e e e e e e e e e testing testing e e e e e e e e e e e e e good how are you e e K Okay C city planning board is now in session and compliance with the open public meetings Act of 1975 adequate n this meeting has been provided should member of this board have reasonbly this meeting is being held in violation of that act they shall so State at this time uh before we start let's put our phones on silent and we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance States stand One Nation God indivisible with liy and justice for all Mr baz yes Mr bazer here Mr Jones here miss mccorkel here Mr Crowley here Mr gone here may uh mayor mullik council member Jagger here Mrs Reed here Mr lenol here Mr bedus here Mr krippin here thank you okay we have a resolution number 7- 09-20 to4 Addis Inc 1317 Beach Avenue 138 and 1318 New Jersey Avenue block 1146 lot 6 through 24 um any corrections to the resolution any motion to approve I'll make a motion okay I'll second we have a motion by Mr gorgone seconded by Mr pusis Mr gon yes council member Jagger yes Mrs Reed yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes Miss mccorkel yes Mr bedus yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer abstain thank you we have a resolution 709 2024 Kade creative placemaking plan for Sustainable New Jersey Craig if you just want to don't really need a whole lot of comment on this but um so I think last meeting so last meeting um the board members found some inconsistencies with that creative Pace placemaking um that has been updated um and and this is not a master plan element or anything like that this is used by the city to submit to the state for funding so they're they're seeking grants um so gr uh recommendations that are contained in there um it's it's scored on a point system so the more things that are in there the more points the city would get and the more eligible funding that they can get so um I know that the board found some inconsistencies but it's more important to get this adopted so that the city can utilize it to secure funding um than it is to be entirely um you know I think there were some old things that were in there that hadn't been updated so at this point I think it's been updated and I think the board can endorse that and approve that motion to approve I'll make the motion second I'm sorry was at um M mccal or Mrs Reed and who seconded Mr lenol yes okay thank you we have a motion by Mrs Reed seconded by Mr lenol Mr Gorgon yes council member Jagger yes Mrs Reed yes Mrs Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes Miss mccorkel yes Mr pusis yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer yes thank you then we have the minutes from the June 11th meeting for approval motion to approve make a motion Bob all second we have a motion by Mr Gorgon seconded by council member Jagger Mr Gorgon yes council member Jagger yes Mrs Reed yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes M mccorkel yes Mr puses yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer uh yes thank you actually I need to obain I wasain okay yeah okay applications 615 lafayettes Street LLC block 1160 lot 5.01 site plan preliminary and final waiver of checklist requirements inv variance relief hardship and substantial benefits sought your microphone's on okay Andrew yep thank you thank you Mr chairman good evening everyone I'm Andrew Katan is here on behalf of the applicant 615 Lafayette Street LLC uh along with with its principal owner Gary cardi seated to right right along with our project planner and architect John halbruner uh you're all familiar with the site um 615 Lafayette Street is the location of Oyster Bay Restaurant which is an existing 134 seat restaurant with an Associated parking lot Mr cardi purchased this property in 2022 as we indicated in our application and at that time the parking lot was impacted gravel with 35 parking spaces uh the parking space or the parking lot was repaved with the existing 35 space layout retained unfortunately however Mr cardi was not aware that a site plan waiver granted by this board in 2012 had approved 28 spaces for the site so it is apparent that sometime between 2012 when it was before the board last and Mr card's purchase in 2022 the gravel lot was reconfigured to create those additional seven parking spaces that normally is a good thing however some of those spaces do not meet the requirements for a parking space which is 9 by8 ft so we're now requesting approval of the current layout uh specifically requesting a waiver of the site plan uh requirement waiver of site plan review uh that site plan review triggered because the parking was reconfigured as well as two variances one is for the parking space dimensions because as I indicated some of the spaces are less than 9 by 18 feet number two is the requirement for a buffer planting strip around the parking lot where 5 feet is required and 2.75 ft is proposed we do note that that was also approved and shown on the plan in 2012 so that's not a new condition but we've noted it as a variance as well importantly there are no changes to the site other than that parking configuration no expansion uh or other change of the building no increase in seating it's really a Rel relatively simple application and for that reason we'll keep our presentation short Mr cardi is here and available should there be a need for questions but we really just plan direct testimony from Mr Hal Bruner if we can have him sworn and qualified I'll turn it over to him okay I'll also swear in Mr cardi just in case he asked a question raise your hand um and our board engineer do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth told you did nothing but the truth up you got I I do thank you uh I know Mr halbruner has been before this board we offer him as an expert in planning and Engineering what a clarification uh architecture and engineering gotcha planning comes with either of those it does but not separate planning license excuse me can you make sure the microphone's on maybe bring it closer we're short with our full board here tonight almost thank you is that better thank you okay Mr halbruner I'll turn it over to you to start with existing conditions and and the the the changes we're seeking approval for absolutely the uh the parcel is relatively large one for the C1 