##VIDEO ID:APn2UT-wyco## e e e e testing testing testing all right I figured you wanted it so this is is this did you put some in my door a couple weeks ago somebody did I don't know who did but it's okay they put what in like somebody's packet somebody put their maybe Norm did sometimes people do it's okay yeah I wouldn't you know you don't have to save them forever unless you want to they take up a lot of space like the the resolutions okay like that yeah whatever you you know whatever works for you right yeah a lot of us our houses are so small we don't have room for that something boxes of paper I'm trying to thin out stuff my daughter even said you've been doing a good job Mom had medical from when she was a baby you know I saved everything and you don't need them you don't you have the vacc and she's 30 something polies right short then you can compare it yes exactly exactly really I think I can get they do have a shredder over at public works and you can make it but it's one of these kind that go like this it's not really okay my policy what it covers it's not going to help anybody steal they can steal that it's so easy to save it e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay there's uh been a slight change in the order of the agenda this evening um the order of the hearing of the applications has been change two the first hearing will be farington second Oaks and third Kennedy oh we have some other business first okay we have to open up the in compliance with the open public meeting Act of 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided if any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act they should state so at this time please stand for Pledge of Allegiance Al to the United States of America the for it stands one nation God indivisible with andice for all okay what do you need oh I'm sorry thank you Mrs wner Mr venudo here Mr Lewin Mrs Notch here miss Sheen here Mr Walsh here Mr Zer here Mr Bodner here miss Stevenson here thank you okay first order of business we need a uh motion to adopt the uh minutes from it's 10:24 2024 is that correct um we don't have the minutes tonight if we could just go right into the resolutions we'll have the minutes at the next meeting okay thank you you're welcome okay first resolution is Franklin Perth LLC 22 stockt in place um block 1062 lot two I'll make the motion second okay so Mr Zer motions Mr wal seconds one second Mrs Notch yes Miss Shen abstain Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Miss Stevenson yes Mr vuda yes thank you okay second resolution is William and Elizabeth Elizabeth Grace 1405 Harbor Lane block 1160 uh Lots 76 7601 and 77 all right um do we have a motion to adopt I'll make the motion I'll second Mrs Notch motions Miss Stevenson seconds Mrs Notch no obain I'm sorry obain thank you Miss Sheen obain Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Miss Stevenson yes Mr venudo yes thank you okay our third resolution is Cape Home Investments LLC 401 Pittsburgh Avenue block 1165 lot 402 can we have a motion to adopt I'll make the motion I'll second okay Mr Zer motions Mr Bodner seconds Mrs Notch obain Miss Shen obain Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr bidner yes M Stevenson yes Mr vuda yes thank you okay our first uh application this evening is Edward and Linda farington uh 102 Pittsburgh Avenue block 1156 slot 1301 please uh come forward introduce yourselves can you turn on your microphone David sit yeah you just have to make it green just hit the button I yelled at you before Karen did for once you good job good job now you got turn it on no green green bring bring it closer please Perfect let me repeat I'm Dave Stefan it's good bring it closer please me bring it bring the microphone closer to you please if you could this is thank you very much we're Recording Technology is not my thing gotcha thank you obviously I I represent the farington they're the owner of 1012 Pittsburgh Avenue it's a property located in the R4 Zone it's a single family home that's a permitted use in the zone uh the board may remember last September they received approval uh which required a front yard setback variance and I believe a for uh development on a undersized uh lot but they received approval to uh construct a new entrance way into their home along with a covered uh front porch uh there were some other improvements that that they were granted but they're not really relevant to uh tonight's application the construction as you probably know is underway uh the applicant is now seeking a approval to uh change the architectural features of two aspects that were approved they'd like to change the roof line I believe what was approved was a flat roof line this is more of a dmer style roofline it doesn't uh create any uh new habitable space it doesn't create any new usable space it's purely uh an aesthetic change it doesn't of what they're seeking tonight really uh expands any of the variance relief that they were provided with before it doesn't exacerbate anything that they received before uh they're also asking for approval to uh slightly change the aesthetic of I guess it's the the screened area or the shutters uh your engineer has characterized that as they want to put Bermuda type uh shutters on uh and again none of the relief we seeking exacerbates any prior variance relief uh you might recall when they came in and they received the original approvals Andy schaer their professional came in and he testified at length relative to the justifications for the variant under the municipal land use law uh and he also testified relative to the justifications for the waivers if I had Mr uh schaer here today his testimony would be exactly the same all the justifications that existed back in September uh still exist because again this is an aesthetic uh change and an aesthetic change only from a functional standpoint and and really from a variant standpoint it's no different than when we were here before as a matter of fact and and I think it's good the the K May ordinance is a little bit quirky uh in most towns where I represent the board uh it wouldn't even require the applicant to come back if it was just a an aesthetic change but I think Kate May and it's it's quirky but good if there are any changes even aesthetic if if the type of relief that was granted before uh is involved the applicant would have to come back and that's why we're we're back here I don't I don't believe that when my clients embarked upon this project and began the construction they had any idea that they would have to come back but be that as it may uh here we are uh we did review can I get say one thing about that sure and I know to be over technical on you but mic yes ma'am thank you I just good for the goose good for the again I can hear you at least mine was green but it was a mile away so I can hear you Mr King um okay uh just as a technical matter we can't incorporate the testimony of Mr schaer because he's not here to to be cross-examined which is the right of the public and the board to ask him questions so his primary testimony had to do with Aesthetics and that was a lot of the basis of the approval previously so just as a matter of um practice I just don't want to give you the false impression that his testimony before is on this record because it really it really can't be so maybe things he said before the board might remember I don't even know which board members were here for application like which one's voted on it or not so you're in a sense you're kind of starting from scratch just so you don't skip that okay Mr King I don't think you were overly technical I I agree with your analysis in in in that respect but I think when we're talking about Aesthetics uh particularly the type of basic Aesthetics none of what we're talking about is beyond the can of a lers I just want to make sure your your clients fill in that Gap by talking about why they believe it's aesthetically where you consider that I am if it if it was something other than an aesthetic uh issue I think we may be in a different uh uh circumstance but because it's only Aesthetics that we're talking about and when I looked at the ordinance and I looked at what what we're doing here and I I I certainly wouldn't describe it as the Minimus but I don't believe it's beyond the can of of the board members I I agree your clients are able to testify as to why they believe it's it's aesthetically more desirable and the board can weigh that like they would anything else okay and I would I would also indicate to the extent that uh their application is granted today they would still be subject to the approval of all the conditions contained in the prior approval to the extent that they aren't Changed by anything we do uh tonight likewise I I did review and I went over with my client uh Mr heres's uh September 29th uh 202 4 report uh we agree with all the conditions uh subject to any approval of course including Landscaping in front of the uh Port area as a matter of fact my clients take great pride in their landscaping and I think they probably receive some accolades uh along the way so that's not a problem the only uh witness I intend to uh call is Linda farington she's most familiar with the project and without any further Ado I'm prepared to do that if you would swear in I will um just another note I just want to I think it was RA although it was Mr Schaefer's office I think Ramy Nasser testified last time is that right when I reread the resolution I think it was Ramy so whenever you reference just for purp I just looked at the no it's Andy it's I know schaer Ramy the same same people okay um folks if you raise your right hand whoever's going to testify no he's raising his right hand to testify he doesn't have a question he's okay I'm going to swear you in I'm also going to swear in the board engineer unless you has to use the men I don't know he's looking for the whole pass um do each of you um swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth St you guys I do I do all right thank you so much okay so M hold on wait wait till I ask questions uh well I'll ask you an AC one where and with whom do you reside oh we go with my husband Edward at 1012 Pittsburgh Avenue Cap May New Jersey and do you own that property yes we do how long have you own 22 oh 20 you you have to you have to answer3 I have to answer were you sorn in too I only recall her raising her right hand did did I swear you in sir swear in okay no you don't have to just tell me what it is no no no no no you can't do that okay sorry okay sir do you swear airm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth sub gu yes I do okay there you now you can talk oh and and if if you don't know the answer then just tell us you don't know but approximately how how long have you she's the witness I'm the 03 since 2003 all right and uh is that your primary residence yes it is have you lived there on a full-time basis since 2003 we have not we moved here permanently approximately 6 to8 years ago we are retired I'm going to call you your attention back to September 2023 uh did you receive approval to uh construct a new front entrance and a uh front yard covered porch yes we did and now you're applying for some changes to that plan is that correct all right so let's let's focus on the the porch