The board’s main focus was a proposal to reconfigure three existing lots into new configurations while retaining the same number of lots. The application included enlarging Lot 12 on Grand Street to become Lot 12.01, reducing Lot 13.01 to Lot 13.02, and slightly increasing Lot 14 on Grand Street to become Lot 14.01. This reconfiguration necessitated variances due to undersized lot dimensions and front yard setbacks. The existing dwelling on Lot 14 was slated for demolition to make way for a new two-story single-family home with parking underneath.

Attorney Peter Chanas represented the applicant, explaining the technical aspects of the proposal and the variances required. Katherine Healey, the applicant, shared her family’s deep-rooted history in Cape May and their commitment to maintaining the neighborhood’s residential character. Healey emphasized the importance of preserving the properties for family use, rather than commercial development, reflecting her family’s long-standing connection to the area.

The deliberations pivoted to the technical complexities of access routes and easements across the proposed lots. James Chadwick, an engineer and architect involved in the project, described the irregular lot shapes and the necessity of a gravel connection to facilitate vehicular movement between the properties, intended primarily for family use. However, questions arose regarding the adequacy of these access routes, particularly for emergency vehicles, and the clarity of easement allocations between lots.

Board members expressed concerns over the lack of an improvement plan for the stoned area designated for overflow parking, which was constructed without prior approvals. It was noted that the current state of the area might require a variance due to standards necessitating a paved or all-weather surface for lots accommodating five or more vehicles. There was a suggestion that the board should review a detailed improvement plan to ensure compliance with local parking standards before any approvals.

During the meeting, participants debated the rationale behind creating permanent easements for a new single-family dwelling, with some questioning whether a long-term solution was necessary for what was described as a temporary construction project. The potential for future claims regarding land use and parking was a focal point.

Ultimately, the board decided to adjourn the application to their January 14 meeting, allowing time for the applicant to prepare the recommended improvement plan. There was discussion about whether new notices would be required for the next meeting, especially if the plan remained largely unchanged. The consensus was that significant alterations or additional variances might necessitate new notifications.