##VIDEO ID:lDvg41pPY7Y## e e e e so this year my plan frankincense gold there you go right okay right right right testing it's a great idea just and he's does do anything the e e e e e e e e e e e e e e to e [Applause] [Music] K city planning board regular session is now in session and in compliance with the open public meetings Act of 1975 adequate NOS this meeting has been provided should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of that act they shall so State at this time hearing known we will start with a pledge of allegiance I pledge aliance to the flag United States of America and to the repic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all okay Karen roll call yes Mr bazer here Mr Jones here Mr rigs here Mr Crowley I'm here Mr gorgone here mayor mullik council member Jagger here Mrs Reed here Mr lenol here Mr produces here Mr krippin here thank you okay we have the minutes of November 26 for approval motion to adopt thank you Dennis second thanks Bob Bob Bob already seconded oh sorry I'm sorry who Moved Mr Dennis Crowley okay Dennis Crow Mr Crowley motions B Mr gargone Seconds thank you Mr gargon yes council member Jagger yes Mrs Reed yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes Mr rigs yes Mr puses yes Mr Jones yes Mr bazer yes thank you okay we have first application tonight is 518 Washington Street LLC block 1051 lot 5 site plan preliminary final waivers and variance relief evening Mr chairman board members uh John amh Houser the Denise Law Firm here this evening on behalf of the applicant 518 Washington Street LLC uh subject property for this application is 518 Washington Street identified on the city's tax map is block 1051 lot 5 uh it's in the C1 zoning District um prior to coming before you this evening we did receive um some agency approvals from City of Cape May Fire Police Public Works environmental commission and shade tree commission as well as historic preservation commission uh all without conditions uh heading into tonight through this application what the applicant seeking uh or is variance relief related to minimum required off street parking maximum permitted uh lot coverage and minimum required rear yard setback the purpose of the application is to take a presently existing mixed use building on the Washington Street Mall containing two commercial units on bottom one residential on top and to convert that one residential unit into two newly created residential units for a total of four units in the building the two existing commercial will not be changed on the bottom and two newly created residential units on the second floor um here with me tonight to provide some testimony and support of the application I have a member of 518 Washington Street LLC Mr Daniel uffelman um I'll here take some testimony from Daniel to start and then I also have uh Pamela fine registered architect with the firm of fine architecture and Mr John Hower professional engineer and planner with the Highland group out of Ocean City so I do intend to elicit testimony from please yes thank this and our board engineer would you please raise your right hand I think you're are going to testify too right yes that's great if you please raise your one hand do each if you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the TR self you got I do I do all right Dan if we can start can you just uh introduce yourself to the board and a little bit about yourself and your business yeah hi I'm Danny uelman and this is my wife Amanda uelman excuse me one moment when you speak would you please speak into the mic and then if you get up and move take it with you and pass it to your wife if she's going to speak you got it Karen it's Amanda correct yes thank you my wife here is Amanda Adams um we're business owners in town we own Queen May jewelry and uh we also own 518 Washington Street obviously so so Dan through this application I mentioned that we're looking to convert what you have as an existing residential unit into two what what's the reason behind wanting to do that at this point in time yeah we thought it would be beneficial for us especially because we can use it as employee housing so the purpose would be to to house employees uh either of your business or other businesses along the Washington Street mall right make this more uh shrinking the size of the units as we'll get into but it makes it more accommodating to to Workforce housing correct absolutely okay all right just wanted to hear from Danny to explain why it is that he's looking to do that tonight um if there's not any questions of him I'll turn it over to miss fine no nope B you can thanks you guys want us to hop back yeah yeah so Pam if you can are these the uh architectural plans that your office prepared in support of the application yes they are all right can you go over for the board the floor plans we're proposing and what exactly we're looking to do on this second level sure um if you look on the left side we just a little bit can we just can we recognize you as an expert architect you don't need any questions we just I have him say it perfect that's good Mr chairman you accept her as an expert architect sure absolutely thank you and and uh Mr Hower as well thank you Mr chairman sorry okay if you look on sheet P1 uh on the left hand side is where the existing floor plan is drawn and I also have a small existing site plan up in the corner uh mainly we're focusing on the second floor here uh I do have a little uh snippet of the first floor but that's really just the show of the stair uh so the second floor here what exists today is a very odd layout uh there's bedrooms five bedrooms uh very large uh each bedroom has two closets uh so it's it's a a strange layout um we have a powder room a bathroom towards the back is uh a single kitchen and just an open space which maybe was the living room um so it's kind of hard to visualize and figure out how this uh was actually used but I treated all the rooms with the closets as a bedroom uh so we had five total existing and then if you look to the opposite side on the right here is what we're proposing so we're basically separating this whole space into two residential units uh each unit has two bedrooms and each unit has two bathrooms uh they also have their own kitchen and their own living and dining area so you'll see on the um on the plan we have this dash line that kind of runs through the center here and that's basically the uh dividing wall That's the partition wall between these units uh right down here in the front here we have that existing stair which comes up and then you land in a common area uh this common Hall will give you access to both units so the first unit I'll call on the left side here uh it's basically like an l-shape with uh a front bedroom and bathroom so that's a suite and then towards the back of the unit we have another bedroom and a hall bath and then basically sitting right between the two is your open living dining kitchen um on the opposite unit which is another L but towards the back corner we have the same setup just kind of a little bit of a different configuration uh bedroom in the back with its own Suite another bedroom in the back corner and a hall bath between and then here up front when you enter into the unit is the open living dining kitchen and both have a very small closet for the water uh the heat washer dryer Pam where can you go over the uh the entrance way to both of the units and how they're access sure so we still have that common uh entrance way from Washington Street mall so it'll be that single doorway up to a a stair the stair then leads over to here it's the same exact configuration uh an l-shape or a scissor stair a Winder stair that leads up to the common area here and then each unit has a doorway your main entrance uh from that common area now Pam you mentioned earlier right now it exists as a five-bedroom unit correct yes and despite the fact that we're turning the this into two units we're actually reducing the amount of bedrooms overall right yes so it's going from A5 to a four so each unit has two bedrooms and now as part of the intended development are we in any way affecting the exterior of the building or the site no actually uh we appli to HBC uh we were approved in uh Community review uh we're not proposing any kind of changes to the front of the building but you'll see there are a few windows that we're adding along the back just for egress uh purposes for the bedrooms and the windows received approval from the h they did as drawn okay anything else you want to add right now we turn it over to John I can turn it over to John all right thank you sure John all right John so if you can in terms of the site itself can you go over some of the existing conditions what we're looking to do here John yeah it is uh quite common for most of the properties in the Washington Street Mall the building occupies almost the entirety of the lot the lot size is 35 feet wide by 66 and a half feet deep it fronts on the Washington Street portion we're separated from carpers Lane by another lot that's some 28 ft deep that has a single story uh building unrelated to us between us and Carpenters Lane but we also benefited from being on a 15 foot wide public alley immediately to our West um in terms of the minimum lot area required we're 1500 ft² is the minimum required we have over 2300 ft so the lot itself is conforming um no building setback lines are required for buildings in this Zone and um so that's is a matter of conformance um again the lot size itself is conforming the minimum rear yard is 15 fet in the zone the existing building is 0.26 feet um that is a condition that is obviously staying you heard Miss fine indicate that we're doing no alterations whatsoever to the building exterior the envelope size mass of building stays identical so that non-conforming addition will remain um Mr um herles has identified that as requiring a variance I think on the premise that the conversion from one unit to two units is a change of use hence the need for that variance for that I'll say technical variance because it's the existing non-conform condition that remains totally unaltered or unaffected by the application John would that apply to maximum permitted lot coverage as well exactly uh where 95% was maximum permitted coverage we're at 100% in the existing condition and again that remains unchanged so those are two non-conforming conditions that uh have been identified as being requiring a variance albeit the condition remains absolutely unaltered by the proposed development now John on top of that I think we were uh required to obtain a variance related to minimum required off street parking is that right that's correct if you were to apply today's parking ordinance to the existing building we would be required to provide a total of eight parking spaces four of those would be the result I'm sorry two of those would be the result of the existing apartment on the second floor the others would be resulting from the commercial space down below going into the proposed condition going to two two-bedroom apartments applying RSI standards actually requires that two parking spaces be provided for each of those units so a total of four parking spaces would be required for the two units where only two would be required for the existing one so we're increasing the number of parking space is required by strict application of rsis um that does in fact require a variance that's not is the existing non-conforming condition in terms of we provide zero today we're increasing the demand technically so as a result we required a variance for not providing the additional parking spaces that the uh conversion from one apartment to two would necessitate so John considering that um under the the C2 criteria the municipal langes law is it your professional opinion that if the board were inclined to Grant the relief related to park purpose certain purposes of zoning might be Advanced yeah absolutely um right out of the gate the opportunity to use two two-bedroom apartments for um employees of the um Washington Street mall stores and Commercial activities is higher and better for two two apartments two two-bedroom apartments than it would be for one five bedroom