area what are you asking the board to approve so initially what happened is I was working with my architect and as my husband knows I tend to change my mind a lot so we had four or five plans um developed and designed out of the four out of the five plans four of them had the kind of roof line that I thought I was get getting approved for but my architect turned the wrong one in I believe so what happened is I just assumed that it was going to be the one that we had talked about doing so the one that he was that we're doing now has a has an extra um like Gable where the other one was a shed roof and I said to him several times I don't think the shed roof looks as nice let me ask you a question when you started the construction and you were using the gable roof what you've just described did you believe that that was in Conformity with the plans absolutely right you found out at some point that it wasn't mhm you have to say yes or no yes so what's the difference between the roof that was approved and the roof that you would like them the board to approve to for me it's it's extremely minimum it's it's more of a triangle I guess it's called the Gable where the other one was just going to be a straight down shed roof and uh in your view does it look better than just a straight roof yes my neighbors are very happy with it does does if if the new roof is approved or the new roof line does it create any additional habitable space no no no any additional living space no is just a change the roof correct does it uh does it expand the front yard setback uh that you were approved for in September it's the same distance yes from from the public way and uh that's what you believe that you were approved for yes and what about the screening so the screening again I wanted I wanted it to have we have two large dogs and I didn't want to have the screens going all the way to the floor because the dogs would scratch maybe jump out um definitely rip them apart and I'd have to constantly redo it which in my other room I have a sliding door that has a French door and when we slide it open the and the um screen is there I've replaced that nine times already so I have to keep that door closed so I wanted to have a knee wall and then the screen above the knee wall and that's what I thought I was doing also Then I then I meanwhile found out that we were supposed to have a I think a railing I don't know if that's a railing with the screen below it but that's never has never been anything I thought we were doing okay and and again uh you you would like to make that change because you think it would be more secure for your two dogs absolutely is that uh still in the same footprint of what was approved same in the foot Yes yes again you're you're not exacerbating any of the various relief that you have been uh granted not at all now was it your intention to uh Place land Landscaping in front of the Imports I already have it designed you you have a landscape design what about the rest of your properties that landscape oh yeah yes in your opinion is the change to the screen in PS the roof and the uh the way you you does it have shutters let me ask let me back up the shutters I believe were always in the plan they're just um the reason I wanted the shutters is so people can't see into my real house cuz I have all glass so if I don't have something blocking a little bit there people will be able to see in okay so you you believe that they and and do you believe that this plan is more aesthetically pleaseing than what was technically approved before absolutely yes yes and I take it uh Mrs farington that you're willing to comply with all the conditions that uh the engineers proposed yes that's all I have I have a question yeah is and I'm assuming that um and I can't recall 100% that the last time you're here the screen in PCH was a true screen porch with you know fairly long screens I'm sorry the screens were you know a true screened in porch where they were fa fairly long from roof to near the base of the uh porch when we were first here last time you're saying that the screens were to be all the way down yeah look they look right now that they are oh no are they are they Windows now are they Windows now screened Windows oh no no screens we had talked about doing these Phantom type windows that were supposed to be put into but they were going to be screens that go off and then plexiglass it came came down so it didn't get rained on but now we're just doing just regular screens but the ones that you guys approved before I thought you were proving the one that all along that I that we put in that's that's why I was shocked when when someone came out but that was because my architect put the wrong plan sorry to say that but and I you know we saw the plans though the these plans were presented during the last Zoning Board hearing for everybody to see um who saw the plant me or my architect everybody there was a presentation by architect which had complete drawings of what I believe is Z1 the which is what we actually approved right which looks dramatically different from what I'm saying to you is that when we when those were turned in I assumed he was turning in the other ones I didn't to be honest with you I didn't really pay attention I just assumed he was turning the ones in that we've worked on for six mon but you here yeah at the hearing okay so yeah but I would okay yeah question so is it fair to say that the design it's is it's not just the screens are changed everything about the your proposal and the Gable wall as well but there's columns that are different before you were proposing floor to ceiling screen believe there's a testimony talking about how you wanted to take advantage of the outside in the air but you want to be able to sit outside at night because you were concerned about mosquitoes and bugs and things like that so you wanted to be able to see that and instead I mean candidly you look at the the proposed plan and it goes from an open air report is which which is what was presented to us and what what you said was what you wanted to something that looks completely different doesn't look like a porch it looks like an extension of the house and it looks fully enclosed I mean even to the the shutters and I can understand why people people may like that look but candidly it looks pretty closed off it looks it's just the opposite of being open and Airy it looks like um it looks like just an extension of of the of the wall do you I understand what you're saying I don't agree with you but I understand what you're saying my whole point for the screen porch was to have a screen porch um yours may be the Airy thing that's not me I I don't I want I don't want to get mosquitoes in and I don't I want to do that for my dogs we don't have kids we don't have grandkids but our dogs are our life and having those if I don't have that secure on the bottom those dogs are going to ruin it scratch it and rip it and when I look up and down Pittsburgh Avenue there's like like six houses they have the exact same thing that I'm asking for exactly so can I ask you a question about um what your entry door into the into the house would be and I guess um because on the proposal I see it looks like an entry into the porch and then there looks there's another entrance from the porch into right into the primary part of the house what kind of doorway is that that's going into the house the first one when you first both of them both of them so the first one is um it's a rain glass like thing so people can't see into the house okay and again I think he put a screen door down in first which he wasn't supposed to do because my dogs will go flying through the door so it's going to be that's going to be an entry door it's not going to be a screen door correct and then beyond that what is the what is the door that's going from your porch into the into the house house itself it's called the Nano door pardon me the Nano door can you tell me what that is it's to open to it's it's kind of folding door and it there's like six panels and it folds all the way one way and then this with the screens out there you can get air in your whole house the Airy look is it solid or like when it's closed is it is it's closed it's all glass it's it's it's more of an accordion yes type Rich the the Nano wall I I think is supposed to be like a wall that could disappear all right but it can also but it's on a track okay it's on a track so the theory was with a screen porch I don't have any screens on my front front any in the from the inside going into my porch the thought was to have that open and and be able to have the screens come through my house I'm just a notaker I just work at Nano door and it didn't mean anything to me so I just yeah it's if you imagine like a CLA style you know walking on l i maybe a lot of folks have them down there they may not be called Nanos that's a brand name so um your front door then would be the door basically on the on the porch because you open that door up and the other one is more of a a sliding door that have in a sense yeah in a sense so most likely you'll just keep that sign door open the whole time and just come in through your screen door Bic what you're doing is you're extending the whole half now into the porch area I can yeah so to me it's almost like you're having an addition not actually a porch I I don't understand that me screens we're not having heat we're not having air conditioning we're only going to have it open on a spring day a fall day or whatever this to me this has changed from a screen porch to a fully enclosed porch and in your on the resolution that you were granted it said that you intended the porch to be screened in not enclosed and you agreed to never fully enclos the porch right yeah the porch is fully enclosed there's siding on it there was no siding before now you have I don't know if this this will be vinyl siding to match the rest of the house before it was just screens screen porch is screen everybody would love a screen porch you know but I can't have a screen porch in my house it won't fit but the screen porch is everybody's understanding is complete screens all the way down these are just Windows these aren't screens these are windows that have screens there's no windows in the house there's not going to be any Windows they just going to be screens these three things across the front are not going to be Windows no this just going to be screen with there's going to be screens with siding in between the screens but then on the bottom it's a knee wall like you know what a knee wall is oh yeah I just to me the drawings maybe maybe it's just me to me these drawings look like a fully enclosed structure absolutely not they screen the whole place is going to have screens the whole place will be open there's no windows going in when you say no windows you're talking about no glass no glass it just he he's making me SC was your testimony that you were going to put glass in but now you're just doing screens or something said we were never doing glass I think I thought you said you were doing plastic or something we were going to do the pl plexiglass plexiglass plexiglass but then we decided with the with the knee wall we didn't need the plexiglass because it it was going to be stronger and then