Zone we are in the C1 zoning District it's uh 20,28 ft uh the minimum lot size is significant less than that it's a through lot uh has Frontage on both Lafayette Street and Broad Street Lafia Street has about 126t of Frontage uh and Broad Street has about 32.242262 by the transportation center which is also in the C1 Zone and to the east by residential homes that are both in the R3 and the C1 zoning District the real Topic at hand here is going to be traffic and traffic circulation and parking um the circulation is such that as one way in in off Lafayette and exiting onto Broad Street in the rear this is one of the very few if not probably the only commercial property in the C1 Zone that provides a level of parking that's anywhere near what the parking demands are uh the only parking lot anywhere near the size would be the Acme right across the street um but every other restaurant or commercial establishment in the C1 Zone while they may provide a couple parking spaces nothing comes close come to almost complying with the minimum required the lanes the lanes does I'm sorry he Lanes okay uh as Mr keny mentioned as opening statement there's 35 parking spaces uh present today uh and there were 35 spaces when the applicant first took ownership uh they're arranged and angled and parallel parking configurations and the parking requirements for context uh being a restaurant would be one space for every four seats with 134 seats we would be required by ordinance to provide 34 spaces 2012 approval granted approval with variances for 28 the other um improvements that were granted with that 2012 plan in involved en enclosure of the front patio and a rear addition approximately 17 ft by 55 ft that was all 2012 um it's worth reiterating that there are no other physical improvements proposed to the site today other than legalizing the conversion of the gravel parking lot to a pave parking lot and reestablishing the parking striping that was present when the applicant purchased the property with a total of 35 space I'll be that seven spaces more than what the board approved in 2012 at 28 the parking spaces vary in size we have a chart on on the plans that will show you the various sizes um none none are conforming 9 by8 is the minimum required um I don't think we have one that is actually fully conforming the aisle WIS vary from almost 28 feet down to about 14 feet which is compliant and it's interesting that while I'm sitting here acknowledging that the parking spaces themselves are non compliant I can tell you from personal experience and from past experience of 12 Years with this configuration it works I would have a hard time coming to this board with a brand new application and proposing parking spaces and all configurations as this property has and if you didn't have the strength of 12 Years of demonstrated experience that it works I might have a hard time justifying it um anecdotally I've got uh my in-laws who were older and would be very quick to complain with traffic and parking uh who frequent Oyster Bay both before the paving and after the paving and at a dinner with them one evening I casually mentioned have you been to OA Bay recently and they said oh yeah the parking is so much better now unprompted totally unprompted so I'm as an antidotal story that um again I would have difficulty coming here with a brand new application saying these parking spaces are good you should do this you should approve this but it works it has worked and for those reasons I think it should continue to work the alternative is make the parking spaces conform and lose a significant number of spaces uh and no one benefits from that the landscape buffer which is one of the variances that we're seeking uh which is required by ordinance to be 5T when a property AB buts a residential user District it was approved in 2012 at 2.75 ft and it still exists there today now the purpose of the buffer is to provide visual screening from the residents from the nuisances may come from headlight glare and unsightliness of parking lots we have a six foot tall solid fence which runs the entire length of that border there is also some existing trees that buffer that exists at 2.75 fet less than five is far more effective than what would be with a 5ft five conform buffer planted with are shrubs for example uh and again this is the condition that was not newly created this condition has existed since at least 2012 and frankly proba prior to that the west side of the property is the transportation center so there is no buffering requirement and there is no buffer proposed we're buffering parking from parking on that side um before I jump into the standards for the variants are there any questions about the existing proposed conditions um I think I'd mentioned in passing but I probably ought to reemphasize the real change that happened here we predicting a hard pack gravel and stone parking lot Paving it there is no increase in runoff because it's impervious before and after um the parking configuration is what was there before so we're really here almost on a technical nature just ma' yeah uh I'd like to question I think that it is an improvement from the gravel the angle of cars is now delineated so people know what to do what I have a problem with and I'd like to see some signage at the back of your parking lot those last couple diagonal parking spaces they're the undersized ones and when I have uh been to your restaurant you will have uh a large pickup truck parked in them maybe it has an extended bed it might have the hitch on it for a boat it sticks way out then you might have another oversized car on the other side they're not following that those spaces should be for compact cars so if you just put some signage there to no pickup truck parking and those I think might I didn't go there and count but it might be four parking spaces that really need to be careful uh of the size of the vehicle because then I couldn't get out perhaps more pointed we we could add signs that simply say compact cars only yeah something like that very simple I planned on doing that when Once the was done um and also the other issue we have in those those spots is that some people there's a tree on one side I believe and a telephone poll on the other side and people they don't pull all the way up so we also wanted