apartment a five bedroom apartment certainly leans more towards a larger family would have multiple guests on the weekend two two-bedrooms certainly lend itself more economically and functionally to being used by um staff of the community of the commercial establishments along the mall that's an established need I think it's pretty well documented I think this board's actually um acknowledged that there's more need for that type of residential housing for that purpose and we're advancing that purpose by this application um that I think is in fact a benefit in terms of advancing purposes of the municipal land use law I think it certainly uh encourages and guides the appropriate use or development to promote the general welfare for that very reason um now anytime we talk about the C2 That's The Balancing Act what's the negative effect that may result from the granting of the varant out of the gate just saying you're increasing parking demand where you're providing none that sounds like a pretty heavy lift pragmatically though a five b apartment think about the number of cars that would normally be associated with that certainly two on a regular basis three and four would not be uncommon just hav't got any five brid apartment anywhere in the city a two brige of apartment on the other hand certainly one parking space would be a reasonable demand for that a second one maybe an occasion for a guest so if you look at the existing conditions two three maybe four spaces being used are necessary regularly to two two bedrooms where two maybe three spaces might be needed at one given time pragmatically we're reducing the demand in my opinion even though technically strict application of the rsis shows we're increasing demand pragmatically I think we're maintaining or even reducing that demand so there is no substantial benef negative effect by the granting of the variant and the benefits I describ providing that necessary housing certainly outweigh the potential negatives that would result from not providing the required parking that goes with that for those reasons I think um the parking variance can be granted under the C2 criteria now the existing non-conforming condition the lot coverage and the rear yard setback that I think fall squarely under the C1 criteria we have a legally existing building um we don't have opportunity to gain more ground to make either of those numbers better and we're doing nothing whatsoever to exasperate it uh so to force conformance either of those would absolutely create an undo hardship upon the applicant for those reasons I think the uh the positive criteria under the C1 is is established and they same negative dis um potential negatives I discussed would apply so I think in that case both the positive and the negative criteria have been adequately addressed for both the C1 and the C2 and I believe the variances can should be granted so John in addition to the variance relief we've also asked for a waiver from site plan review and approval Rel to the application correct can you provide your professional opinion as to whether or not that waiver is Justified here and why yeah when you look at typical site plan requirements you're worried about noise trash lights storm water management all those things that we're normally going into a site planned here the outside of the building changes absolutely none entrances remain the same um all those things that you would normally want to see for site plan remain unaltered from the existing conditions um so for those reasons I think a site plan waiver certainly is Justified John anything else you'd like to add relat to the application proposed development not unless there's questions by the board any uh questions Mr chairman any have any questions Dennis yeah I do thanks uh the you're requesting three variances um for non-conforming situations uh the documentation seems to indicate that they are they've been existing for some time do you have any documentation or uh whatever that shows that the city had approved those non-conforming conditions do I have that documentation no but I can tell you from my direct experience um 1982 Kel's new stand owned by the cuses that exact building that was the kelties actually I'm sorry it was the kelties was next door oh was it oh I'm sorry off a building yeah I remember that building being as it stands today back in 1982 so do I have representation or documentation saying the city has approved those conditions no but that building is of an age that a long predat in the current ordinances and I think this should recognize that as such so essentially you're saying these three conditions come to the city for a variance for the first time well no no I that I don't agree with that statement you've got buildings that pre the predate zoning right buildings were there so they do not need variances because they were there before zoning was ever created that's that's the point I'm trying to get to okay that that this would be actually the first time the city would even consider these Varian because of what Bill said can I just interject because you may not know this but CRA Craig you can help me if I'm misstating it um and you guys may not know this but we actually have an ordinance in our town unlike some other towns that addresses this because it's sometimes hard to find the old records and we have so many old things that are non-conform so I I think the ordinance says that if there's no evidence of a variance and it's been there for 20 years we consider it to be a pre-existing non-conforming structure right and I think we discussed so all he has to do is prove that it was there in 2004 and even I can say it was there in4 so it doesn't need this they don't need so it it's a pre-existing non-conforming structure there's no point in it's a give it tangling with that I just wanted to clarify that because that issue had come up before in another application from my planning perspective when I flag these variances it's normally because there's a change of use now in this case you're going from one residential apartment to two um same amount of bedrooms it's not really intensifying the use but as a planner it's appropriate to flag those as being variances because there is a change of use now in the case where if you have an existing commercial space and they're putting a louder noisier more intense use in it that's why you reconsider those variances upon changes of use in this case I don't see there any detriment to it but just out of course of action I always I always flag those that's to clean the book up basically all right okay anybody anybody else have questions um what's the present occupancy of the upstairs can upstairs yes yeah five bedroom apartment what's current occupancy currently it's vacant I I don't I'm not renting it or doing anything with it because and it has been for it seems to be like that for at least 10 10 years or so I would say I couldn't be exact sure it's just a void there's no living there at all no nobody's living there right now correct is it habitable you have heat and it is habitable yes Mr hner would your testimony change at all if this property if these residential units were not used for employee housing but rather were Market rental housing well I think my testimony with stand is the same I represented that it provides better opportunity for such housing not as a guarantee it would be used of such housing but certainly it makes it more conducive and there's uh for the use by seasonal or staff employees okay because I'm the one who gets stuck drafting the resolutions and then I'm the one who gets stuck having these things thrown back at me three years from now and your client's testimony was that his intent was to use it for employee housing and your testimony was the benefits of employee housing and then when this thing ends up on Airbnb in 3 weeks I get asked why didn't you address that in the resolution so I'm just asking you to address that in your testimony and the board to understand that unless we ask for a deed restriction this is Market rental housing that and if it's on bar Airbnb next week I'm not to be blamed so I just want everyone to have that out in the front and then you can answer it if your testimony stands the same then I I think it might but I don't know I just want to have you testify to that and then the board is satisfied with your answer and we move to the next thing no I believe my testimony stands okay any other questions uh I'd like to ask a question about that second uh entrance you're taking it away am I correct that's correct to make that bedroom you you actually can't access it uh currently there is a stair there um but it's you cannot um use it navigate it all right that was my question so the uh AP the rental space below has that that's going to be taken away it's the stairs are in that bottom portion I could never actually the rental space below uses that section as storage oh yeah the rental space below um which is the beef jerky shop they use that as storage so those stairs are effectively already gone you know and they don't lead to the outside there are just stairs within the building so there's no out outside entrance to those stairs so you can understand there is no exit that you open up and walk up them so right now they just use all those stairs there's just shelving all through that and you can't actually access them so I don't know how long they've been closed off like that but it's since I've owned the building oh the reason I questioned it was for fire you know if if it was an exit now for exterior I would hate to see that taken away for that apartment but it's not there yeah I had a question too Bill you're uh this discussion you just had with our Council on the uh the workforce housing versus uh unlimited Market availability I have two questions number one um um is it going to be limited would you intend to limit it to the your Workforce or anybody's Workforce and if so how would you regulate that if you're going to restrict it to Workforce housing well I don't think there was any testimony on the I think it's the intention well and Mr upman can confirm this but I think it's the intention that he'd like to utilize it for such but I don't think he wants to restrict it so that he's always held to that forever because there could come a time when he doesn't need both of those units for employee housing and if that's the case you'd like to be able to utilize them for residential purposes so for for for your uh your argument that it would be desirable to get this variance uh you site the city's need for Workforce housing uh you don't link it to Workforce housing you suggest it could be an option which means the variance could be going to something which is clearly a different use of that building and uh and in which case how would we re resolve that issue or should we even resolve it we don't need a variance for residential use right the use is permitted regardless it's it's residential but you're but you're linking it to a master plan recommendation that we encourage Workforce housing if you encourage Workforce housing uh in name only then you're actually exacerbating the problem we currently have with a lot of other issues including parking so John do you want to touch on that right now we have a five unit five bedroom residential unit there right correct if it were reduced to two two-bedroom residential units W without limiting to just the workforce housing do you believe you're exacerbating that potential issues surrounding the variance releas no the number of cars you would expect to be generated from a five-bedroom unit compared to twoed two tbats are virtually identical I mean they're just substantially the same and to paint a scenario and this is without me talk with the client but Workforce housing during the summer season could be in very high demand and the offseason maybe not it may have the opportunity for bed and breakfast or Airbnb in the off season why limit his ability to do that at a time where the parking demands aren't going to be nearly what they are in season now I got no idea whether that's intention or not but that would be a reason I would offer as to not try and do by way of deed restriction and your uh explanation