A primary focus of the meeting was the city’s affordable housing obligations, particularly in the context of the fourth round of state-mandated requirements. The board discussed the state’s new methodologies, which have resulted in Cape May being assigned a rehabilitation obligation of 46 units and a fourth round obligation of 48 units, to be addressed in the city’s housing plan. This is in addition to prior obligations, including a third round unmet need of 200 units, largely due to environmental constraints limiting development potential. The board highlighted the critical role of the Cape May County rehabilitation program and the accessory apartment initiative in meeting these obligations, stressing the need to increase funding levels to incentivize the creation of these units.

Further complicating the housing landscape is the city’s affordable housing trust fund, reported to have a balance of approximately $2.7 million. The fund is earmarked for various purposes, including subsidizing accessory apartments and preparing compliance plans. However, there is a consensus that this sum may be insufficient to fully address the city’s affordability issues. Board members acknowledged that the Planning Board does not directly manage the trust fund but prepares a spending plan for the governing body to adopt.

The meeting also touched upon the broader implications of Cape May’s demographic trends on housing and development. Recent data from the housing element and fair share plan reveal a significant decline in the city’s permanent population, dropping from 3,607 to 2,768 over the past decade—a 23.3% decrease. Concerns were raised about the aging population, with 22.2% over 65 years, and the persistently high housing values, with 98.3% of homes exceeding $300,000. This demographic shift, coupled with high property values, poses challenges for affordable housing availability, raising questions about the city’s future planning and development strategies.

A point of contention emerged regarding the accuracy of reported median rents, which some felt were surprisingly low given the high demand for rentals during the summer season. Skepticism was expressed about whether the census data accurately reflects the rental market, particularly concerning seasonal rentals versus year-round housing. Questions were also raised about the inclusion of Coast Guard recruits in the census count, adding complexity to interpreting the city’s population data.

In addition to housing, the board addressed procedural matters, such as adopting resolutions and reviewing the municipal public access plan. This plan ensures public access to tidal waterways throughout the municipality, confirming that beach access exists along various intersections with Beach Avenue. The board was advised to incorporate the plan into the conservation element of the master plan, as mandated by the state, which ties these plans to grant funding.

Furthermore, the board discussed swimming pool regulations as part of the master plan recommendations. A memo presented during the meeting summarized previous discussions, with the board determining that existing regulations were sufficient and recommending no changes to the pool code. However, a request was made for clarification on a particular regulation regarding the distance pools must be from the principal structure, initially introduced as a safety measure for firefighters. The board considered whether this warranted further examination before being sent to the city council.