to put signs in there please pull all the way up to the bumpers rather than uh but yes I've unfortunately been in air both with the gravel and uh now paved running around the dining room trying to find someone to go move their car which I agree with you completely to have those signs up important very good simple fix so one of one one of the board members asked me earlier um to explain the difference between the 2012 um approved site plan the configuration of parking versus what's the existing and what you guys are proposing to legalize um and in that area where that I mean this this lot is pie-shaped and it kind of necks down where where those last angled parking spaces are there were no parking spaces there there were more parallel typ on one side to make sure that there was the the ordinance requirement is a 10-ft wide isway So the plan was designed so that that 10-ft isway was uh effectuated all the way through the entire lot where they're proposing those those lots I mean those Extra Spaces are those last angled spaces so that's the difference between what's the 2012 approval versus what they're trying to legalize now um that was my concern too so you may even want to paint a 10t wide uh sort of aisle way there with arrow in it and the signage could say Do not block aisle in addition to compact car parking only um that might that might work and you know at least you have a visual design this is what the iway is supposed to be um and then there no for if your car is hanging over then you got to Boogie and find another spot good idea no problem for anyone who's interested in comparing the two configurations on the plan that was submitted at the very far right or detail number four shows a photocopy of the 2012 approved information referring to the planning to that left drawing number three reflects the condition of the property when the applicant first purchased it um what Mr Hower said about uh the increase in storm water coverage going from Stone to Asphalt there's no credit for stone in the commercial District so lot coverage is not being increased going from the stone to Paving um and storm water is not being increased so okay any other questions all right we just need to get to our standards John we submitted this application under the C1 hardship as well as the broad flexible C standards uh the C1 standard kicks in where some exceptional shape narrowness shallow or unique feature creates hardship for the applicant in this case with complying with the uh excuse me parking space requirements is there a hardship here Mr CES could you please speak into the mic thank you yeah in fact there is is the uh the not the lot really necks or Narrows down as you progress towards the rear uh which creates a big choking point and really precludes providing conforming parking spaces within that area um and that's a unique condition affecting this property and the structures that legally exist thereon which is the almost a classic definition of a hardship when legally existing structures are prevented from complying with the ordinance by virtue of unique characteristics of the lot then the hardship is in fact created and that applies here okay the flexible C asks whether the application advances the purposes of zoning and whether the benefits substantially outweigh the detriment does this application meet that standard as well it does there are several purposes of uh zoning your zoning ordance any Municipal landuse law that are being Advanced by the granting of the requested relief the first is to promote the public health safety and Welfare we're doing that by improving the gravel lot and increasing the number of off street parking another purpose is to promote the free flow traffic by providing more off street parking we are promoting the free flow traffic on the public roads and lastly to promote the efficient use of land we're using more parking within this space those are all benefits um the detriments that may result from this granting of this relief are difficulty for patrons maneuvering into an out of parking spaces that's really what the detriment is and the benefits I just described sign F outweigh that detriment particularly when you consider the alternative of making a compliant the number of parking spaces on this lot goes down dramatically that does no one any good it doesn't do the neighborhood good doesn't do the public good um so the benefits I described I think significantly outweigh the detriments for those reasons I think those proofs have been satisfied and can the variances be granted without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance or substantial impairment of the Zone plan that absolutely can for the reasons I've already stated thank you we don't have anything further just a quick question you designate two spaces for handicap correct is that is that enough that satisfies uh the stat State Statute yes okay and then across from the handicap there's that one little parking space it looks like it's a large car would butt into the driveway I don't they're not numbered no see this little space right there that is right here that one could that be designated for comp that's partially on concrete that's why it looks like it's cut off this is a concrete pad that's part of that right but if the car is there if it's a large car it's going to block the driveway yeah it's also the widest part of the driveway it's also at the large largest part of the driveway where you can circumvent that yeah as you come in though you're looking at the butt end of the car that's parked in that spot I I don't know if that's a problem or make a compact designation that's or golf cart golf cart those those actually first two spots is normally where myself and my general manager Park and I drive a Ford F-150 it's never it never sticks out there it's where uh when Miss Reed said the issue is down at the B at the bottom of the driveway if there is a truck my size for instance that parks there it can cause a bottom NE this question is for Mr hurler she said there was 10 feet between I guess when cars back out on each other the Min the minimum so your code minimum driveway requirement for oneway traffic is 10 ft wide and what does it go down to so this next so they're showing 14 feet here but the parking stall depth is 14 ft on one side and 11 and