03-09-2021 Planning Board Meeting - Virtual

City of Cape May Planning Board Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Opening: The meeting of the City of Cape May Planning Board was called to order by Chairperson Bill Bezaire at 6:30 PM. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice was provided. Roll Call: Mr. Bezaire, Chairperson Present Mr. Jones, Vice Chairperson Present Mr. Belasco Present Mr. Elwell Present Mr. Moffatt Present Mayor Mullock Present Deputy Mayor Sheehan Present Mr. Shuler Present Dr. Wolf Present Mr. Gorgone Alt # 1 Present Mrs. Reed Alt # 2 Present Also Present: Richard King, Esquire, Board Solicitor Craig Hurless, Board Engineer and Planner Karen Keenan, Board Secretary Minutes: Motion made by Dr. Wolf to approve the meeting minutes of February 9, 2021, seconded by Mr. Gorgone and carried 9-0. Those in favor: Mr. Belasco, Mr. Elwell, Mr. Moffatt, Mayor Mullock, Deputy Mayor Sheehan, Mr. Shuler, Dr. Wolf, Mr. Bezaire. Those opposing: None. Those abstaining: None. Application(s): Site Plan Review 1263 Lafayette Street Block 1061, Lot 101 & Qualifiers Chairperson Bezaire listed the order for the site plan review as follows: Solicitor King for the background, Board Engineer and Planner for his review of the application, the applicant’s attorney and then the objector to the application. Solicitor King said that the Zoning Board resolution was distributed to the Board. He also described the requests by the applicants as bulk variances which were heard and approved by the Zoning Board and a driveway easement onto a public right-of-way seeking affirmative relief and ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Cape May Planning Board Minutes, March 9, 2021 1 appeal of the Zoning Official denial. The matter was referred by the Zoning Board since the Planning Board had approved the site plan. Solicitor King said this case is different, because it is the intersection of two adjoining properties, not simply an amendment, and the City has the most standing. He went on to say that it was his suggestion to go out of the normal hearing order, because it is mostly an engineering question. Finally, Solicitor King said the Board’s decision is whether to allow the driveway through the buffer or not. Board Engineer and Planner Hurless updated his Zoning Board report in his February 3, 2021 memorandum to the Planning Board and listed the variances that were granted by the Zoning Board. He said the alley is a one-way street and the access to it present no traffic or public safety issues. He added that it would reduce the back out onto Lafayette Street and that the applicant will remove the stone part of the driveway. Board members were allotted time for questions of Mr. Hurless. Member Reed asked if the driveway off Lafayette Street is new and on an easement. Mr. Hurless replied that it was recently redone with pavers on an existing ten feet wide easement that extends to the public alley. Chairperson Bezaire asked if the easement would be extinguished by Mr. Hess or neighbor. Mr. Hurless said he believes it would be Mr. Hess. Deputy Mayor Sheehan asked about the easement and trees, and Mr. Hurless answered that it is an access easement between two properties and trees were improperly planted. Mr. Hurless explained that the Zoning Board granted variances, subject to the decision by the Planning Board, with flexibility to turn the garage based on the Planning Board decision. Mr. Hess and Ms. Morrissey were sworn in, and Mr. Hurless swore that his past comments were truthful. Robert Sandman, Esq. interviewed the applicant, Irvin Hess, who advised the Board that he has no intention of renting the property and that many trees were incorrectly planted on his property. A brief history of the property improvements was reviewed. The applicant’s expert, Tiffany Morrissey, was accepted as an expert Planner. Planner Morrissey testified that the neighbor has access to the public alley. She said it is a better zoning alternative, is safer and there is no substantial negative impact. She described the circulation patterns and said that of the 31 trees that were planted only four need to be removed. She referred to Exhibit H to say that the buffer was intended to benefit the Hess property, not Spicer Creek. Board members were allotted time for questions of Ms. Morrissey. Objector Attorney Richard Hoff, Esq. asked Ms. Morrissey if she is an engineer. She replied that she is not but is trained in traffic circulation. Ms. Morrissey did