for why uh parking won't be so bad there uh includes essentially a speculative argument that uh different people are going to use cars differently they're not going to have this they're not going to have that that's that's inconsistent with the reality that we have an ordinance that requires those parking spaces and it the ordinance the ordinance really doesn't say well we require it but speculate about how we really don't really need it that's that's beyond the pale of the of the ordinance well I'm acknowledging what the letter of the ordinance says and we're seeking the variance I'm not disputing that but you but you're softening the blow of the variant by saying well it could be this and it could be that and maybe we don't do this and I'm satisfying the negative criteria to demonstrate that there could not be a substantial impairment or detriment by the granting of that relief and then when it goes to Denis he's answered your question what's that he's answered your question I have another question well well then move on to another question because you can beat this horse forever so I just wanted to clarify one more point that if if you did go to an open market concept because you couldn't get retail or couldn't get Workforce housing that does change the Dynamic of the parking need is that your opinion John that that would change the parking Dynamics the parking two two-bedrooms the parking demand from two two-bedrooms versus a five bedroom in my experience pragmatically they're very sub they're substantially similar to one another no okay hold on one second we have cross talk and it was wrong cross talk so I just want to I think if you have a question for Craig about the parking ask it into the microphone that I'm answer because I don't think I think you gave yourself an answer I think you were mistaken so ask Craig your question yeah yeah basically what I'm saying I think your parking the the parking is actually reduced because I believe five bedrooms requires three spots four bedrooms requires two spots but if you if you can you just summarize that for him our record is clear I might we're dealing with the residential site Improvement standards for apartment use so it's not Workforce housing that so that's not even a definition that we have in our I know we're kicking that around but that has not been you know perfected and recommended to the governing body and the governing body has not done anything with that um so we're dealing with straight up apartment calculations for the residential site and Pur standards now I believe that there's an increase because you go from one apartment to to two apartments um and just just the way the calculation breaks out and I think you're going from eight required spaces to 12 required spaces um at least that's what the plan showed correct right so Mr howun is agreeing with me so there is a increase based on the the methodology that the residential site Improvement standards calculates it by um okay so there is an increase it's not a decrease okay can can I ask I actually have a question for Mr uffelman if since we since we are talking about and we we now have an applicant in front of us that has employees um and is planning on potentially housing them um so some of the questions that we had when we were asking when we we're discussing this and we have not perfected this or anything what type of employees do you typically have and do you typically propose to house there are they just seasonal are they full-time do you anticipate this being you know full-time Workforce how's someone's going to live there on the mall 12 months of the year you know questions that were kind of buried I'm just I'm just interested to hear your take on it yeah absolutely so um we have both full-time and seasonal employees and part-time uh in our business and you know off the top of my head like we were talking to our manager about using one of the units at our if we subdivide it into two but obviously she wouldn't want to live with a whole bunch of random people up there in a five-bedroom unit uh we would then just more likely use it for transient use okay for use it for what transient use like a rental for a big the way it exists if I couldn't if yeah the current five bedroom if I had to keep it the way it was I would just be renting it do those employees typically have vehicles yes my employees have vehicles and and where do they typically park now they Park in the residential area surrounding where is it um we buy them we pay for their parking at the Jackson Street uh lot like Colliers that that has importance with regards to this because if that's the case then you're you're providing parking off site um but going to be WR we provide them with condition to the resolution I'm not sure I don't know that they offered that but yeah we we purchase parkings spots for all our employees uh in that parking lot but I can't speak to what other business owners do okay so I I just wanted to take that opportunity to ask those questions because we were strug I don't know that we were struggling but there was discussions with regarding what type of employees would live there whether they have vehicles or not and what it would impact the the parking of the neighborhood so thank you yeah my pleasure yeah I just for your benefit or whatever the case I'm going to read to you what my notes say as to the purposes of zoning it says small residential housing for employees advances the purpose of zoning as that type of housing is needed in town and is an appropriate use for this property and is economically advantageous also in a practical approach the two units are likely to inspire less parking than a five-bedroom unit even though rsis would say differently he believes the C2 balance supports the parking variants I agree with that that that's what I wrote the reason I asked the question that I asked is that principally your client's testimony was one sentence and that was I intend to use it for employee parking Mr how Bruner's purpose of zoning essentially relied upon employee um employee parking and then when this is on the Airbnb my resolution looks like I did a bad job can I so I I want you to have a chance to expound on the purpose of zoning advanced in the absence of employe housing so that if this is granted and you don't use it for employee housing we don't get yelled at so Mr Hower given what Mr Kane just reiterated which was your testimony can you break that down into actually two separate benefits because it sounded to me like you possibly could Rich can you reiterate what you just stated again sure essentially I relied on the employee H employee employee and housing being a purpose of zoning Advanced because our master plan likes that I'd like to write down some other stuff gotcha without using the word employee housing the opportunity for smaller units two trueb units is going to be a benefit to the community over one larger unit first of all the type of person and the size of the um population that goes within the two buger unit versus a five bedroom unit is going to be far more harmonious with the adjacent residential uses I don't want to use the word flop house but I use the word Flop House you get five bedrooms um and that certainly has an opportunity to be a Rowdy place two two bedrooms are much more um residential friendly um for the adjoining neighbors and I think that's a benefit that results from having two two-bedrooms versus one five-bedroom apartment and even and it also I guess in a sense produces the opportunity for employment housing whereas the five bedroom doesn't produce as good opportunity for that based on the testimony of this gentleman correct the a the opportunity whether it's usuge or not but the opportuni is much greater to have two two B bedrooms available for um Workforce residents than a five-bedroom would thank you any other questions yeah bill I do have a question I'm sorry but um it's becoming a little bit confusing because on the one hand we're hearing rationale for the creation of two rental units uh to be put to be put to use by the owner under any circumstances rental units are put to and on the other hand we have a uh a proposal to uh ameliorate the problem of Workforce housing by creating a space where Workforce housing can be available near and near those businesses or by those businesses these these two issues are not coming together in terms of a Rec I understand that that they're looking to do both if they can the employee housing would be summertime in the offseason if there's no employees they would have the opportunity to do to do the other it's it's not an either or proposition well okay I I'll grant that that could be a third option the other the other thing we heard is that this current employee and owner is now providing offs space parking for their employees in recognition to the fact that they don't have space on on site so could we craft a recommendation that this be approved uh with the understanding that it will be used for the workforce of the owner or the the folks who own the building and that they are providing as as part of the approval they're providing off street parking for their employees that to me strikes a middle ground between the two issues that we're wrestling with and and and quite frankly if Workforce housing is one item in their our master plan so is the problem of parking in the master plan and we have an ordinance that sets clear and unambiguous standards for how many parking spaces are required we constantly are ask for waivers for that and I understand why but I also understand that expanding this sort of a an application in the face of the fact that we have doing nothing about the parking problem really really is almost like a a failure what would you propose they do about the parking problem Dennis they did they made it the pro they're providing all street parking for their employees so that that that's what they say they're doing and it also doesn't take into account the employees who are running the downstairs from them who are tenants of these of these folks so they they have their own business which is the jewelry store and they have two ten tenants below below which is another opportunity for them so you know you're you're trying to you're trying to Pigeon I don't I don't really no I'm not trying no I'm not trying to p no what I'm trying to do is create a a sort of a a precedent for the fact that we can address both of these problems in different ways the ways that we're not addressing them right now we can't simply suggest okay you get a variance you got 12 spaces you're never going to provide for here's a variance anyway and then we we we basically make a parking problem worse by creating a space that may or may not that's not a fair statement they're making it worse that's not a fair statement we have we're making it worse by that second floor unit for whatever residential purpose we'd like to right now so we're seeking to downsize that to two two bedrooms to utilize for residential purposes preferably Workforce housing if we can do it but without pigeon hoing ourselves into that because right now we're not pigeon hole to do that you can rent that out to whomever whenever wants to at this point oh you can do that for the five-bedroom unit too yeah and test the testimony from their professional planner is that the two-bedroom unit is actually a lesson you didn't phrase it exactly this way but that a two unit a two2 unit is a less intense use than a five bedroom because the reality is a five bedroom invites a huge amount of people whereas the two bedroom is more likely to be a manager or two people sharing it or a small family or something like that so um I'm a great example I live in a building that has uh two bedroom units and one big five-bedroom unit and any problem we've ever had in our building was because of the five bedroom I think we a lot of heads are nodding like yes how your concern would have a lot more but the code doesn't say anything about that well concern would be a lot more that's why they're asking for the variance Denis that's right and and we're asking for a variance and we have to we whether the code is to stand or or whether it's to once again be ignored uh they're not they're not