change on the other so if when a car is sticking out that you you start getting into that 10 ft so that's why you that's why um you need the compact parking signage and you probably need to stripe that that very neck of that where it's necked in there show a 10-ft wide Drive aisle to make sure that it's insured to be cleared the the big detriment here is not necessarily the traffic maneuvering on site what you don't want people to do is turn that being the Broad Street access or egress being blocked and have people turn around and try and access Lafayette that's a horrific dangerous situation if someone tries to come out on Lafayette the buildings block site triangles there's no way you can you should be trying to get back out on the Lafayette Street which so that that's that's the big detriment so that's so that's why we would like to see the compact car signage and we would like to see 10 foot wide aisle through that narrow neck where it's neck down there to make sure that that's ensured to be clear and open one one way in one one there's already One Way striping yeah and and do not inter sign signage as well you know with the amount of golf carts now in this town that people are using you might want to put a sign as say designated golf golf SL compact golf cart compact cart your golf cart doesn't Park in a big spot right in a big spot anybody else have any comments Craig you want to go over your absolutely uh good good evening everyone uh this is my report dated June 14th 20124 this is an application located in the C1 primary business district it is an existing restaurant and bar and we're the site plan there's a site plan preliminary and final approval requested and a waiver of checklist requirements um and that is for the paving of the parking and reconfiguration and additional parking spaces that are existing but they're trying to legalize it because nothing has ever been approved subsequent to the 2012 um planning board application so I'm going to roll roll right through my completeness review there were numerous checklist items that they're requesting waivers for due to the nature of this application um uh we did support all of those being items number 2 5 22 26 28 31 33 and then we get into the checklist requirements for preliminary site plan and they fall under item three and they turn into letters item P QV W and X um we support those waivers and we did recommend deeming the application complete um there is a zoning table on page four of six in which I've reviewed the zoning requirements the really uh the the two things that really change here or being modified are the parking buffer planning strip that was previously approved however they're providing more parking spaces along that buffer strip so now they've essentially lengthen the non-conformity um it's it's an existing non-conformity with regards to the width but the length is getting wider so that's the only issue there and then you should note one of the benefits of this application is this is an 134 seat restaurant there are 34 parking spaces existing or I'm sorry required 28 are existing legally based on the 2012 you're now increasing that there they have a surplus of one so you go from a non-conforming parking situation to a conforming plus one situation that's a benefit uh with regard Craig sure uh two questions first is there no employee requirement in the C1 you know there are and I don't know what the employee count was okay um and second the um I thought they were asking for on the parking due to the size they are and I was going to get into that sorry sir because I know you like to take great notes and so that the re I'm going to take that chart and exactly so I want to give them all the variances they're asking for so they so they did request a parking stall size variance because they're the additional parking spaces that are being added they're all non-conforming size the required size is 9 by8 section 52549 A colon or an A1 requires 9 by8 parking spaces um all of the additional spaces are non-conforming with with regards to size they're all unders sized so there's two variances and the second the second one is from the buffer planning strip for the we're lengthening the non-conforming width of 2.75 where 5 foot width is required the 2.75 was approved in 2012 and now they're just bringing that that width down along that those parking spaces okay any so those are the two variances I didn't miss any right Andrew that's it okay I got those okay um under General review comments so this we do a storm water review this these improvements are not considered major development therefore they don't have to comply with the additional storm water management that's required by the code um they do have to comply with ordinance 485 2022 which is the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements that runs with the life of the project that's that means if they're discharging that's ad uh storm water that's adversely affecting a neighbor this the city has recourse to come after them and have them provide a storm waterer system that manages that um item number three is um and I was going to say this wasn't required but now we have a little bit of um improvements that are required and there's going to be an inspection required so you're going to have to furnish the required uh performance guarantee which will probably be nothing and the inspection escrow and then item number four we tie the acceptance of those improvements to um a satisfactory inspection and issuance of the co item five is our standard conditions that they comply with all of the other recommendation reports from the fire department Police Department Public Works Department environmental commission and shade tree commission we did receive those reports envir environmental commission uh recommended approval with no conditions dated June 25 2025 the fire department recommended approval uh with no conditions or notes and that was dated Jesus I think that's a six 24 24 uh police department recommended approval 621 2024 with no comments Public Works recommended approval dated 621 24 no comments and the shade tree commission recommended approval with the following conditions dated 62824 please take care to preserve and protect the trees on the east side of the parking lot I think they may have thought that this