09:00The core of the meeting revolved around a presentation by an HPC commissioner, who outlined the ordinance’s intentions to maintain the visual integrity of Cape May’s historic streets by restricting the storage of certain large vehicles. The draft ordinance proposes that these vehicles be parked only in side or rear yard areas, at least six feet from any property line, to prevent them from detracting from the town’s historic charm.

19:17The Planning Board’s discussion highlighted the potential enforcement challenges associated with the ordinance, particularly the proposed 24-hour limit for vehicle storage. Concerns were raised that this timeframe might be too short, prompting suggestions to extend it to 48 or 72 hours. Board members noted that such an extension could provide residents with more flexibility while still addressing concerns about unsightly long-term vehicle storage. It was acknowledged that a clear prohibition might be simpler to enforce than a regulated timeframe, which could lead to ambiguity and enforcement difficulties.

Members of the board also examined the broader implications of the ordinance, noting that while it aligns with the master plan’s emphasis on historic preservation, it applies city-wide and not just to designated historic districts. This prompted a debate on whether a universal ordinance was appropriate or if certain exemptions should apply to non-historic areas where residents may lack viable alternatives for vehicle storage. Additionally, concerns were expressed about whether existing vehicle codes adequately address long-term parking issues, with specific reference to an ordinance prohibiting the parking of campers and mobile homes on public streets during certain hours.

The meeting further explored the practicality of enforcement, drawing on the experiences of a member who previously served as a chief of police. The member highlighted the difficulty of enforcing a 24-hour rule, which would require diligent monitoring and follow-up. The conversation acknowledged the need for a balance between accommodating residents’ storage needs and preserving the community’s aesthetic appeal.

42:07In addition to the ordinance discussion, the board addressed other matters, including the state development and redevelopment cross-acceptance response. It was reported that the state plan requires municipalities to participate, with a deadline for submission looming. This task, along with the need to finalize the affordable housing plan by mid to late June, was underscored as a priority for upcoming meetings.