we wouldn't rain in but now we have our shutters that are going to block it we hoped a little and we would have just screams did did you think plexiglass was permitted under your prior approval excuse me did you think plexiglass was approved your prior approval no so when when you said we were going to do that at what point were you going oh that was at the beginning of our that was at the beginning where our architect suggested that to us but no we always going to was always going that intention predates your last hearing correct had nothing to do with any of these plans that was that was an idea they abandoned so did these were muted shutters are they open between the shutters or it just they're going to stay open permanently yeah but is that are they actual slacks or they just look like stats and they're solid wood you said it can't rain in that's why I was asking well it wouldn't rain as much I'm saying I was they're mostly there for the shade so they can't see into my house does that make sense CU because when you if you had just those screens people could see all the way through into my kitchen yeah that's what a porch is US Open see is a porch if if the shutters are shut is are they airtight no and they actually I think I think they're permanently open I don't think they can move okay they're they're so they're fixed they can't but you I thought earlier in your testimony you said you would You' shut those if you so people couldn't see in your house no so um this is what I that's right I I'm trying to get clarity you go down at an angle right okay and if you you would think I don't know if anyone has plantation shutters but when you have plantation shutters on the inside of your house they if you tilt them the right way you can see out and no one can see in that's what that's what our building okay so they're they're fixed in one position mhm okay so they can't think they if there's a storm coming I think you can go outside and UNC crank them do something or but as far as I understand they're fixed well that doesn't sound fixed to me um I was just asking um Mr stanu said that I put that they were permuda shutters I took that right off the plans I so I'm not an architect so that's was asking questions I I thought you named I didn't know I didn't name him the architect no I was piggy back in you call I thought you I thought you knew something that I didn't know no I have an idea what they are um but I just wanted you know we're talking about right um the specifics of this and I think the Board needs Clarity with regards to that so I meant that in a very generic uh uh description I picked up on your your description which I took to be a generic description and that's my background is not architecture so I I use that description all right how about now we just Craig can you we go to your review um does the board have more questions or actually I think one of my questions would be for you Craig okay I know it's a discrepancy between the survey and the drawings the survey says the porch is 165 but the drawing say it's 159 okay and I know that we always want to use your numbers this is a setback or is this a dimension the dimension the width of the porch okay the porch plus the stair right uh is 15 foot 9 in on the architecture plans is that what you're pointing out on the architectural PL right and then survey shows something different survey has it 165 I I I have a suggestion because it's not clear in my mind what the I guess what the characteristics of of these windows are and I think my clients hearing some of the concerns from the board as far as the enclosed nature of the the proposed porch uh would the board consider allowing us to to sort of get that information maybe revise the uh elevations and come back my policy is to allow the board to vote on that that if it's asked for because it it might make sense I mean I think my clients hearing loud and clear what some of the concerns were from you know being totally open to what I think a couple of the board members have characterized as a closed porch uh and also I think the questions regarding these shutters are legitimate questions uh and as Mr Sera said and I said we're not Architects and I'm not familiar with this product there are a thousand different sort of plantations shutter products but I think the board should know exactly what is going to go on this property I would like to before the board even discusses that I would just be I don't even need to get wholly into my review memo but there's one big topic and I and I'm sensing the board is grappling with this um and I didn't flag it as a variance because I wasn't sure of how you how we were treating this but with this testimony um I think the concern is real um so if you look at my review memo page five of six the general review comment number one the applicant shall verify no additional habitable area is proposed and then I put the definition of habitable area in there and it says an interior finished room enclosed by a floor ceiling and permanent weather resistant walls which has a minimum floor to ceiling height of 6.5 ft which is intended primarily for human occupancy so I asked the board the the applicant to verify and demonstrate to you that it was not habitable space um I haven't heard a lot with regards to that and I I think a lot of the questions are oriented towards that um but this dwelling is already over in the floor area ratio in the R4 District so any increase would trigger um a floor area ratio variance and that would necessitate a d variance so that's that's a change to what they're presenting to us so I don't know whether the board wants to discuss that and give them some Direction with regards to that if if they're going to table it or not table it or however they the board wants to deal with that but see Richard I think now now that observation if that that's more of an esoteric question that I think a professional would have to come in here and and speak to because I'm I'm I'm reading that and I look at it to be we're not really expanding the habitable space that was already approved at least we don't think we think it's the exact same footprint I don't know how that could be a an expansion of uh beyond that which the board approved back in September yeah I just um generally when people ask for an adjourn not generally this is the rule and this is how I do it um when people ask for an adjournment it's really the board's discretion whether they no question so I'm going to let the board vote on that but I can my my sense is that it's not just a habitable space issue that concerns the board we they have a pretty good sense of what they approved last time right and their senses that this isn't that so it may not be the habitable space issue that concerns them but they can consider that as part of the decision whether we journ or not so if if the board if any member of the board feels that there's questions that you think you would benefit from hearing more information or hearing from a professional or getting deeper into the habitable space area then let them adjourn if what you have seen so far you don't think that that habital space issue or whether the shutters truly open or close although I think it's sounds like that might close I don't know whatever if you have concerns about that then then then you can certainly vote no on the adjournment and vote it up or down on on your conscience so but I think you need to incorporate that into your consideration can I ask a question I just want you to talk to your attorney before ask your attorney the question and then and then ask us you're fine with that but you know and and I and I think to to just amplify what you said uh Richard it still comes down to uh whether or not this would be considered uh in my view permanent weather resistant walls you know uh getting to that definition of whether or not we're expanding habitable space but I thought that I'm I'm thinking of that and that that really is something that I think you do have to as you just said throw in the blender here yeah they they can consider that I mean it's also part of the things that the board considers is there the enforceability of things so when people come in and they have huge wall ceiling the floor screens they're unlikely to close them in when we're not around but when they have a window that they can put plexiglass over whenever they want it it becomes habitable as soon as they do that when they have a open space into the house so you know the board can you know has to consider all that when they're looking at these things I mean so um I'm not going to it's still a porch and it is an aesthetic change on the roof so maybe the board's okay with it I I don't know it's not it's not changing its size but but I just don't think that the I'm just going to let the board vote and they should put that in the blender as you said consider that and if you think that there's information that you are unsure about that you would benefit from hearing more then weigh that in favor of granting the adjournment and maybe you'll get better information next time but if the things like the habitable space issue isn't your greatest concern and you think in Fair you want to hear it tonight then that's up to you that's entirely in your discretion the the only thing I would say is putting aside the roof issue for a second the other two issues seem to be inextricably entwined because if it were just all screen it wouldn't be at least looking at that definition habitable space but if the board makes a determination that uh that this is permanent weather resistant enclosed walls and that's some of the criticize criticisms or at least questions and concerns that are being raised right but they were raised by they were raised by our board engineer's report so if if it's totally new like if all of a sudden we realized holy mackel this needs a use variance then I don't even know if I'd let the board vote I would say you have to adjourn it's it's but this is this discretionary so that's a a valid point um so if it was a totally new thing absolutely you'd have a right you'd have a right to an adjournment but this is discretionary and they'll just lay it in and maybe they'll they'll want to hear from an expert on the Aesthetics would be and my my point was that I think my clients May be able to go back talk to an expert I don't know if it's going to be the same expert that was uh here before and and may be able to assuage some of the concerns or questions that the board has that's all that may be the case and that's a legitimate point you should consider that absolutely and the reason I raise that is because I didn't want to if the board were to adjourn that I didn't want them not to address address that before they came back you were reading from your yes that was definitely comment number one of my report and and I think that may be able to be addressed if we go back and we relook at the actual aesthetic design of of that por area I think we could we could address that issue and the issue of whether or not this is a quote unquote closed in room I think I think we could address both those questions at the same time and even if for some reason you lost this application as long as you make a significant change you can always apply again it's just I think it's easier