was being going to be constructed all those improvements are already in um so I really don't think I think you guys can comply with that okay uh item six uh approvals condition to all other state county and local approvals seven this project is located within the historic district I don't think these improvements trigger any historic uh preservation review but um should that be required you're obviously sub subject to that um item eight you're required to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements and finally item item number nine I would just ask Mr how Bruner to revise his plan to show those aisles and the signage uh with the compact or golf golf cart uh parking um and that that would be it okay any other comments from board members yeah I I would like to comment I'm very disappointed by this application because there's nothing to complain about parking all right I feel the does that does that mean does that mean you making a motion I'll make a motion I'll make a motion to park this in the approved it's I know it's always parking with you parking I have a big problem with parking but uh I'm disappointed I have nothing to complain about that must that must kill you to have to make that that I I'm going to bite my tongue but I'll make a motion just to make sure the motion you're making is a motion for site plan preliminary and final approval a waiver of checklist requirements as indicated by the engineer on pages two and three if his report subject to the uh conditions um that the signers will be added to require compacted golf car parking only in the last two angled spots and there will also be demarcation to show 10 foot aisle for through traffic and the two variances are buffer planning strip and parking stall size that's the motion that's what I was going to say but you I know I I'll I'll second the motion Mr Crowley motions Mr gargon second Mr gargon yes council member Jagger yes Mrs M Reed yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes Miss mccorkel yes Mr bedus yes Mr Jones yes Mr baz yes thank you thank you all for your time great night thank [Music] you okay we we already did the creative plac making discussion so we have um we've got two master plan consistency review ordinances uh one one is establishment of of limitations and regulations for off Street Storage of trailers um I'm not sure why it's in front of this board that's that's a police matter and unless unless I'm wrong Craig that's really not something we even have any it was it was referred excuse me sorry um it was referred to me to do a master plan consistency review the first thing that I noticed is that it's not part of chapter 525 which is our zoning code um it's it's in the section of the city ordinances that allows police to write tickets it you know has all the stop streets in there and it has you know parking enforcement and all of those such things that's the section that's being updated now you know is is the storage of trailers in front yards related to site plan considerations or um you know master plan related things that's for you to judge um so you can certainly comment on it but I don't know that a we need to do a consistency review with the master plan because it's not a zoning ordinance but I'll defer to our attorney if he thinks I'm wrong with that I think if they passed it without coming to us it would be a valid ordinance but the fact that they referred it to you to determine if there's any impact on the master plan and Zoning I think that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do I mean because they may do something that we disagree with they may pass something that's outside zoning that impact zoning so I wouldn't I wouldn't like push push back and you say yeah you know what they looked at this and it doesn't offend anything we're trying to do with the master plan they may come a time when they do something that does offend the master plan that that technically they don't do Under the zoning ordinance but they do it in some other some other section you know they outlaw Outlaw sidewalks or something and you say well that's not technically zoning but on the other hand we kind of like sidewalks is the free flow of traffic or some other police power action so I would examine if it violates the master plan and say okay how does this vary than what's already on the books than what the current code States is there what what's different is none of this has been discussed before I don't I don't know but I think that there probably is a gap as opposed to changing something they probably just have never addressed the storage of trailer specifically a lot of towns have those limitations I know of towns that do right where I grew up does now Mr Guin has that now limits how long you keep it out front where you can keep it and all that okay and the limit on the number the the ordinance has presented to us doesn't delete a section it just inserts this new section so this is these are all new controls that are not there now got it is is my understanding right well if that's the case I have a comment on paragraph F where it says it shall be unlawful for any person to park store keep maintain at any time on any vacant or improved property any Motor Vehicles that's that that's that that is actually in direct conflict with our section of the ordinance provides for temporary seasonal parking where people have lots especially down Cove of town I know of several of them where they Park they Park cars on my so I mean I think I I think that that I'm not sure if they intended that or not but you know we've got a parking problem down I'm not sure why you want to restrict people from being able to rent spaces at and a lot that's been doing it for years not only that as Mike just pointed out the city just created parking on the Lots at Lafayette and St John Street right so I don't know if that's such a great idea that part of it anyway does this apply to construction trailers also because you you have a situation where we have a construction trailer parked on the street for 3 6 n months whatever while the construction Project's going on good point temporary trailers are there is a control for temporary trailers in our zoning code okay so you can get a zoning permit for temporary trailer separate and apart from this okay thank you the other