved so there's no additional massing the building's not getting higher to accommodate it the roof Line's not getting higher so I don't think the structure significantly changed based that so you know in my opinion the floor area ratio change is really insignificant because it's all Being Fit within the same structure that was originally approved um and then we look at okay there there's an additional bedroom now now that their testimonies changed a little bit so what's the so what what's really the potential negative impact from having an additional bedroom parking so does it trigger an additional parking space going from two to three bedrooms does not so they're still required to have two parking spaces on site they still have two parking spaces on site therefore that doesn't change um so that's just kind of how I you know mentally attack these changes um in my opinion I didn't think it was you know significant but you guys vote you guys know what the reasons were in your head when you voted and reasons that you put on the record so therefore um you know just balance it I think you should weigh that appropriately um and I'll move on to my general review comments um I don't uh so I just said the conditions of approval set forth in resolution 11-9 d202 3 shall apply unless otherwise Modified by the board um quite simply all of the conditions that we applied to the previous application should remain standing unless the board feels like they should modify something other than that all of those and I I kind of rehashed some of those more important ones and items 2 three eight but we're essentially affixing the same conditions that we approved before so is there any questions that the board has no I'm just going to say one thing to clarify the record that I muddied uh I in the end I I I agree with Craig and the lack of clarity is my fault the in the drafting of the ordinance um I used the word in E I was I used the word expansion of the structure so that if you got a variance before and you're expanding the structure you need to come to the board for approvals whatever they may be variances whatever those approvals are um but and I admit that at the time I think in my mind I was thinking about the pieces of a building that you change okay but I I do agree and we should address the ordinance to clarify it that it should be structural an increase in the habitable space because people give us sets of plans they tell us things we make our decisions based on what they say they're going to build and if if it changes then then that may change the analysis of the variant in this case I'm not sure it should at all but that's for you to decide and analyze but we have situations where that does occur you know where people have space that they say is merely going to be storage you know and and so this really isn't that big a deal and then they make it in the habitable space and and if they got a variance before based on telling us it was storage and that was part of the viewing the application as a whole then they should have to come back and explain why they're deviating from what they said said they were building so I'm going to recommend that um when we do our proposals of things we think the ordinance should correct I want to clarify that that structure it it was intended to capture when you get a variance you have to do what you say you're doing in your variance and if you don't you got to come back doesn't mean you're evil doesn't mean you shouldn't get approved it just means that if you didn't do what you said we should get it back because it's property that we granted a variance on that's what that was intended to do so that's my I I I see Craig's point I see Builder building expective point I was focused on D but I think that's what think you're right so they need a variance I I just have some clarification needed for the plans now that you're putting the stairs in what you're removing like the washer and dryer or where's that going now because you're putting steps up so I notice it takes away the walk-in closet or some of that the washer and dryer is staying exactly where it is on on the plants okay so you're just losing losing your Walkin closet St so you're losing your Walkin closet location of where the yeah walk-in closet is so you're right the stairs are right there when you walk in to the door right to the right where the stairs would go up I think that's where it's showing the plans the plant and I don't have a walking Closet in a bedroom yes yeah that shows a it shows a washer dryer in the uh right off the hallway there right I'm sorry hold on that's see there's no more just the two closets then yeah cuz I mean I think that was a big thing they wanted a big Walkin closet before when the testimony I don't think a closet would have factored into an approval but uh whether if they lose the walk-in closet that's on them I mean I yeah I'm just saying because when they came here that was the idea that they wanted to expand outward was for the bathroom and you know in the closet space I think the the reason they came before the board originally was because this was such a small cottage I mean it was 980 square feet um which you know really was laid out it was built in the 1950s I mean it wasn't functional it have two front yards it has two front yards Pittsburgh in New York Avenue Pittsburgh in New York so I mean in order that the stairs would have to go somewhere and obviously that modification was made I mean if if they chose to lose the walk-in closet then three bedrooms there I mean three walk-in closets well three closet closets one two three oops sorry okay is there any more discussion if we motion um oh yeah we have to open up to public and again that the roof line was never changed right not at all no what exists if you drive by today was exactly the elevations that were approved by this board back and reason I'm saying that is because I used to drive past it every morning and that they didn't have a route for the longest time that's why I was just asking Y no not a problem yeah it's exactly what was approved by this board in October 2023 the only mod ification is that adct Bas that we're trying to to utilize okay is everyone good okay at this point we'd like to open it up to the public within 200 fet Beyond 200 fet all right BR you can explain the vote okay the motion that I recommend being made although how you vote is up to you um is a motion to Grant a variance pursuing to NJ not njsa to our ordinance section 5257 3E because in my view they are expanding the structure which I agree with Craig includes the other limitations on structures such as habitable space and they are increasing the habitable space having gotten a variance previously and deviating from that so it's a motion to Grant a variance pursued to section 5257 3E um with subject to the um I waivers the waivers and condition waivers on page two and the conditions 1 through eight which are similar to those previously granted in the firing approval would someone like to make the motion I'll make the motion a second Mr Zer motions Mr Bodner seconds Mrs Notch yes Miss Sheen yes Mr zexer yes Mr catalo yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes thanks thank you thank you build way we walk past your house every day all right so is that why it okay a motion yeah we need a motion BS okay we need a motion to pay the bills what some motion I'll second Miss she and motions Mrs N seconds Mrs Notch yes Miss Sheen yes Mr Zer Mr Galo yes Mr ER yes Mr Veno yes thank you all right motion to adjourn unless you have anything else no can we'll make a motion to adjourn all in favor I thank you everyone sign this it's it's Tom's last meeting oh that's right so yeah where's the cake