doing it our way I I I I'm sure it is and I agree that's and and you know let I don't vote I just try to do the best I can uh so whatever the board wants to do it's it's it's it's up to you and but I just when it's within your discretion I just make it clear on the record it's in your discretion I think if you agree to hear it you're within your discretion if you agree not to hear it you're within your discretion and there's legitimate reasons that do either one and you just need to consider it all and vote so if someone they requested a motion to adjourn if someone wants to make that motion and then it's seconded then you can vote are we picking a meeting for this to be a only if it's only if it's thank you okay does someone want to make a motion to adjourn before I make we make a motion if we uh don't vote for an adjournment does that mean that they need to go back to the original plans that were um AB approved by the board no back in September close if you if you don't let them adjourn and then we complete the process you hear from the public Craig re's report and then you deny it that their old approval is still in place now they have to deal with whatever they built deconstructing that's not our job that's someone else's um but you may hear what has to say and may vote to approve it and then that's their new approval and then they can build that approval so this isn't voting on that you're voting on whether or not you believe there's gaps in the information you've been presented such that it'd be beneficial to you to adjourn and fair to the public to adjourn that's the analysis that you need to do but you may we had a hear was it the planning board or the zoning board where we just voted no we made we made I think it was Jetty it was the jetty application that may have been the planning board and we said no to the adjournment and that was upheld in court we didn't have to adjourn um but uh that was a big hearing with a lot of public and a lot of stuff here it's up to you if you think there's information you need then you can do it so weigh all that and decide if you think it's not salvageable or that you won't benefit from it or that it's unfair then and move through and whatever you hear the rest of the applications just just to put by the way if you don't get a motion then I don't think I know but I'm going to add one more y little little bit last night when I sat as the board solicitor in North W with three out of four applications you know Midway through the application that's exactly what the applicants did and the board afforded them the ability to come back and uh address that it seems to me that it's more economical for everybody to do it that way we've narrowed it down to I think a specific hot issue which really has a an adjunct to it as well so maybe it's two hot issues and it's not like we're going back and and Reinventing the wheel we're going to come back and we're going to address that hot area and that would be it we're not you're not giving out you're not giving away anything so someone either make a motion in the next 10 seconds or don't but we got to we gotta we have two more applications and this one really is kind of 45 minutes into it so let's someone make a motion or don't I don't I don't carry the way can they make a motion to continue someone has to make a motion to to adjourn and allow them to continue on another night if someone makes that motion continue tonight any sure someone can make a motion to because then it's not awkward deny the request that's fine well someone they want either either way you can make the motion make a motion to deny the request for adjournment I make a motion to continue with what there you go that that's a motion you can second if you I'll second okay we have a motion by Miss Shan and I'm sorry who seconded um okay second Mrs Notch yes okay Miss Shan yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Miss Stevenson yes Mr vuda yes thank you okay uh we going to do Craigs report yep if he's ready sure good evening everyone um I'd like to summarize my report dated September 29th 20124 for this project at 1012 Pittsburgh Avenue which is in the R4 modified medium density residential district so we've already heard what the proposed improvements are um so I'm just going to roll right into the completeness check list items um there are waivers requested from items number 19 20 21 22 26 28 32 as well as 33 and I supported all of those except for 33 because 33 was required as a condition of approval for the first approval so and that's involves a landscaping plan they should provide that um and they've in their testimony they indicated that he would provide that so that should be required as a condition of any approval that the board grants I did support the the waivers from all of the other items now um so this is a project in the R4 District uh semi- detached Wellings this is a essentially two units side by side they are permitted in this Zone this project is not located in in the historic district and um on page three of6 I have a bulk and area table for this project um I show which variances were granted there was a approval granted 1114 2019 um semicolon one was the resolution and there were variances granted uh most recently in 2023 on 1026 um and that's semicolon 2 with regards to that resolution um and then I highlight the variances that were granted the last time which and they are on top of page four of six lot size front yard setback and lot usage ratio um if now in these cases that what's bringing them back here because they don't believe they need any other variances um it's the section 5257 3E which is our zoning review requirement that says um if the applicant let's see any further expansion of the structure whether or not let me make sure I got here whether or not expanding the non-conforming portion shall not be permitted without approvals from either the planning board or zoning board whichever is applicable the applicant received approval for the variances based on consideration of different plans the board should reconsider those variances with the consideration of new revised proposed improved plans so if you believe that these change I I I believe that they testified for aesthetic reasons were justifying the variances the first time um and and the improvements the type of improvements if the board believes that those that these new plans substantially change the testimony that those variants are granted those variances should be re reconsidered is that and I'm going to defer to my the attorney to make sure that I said that right but so I I I believe you may need to re reapply the the standards for granting those variances based on tonight's testimony okay um just rolling into General review comments on page five of six I talked about one already and that's the habitable area question um I was I wish the applicant had submitted construction details or spec sheets with regards to these shutters um there's just notes on the plans it's not real clear whether whe the the shutters are weather tight whe whether they're not um so I am unsure of whether the flow area ratio is being increased here so that that's a question though I had um item number two uh the applicant should be required to comply with the conditions of approval set forth in resolution 10- 26-203 colon 2 unless otherwise Modified by this application so and I've Illustrated all of those conditions I'm not going to rehash those um because they were all in the resolution of approval for the first time um so I'm not going to board you with that and I'm just going to one of the items of conditions were the the various departments gave the review and recommended approvals we did receive fire department review and they recommended approval dated 10:18 24 we received public works department approval dated 10124 with no comments shade tree commission recommended approval on 10232 24 with no comments so those are the reports that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions the board has no questions what the change of the of the roof is there any change in the in the runoffs no there's there's no there's no additional impervious um and they're they're required to comply with the new stormw requirements which means they're responsible for their runoff so if they change the runoff patterns we can come back and I asked them to fix that issue okay if there are no more questions for Craig we'd like to um open it up to the public anyone within 200 fet Beyond 200 ft council do you want to say anything before the board moves to its voting yes uh to the extent did repeat that question R I said do you want to say anything before the board goes to voting yes yes uh I would ask the board uh given the given the uh testimony in this case and given some of the commentary and and some of uh Mr sirus's comments that uh the board uh consider variances individually I think I'm going to ask you to vote on the approval of the uh roof change the aesthetic change I think that's substantially different than uh the actual what I'm going to call the design of the walls and the windows I think that should be V voted on separately uh if that variance is granted then I think you go to the third variance we did advertise any and all uh and that would be the variance that's set forth in uh Mr heres's uh comment on page five uh comment one which would be uh he indicates an increase and far would necess say necessitate a variance I think we would have to vote on that uh so we are going to ask so I and okay I'm gonna I don't usually do it that way and I'm not sure I'm going to do it this time but I'm going to ask you a couple questions and if you want to do it that way what's the purpose of zoning Advanced by the front yard setback for the front yard setback variant the purpose of zoning that was set forth would have been that it created a a a superior visual environment okay so how do I separate that from the roof like if like to me the entire thing is presented as a whole and that's why we always vote as a whole but so let me just finish my thought so if someone wants to I I break them up occasionally if they Advan clearly different purposes of Zoning for example the Icona Hotel they wanted back out parking and they wanted a pool and we they're probably going to lose the back out parking so instead of voting as a whole we let them do that separately so they got the pool but not the backout parking and they Advanced different purpos of Zoning for the two things in this instance my general understanding is that the purpose of zoning to advance each of the variances the lot usage rate ratio the front yard setback and whatever other variances are involved was the entire visual impact of the front porch so to vote on them separately to me there's a case out there that says that you're supposed to consider the project as a whole and that way it gets the benefit because a lot of times certain things you're asking for really don't Advance one of the purposes you cited so the board's instructed name of the case is escaping me at the moment Mr gazon is was the name of that case we all know it but we don't know there's a case uh that says that you're consum the application as a whole so I mean I just it's hard for me to so like for the lot size front yard set back I mean I I'll do it that