agree that there is no real benefit to Spicer Creek but does believe that it increases public safety. There was then a discussion about the width of the alley and the location of the driveway with the determination being that it was approximately fourteen feet with the driveway apron to be wider. Attorney Hoff called Professional Engineer Jason Sciullo, who was sworn in by Solicitor King. Engineer and Planner Sciullo gave his professional background and was accepted as an expert by ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Cape May Planning Board Minutes, March 9, 2021 2 the Board. Attorney Hoff said that there has been a lot of discussion about safety but not about the creation of a double loaded alley. Engineer and Planner Sciullo described the alley that was only to be for residents of Spicer Creek, is twelve feet wide and intended to be one way. He went on to say that it will be an issue for backing out of the Spicer Creek driveways and will create vehicle conflict. He added the buffer was also there to protect views and that the alley could have been planned for two-direction entry when the original site plan was developed. Engineer and Planner Sciullo said that there will be a detriment to the owners of Spicer Creek homes. Board members were allotted time for questions of Engineer and Planner Sciullo. Chairperson Bezaire asked how many Spicer Creek garages would have conflicts and Engineer and Planner Sciullo said there are three homes that have potential conflicts. Mayor Mullock asked how many feet from the driveway to the alley the people in the houses have to turn from their garage door to the alley. Engineer and Planner Sciullo replied that the homes are eight to ten feet off of the alley, with the one closest to be about three feet. Member Reed asked about the setback with the answers being between two and eight feet. Solicitor King asked for clarification from Mr. Sciullo, and he replied that the garage is four feet off of the pavement edge. Engineer and Planner Hurless referred to the Geosurv plan that indicates the width to be fourteen feet at the location. Mr. Sciullo said that twenty-four feet is required for backing out according to standards. Engineer and Planner Hurless said that when Spicer Creek was originally approved, RSIS (Residential Site Improvement Standards) were applied. Mr. Hurless and Mr. Sciullo agreed that the diversion of traffic from Lafayette Street is safer. Board members were allotted time for questions of Engineer and Planner Sciullo. Discussion was opened to the public at 7:58 PM. John Gartland, 1253 Lafayette Street was sworn in by Solicitor King. He said he owns the property next door to the applicants, pays taxes on the easement, and does not want to be inhibited from access to it. He went on to say that he sees the access to the alley as a benefit and enhancement to the City and that the alley has limited usage. Mr. Gartland said he fully supports the application. Discussion was closed to the public at 8:04 PM. There was a discussion regarding eliminating the easement extension that overlaps the right-of- way. The matter of Mr. Gartland’s access was considered, and it was determined that there would be no impact to his property. The Applicant agreed to not connect the front driveway to rear driveway of his property. Motion, as amended, made by Dr. Wolf to modify the previously approved Site Plan to allow the driveway as proposed by the applicant, subject to all of the conditions discussed at the meeting including the condition that the applicant will not connect the Lafayette accessway to the public alley and listed in the Board Engineer’s memorandum by Craig R. Hurless, PE, PP, CME, dated February 3, 2021, seconded by Mr. Gorgone and carried 8-1. Those in favor: Mr. Belasco, Mr. Elwell, Mr. Moffatt, Mayor Mullock, Deputy Mayor Sheehan, Dr. Wolf, Mr. Gorgone, Mr. Bezaire. Those opposing: Mr. Jones. Those abstaining: None. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Cape May Planning Board Minutes, March 9, 2021 3 Mr. Shuler did not vote on the motion, as his access to the meeting had been interrupted when the votes were called. Member Jones said he visited the property and believes there is a negative impact with more traffic in the Spicer Creek development. Motion made to adjourn by Mr. Belasco at 8:32 PM with all in favor. Respectfully submitted: Karen Keenan, Board Secretary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ City of Cape May Planning Board Minutes, March 9, 2021 4