A major point of contention was the parking variance request. The applicant proposed 65 on-site parking spaces supplemented by 79 stacked valet spaces, arguing that this setup met the ordinance requirement of 75 spaces. However, the board expressed concerns about the variance, with some members skeptical about whether the parking plan would be sufficient given the hotel’s scale and the nature of the proposed amenities. The conversation highlighted the challenge of balancing adequate parking with the project’s exclusivity, particularly since the hotel aims to restrict its amenities to guests only, thereby reducing public interaction.

The proposed hotel’s operational model also drew scrutiny. The applicant envisioned an all-inclusive experience similar to a resort or cruise ship, with amenities and meals included in the room rate. However, board members questioned the feasibility and appropriateness of this model for Cape May, a town known for its vibrant and diverse dining scene. Concerns were raised about whether guests would prefer to explore local dining options rather than utilizing the hotel’s dining facilities, potentially impacting the model’s success.

The discussion also touched on the necessity of obtaining a liquor license, which was deemed critical for the hotel’s business plan. The absence of a liquor license could undermine the proposed model, as the restaurant and bar are integral components of the guest experience.

The meeting further explored the potential precedent set by the proposed all-inclusive model, with board members expressing concerns about its impact on local businesses that rely on tourist foot traffic. The board debated whether granting a variance could lead to a shift in Cape May’s character, traditionally characterized by smaller, family-run establishments.

Compounding these concerns was the lack of precedent for the proposed operational model within the applicant’s portfolio. Board members were wary of the absence of similar successful implementations elsewhere, which could influence their decision to grant necessary variances. The applicant maintained that the all-inclusive nature of the hotel, which limits amenities to guests, justified the reduced parking requirements and aligned with zoning laws.

The conversation on parking extended to logistical details, such as the inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations and compliance with handicap space regulations. The board emphasized the importance of ensuring that all parking provisions adhered to legal standards and that any variances granted would not lead to adverse impacts on the community.

Community members and board officials voiced concerns about the hotel’s potential failure and the ramifications of such an outcome. The applicant assured the board that if the business model proved unsuccessful, they would return with revised plans. Nonetheless, the board stressed the importance of considering long-term viability and ensuring any conditions imposed would not inadvertently jeopardize the hotel’s success.