way I just want to explain to you why I almost never do it that way because the application presented as a whole so I'll ask the board to vote on them separately and to consider the purposes of zoning advaned by each individual one and I mean and realistically as a practical matter I think that it it just makes more sense to do it that way I'm aware of the case law but the case law goes both ways too there's case law that stands for the proposition that the variances should be voted on separately uh and most boards do vote on the variances separately on the other hand I've I've seen it the other way too yeah no and I'll leave it to the board again I don't vote I'm not argument right no you're not argu you're not argumentative you're actually always wonderful polite and great on your feet uh no doubt in my mind um now I know say adal I've seen you do it and I know you're excellent um but what I'm saying is I'm not sure it's advantageous to do it in this instance because I want you to get the full benefit of the Aesthetics of the project for each of your variances so if they vote on front yard setback without considering the aesthetic Improvement of the roof line I don't I don't know what purpose of zoning advances in front yard violation in this instance other than Aesthetics the I guess I look at and and and I'll say this I guess I look at the front yard setback a little different the board did approve the front yard setback that we're proposing they have that if we vote now I I they but they did the last time we were here in September they they approved they approved it you still have that approv now what happens right now you have a front yard I understand that so I don't think we should really be wrestling over the front yard setback let me ask let me see what you're saying let me reward what you're doing cuz I think you want to vote for separately but that's not really what you're asking I think what you're asking is can you we consider the architectural features separately can we vote on all the variances for the roof and then maybe everybody's okay with the roof and then can we vote on all the variances for the window the walls and windows and maybe they don't like that and then all you have to change is not the roof structure but just the windows is that really what's you're doing that's essentially then I can do that that I can do for you okay essentially what we're trying to okay that I can do maybe maybe that's that's what we're trying to I we'll vote on number one number two number three and that doesn't do it for me okay so what the applicant is requested is I'm willing to do this since it's already constructed okay it doesn't mean affect your vote vote the same way but I'm just breaking from the usual thing so what they're asking is that you have two votes a vote on all of the variances as to the roof structure and a vote for on all the variances as to the the wall portion you're welcome to vote yes or no on both or yes on one or no on the other I don't vote that's up to you but they really want to see because they're deciding what they have to rebuild okay so the roof requires a front yard variance too that sticks out just as far as the porch so all the variances are the same so um if someone wants to make that motion I I just need some clarification because I think I got a little lost when you're talking about the roof yes right yes are we talking about just the the Gable part of it because now there the there's a front door there there's a glass doors behind it the walls everything above the walls just talking about okay so nothing um just apply apply your common sense to the situation they're worried about if they have to redo all the side structures of the walls and put naked all screens and then they also have built a roof and they want to know if they can keep the roof and just do the the screens around it so you're going to vote once as everything above the walls but okay my question is this but but I my question is this say I say yes to the roof that changes and I say no to the other thumb how does that look I have no idea what what is being built they can they can leave the roof the way it is but they have to construct but I I don't know what that is because I see no plan for that I thought the end of my sentence was going to be and they have to construct the rest of the walls the way it was approved previously with ceiling to floor screening and a railing system around it because they have approval for that and you're going to approve you would that's what they want to do okay because I wasn't at the last meeting so I have a little bit questions I don't remember or wasn't here would they approve for that bfold doors that are in there because that's not really a door it's more of a a room expansion justifying under wrot that yes to that do we have construction drawings last time I don't think so how do you know your testimony is you didn't even you don't know what was approved last time I don't remember that at all so then your answer is you're not sure right I'm 100% you're 100% sure that the board board was presented with those doors last time and approve them yes no that was um then no okay folks I don't believe that was part of the pro I don't think it was I can all of you can make whatever motions you desire in fact you can make a motion to uh vote up or down on the entire thing if you want and do it the same way we always do it I think you're entirely within your rights to do it so I was just inviting you to consider that you can make a motion as to a portion of the structure and not the other but you can make any motions you want that is that's not my job I try to help with it but that's not my job so anybody can make any motion they want okay let's um start at the top uh do we have can we have a motion to um approve the whole structure as shown on the plans is that a motion Mr venudo it's a motion in the affirmative yes or no a motion to approve he's asking for the motion yeah first I'm going the whole the whole the whole thing do we have a motion for that okay yeah yes I make a motion that we we do it the project as a whole with the roof and all the okay as it was presented tonight as a whole I'll second that okay okay Miss Shen motions Mr Bodner seconds Mrs Notch no Miss sh I'm sorry I didn't need clarification sorry we're we're we're just voting on the motion or the project the motion the motion okay wait no no he's moved to approve the project as a whole I'm Sor you're all going to vote if the vote is yes then it's approved if the vote is no then it's not approved and then we'll see if there's another motion there may or may not be another motion and then we're going to either end end this application or we're going to consider the next motion that's made and we're going to do that within about 30 seconds so we're we're voting on the project you would any other night there's a motion to approve the application as presented you're going to vote Yes or no okay thank you I'm sorry Mrs Notch I was really quick to ask for the next vote did you want to give a reason no okay no Miss Shan I'm voting no and the reason is um I feel this is not a porch it's an extension of the house and it's a more becoming a livable space um especially with the fact that the door leaning into the porch is more of like the secured door that you go into a house with um also on her testimony from last time she states that uh she wanted a screen in porch due to her allergies to mosquitoes she agreed to never fully enclose the porch my opinion is with these shutters and that door it becomes a fully enclosed room Mr Walsh I'm GNA vote no and I agree with Stacy it's a fully enclosed room right now Mr Zer uh I I have to vote no as well for the same reasons and the whole time I've been listening the idea of that door on the quote unquote porch that's an exterior that's a door to the house the interior door that folding door whatever it is that's not a door to the house it begins to have the illusion the illusion that this is an extension of the house not a screened in porch I have a screened in porch that that's not that that appears to be an addition to the house Mr Bodner I vote no and I agree with the the remarks made by Stacy Miss Stevenson I vote no because of the previous uh sentiments and I noticed in the beginning of the testimony it was referred to as a front entrance and front covered porch but in the previous resolution it was referred to as a screened in front porch Mr venudo I vote no as well um again it's a it's a roof uh and uh doesn't appear to be a screened in porch anymore um and also I do think there is questions about whether it is habitable space or not and as it stands right now it can certainly very easily be turned in or considered habitable Space Mr chair do you wish to entertain any other motions sorry yeah um would someone like to make a motion that we uh vote on it separately the uh gabled roof and what's below uh the walls okay I'm sorry can you rep um well when the ne whoever makes the motion give me all the details so I get the roof and then was there something else yeah anyone wants to make a motion to vote separately on the roof feature as opposed to the walls features okay thank you and there may or may not be a motion to in that regard so do we have a motion this might be inappropriate to ask at this point I should have asked before what variances are required for just the roof is the same Vari going to be three for each one okay if they were separated I guess we'd all have a motion okay that's fine and the board elected to consider the matter as a whole as is our traditional practice and elected not to uh break up the features of the project which I think is in their discretion so they didn't do that thank you everybody have a good night than sir okay our second application be Jack and eileene Oaks 11:45 Washington Street block uh 113 oh 13 lot 22 sit okay please introduce yourselves when you're uh settle in no you're you're fine thank you okay can you hear me is this good yep okay good evening Mr chairman board members my name is Ron gunis appearing on behalf of Jack and Eileen Oaks of course Eileen is to my left and Mr Oaks Jack is to my right property of course is 1145 Washington Street this property is prominently prominently located in the historic district on Washington and is a contributing structure as is the detached garage that is the subject of this evening's application uh brief history uh the property was the subject of improvements to the exterior grounds that included an exterior patio and Pavilion all of which were properly permitted and have been constructed part of that project was to also renovate the detached garage uh which included lifting the garage to uh construct a new foundation and then to set the garage building back down and to renovate the entire structure during that phase of the project the framing crew uh which was hired by the general contractor made its own decision to demolish the garage um this demolition was never part of the renovation plan um that was prepared by Miss Katherine lorence uh even though the New Foundation had already been constructed the applicant was not permitted to reconstruct the garage in the same footprint on that foundation without zoning approval uh so the applicant thereafter uh applied