they're not adding any structure the building is there they're adding four parking spaces they don't have so we are but remember remember I also in during our discussion talked about double counting the parking spaces if there are employees living above they're already counted into the commercial parking calculation that's Below based on the the one space per 200 square F feet plus plus one employee on the larg yeah if they are and if they're not they're not but this is all speculative well no it's not that's what the code says no they could have that's what the code says no no Craig's statement was speculative no I mean they they if you're if you're looking at it that way they could have one five-bedroom apartment that is creating a parking problem speaking of that in your notes Greg you you uh indicated that there was no count for employees uh for some reason could you none required for the mall when you're not dealing with this yeah I I just wanted to get a clarification on why that was so can I ask how many parking spaces do you actually pay for thank you we have nine nine for for what businesses Queen may we own Queen May jewelry and we have uh 10 employees that work for us but one works not on site so we get nine okay with okay I just see if any were tied to the ACT to this this property no the two tenants downstairs have their own businesses I didn't mean to criticize that I just want to no that's okay to but the rental the two rentals you're asking for you would not be renting any spaces for those people who would rent from you would be on their own and if if you were to utilize the two-bedroom right uh the two two-bedroom units for your employees presumably you're already paying for parking for those employees so they'd have parking already correct that you're right correct so if if if they're utilized for employees then yes you would be paying for off-site parking for them but if they're not you would not be correct yes Craig let me go back to what you were saying about the mall parking employees why are those nine not counted in this the requirement of the code is onsite parking off street parking right it's not no I don't understand but they they indicated they had nine employees uh the the code says actually he said he had 10 but but he r nine parking requirements from the mall not not talk about oh okay that's in the ordinance I want to clear I want to Cle that answers my question um that you're talking about a totally different business and honestly a lot of these things are historically interesting but they are not commitments by the applicant so it's really not even relevant if he pays for parking spaces unless he's going to pay for the moving forward so the fact that he owns another really nice business and a bunch of employees and pays for parking has nothing to do with this application it's just a curiosity okay the fact that he may pay for his manager to have a parking spot who may live in this apartment a curiosity yeah unless he's committing to buying a parking space for this property it has to do with your analysis of this because he may sell that building tomorrow and it may not be the owner of the queen May and they may not by any spaces so we got to do zoning analysis not people analysis okay so let's just get all that I can't strike it from the record I'm telling you to disregard all that testimony I means absolutely nothing so let's just go onto this property and what the parking is for this and all you're doing and the only reason I gave them a bit of the business about that employeee parking is because if that was the only purpose of zoning that they offered and then they didn't do it everything falls apart but now they've offered another purpose of zoning and it's cogent whether it's credible or not is up to you but at least it's in the record now and then you can all do your balancing and decide if you think that having a a dilapidated five-bedroom unit of living unit above this business um is offset by the benefit of having two units that the testimony is less intense be modernized and all that stuff is appropriate balance and then you do that balance and then you vote and there probably enough on the record either way to support your decision but that's what you're doing tonight you so I think I think we've kicked that around now well we open up the I'll go first okay Craig go through your report good evening everyone I'd like to summarize my November 21st 2024 review memorandum for this application uh you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating it is in the C1 primary business district um they are seeking uh preliminary and final site plan with a waiver of the submission requirements as well as the associated variances that were discussed I'm going to roll right into the completeness review um Bas because this site is com comprehensively developed there's no site improvements proposed we did support the waiver of all of the submission requirements and therefore recommended deeming the application complete with regards to the variances I concur with the applicant they they're requesting three variances the first is for rear yard setback uh 15t is required 0.26 feet setback exists and 0.26 feet setback um is proposed to the change of use the lot coverage it exists at 100% it's proposed at 100% where 95% is the maximum there's no changes to that but it is a change of use so therefore um the requesting the variance for loot coverage the only thing that's really substantially changing is the parking calculation um so to based on the current standards there's one space required for each 200 sare ft of retail use that requires eight spaces there's two spaces per two-bedroom apartment in accordance with the residential site Improvement standards that has a requirement of 12 spaces where there is no room on the lot to provide parking there's zero spaces existing zero spaces proposed so that's your your parking variants that they've requested and they've supported that with C2 test uh criteria testimony with and gave the balancing test for special reasons you can weigh that um if there's no questions with regards to the variances I'm going to move on to the general review comments that should be all conditions of approval should the board grant that um under item number one we've asked for the approval signature block to be added to the plans two is uh the applicants required to furnish the required performance guarantee and inspection es grow and three is to tie that certificate of occupancy to that um acceptable inspection item number four is to comply with the recommend a and requirements of the fire department Police Department Public Works Department environmental commission and shry commission we did receive those reports there were all recommended approval with no comments um do do I need to read those into the record or I think you just did okay I think I think the applicant touched upon that in his intro introductory statement so I'm going to skip that um item number five is compliance with all other state county and local approvals six is this project is located in historic district you did indicate you had you had final HPC approval okay so we would just ask for that to be provided as evidence of approval seven they're required to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements and then under item number eight should the board Grant approval the applicant is required to submit six sets of plans that are perfected to meet the conditions that the board sets as part of their approval um to the S and submit that to the board engineer for review and approval any questions of Craig Okay we okay if the businesses downstairs aren't related to this why are we holding that parking against them we're not holding it against them we're just updating the site plan with regards to the total overall site parking so whenever we whenever we do this like for a hotel or something like that we always do a total comprehensive parking count so that it runs with the property except that we didn't count what they needed for the five bedroom part right that should that should have been pre well that's a pre-existing condition and their testimony reflected I said no no no I'm just I'm just asking if the downstairs businesses aren't related to this upstairs Apartments why is it against them and how many spaces would be would be required for a five-bedroom apartment it's three and a half yeah I I don't have the residential sight Improvement standards in front of me but I took it so we're talking about one spot yes yeah Barb's cap out of bedrooms they don't have they don't have the number of spaces required for five number required for three bedrooms is two spaces so the five bedroom by RSI standards requires two spaces so um we've gone through this with the DCA um you're actually allowed to bring that rate forward so uh whatever that increase from two to three if you were to add that to from three to four and add that again from four to five that would give you the appropriate rsis count okay um so that's three and a half do you have that so can you make that calculation extract with that bear with me a second two bedrooms 2.0 three bedrooms 2.1 so a five bedroom would be 2.3 yeah so you're adding 0.1 to each one correct yeah so doesn't really the the residential site Improvement standard calculations are archaic and don't necessarily reflect what's really happening in our town um that's always that's always been an issue yeah and actually the apartment I think is meant to be a large apartment complex yeah not a couple smaller Apartments Associated right that's the same shart that Vince Orlando tried to convince me that a seven-bedroom apartment only needed whatever the maximum number of bedrooms on there was and that's no and that's the test case and I won I I I actually contacted DCA and they confirmed my rationale of that projecting that out so so basically they're asking for one spot yeah okay just we get that on the record and that's what what Ricky just said okay uh want to open up to the public anybody care to comment this application within 200 feet outside of 200 ft jwes uh julus Rous 1010 New York Avenue I'm not can you say that address again uh Julius Rous 1010 New York Avenue okay sir um sir hold on but you know the routine yeah do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you sir I've not heard that there's a meran license that has been issued uh for this uh second floor apartment is there one we don't we don't require that we don't it's not it's not occupied either testimony was that it's not hasn't been occupied for some time so we haven't used well that that's the point I don't know that there isn't a change of use of the second floor if there's not a meranti license hasn't been occupied it's it's a vacant property and you're now changing it from vacant to two apartments vacant is not a classification it's a residential property the most could be is abandoned but it's a permitted use so I don't think there's a rule you have to use a permitted use you only have to use a non-conforming use your testimony is on the record okay okay uh this this application could be easily solved if if the owner would say will provide uh off street parking by rental renting a space just like they've done for their other employees for these two apartments and uh I I I I would suggest that the board ask the the applicant whether they would consider that to remove the question of a variance need we have we have a parking problem if you're going to let every every apartment on the second floor every every space on the second floor be occupied by an apartment you're defeating the whole purpose of of the need for parking thank you Jules bill can I say something to that sure if they're renting a space that already exist they're not creating a new one they're runting if he makes them create a space that already exist you're just taking that away from somebody else you haven't solved anything right okay anybody else in public care a comment I have a comment Mr chairman hold on we're we're going to close a public comment okay okay go ahead if i g go ahead okay so at the last meeting from the minutes it states that the board board will continue discussion on the re-exam