thing too is uh under exceptions uh number two it says you know they'll give you 24 hours and that's it as far as if you have a trailer in on on a lot uh not to exceed 2 24 hours for any storage I mean I I think that's a little tight yeah I to yeah maybe 72 hours you know but you know someone comes back from vacation or something perhaps they've got their uh their trailer or something and they they they don't have the opportunity to move it to uh its permanent location um you know giving them one day uh and then getting ticketed I think's uh uh a little tight I I'm sorry I I can't find exactly where it was said but I'm thinking of the house next to you Bill that uh is the duplex and that house runs from Missouri to Massachusetts so their front of the house is on Missouri Vermont to Massachusetts oh Vermont excuse me um I don't know the gentleman but I know he has a boat and he pulls it in and he Parks it it's fine it's but according to this it's it's not this the distance or it's visible something in here said that it had to be in the back of the yard and not visible from the street so how does it affect somebody like that whose backyard is on a street do do you understand what I'm saying yes well here you have two front yards next order and there's nothing wrong with him the way he Parks his boat and he keeps his property it it's just doesn't fit according to this I'm seeing that he would not be allowed to do that anymore and and also even if someone Park just say a boat trailer just the trailer itself in their backyard it says it has to be in a paved area the backyard's out of site um who who put this together Mike you know I have no idea I I've always wondered about actually I I'm um surprised even by the fact that I'm it probably doesn't bother a lot of people but this is suggesting that you can have a 30 foot I mean a yeah 30 foot long trailer boat or trailer um at the front line of your house as long as it's you know behind it's it's um no not anywhere between the front line of the facade of the house and the street right this you can park a 30 foot boat there and a lot of people do I mean I know that happens but I'm just surprised that if they want to get things under or you know have some kind of rules that that's surprising I've never seen it where did this come from you know it came from okay I think it was somebody asked for it I thought it was referred by the HPC because the draft ordinance states the purpose of this ordinance is to address long-term storing leaving of parking of trailers in the front-facing areas of private property which creates a detrimental impact to the streetscape and visual environment and is determined that it is appropriate to amend the code to establish limitations and regulations for off off Street Storage of trailers that's what it sounds like so I I I it was I thought that this ordinance as well as the next one that we're going to discuss were referred to as from the HPC I think you're right I think yeah they kind of go hand in hand yeah the proposed standards so I think that I think the referrals from the HPC and that's why their draft ordinances they wanted us to look at them and get our thoughts on those um before they were sent to the goverment body is that true are these coming from the HPC yeah he is the he is the solicitor for the HPC as well doesn't so Ian it doesn't matter who the solicitor is I I'm trying I thought we were giving these things for a master plan review but if they're coming from the HPC I don't think it's necessarily wrong for us to look at them but they shouldn't come in the form of a ordinance it would come as like a memo and we just need some clarification yeah I'll talk to sounds like this be I had a legal question kind of May maybe I'm misreading no point in us getting in the weeds of this if the Comm if the the governing body hasn't even considered it or thought about it yeah that's uh I I would agree with that I I just you know I I think that this ought to be push to council and let them decide that well first of all I think there's a lot to discuss here and I can't see them sending back to planning board there also should the reason representative here for the reason you said like we have questions we got to talk to whoever is you know have a conversation with us about it and who who directs them to do this sort of thing self-directed yeah yeah R TR had a legal question um isn't this uh listen the next one aren't they a bit of an overreach from hpj in other words they're they're recommending ordinances that cover the entire town even though the entire town isn't subject to the jurisdiction of of the HBC thank you uh I don't thank you Dennis I'm much call it an overreach um you know but I do think that they have I don't want to say for legally that the HPC doesn't have some input on what else goes on in town because things that are adjacent to your historic Commission can affect your to your historic district can affect historic district if they put an amusement Pier o just over the line on Grand Street I mean what would that how would that affect the HBC I mean the historic district so I think they have some saying it not to the extent of drafting an ordinance two ordinances to uh to to govern conduct outside of their jurisdiction I I don't think giving us an ordinance as as if it was is like being considered by the commission is the best way to go want to come in and and say here we have some concerns about run facing garages outside the historic district and how it impacts if we want to talk to you about that or and then you know have them explain why they care about that or uh trailers it's not that they're bad ideas it's just it needs to be fleshed out but they just send us an ordinance yes it is an ordinance as a blanket that cover the whole cities a bit much that's that's we having hit that one yet so we want to we want to we want obviously not there's some valid points act on this we want to send it back we don't even want to send it to council yet do we no I I don't know that it came from Council that's was because I asked what the ordinance was usually we get it after first reading and then I have an ordinance number and I I did a draft resolution while an ordinance number because I couldn't figure it out so well can I suggest that we we send it back to wherever