to the HPC for a certificate of appropriateness uh to have demolished the garage and to reconstruct the garage which was denied so the applicant wasn't allowed to tear down the garage and now it's torn down and they have to rebuild it um copy of that HPC resolution May 20th 2024 resolution 202 24-13 is attached to the application as exhibit B at that same meeting the plan for the replacement garage that was prepared by Miss lorence was granted final approval by the HPC uh the applicant uh is now in a dilemma uh with no permission to have had demolished the garage required to replace the garage by the HPC to remove that violation but yet is here can't rebuild the garage without this board's approval uh so that's the Dilemma that the applicant faces now so the proposal this evening is very simple and that is to approve the at at the Reconstruction of the garage on the existing Foundation uh which will require setbacks for the accessory structure witness this evening of course is Miss Katherine Len to my left I have Mr Oaks here I I think if we could have him sworn in he may need to say a few words or not if the board has questions and of course Miss lorence if we could have her sworn in do each our board engineer remains under oath do each of you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and the truth s God I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said you promis to tell the truth yes got it see how honest she is okay uh Katherine your credentials uh briefly please um I've been in front of this board uh several times over the past uh few years I'm a registered architect a member of the ncarb a member of the American Institute of Architects and uh have worked probably about 70% of my career in Cape May City uh doing a lot of historic uh Renovations uh Mr chairman will you acknowledge uh Miss Loren as an expert yes okay Katherine um maybe we could start with a little history um of the project okay and and how this came to be um well over a year ago I had designed a Pavilion in the backyard screened in Pavilion uh a little terrorist area and we were going to renovate the garage in place we went through the HPC we got approval uh we got construction approval um and none of that required any any variances this was all done through the Construction office yes the whole point of keeping the garage in the same spot we were going to renovate it um as a matter of fact uh if you look at Ron's uh booklet where it says photographs you can see that we had lifted the building it was our intention to renovate this building make it code compliant uh we put in a New Foundation it was a carriage house so uh there was a lot of mud flooring that needed to be dug up and put down a new concrete and you can see in one of those photographs what they call the cribbing which are the boards that they stack to hold this up uh I mean it was it was certainly Our intention and then I get a uh a telephone call uh like one after the other from the HPC from the Construction office and from the zoning officer that the building is gone I I and I was like I I can't believe what's going on here in the meantime I'm getting uh sort of nasty phone calls from the HPC saying how could you let this happen I was like I didn't even know what happened when I talked to the contractor he had said that he had given instruction to the uh the subcontractor to shore up the walls and we were going to drop it down once the foundation was complete which it was just about complete the um zoning officer uh who was present here today called me up and said these guys just threw this building away and uh I don't know what happened I have a supposition you know that uh they figured nobody was paying attention it be easier for them to tear it down and build it up because it's a tiny little building and they get it up up one two three and nobody would know well I mean it's on Washington Street it's a it's a it's a street that everybody sees so in the meantime with all of these calls from the HPC I'm trying to figure out what to do uh I talk to the HPC informally say well what if I were to build a new garage or a new building there uh that would comply to all uh zoning uh rules and regulations uhuh no good no good uh there there are there are three three major variances one is the rear uh the rear rear yard setback uh supposed to be five it's 1.2 uh the side yard is supposed to be four it's 1.1 the garage itself is about about 6 and 1/2 ft away from the building it need it would it would need to be 10 ft so what would happen is is if I buil a new building is not going to be at the end of the driveway which is what all of these carriages are it would have to be moved over to the left it would have to be shrunk because I I have to keep it a certain distance from the from the uh house and we wind up with a building that is no longer 18 by 20 but a building that becomes 12 by 12 so we lose the garage HPC said they want to have the carriage house that that's part of the history of this building uh and the carage house if you look at one of Ron's pictures prior previous we sh we show the existing Carriage House at the End of the driveway now this is at the very end of the property where three pieces of property join each other and they're all garages so it's it it's all where they sit it sits its neighbors are garages so uh I represent to the HPC they deny uh a demolition but they said uh they approved rebuilding the garage only if it's in the same footprint and it looks exactly and I think we have a picture of it it must look exactly like the carriage house that was there and that was our intention anyway to rebuild the front doors and to fire rate this because because this is so close to two other garages that it should be were you going to rebuild or reuse the doors well we were we were going to renovate we were going to renovate this building but now we have to rebuild it because it's gone I think he's asking did did you save the doors the or the doors dispos mentioned that you may have they they threw everything in the dumpster and chopped it up who's who's they and this is not I'm not asking is the zoning board attorney I'm asking as a curious resident because I'd like to know who the subcontractor is that did that the I don't know the name of the subcontractor of uh the subcontractor is did anybody fined well since we were going in front of we were threatened with fines not you but the person who did it not yet okay so we were told that the fine would be held off until we came in front of the HPC and we came in front of the zoning variant and what happens so uh we're in a predicament here um and I I have a list of reasons why I think that this garage should be allowed to be replaced in the same location we have a building permit we already have a foundation poured uh um and permit you need a permit for the foundation correct we yes we have I have a copy of the building permit the work permit it's not disturbing its neighbors because it was always going to be there the garage was always going to be there um it keeps the aesthetic of the building uh because now if I had to build a a new structure we're going to lose a garage so that's not for I mean we're going to lose a place to park a car because I can no longer build if a garage size garage we're going to preserve the character of the neighborhood we're going to build it to code and um and then I can address any other issues that uh Craig had as far as drainage we're not changing any of the drainage we're keeping the garage in the same place the whole property drains from the back to the street the rest in short it advances the purpose of zoning relating to preservation of historic structures and and schemes right advances that well Z it's maintaining it's maintaining the character of the historic structure that's an important purpose of Zone very important okay um and it's it's it's going to be code compliant and it's going to be exactly the same as it was before yeah I'm I'm instructing the board that the primary uh purpose Advance is this preservation of the historic probably two more that I could think of yeah and maybe I'll elit that um testimony so you you mentioned it's now fire rated where it wasn't before and it's very close to other buildings and that protects against a conflate fire or fire spreading from one building to another yes and that advances the Health and Welfare of the community and and and the uh properties around it yes and I I mean this this is one instance where it certainly sounds uh like you agree with the HPC that this garage needs to be at the end of the driveway because that is what is historically correct and appropriate for these type of of to probably called The Carriage House back then yes and and and it I if we were I mean first of all it's at the end of the driveway and you get to see these beautiful these beautiful uh doors I think they're beautiful uh we're going to replace them with uh a same type of hinge do but if we if we follow the zoning setbacks it would no longer be directly down the driveway it would no longer be able to be used as a garage and it wouldn't look it wouldn't look like any of the other garages that are at the end of of a driveway plus I don't think you could negotiate a car I mean even if you got like a Mini Cooper I don't know if they can fit in 12 x 12 but they might I don't I don't even know if you could negotiate the turn to get in because we have to move it well I think the point is that the HP agrees with you yes and they don't want it moved in no they do not want it moved in they want it where it is they want where it it appears that they've made that decision that is the appropriate location yes it doesn't sound like they'd give you approval no to reconstruct it moved in so even if this board said oh well we want it moved in it's not going to happen yeah I think that they would probably I'm only which means that the garage then can't be reconstructed it right because she'll never get HPC approval so hence the Dilemma that we find ourselves if we don't approve this then the Garage just disappears for forever well there's still the remaining problem then that there was no uh certificate of appropriateness issued by the HBC for tearing it down which then that's not that's never going to change they're never going to vote that it's okay to tear no I know and and they shouldn't have I I think we've got the purpos of zoning this advances it seems to make a lot of sense that's maybe go to Craigs report if we could and hear what issues our engineer has with it if any well a little bit more testimony so you you you testified that there's other buildings in the surrounding area that are very similar detoxed garages yes and they've all been there for an extended period of time well over 100 years and so hence that there's no negative impact on the adjoining property owners if this garage is put back correct okay and also that there's no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan given given these uh this situation yes okay that's all before I start I just want to say as another professional I find it appalling that they would do this to you you're a very reputable architect in this town and you've done a lot of wonderful historic Renovations and I I feel for you so I got the owner paid to have it