reexamination at subsequent meetings with input gathered by member rigs from other Municipal managers including affordable housing and work for housing definitions enforcement schedules and incentives to me we're putting the cart before the horse here and I know we have to treat every applicant singly but we're opening up a Pandora's Box here for every other person that owns property in that mall we had to decide how we're going to housing in that mall before we give anybody the ability to do anything there that's short and sweet that's it okay thank you Mr chair if I can just since I was referenced in there um some preliminary research that I've received back they referred back to the state statute that I read into the record at the last meeting so that is something that this board should consider for our next meeting but I'll have more prepared notes you know at that time from from a planning perspective there is a recommendation in the master plan with regards to Workforce housing the planning board is not perfected that recommendation back to the governing body and the governing body has not accepted or changed any ordinance with regards to Workforce housing what we're dealing with here tonight is a request for for two apartments and parking variances associated with them that deal with the residential site Improvement standards calculation of parking so we're not re we're not really addressing Workforce housing we're not I don't think in my opinion putting the cart before the horse well it's been brought up a lot tonight well I asked questions because I was curious because it helps with some of our discussion but there is testimony on there under the C2 criteria with regards to parking and the change of use from one five-bedroom apartment to two two-bedroom apartments um that's how you should be weighing it um you know whether you want to condition approval on them providing parking spaces for those units um off offsite um we boards have done that in the past um but I don't believe you're you're allowed to have pending ordinances and applicants that are allowed to bring applications before you that deal with stuff that you have not perfected or recommended or the governing body has not accepted so like greig we also have the right to say that we ought to not do something which could make a problem worse a problem that the city is is about to get committed to fixing uh in other words U there's the bucket's overflowing maybe maybe it's not the time to pour more water in it this your consideration and and I'll let Rich correct me if I'm wrong your consideration should be site specific to this application not with and the weighing and the weighing of of the term hardship uh and and who gets the hardship and who is in hardship I they're putting special reasons on you didn't ask for hardship did you ask for substantial benefit yeah substantial benefit hard Rel it's the same bucket whose substantial benefit is it a substantial benefit to the city to exacerbate and already out of control problem with that we may be trying to fix let me let me can I frame this for I I I don't interrupt your deliberations I just want to go ahead no go ahead I'm I yield all right can we I want to we respond wait wa I say what I'm going to say then you can respond to that because I want to try to summarize it and put it in a way that makes EAS yeah mov moving forward look we we acknowledge that Workforce housing is an appropriate purpose of zoning okay and this board has had discussions that are a matter of public record that were looking to implement some rules relating to Workforce housing okay and I am on record saying at the last meeting with no reference to this application that if you don't have a clear statute that enforces it to be Workforce housing then what you're really going to do is create airbnbs above commercial uses that's the reality of it okay so that has led to this discussion the question before the board is in this particular application this isn't someone coming in to put new apartments on top of a commercial use in the mall creating a new parking problem okay the testimony here is it's a five-bedroom unit that's already there and they want to modernize it and make had two separate two-bedroom units okay and the applicant somewhat am my prodding has fairly distinguished and said we're not just depending on it being Workforce housing we're saying it creates the opportunity for Workforce housing and two two-bedroom units is less likely to be disruptive in this Zone than a big five bedroom unit okay so that's what you that's what you're thinking about that's the that's a Fair summary of their testimony okay so I don't want everyone to make this about a test case or deny it because we don't have Workforce housing rules I'm directing you not to do that you need to decide this this issue but the fact that you think that you don't want to have an exacerbation of parking issues unless it really benefits Workforce housing Okay this may not be the test case for that because it's already a five-bedroom unit all right so yes under the rsis in a technical sense a two two-bedroom units because they each require two parking spaces all right and a quirkiness about rsis is that a five-bedroom unit requires three parking spaces not four all right all right so you all need to decide whether two two-bedroom units creates a greater parking problem or a lesser parking problem than a five bedroom unit okay rsis says one thing your experience May teach you something different but in a technical sense as a matter of the way rsis reads and our ordinance which adopts rsis it's true that a five bedroom unit requires three spaces and what their proposing requires four so they are in a sense and just going to look terrible on the record but they're exacerbating they're they're creating a new parking a needed parking space technically under the ordinance but the professional planners test is already before you and you can weigh that you can weigh your own experience whether having this five bedroom five large bedrooms is a better or worse situation than two new two bedroom two bath units and you and you need to decide that okay and whether the applicant wants to volunteer something to encourage you that's all that's the applicant's decision and so I'm not getting into all that that's not my my role you guys can do your you're bargaining however you want to do it but that's to me how I would frame the issue in your thinking the applicant disagrees he can respond and say I'm mistaken or add more testimony whatever you feel is appropriate well I I just quickly in response to Mr Mr ral's comment we do have a certificate of zoning compliance issued March 26th of this year that does indicate that this is has two retail stores with one apartment above so that is recognized by the city as of this year but I believe Mr how wanted to touch upon parking again one last thing was parking that it's going to add Credence to my representation that in my opinion two two bedroom apartments is of equal Parker demand as one five bedroom and to refer right back to the rsis the numbers we've talked about thus far from rsis are for Garden Apartments for the record that's the numbers we must go by because that's the closest thing by definition I will tell you that a Gard department is more normally associated with a much larger building with many more Apartments where you have the economy scale where those numbers can be lower if we look at the single family home parking requirements of rsis for the record we're not but for comparison a five bedroom single family home requires three parking spaces a two-bedroom single family home requires 1.5 so two two-bedroom homes would require three if we were talking single family homes here there would be no net change in the parking demand do you agree with that correct I I agree with it can you just say it for me again in your words okay I'm not saying John did it badly but I I want to give you the benefit I'm trying to give you the benefit of our engineer M Mr how Bruner is suggesting that the residential site Improvement standards calculation for Garden Apartments is not really appropriate because typically those Garden apart apartments are part of a large scale development and there's an economy of scale is how he phrased it I agree with that statement and so he turned to something that we're more familiar with single family dwellings so the residential site Improvement standards for a two-bedroom single family dwelling requires 1.5 parking spaces is what he indicated so if you were to double that for two of those you'd get requirement of three parking spaces if you were to take a five-bedroom single family dwelling it requires three parking spaces it's equivalent he's what he's he's saying it's equivalent in scale and equivalent in parking requirements a three a one five bedroom house is equivalent to two two two bedroom single family dwellings that's that's what his comparison was and I and I can I can go along with that rationale and that was the point I was trying to make earlier cor but the the residential site Improvement standards is archaic like you know we can project they it stops at certain points with numbers of bedrooms um for single family dwellings it's it's usually you can project them out but for apartment units the scale doesn't work so there's flaws in the calcul in my opinion uh Craig I just one question would the parking trust account be applicable in this situation applicable it's not no okay because it's I thought that was for changing exist converting existing buildings this is not a con look at the conversions it's the conversion is set up for conversions of single family dwelling into bed and breakfast right I remember that was the initial but I didn't know that's the defin that's how it's defined if that carried through okay okay are we are we ready for a motion uh can we can we separate these uh requested variances by vote I'd like to make a motion that we accept as uh presented because I'm not sure the right wording Rich you want to do a motion on the whole thing yes second the typical way SL plan approval with Varian so I'll phrase a motion for the whole thing since someone requested it and I heard like something like a second on the left there so yeah you want to discuss it some more I don't want to get anybody's right Mr chairman whatever you want to do tell me what you want to do no I I don't know that anybody has has an OB objection to this except for Dennis no just for I had a question can we separate the variances by Vote or do we have to do the whole thing together we have a motion on strong word but I I prefer that it all be voted together that's my policy I had a superior court judge disagree with me disagree with me on that once and uh he ultimately got reversed but but leaving that aside I think he presented the application as a whole um in this instance if you're going to separate them I guess you're separating the the C the C ones and the c2s and there's really no basis to deny the C1 fails the application fails if if you look at it that way so it really doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense you're going to you're going to Grant the c1s I mean the building is the building it's been the building for a very long time so it's just it's just it's there's no useful reason to separate in my opinion all right a harder question if there's any conditions but you want to make it a motion as is as is yes so the motion I'd recommend being made but how you vote is up to you although I defer to the the chairman if he wants a different motion to be made the motion is to Grant the viance is outlined one through three of the engineers report on page three with the pre-existing non-conforming structures to be a C1 standard applied and the um parking issues to be a C2 standard as articulated by the applicant's expert subject to the waiver of site plan recommended by your board engineer on page two and the conditions outlined by the board engineer one through 8 and to my understanding this application this has no restrictions on the on on on the residential use of the second floor correct correct okay that's that's a motion you want to make Bob yes that's a motion