it came from and just say we're glad to talk about these things but we'd like representative come and explain right what what it is you care about was yeah and that discussion May uh lead to language that we could propose in the zoning code that does cover this kind of thing but that discussion hasn't been made yet we need to talk more about that and what part of town it applies better to not just everywhere yeah like how would this affect we were saying in Village Green where you have quads and the driveways are in the front how would those people be able to park something of these vehicles a trailer or a boat according to this they wouldn't be able to no that's right as rich said let's send us back to the originating Source was there a cover letter with it let me go back he sent it to me by email yeah who's he Senator Craig I think there was an email and they were both together so I assume that they were both coming from the HBC might that might admit a wrong assumption the second the second one that we're dealing with says it's from the HPC the first one was more in ordinance form so it didn't say yeah but the language the whereas language sounds exactly like that's the premise this was been proposed for yeah yeah it it is we're going to send that back both of them from when it from when it came both of them I I I think the second one um all right go ahead In fairness to Chris he did write a cover letter to Karen I'm going to read it so everyone has the benefit of it uh I am attaching two proposed ordinance measures discussed by the HBC at their May 20th meeting one is the hbc's proposal to extend the concept of screened parking throughout the city through code amendments that require various elements related to parking garage doors to be screened from public view or situated on a site as to minimally to be minimally visible the HBC discussed two options A and B and requested that these be sent to the planning board for master plan consistency review and any general comments prior to presentation to council it has been council's preference to have the planning board weigh in on any development ordinances initiatives first to avoid ping ponging between first and second reading similar to how we handled the artificial turf ordinance the HPC prefers option A is there an option A and B in that there's a B's on the last page B is short the second is a general parking ordinance relating to storage of trailers boats Etc on private property many towns have regulations for where these types of vehicles can be stored long term currently the city does not have much in the way of regulations on this issue vhp endorsed this option likewise they request the planning boards comments on same so they you know I didn't this is at the bottom of a fairly long email chain so um I think to the hbc's credit and Chris Gillan Schwarz is no dummy he sent these for us to to talk about them but it'd be easier if an HBC person was here so you could TR to Hash it out because now we're going to make comments and then go back and get a new one it'll take I don't know six seven years so maybe we just send this back and say we're open to talk about it and I can even put in I took a couple notes on your concerns were so far it may conflict with the encouragement of parking on vacant Lots where parking is encouraged by the master plan right that thought some properties have two front yards and this doesn't seem to account for that and I think there was a comment about requiring cement or so yeah the PA surface to store PA surface Trail do we really want more hard servfaces uh you know in the backyards so people can put boats back there right so maybe um some of it seems to encourage impervious surface when we actually try to discourage that right and okay and you also might want to make the comment you didn't like the word overreach but I understand what you're going to say yep y u some some doubt whether it can be applied throughout the entire town whether it's whether it's within the jurisdiction of the HPC right although I think that they're asking us to consider it and it's within our jurisdiction so right but I I I I'll I'll say something the effect of there's concerns about its applicability throughout the town and why the HPC yeah yeah okay okay sounds like a it sounds like the whole thing sounds like a solution without a fine problem frankly it's going to make the parking problem worse cuz people AR going to be able to park in their driveways have a garage door that faces to the side yeah with a six foot set back on the side right and it's and it said about uh if you push the vehicle to the back of your property it has to be paved well a lot of people in the winter just push their boats on the yard yeah now they have to pave that area and then that opens another now you're into lot coverage issues and and and the and the and the the parking the the garage situation if you if you have a house with a garage you can't have living space above it that's half of these Cape May especially if we're serious about holding developers and Builders to the parking off street parking requirements that's and that just all that does is encourage more Paving for driveways which is nonsensical didn't it say that I'm for maximum parking too you've made that quite clear so it sounds like we just Dennis for your sake we can just make all the parking spaces smaller in town and we'll get more well or require everybody to have a golf cart and not a big car then you can and you can't drive in the rain yes you can you do I you have to register right all the special fees are come so do you have do you have enough feedback on this garage parking situation um yes and I don't understand why you can't see a garage from the street the end of town where we are you pull in you pull into a garage that's just that's yeah that's 1970s into 2020 construction I I I think and I don't mean this to defend I'm sure Carriage House is the street but um I think the idea is to try to avoid what has happened near my parents in Ocean City and in Seattle City where every house is just two garages so that when you walk down the street all you see is four pilings two garages and that is every house and it's identical for Miles so as much as everybody loves parking by the way very few people Park in those garages um they're