The central issue revolved around the C1 District’s parking regulations and how they impact the development of residential units above commercial establishments. The board reviewed a proposal to eliminate the requirement for off-street parking for apartments in this district, aiming to promote workforce housing, which targets day-to-day and seasonal workers. The proposal seeks to address the lack of available housing for local employees, a problem exacerbated by the district’s pedestrian-friendly nature and limited parking spaces. Members discussed the necessity of defining “workforce housing” clearly. However, there was skepticism about enforcing such restrictions effectively.

Parking concerns were a recurring theme throughout the meeting, with board members emphasizing the longstanding issue of insufficient parking in the C1 District. The idea of constructing a parking garage was floated as a potential solution, but the board acknowledged that such a decision would fall under the city council’s jurisdiction. Some members cited other towns’ successful integration of aesthetically pleasing parking garages as examples Cape May could emulate.

The conversation also touched on existing apartments above commercial spaces, with inquiries into their legal status and whether they had obtained necessary variances. Concerns were raised about these spaces being used for storage rather than housing. The board recognized that any changes to the master plan needed to be cautious to avoid unintended consequences, such as the proliferation of boarding houses.

The meeting also addressed the potential of revising parking standards that separate employee and customer parking, which board members described as outdated. There was a suggestion to align parking requirements with contemporary practices, proposing that applicants provide payroll submissions to ensure accurate counts of employees needing parking. This recommendation came after discrepancies were noted in a recent hotel application regarding employee numbers.

Additionally, the board considered the viability of creating dormitory-style housing as a solution to the workforce housing issue but acknowledged potential misalignment with community expectations for quality housing. The necessity for collaboration between the planning board, city council, and local businesses was emphasized to assess the needs of the workforce and the community impact of such developments.

Another topic was the parking trust fund, established in the 1980s to address parking issues from converting large homes into bed-and-breakfasts. The fund has seen limited contributions over the years, as payments are only allowed for existing building conversions. The board debated whether to eliminate the fund, noting its limited use, but ultimately leaned towards broadening its applicability to generate revenue for parking infrastructure improvements. This approach would permit contributions in lieu of variances, potentially aiding in addressing parking shortages while benefiting the city financially.

In terms of regulations, the board discussed the potential of allowing on-street parking and driveway curb cut areas to count towards required off-street parking, provided a fee is paid for permits. Concerns about enforcement and ensuring compliance with these permits were raised, alongside discussions about driveway dimensions and their adequacy for parking.

The meeting also briefly touched on fencing regulations, clarifying definitions and controls, particularly concerning rear yards and fence heights. The board aimed to ensure clarity for applicants, avoiding future confusion.