second okay I'm sorry did someone second that who seconded L thank you Mr gorgone motions Mr lolm Seconds Mr gorgone uh yes and just comment I want to make is that I think this is a big Improvement and something that's really needed in the mall area um especially to make use of the second floor uh apartments on on M the the uh structures there on the mall so yes council member Jagger uh yeah I'm uh voting yes because I believe number one uh in my mind I think more potential Workforce hous and even though it may not be lot lot of conversation on that but I think that it's more important than the parking issue and uh the second part is is that in reality you could make that five-bedroom apartment and I think it would take a lot more it would consume a lot more parking spaces than the two two bedrooms I I believe that's my personal matth so I say yes Mrs Reed it's poor timing that you came to us about this because we just discussed uh work force housing on the mall and we are in a big conversation about it so so uh we've put you through the ringer based on that um I think you are adding to parking regardless of all our discussion because right now that apartment above has no parking going on with it you're not using it nobody's living there so there's no parking spaces needed so in a sense we are adding to the parking problem maybe not legally with all the jargon we've had here but technically we are um but again you can go ahead and make that a five bedroom right now and not need anything so uh what you're trying to do is beautiful it's lovely and I'm going to say yes Mr Crowley the U the C1 variance uh has been proven significantly and there's no problem with that uh the C2 variant u i I don't see that the case was made for that uh because it causes as many problems or more than it than it solves and uh I pay great attention to what Gary has said in terms of the impact of this kind of precedent uh on the entire mall so I I'm voting because we have to vote as a block I'm voting no Mr lenol yes Mr rigs so I do appreciate the applicants uh testimony um and obviously knowing that you had five bedrooms that were vacant trying to convert that into two areas where hopefully you can have it as habitable habitable space obviously you heard this board's discussion very much concerned about Workforce housing I would en absolutely encourage that because I think it's a good model um for it um but obviously you could use that space right now as five individual spaces so with that I'm voting yes Mr buus I'm going to have to vote no uh just because I think we're sting a president for other landlords in the mall we've been discussing this at previous meetings and I think we have to Define what Workforce housing is in the mall and how we're going to use it before we allow people to create different apartments whatever so I have to vote no on this Mr Jones yes Mr bizer yes okay thank you very much our manager will be happy okay okay the next application Kings Cafe LLC Joseph and Kate Chu 401 Lafayette Street block 1046 Lot 8 site plan preliminary and final amended in venous relief this was going to say I can I I guess I can begin while you're setting up your presentation good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board my name is Bruce Conwell with cafiro law in Wildwood I represent the applicant Kings Cafe LLC which is applying for preliminary and final site plan approval uh to reconfigure the approved seating and to propose two six-foot benches in the side yard buffer could you just move that mic closer to you I'm having trouble yeah thank you of course um just like John's presentation I'm going to be asking I'm gonna swear I was just about to do that Mr B thank you um Brian Brian Murphy's going to be offering testimony I'd like the board to consider him as an expert um he's recognized thank you very much and uh Miss Kate Chu is also going to be presenting uh testimony as well okay well each of you please raise your right hand Mr our board engineer Mr herles remains under oath do each of you swear or affirm do each of you swear or yeah keep for just a second haven't seen this on TV do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole you nothing with the two sub got yes okay the site is located in the C1 primary business district and operates as King's ice cream parlor uh selling ice cream Coffee retail Goods uh Toys games t-shirts things of that nature um which is a permitted use in the zone uh the original site plan was approved in November of 2019 um where 16 indoor seats were approved the applicant seeking to move 10 of those approved seats Outdoors um and all non-conformities that were approved previously um would remain unchanged the application proposes five outdoor tables for consumption of ice cream coffee beverages um have with each table having two seats for a total of 10 seats tables will be portable and within 10 ft of the principal building as required in the zone um and at this time I think I'd like to have Kate testify have a couple of questions for you just about the business itself um again Kate would you please state your name for the board Kate Chu and you are a member of Kings Cafe LLC yes what's your role at the ice cream parlor I'm owner and I work with the staff you work with the staff how long has Kings been open since not this previous August the August before that would be 23 August of 2023 okay so even though the site plan was approved in 2019 you didn't actually open your doors to the public until 2023 later in the summer yes now that You' you've been open for a full summer what do you notice about the traffic of pedestrians who come into this who come into the ice cream parlor uh do they do they congregate inside after they've ordered their food do they look to go outside what is your experience with with the ongoings of the the most of them want to head outside and um originally we had thought we were confused we thought the approved seating was for indoor and outdoor so but we we took um the tables away when we needed to do that and now we have found that they're still heading outside most of the customers the flow of the ice cream is like long lines as as you guys know and then they go outside and now they're just kind of standing congested on the little pavement there and they're they got a foot down on the driveway and they got a foot they're just kind of before with the seating they were situ more situated and organized now they're kind of all over the place do you plan on having any sort of table service at at the table that are outside um they're just for eating once they've ordered their ice cream okay just for clarification um and there's no there's no entertainment Outdoors or anything like that nothing that you're trying to propose no live music no what time do you normally close at night uh 10 o'clock okay um I I I don't think you have any other questions for you Kate right now the board may have some questions for you but uh I do have some questions for Mr Murphy if you could please state your name and again you've already been recognized so I don't believe you have to offer any qualifications thank you sure my name is Brian Murphy and I am professional engineer in land planner in the state of New Jersey right Brian do you prepare site plans in the ordinary course of your work I do Bruce why don't you have that microphone in front of you got it sorry but you did not prepare this particular plan correct not when it was originally approved and not now that is correct that did not prepare the original sight plan or the uh plan is before the board this evening but you have had an opportunity to review this site plan and to visit the actual site I have I've I've reviewed the original site plan I've reviewed the plan that's before the board this evening I visited the site as well as the immediate neighborhood what's your general procedure when you visit a site like this um just to look at the site to understand how it operates to see um the traffic flow The Pedestrian flow and just get a sense for how it it it um fits within the neighborhood and what are your impressions of this particular site um that it fits as part of um the Washington Street mall if you will it's as we all know that this part of the city is a walking part of the city and um for people to walk over and to get the ice cream there's there's a a uh uh a crosswalk right in front of this that leads to uh the Rotary Park and um it's I think it's reasonable as Miss Chu said for for people to buy the ice cream and then to uh drift um across the street and the shop on the mall did you measure the sidewalks at the site I did and and how wide are those sidewalks um they are shown on the S plane if I may bring the mic yeah thanks um the wall that faces the um Mall it shows a 5 foot Dimension from the curbing to the table and the table is two foot table so it'll be S feet on um I'll say it's the east side and on the Lafayette Street side Lafayette Street side yeah on the Jackson Street side it's 4 feet to the table when and the table is 2 feet in diameter so it'll be six feet from the curbing to the edge of the building on the Jackson Street side how much clearance is required um in Craig's report May Jump Ahead he's requiring five feet RSI as for a sidewalk requires four feet um but what's unique is that the uh Lafayette Street side we have the full five feet and on the Jackson Street side there are three parking spaces in this immediate area but what would happen people would park there and they would walk behind the Cars along the uh parking along the sidewalk walk that parallel to Lafayette Street to access the building so these two the ones that are frontting on Jackson Street while there is four feet between the Curbing and the sidewalk um most of it's reasonable for people to walk along the drive a like to do across the street at the parking for coler's liquor like to do for the parking at the Acme like to do a lot of parking in a lot of places in the city and the place where the the access the egress and Ingress to the uh um the ice cream store the five feet is that's required is available Mr Murphy in your opinion uh is the clearance likely with the tables and and and were you able to measure the tables themselves do you know what they measure at I I did there was a a table and two chairs that were around the side of the building during my inspection so I was able to measure the table which is shown on the site plan as as a round table and it was exactly two feet in diameter and the chairs as shown on uh the plans that were repaired by Mr Orlando um are accurately shown in your opinion is the clearance likely to create a substantial pedestrian traffic H Hazard that would endanger any sort of Public Safety no none whatsoever if you look at this um we have they they show the parking in the front there's parking bumpers that are there which would prevent the car from leaning over the curbage if you will um so there would be the the uh uh the full five ft available and on the Jackson Street side a car would not take up the full 9 feet but rather typical car is about six and A2 feet so there would be another foot or two on this side for people to walk around and as uh Miss Chua stated earlier this has been the parking arrangement for the last year and a half people just go into the store come out of the store um and there's more than an adequate room for people to walk safely in your opinion would any of the purposes of the municipal land use laws be Advanced by a deviation from the bulk requirements that are requiring 5et of clearance uh yes there are some special reasons and I've highlighted uh three of them as part of this application and the uh um three that I've highlighted num the letters are a g and I and a is to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands paraphrasing to promote the general welfare and I believe that this would provot promote the general welfare by having um the ice cream store in this area and and have the seats outside it was a pleasant day for the people to enjoy the outside um and and enjoy their ice cream I think G as in girl which is to provide a sufficient space and appropriate locations for commercial uses to meet the needs of all New Jersey uh citizens and