also trying to avoid that that appearance so so the houses you're envisioning which are nice houses with a front door and a bay window and a little garage on the side I think what they're looking at is for the as houses get raised what you get is just two garages and that's your entire streetscape so there is something to be said about Spicer trying to break that up a bit we haven't we haven't seen that phenomenon is there well yeah but because if it starts to become because they're not requiring the raising in theoric District but as but in outside the historic district everything is starting to go up and then there's garages in the bottom so I'm just I'm not trying to argue the position I'm just trying to explain that that is what's going on and a lot of garages aren't used for parking anyway I mean we have this fantasy that we say oh well you have a garage and if you walk by the garages about one and four has a car in it and the rest have have beach chairs so you know it's there is something you said for they can't regulate they can't regulate use you can regulate the fact that they Pro they provide the park if it gets bad enough they're going to take the junk out of the garage and put the park in it but anyway I just just I'm just putting there are some places to that as well so that's all maybe the the value of this is that it might encourage a more comprehensive discussion on what we do require for parking and that is the zoning issue and also what you how those garages are designed I saw this before you guys well I saw it a couple weeks ago and when I was in Ocean City I started to really look at that and on smaller streets particularly um um it's nice when the garage is pushed pushed back 20 feet or so so that there's a parking space and then the Garage starts so that when you walk down the street the garage is recessed um so it's just something to just think you know instead of rejecting it out of hand I would give some more creative thought to what you see if you go to Ocean City and sea aisle which is a garage on the sidewalk and well there's setbacks aren't what we have here either the front yard setbacks AR aren't are a lot less than required here you got 25t front setback that's a parking space then you got a garage beyond that what you're talking about is what we really have now and the whole front of the house is driveway there's no parking in front of it y that's right you know all those double garages are par driveway across the whole front of it if you limit what your curb cutout can be who cares if you have two driveways you're not taking up a parking spot out in the street that's the SE problem they uh they've eliminated street parking casual off street parking right because everything's a driveway yep the whole property front is cut out to be a driveway we're not seeing that here maybe we should make sure that the zoning ordin ordinances are limit your driveway cutout it has driveway width and you got lot coverage there's a lot of yeah all right I don't I I heard someone touch upon it but like my biggest concern was when you have a front-facing garage it's the most efficient way to park the driveway straight into a front-facing garage creates the least amount of lot coverage allows for the most you know open green space on your lot if you're going to make them turn that sideways now you have turning movements more Paving um and then you're you're eliminating a parking space in the front you know between the face of the house and the and the street so now you're pushing another parking space onto the lot you're not getting credit for that first 20 ft of driveway as a parking space you're going to drive lot coverage really high so there's either going to be a lot of lot coverage variances or like there may be need to be a companion study of lot cover what this going to do to lot coverage um because it does have impacts plus you're forcing more street parking well something in here you can't park between the front the front yard and the front of the and the front of the building yeah so if you Tak th the first spot out again just yeah I'm not I'm not a fan of that either yeah yeah and who's enforced there's cars on the street they're blocking architecture street so are we going to refer the both of these things I think I yes okay I'll move back send them back send them back you need a motion I think an HBC person should be here to talk about it do we need a motion because I'll make it getting tired of Rick elbowing the baseball game so so there's a motion on the floor it's a motion to remand it back to the HPC with a recommendation that the representative here at the next time is on the agenda and I have a list of comments that were made and to be considered which includes it may conflict with the encouragement of parking on bacon Lots when parking is encouraged some properties have two front yards seems to encourage a perious coverage to be created in yards they increase parking problems not clear why it includes area be HPC as to both ordinances and front facing garages are most efficient method of parking and other forms to create more lock coverage and more maneuver you said it's not clear how the what HPC should be involved it's not clear why the ordinances include areas Beyond HPC as to both ordinances okay and I should say h h is okay so that was a motion by Mr Crowley do we have a second second motion by Mr Crowley seconded by Mrs Reid Mr gargone yes council member Jagger yes Mrs Reid yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes Miss mccor yes Mr puses yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer yes thank you I think that's it for tonight guys oh can we do the bills bills oh I'm sorry pay payment of bills bills yes oh I did see one yes motion to pay the bills pardon me motion to pay the bills I'll make mot working beneath the structures I'm sorry Mr LOL motioned yes and who seconded I will thank you okay we have a motion by Mr lundholm seconded by council member Jagger Mr gorgone yes council member Jagger yes Mrs Reed yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenhome yes Miss mccor yes Mr produces yes Mr Jones Mr bazer yes thank you okay final motion make a motion we adjourn okay all in favor I thank you everyone good night all let's go let's go that's right what ending is it um