lifted and put on cribbing they don't do that for free not to mention well I if you knock it down knock it down have you had any discussions with the general contractor concerning this do you want to let us know it's not I don't think it's I mean it's interesting but not relevant can we just okay yeah I mean no one's blaming the the applicant for this let's just so if it's okay I'll I'll go roll right into my review dated July 2nd 2024 uh this is a project located at 1145 Washington Street in the R2 district there was one checklist item that they uh asked for a waiver and um they indicated that there's no Landscaping that is going to be disturbed so therefore we do support the waver from them providing a landscaping plan and did recommend deeming the application complete okay this is an existing undersized lot and it is just barely an undersized lot it's like 7 and a half square feet um so that's one variance that gets triggered because um they're creating additional variances um the the rebuilding of this historic garage structure or Carriage House um in the exact same footprint so there was one there before it's gone now but now they're building a new one uh so accessory detached garage have a rear setback requirement of 5 feet where 1.2 feet is proposed sidey yard setback requirement of 4 feet where 1.1 feet is proposed and the distance from the adjacent building has to be a minimum of 10 ft where 6.9 ft is proposed those are the four variances that the board has to Grant the conditions of approval should be my general review comments on page 405 um I've asked them under item number one to clear up the zoning table there's some references to different um uh District uh not not an issue um there are additional Lot C calculations that are provided on the survey and the architectural plans um we would just like to confirm that there's no increase proposed correct no say this again there's no increase in lot coverage propos right one of the plans shows that there is that discrepancy should just be revised as part of our compliance review okay um and we just asked from some setbacks on the dimension for the building um and that should be added to the plan items four five 6 7 8 9 10 are our standard conditions that we have fixed to every application the um reports under item number nine uh the fire department recommended approval um there's some justification for um your proximity 10 within the 10 foot to another structure um they recommended approval dated 72624 the public works department recommended approval dated 726 24 sha Tre commission uh recommended approval 824 8424 um there was a comment on there and it just I mean they they recommended your access so that didn't disturb any trees um I'm sure you can comply with that um but um if there's any questions the board has I'll be happy to answer them I just have a couple questions I it's for the applicant or the uh the lawyer architect whatever um just confirming because you put a new foundation in is it still the same height because why I'm asking this sometimes people put in a foundation that's you know another 4 feet and then they're going to put on on top of it so I'm just asking the height of the foundation is it basically the same height that the building was before uh I think it's going to be can you I'm sorry six six inches taller okay now my other question is um because you can't really put a car in this is there any going to be any heat or any upgrades done to this garage no there's not going to be any heat in this garage it's going to be used for storage just checking okay any other questions for Craig no okay then at this point we'd like to open the meeting to the public anyone within 200 ft okay anyone Beyond 200 fet no okay the motion I recommend being made but the how you vote is up to you although you know I rarely say this if you're going to vote against this you need to articulate some really good reasons because I'm not sure based on the record I've heard so far that I could defend the denial of this application um so articulate your reasons if you vote no the motion I recommend being made is a motion to Grant variances one two three and four on page three of the engineers report subject to the conditions outlined the waiver on P waiver 33 on page two and the conditions 1 through 13 in Craigs report that's the motion I recommend being made how you vote is up to you but if you vote no please explain clearly why thank you do we have a motion motion second Miss she motions Mrs Notch seconds Mrs not yes because I've lived in the neighborhood for over 50 years and I've seen the restoration you've done on the property and I think it'll be good I'm I'm sorry it was torn down missan yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Miss Stevenson yes Mr venudo yes thank you thank you thank you everyone thank you thank you and I'd just like to say I did I I walked this property to take the pictures and it is just it is a gem it's a little shangra La back there and it's landscaped beautifully in the house and it it's just you already won so I know I know but Rich never lets me make a closing statement anymore so I work there if you're making a closing statement I it's because I think you might lose but I think you're going to win right no I kind of figured that out yeah yeah kind of a layup let's go me one purpose is zoning let's go all right Eagles are on in 45 minutes our third uh application is Michael Kennedy 722 Columbia Avenue block 1074 lot 6 what is this is that called Oaks please turn the mics on yes the little button turn it'll change it to Green thank you thank and if you bring it closer to you we can hear better certainly how's that good yeah okay good good all right okay could you introduce yourselves please yes um good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board uh my name is Scott D I'm an attorney with the DSE Law Firm I'm here this evening to present the application on behalf of Michael Kennedy um the property which is the subject of this application is 722 Columbia Avenue it's identified on the municipal tax map is block 1071 lot 6 and this property is located in the RS zoning District uh at the outset I would like to note that prior to tonight's hearing recommendations for approval of this application were received by the uh city of K May Fire Department on October 30th of this year um by the city of Kate May public works department on octo October 30th of this year as well as by the city of K May shade tree Commission on November 6 through this application the applicant is seeks variance relief um from chapter 2 or 525 section 19 B1 of the city zoning ordinance related to certain pre-existing non-conformities pertaining to bulk conditions um that are not met through the conversion of the property to a single family residential dwelling from its current use as the multif family residential dwelling the specific variance relief that is sought through this application relates to minimum required lot size minimum required building setback lines minimum required rear setback yard setback and the maximum permitted lot coverage again each of these conditions are pre-existing at the property currently um and they're not going to be changed or exacerbated in any way through this application uh for a change in use from one permitted use within the RS zoning District to another permitted use within the zoning District here with me this evening provide testimony and support of this application for variance relief is Brian news Wanger uh Mr new Wanger is a registered architect with the firm of Atlantis architecture in Philadelphia and he is a licensed architect here in New Jersey so at this time um I'm happy to elicit credentials from Mr newswanger if that's required by the board this evening no I'm sorry did you say was a licensed architect yes I am I've been practicing for 30 years done a great deal of historic architectural work here in New Jersey Pennsylvania New York and Etc okay will accept you as a expert is is is your name spelled in the plan somewhere I got to type your name any WS w a n g r thank you sir oh yeah go I didn't know if you had to swear or in oh sure absolutely board thought still wait for him to be accepted I'm like I think he's good at this point okay you do you swear a firm to tell the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth s you gu I do all right thank you yes Mr newswanger but before we begin can you confirm that you reviewed the site plan prepared by Mark DeBlasio of DeBlasio and Associates related to this application I have and additionally can you confirm that you were the one that prepared the floor plans and elevations that were submitted to the board with this application absolutely yes so would it be fair to say that you are fully familiar with the property and the relief being sought by this application yes I am yes okay can you provide the board with a brief overview of the subject property including the existing use of the property right now as well as the proposed use through this application as it stands the property is a historic structure that sits at the corner of Franklin in Columbia it was previously operating as a uh uh bed and breakfast and the current owner has purchased that property and and converted that into a single family residence for their personal use and um that's what it'll remain to be it's a gorgeous gorgeous property do you agree that through this application we're not proposing any changes whatsoever to the exterior of the property or the site itself aside from Simply changing the use from multif family dwelling into a single family residential dwelling that is true we are not and as you can see with the uh surveyed building plans and elevations we're not disturbing anything of the existing house it is remaining intact as it stands and to the best of your understanding is both the prior use as well as the proposed use um permitted within the zoning District they are both permitted yes okay all right and with that noted um because of the differences in the bulk requirements related to each specific use um is it correct that we are required to obtain variance relief for a few pre-existing non-conforming conditions that are present at the property yes we do okay all right I'm going to go through some of the uh bu conditions related to the property and the variance relief requested uh would you agree that variance relief is required uh with respect to minimum required lot size yes because we are somewhat under the 6,250 where be required but that is a pre-existing condition of the site okay and through this application we're not proposing to change any of that correct we are not uh would you agree that a variances required relating to minimum required building set back to Columbia Avenue yes we we can't alter that again that's pre-existing and again can you confirm that's not being changed we are not making any changes to that and is there variance relief required with respect to the minimum required building set back to Franklin stre yes there is there as well and again that's not being exacerbated by this application correct no absolutely not and is there also variants Rel um requested for the minimum required rear yard setback yes there is requirement for that as well yes and that's not being exacerbated or changed in this