I think that um in this situation having the seating outside is um an appropriate location and then I which is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and arrangements and I think having the seats outside does two things one it it opens up the inside but more importantly or as important is that there'll be people sitting outside enjoying their ice cream saying come on over here and have an ice cream it's it I believe will add to the Ambiance of this area of Kate May and I think it's reasonable to uh have this as a uh a bookend to the park we have the Washington Street mall on the one side and the ice cream store on the other side of the rotary Mall so would you say that the benefits from variance relief would outweigh the detriment to the public good in my professional opinion the benefits would outweigh the detriments yes okay you've already given your special reasons um does the board have any questions for Mrs Chu or for Mr Murphy I have one go somebody else had one no go ahead no um so I listened to what you said and basically it comes down to the fact that this isn't really really a sidewalk that's used for transiting a a public Street or a sidewalk like we would think of a sidewalk in front of a building this is really an extension of this business rather it's an entrance to the business and nobody uses that sidewalk unless they're coming in or going out of that business that is that basically that's accurate yes sir yes yeah right have has the applicant had a chance to review the fire department and police department review memos re yes are you going to address that at all I mean so the uh police department and the fire chief both recommended approval but with the installation of parking ballards or a concrete post that would prevent the possibility of are you willing to do that is that going to be part of your would you like to offer an answer Mr Chief whatever you guys recommend or require well it they're raising it as a safety issue um they also raise another substantial issue um that I think we had concerns with when this was first approved was this is you know at a very awkward configured intersection the site really is not sufficiently deep and cars are backing out of parking spaces and affecting traffic on Lafayette Street and the police department is is cited that as being an issue um so we might we might have an opportunity to write a wrong here and with with a slight redesign um and I'll make a recommendation if if we were to slide I mean it my recommendation is going to result in the loss of a parking space which I know is terrible in the C1 District but if we were to slide that handicap parking space over to the left as the as you shown on the plan Slide the loading with it and you could actually make that a formal seating area in the front and that would allow any car backing out of the handicap space to actually have that K turn opportunity in front of it in front of that stall you see where the the cros hated area is so that it wouldn't have to back out on the Lafayette Street and then it could pull out on Jackson Street but it would result in a loss of a parking space um could they even have more seating over there and that's that's so it gives you an opportunity to put seating over there um and not have it on the sidewalk where it you know it may block and the and the only the only thing that I was worried about with the design and why I was asking for the widths of the sidewalk was to make sure that the accessible route was provided between the access accessible handicap parking space and the front door um there has to be 36 in clear and that's why I was asking for you know the the detail construction details of the seats and whatever that was going to be provided there there has to be a 5x5 Landing that's clear provided at the top of the ramp to allow someone in a wheelchair to come up to the top of the ramp and and make a turn um that's all required in accordance with the um ADA requirements um but I think if we shifted that parking space over that gives you a bit of an island that you could actually curve or provide ballers in and actually put a little seating area in where that cross-hatched loading offloading areas for the handicap space I I don't know whether you're willing to consider that I marked up the the drawing as you were talking Craig and I believe correct me if I'm wrong that I what you were suggesting just that accurate that the uh we would extend the drop off area Slide the handicap parking space over one space of course the SL go over um the ramp you could adjust the ramp if necessary I believe the ramp is is uh on the far uh east side of the building right now we can buy a pad accessible pad um the other problem can you get the mic please I just realized you're not the the Ballers then engineer there's there's going to be some concrete work involved in relocating the con the accessible ramp so if you're doing that you might as well curb that whole area and provide a curbed seating area and then you have more outdoor seating you have more area for the outdoor seating um unfortunately we the only detriment to that recommendation is you lose one parking space but but you're the benefit is it's a safer seating area and you're not you're I think you're going to mitigate that backing out movement into Lafayette Street which I believe is is of utmost importance for safety here so if I could just comment if if that's okay um I'm one of the Deputy OEM coordinators for the city um and I've been by this property I agree with Mr heres's analysis in terms of trying to restructure that a little bit to alleviate some of the um the issues there and I would like to go on record and saying I highly um agree with Chief both the Chiefs in terms of having ballards there to help protect you know anyone that would be out there eating their ice cream or or doing like that cuz you don't know in this day and age I uh can I also comment too on that uh this one this one photograph that you provided is is certainly a pretty good indication that ballards are a requirement there because of the fact that you not only have people sitting in those tables but you have a lot of people standing around those tables see that I would agree with push people off of the sidewalk and into your parking lot so if you have a safety concern expressed by our Police Department about the backing out it certainly advances the purposes of zoning to make the site safer so the board may decide that having less parking space is good for you and you may be able to have more than 10 seats out there if you create a nice seating area over there and then people won't congregate in the parking lot they'll congregate in your seating area and it would be safer and maybe better and you may even have more seing understand yeah I think that's the sense of our engineer and the board and people kind of like that so yeah and I I also want to spitball here a little bit too is there any chance that that the parking spaces that you see here in front of the building while you're redesigning your ramps and so forth could they be moved further away from the building causing creating a larger space the one thing I noticed is that the concrete parking stops right are too close to the curb they should be offset so that when you pull up you hit them with your wheel that's your your your bumper is not pull you know going over the side that's exactly my point so they should be staggered back yeah move move those parking spaces back away from your you're still providing the same parking space but you're providing a better space for it's more of a buffer from the sidewalk yeah it's a better safety I mean if you're moving things around anyway might be a good idea council do you have any deadlines that are coming up in the next 30 or 60 days that this getting this now I opposed to 60 days from now or 30 days from now would be critical for you okay feel free to answer that oh yeah we're I mean I always like getting things finalized and not coming again but I'm sorry but whatever you think is best I mean we we're going to be closed yeah we're going to be closed so we can come to another sense the thing is if you give us if we adjourn this for one meeting you and your engineer Mr hurles may come back with knock your socks off plan that you will like better than what you proposed and that the board will like a lot better um I guess I just think about hiring the whole team to come back again I'm just thinking about money but yeah whatever you think if we need to do that then we need to do that about spend sorry sorry okay well I'm I'm not a decider I'm just no I know I hear you it might be better I feel like I wish I had my husband here to help me make this these choices but um yeah if you think we need to like we can't settle anything tonight D do you feel like Craig we could settle something tonight I think the board's going to want to see the redesign before they vote on it okay I think that's what if I just also I think you're going to be able to get more than 10 seats okay sounds good so that's that could be a benefit is that you get you may be able to put three or four more tables in that area you just created so your husband may be very happy with you go back and say I now have 16 outdoor seats or something like that or whatever that number ends up being I don't know is that like a green turning into like a green kind of now no okay it could be like a patio a PA oh patio okay it can be like the dry duck herbed patio that's what that'll be safe and you know and protected from the car yeah yeah and and and it helps our Police Department because it's moving that back out area so I'm just you get you'll have to be giving you'll be have a lot of advancements and maybe getting a little more in return and that may be very mut very favorably by the board I think Brian Brian can communicate with Craig and yeah if if I could just add in I have to I can back up a little bit we didn't do the original site plan that was approved um and I'm filling in for Mr Orlando who did a good job so I have to work with Mr Orlando to get his plans to make these revisions and I it's not a big deal I it's not a huge effort to fix this I just want to be sure if I'm listening well this evening that as Mr Hur has said there will be a reduction of one parking space listening to the previous application I think we all can agree that parking in this immediate area is premium so we would be conceding a parking space um putting the ballards up is is is not an issue and creating an area if we can create some impervious or some perious area we we will be more happy to be a lawyer about it but you're eliminating a dangerous parking space so every time you say that from now one you say we're eliminating a dangerous parking space that's how I would I just don't want to come back next month getting a wrestling match the suggestion is you might be able to gain some outside seats that would be awesome and if I can just add before we adjourn from it though for the Ballard design I know that because in the historic nature just want to maybe had the HBC subcommittee review the specs on what the Ballard would look like from a design perspective I know that they had a lot of insight in with the firehouse and other spots in the city I would just offer that so if you were to come back to this board we could hopefully make a decision one way or another you would have everything all together and there may be a design that you guys do together that eliminates the need for ballots I mean it depends it depends if you're moving all your people over into a a safe seating area maybe that's the place to protect and moving the the blockers back a little bit and create a little safer environment I don't know but that's you may only need them you may only need them closest to the driveway opening and as you're getting creative you may actually figure out a way to save that parking space somewhere there's no room for that and that's part of we're getting creative next two ises if you guys are going if you if you're going to view the loss of a dangerous parking space as real negative then don't make them do this it's going to be a waste okay Rich I'm just joking I'm just saying they're wa