application correct nope we are not and I believe lastly um we're requesting variants Rel related to maximum permitted lot coverage is that correct that's right and again this is a pre-existing undersized lot and this is not being exacerbated correct it is not okay based on your review of this application um the bulk variance relief being sought and the proposed use of the property is it your professional opinion that the proposed development carries out certain specific purposes of zoning as defined in the New Jersey municipal land use law it absolutely does yes can you please State the specific purposes of zoning that would be Advanced through the granting of this application it's promotes the well-being of the neighborhood um it maintains the character absolutely historic character of the neighborhood in that we are preserving again a pre-existing historically um contributing structure that's going to remain in use and remain active as part of the U Community um in fact the we are now looking to basically downgrade the intensity of use so it's only an improvement all around and in addition to that positive criteria that you've identified um is it also your professional opinion that the request to relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance of the city of kch I don't see any of that no that's absolutely right in preparation for tonight's application hearing did you have the opportunity to review the memorandum prepared by Mr hurles um dated September 30th of this year yes I did okay setting aside momentarily um comment number 10 in that memorandum um do you agree with the review comments provided being addressed as a condition of approval of this application I do yes okay and circling back to comment number 10 um can you confirm that while this property is in fact located in the historic district of the city of Kate May um no exterior improvements or changes are being propos in this application that would require review and approval by that no body because we're we're making no changes to the existing house okay or it's exterior envelope and you are aware of whether or not that was confirmed by anyone within any municipality uh Mr Britain did communicate via email that he did not because of that basis feel that it was necessary to obtain that approval okay uh Mr Sanger is there anything else that you would like to highlight or bring to the attention of the board regarding this application no I think we we've said it all again it's it's an existing historic house happy to say that it's like some many others even back in Philadelphia are being converted back into single family houses and uh remain in use and remain viable components and contributors to the neighborhood thank you if I may address the board because I'm sure the board probably wants Clarity why would we have someone come back and and ask for variances when we're when we're making a more intense use into a less intense use and we're not having any improvements or any additions or anything like that okay in K May zoning ordinance we have a zoning table for each specific use that's permitted um so lot sizes change with regards to what use there is um so whenever these conversions these down conversions from a higher use to a less intense use um the lot sizes usually change and that triggers variance approval um in a s a few cases the setbacks change a little bit but most often it's the lot coverage that have that changes with the less intense use we require less lot coverage we we allow less lot coverage so that's usually the big one that that's triggered so typically they're supposed to comply with these um they've given you a justification for it but that's the reason why these come to us uh because the the menu changes with with when you change the use okay okay now rolling to my report September 29th 2024 this is a project located in the RS residential seasonal District you heard testimony that uh there's no exterior um improvements but there's a conversion there's a total of five bedrooms with a loft and bathroom on the third floor which I considered a b a bedroom for the purposes of calculating U parking and there's a total of 2962 Ft of habitable space that's been indicated the checklist there was two items that they had to address they asked for waivers from providing topography and from providing a landscaping plan uh there is no changes proposed with regards to the Landscaping plan and or grading so we supported waivers from those and did recommend deeming it complete the variances that are required it's an undersized lot when you change the use for single family dwellings there's a requirement of 6,250 Ft where 5,000 ft² exists the building setback line requirements this is a corner lot so there's two frontages one on Columbia Columbia Avenue has a stepback of 20 feet where 9.3 feet exists and is ex and is proposed Franklin Street has a setback of 20 feet where 11.8 ft is existing and proposed the rear yard setback requirement of 25 ft is 22.9 ft where 22.9 ft exists and the lot coverage 45% is the maximum 68.8% exists and 68.8% is proposed uh it should be noted that they do comply with the floor area ratio 0.65 is the maximum permitted in that district 0.59 is proposed and parking spaces they're required have three and they're proposing four so that's some summary of the variances the general review comments um on page four or five should all be conditions of approval um one is informational and I already talked to you about that and as we considered the Loft as a bedroom uh item number two the zoning table should be revised to reflect the comments in this uh memo and the variance should be noted um and the floor area calculation was did not match the architectural and Engineering plan so that should be taken care of as a as a before we uh Grant um yeah if I could that that we have already taken care of perfect the balance the information on the engineers plans will have to be done as a condition of we'll handle that as part of compliance review right item number three they're required to comply with the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements both during and after construction item number four um they've indicated that all Landscaping will remain so that should be a condition of approval item five they have provided the required site triangle easement at the intersection of the two streets so we ask for the easement D description be provided for review and approval six is our standard condition that they have to replace the sidewalk if any is Disturbed or or out of place during uh construction seven is our standard requirement of providing an inspection escrow and tying the co to that accept acceptance of the those improvements the uh reports the uh the project attorney actually detailed those um there were no comments and all were recommended as approvals um nine is our standard condition that they comply with all other necessary State L County and local approvals 10 uh they provided some detail that there are no exterior improvements and they don't believe that they need to have HPC approval 11 is our standard condition that they have to com uh comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements and finally item number 12 is they have to submit the requisite number of revised sets meeting the conditions that the board sets happy answer any questions the board has I just have a a couple questions so there's six bedrooms and that requires three parking spaces or four six requires three parking spaces three parking spaces okay seventh triggers the fourth okay my other questioned my other question has to do with um lock coverage I I noticed that the lock coverage you're allowed to cover more if it's a mul multi or the bed and breakfast I guess it is yes versus the less if it's a single family home because um are we sure that it's only 68% because when I look at that property it's completely covered almost in concrete that is the engineers calculations that I looked at and I believe they're consistent okay because I noticed you know within the last year or so there was more and more loot coverage on that property and that's why I was I was questioning if it's only 68% loot coverage because it looks more than 68% with the shells the stones and everything throughout the entire house all of those were calculated into that okay total if you get approval you're going to get approval for 68% lock coverage so if it turns out that there's more than that then you have to remove that lock coverage understood thank you Rich yep I put the chart in there that's what the chart says that's what you any other questions for Craig no okay since there's no more questions now we will open it up to the public anyone within 200 ft Beyond 200 ft okay the motion unless there's further comments or questions the vote the motion I'd recommend being made is a motion to Grant variances 1 through four on page three of the engineers report with a wasn't there a waiver there are two waivers one from toppo and one from Landscaping plan on page oh there it is page two waivers 19 and 33 on page two and conditions one through 12 on page four and five engineer report that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote it's up to you can we have the motion I'll make the motion I'll second okay Mr Z are motions Miss Shen seconds Mrs Notch yes missen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr uh Miss Stevenson yes Mr vudo yes thank you good thank you very much thank you could I ask a quick question about an upcoming project well I've got everybody's ear we can't do that zoning Bo yeah it's a quas Judicial board we can't do that without notice yeah that's how you got to do that's what we'll do or you can step outside it's can't let you have talk to the board no problem okay I'll do that thank you take care byebye okay um should we do the bills and then go into close do the resolution okay so at this point um we need a motion to approve payment of the bills I make the motion to approve the bills I'll second missan motions Mrs N seconds Mrs N yes Miss Sheen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Miss Stevenson yes Mr vuda yes thank you okay and now we need a motion to approve a resolution for a meeting not open to the public public in accordance with Provisions I make a motion I'll second okay Miss shean motions Mr Walsh seconds Mrs Notch yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Miss Stevenson yes Mr venudo yes okay all right we'll go upstairs to the um Council chamber we can't just stay here if no one's here uh well we have all I have to rec toward the end of the meeting so it's up to you so we have to all we have to take 12 people upstairs and we have 12 people come back downstairs no man what do we got to do I just we we can't go off the Record here yeah that's fine I just make if we have to do it we have to but otherwise it's just the camera's got to be off too right oh that's e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e I think we should put to vote a motion to appeal this case sorry what yeah turn them back on we're returning he got turning turn your uh mics back on mic on oh yeah we got to end the meeting so it's 8:08 we're returning from close session do we have a motion to adjourn I make a motion all in favor hi hi all right good night everyone