they're spending time and money but I think they're going to make this money back having and I I I think that one thing there's also another member of this LL see who's unable to appear tonight um so I think Kate's going to have to discuss that with her her husband who's also the co-owner of this property um but I think preliminarily we're just considering the scope of the work that would be required in order to do away with this parking space and the concrete work and um we're just I think that the cost is a is a legitimate concern to to to take the step to do away with this I'm not really sure what concrete work would be required in in total other than the installation of of of ballards potentially to protect at a minimum the what would be a new seating area outside so I'm just trying to keep up with the engineers and this the discussion about the scope of the concrete work that would about 30 linear feet of of Curbing and whatever flat work that would fill in that area that 9 by8 or 8 by 18 space I just have a question is it possible to [Music] just put what's it called ballards or ballards is it possible just do that and just keep yeah we I'm not sure we're going to have the finances to do this whole new plan as much as it sounds great we're like I'm just not is there possible to just do ballards and keep this plan sgg that's proposed tonight or I can't support that based on the police department report citing of a hazard that's even with the Ballers I thought they said there would be a the the the biggest the reason I made the recommendation is because of the backing out movement on to Lafayette Street when we initially approved that we were thinking that that handicap space would be a low turnover space but it's happening frequently it's happened in front of me when I've been in town um it's occurring it's it's cited in a police report as a dangerous situation excuse me situation that can be fixed and I think the board is kind of encouraging you to rework your plan they're going to be flexible with the number of seats you can get more seats and create a safer situation we think we can you know fix make a better site plan I agree with Mr hs's comments on there and you see in the police department's review of this it's happened to me while I've been driving down the street I mean that's a busy inter section so if there's an opportunity to help alleviate this I I would have to support Mr hur's recommendation I thought the ballots that they were talking about across the whole front of the building and all was a reaction to all the people spilling off of the sidewalk near the parking area that's what I that's that was the impression I got from that but I I don't know that um but the more you pull people away from spilling into the parking lot and into a sea a seating area that's protected that's not an area where people are pulling in then maybe there's something that can be discussed among the engineers about the ballards or whether Planters or some other curbing can go there that isn't as expensive and nervous for you and maybe the cost ends up being relatively close and when that's compared to having a bunch more outdoor seeding you may decide it's better much better economically when to give you that chance you you have the right to come back to the board we can say look we we considered all this and we just can't do it we want to vote up or down on what you have here but then you get the vote you get and I mean that that's okay but losing stings so you may lose this because the board I I can get a sense that some of the board's concerned about well we're going to put seating there and now there's still these pictures of people spilling out on there and we have this dangerous condition out there so they may say no and then and then where are you and and perhaps moving those buffers further away from the building may solve the problem without having to do a baller that's that's good point yeah and you may be able to put a planner there or something there that directs your people to not spill out into the direct parking but rather kind of encourages them to go towards the seating area so that's not that expensive to do you guys are very creative so it may not have to be um bill is it possible to move the parking spot over and add the ballards and not have the seating area on the side well the seating are is because is is a kind of a I don't want to say but it gives it it yeah it it helps them um but the backout issue is with the handicap spot right apparently is that right yes so could you just move the handicap spot over eliminate that space and put the ballards in we could but they they they're losing all that seating they they're not asking for seating though well they hadn't thought about this before now they're going to have a a dead what 20 by 20 by 30 space over there something it's 8 by 18 8 by 18 plus whatever is on the side of it you can pick up another 10 seats yeah they put some they can put some if you want to try to Hash it out tonight I'm not I just want to give everybody a chance to think I just or they can move they can go forward and vote I might I'm not telling anybody what to do I just yeah giving the opportunity you want to get the best play you can with Public Safety yeah I think it's probably can we just take a quick moment outside if that's okay can we just sure thank take a five minute break we move to suspend U microphone's off please yeah do an announcement they just come back yeah yeah so we could say we're not going to consider this tonight you go back and work you you can do that I mean if they don't want to do that should we do that you can you can say we need more site information and Public Safety this and that technically You' probably vote vote it down but I would move the but we if they force uh we can't sit as a body we can't we can't turn on we can't sit as a body and turn on I guess are e e e e e e e e e e you hey we're back we're back in session guys well I I appreciate you giving us a minute to to talk about this um and I think one of Kate's only questions at this point is if if we table this application for now and we come back with a revised plan which would do away with this parking spot supposedly um would we still be would we be able to apply for a seating plan in that area now but also have these seats that would wrap around the the the restaurant as as well I mean that's I think what her intention would be is to see if we would be able to have the seating in this designated area but then also keep these these two tops for lack of a better term around the the building as well it wasn't my intention to make you lose the seating you were requesting but rather add to it at least that's that's as I was as I think as long as we understood that more seating than you were presently requesting I was not trying to move that seating to another location I was change for making the intersection safer would the board want to see bards along that seating yes that's right yes so I think can leave it but you have to provide Ballers along that seating on the side well how about how about how about plers but there has to be something Traffic Safety I think the fear is someone pulling into a parking spot and stepping on the gas instead of the brake sure and like Dennis said earlier if you if you put the if you put the bumper stops a little bit further away from the curb that would about the engineers worked that out in in the most cost effective way you can come up with but when you have head in parking someone mentioned like maybe like a delies or something that's cars going parallel to the sidewalk these are cars pulling in to your customers so there needs to be some concerns about that we just did the same thing on um the thing at the end Cast Away Co um the co co rest oh i k that's the Mission City I'm sorry yes and I have just one clarification um you're you're not going to be suggesting uh anything but moving more of your indoor approved seating Outdoors that's not that's not what we're saying no I think we I think the recommendation was that we would allow for more seating in that area in addition to what they have in addition okay so when you come back the number of additional seats would be important to me sure okay Rich what about notice requirements I just want to also point out just for the board's own thought process is that outdoor seating doesn't necessarily require more parking yeah just so for the board's let go back for the board's information there is an outdoor seating ordinance right they don't comply with it because that ordinance requires them to provide 5 foot clear on their sidewalk so if they had 7 foot all the way around the thing they could provide that seating there they can go pull a permit right from the city the fact that they have that I think the seats on the side where there's only 4ot clear is what triggered the fact that they had to come here and and revise the site plan and they have a seating patio over there that additional seating the SE proceeding patio doesn't add to the parking yeah but it does require the site plan yes a site plan approval and the ballards would be on the side of your building as well cuz you're putting seating there am I correct well no but the cars aren't pulling directly in there they pull they pull them they pull them parallel in but they could go through you don't need ballers in the gotcha gotcha just when they pull into the seating that's when you get work we won't create this in a vacuum we'll talk to your engineer and get his input which we'll get from you guys so when we come back it'll be I think a planet you're all going to be pleased with I think so too okay so just so we not we're going to we're going to um and I'm we're going to table okay all right so make if someone will make a motion to adjourn and then if that gets approved I'll do an announcement so you want have any notices or anything my and you'll you'll weigh the time constraints you wave the time constraints yes right yes I'll make a motion okay I'll make a motion to adjourn or to table it to table to table to Table in cour we call it adjourning the motion but I think during the motion okay motion table table this is to the January meeting well we um can I just say we have the healing application coming back January 14th anticipated so I didn't know if you want to do it in the work session or the same meeting I didn't do the same January 2 take long if we'll put this first we'll put this one let put this one first not January 14 2025 um vote on the motion to did someone make a motion yeah Bob made the motion Dennis seconded the table that oh thank you motion by Mr Gorgon seconded by Mrs Reed Mr Gorgon I think Mr Crowley seconded wait was that [Laughter] we change is it that's that's fine is that okay all right Mr gorgone council member Jagger yes Mrs Reed yes Mr Crowley yes Mr lenol yes Mr rigs to table yes okay so this application I was Mr buus you're done Mr Jones yes Mr bazer yes thank you because now this application really has been tabled until January 14th and our meeting times are still going to be 6:30 6:30 in this room this application will likely be heard first this is your notice if you have any objections or concerns about this you're required to appear at that date and time there'll be no further notice of that application and that January 14th meeting was placed in our notices for public meetings last year correct yes okay so you're all set all right allk you luck thank you okay before we get to one last motion I would like to just say the this this is Mike's last meeting I think can we pay the bills before do you want to pay the bills bills oh yeah I'm sorry you need a motion to pay the bills motion to pay the bills second okay this this is Mike's last meeting I want to say it's been a pleasure having you on the board Mike thank you very much Bill it's been a pleasure being here and working with all of you thank you thank you for your [Applause] Ser I'd like to Echo that as well Mike's been a a valuable asset to this whole town not just this port y thank you okay final motion oh um wait does everyone agree on the bills just say yes thank you motion to adjourn all in favor I thank you everyone and good night Merry Christmas