City of Cape May Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting - September 30, 2010
Opening:In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of the meeting was provided. Chairperson Pitman called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
Roll Call:Mr. Pitman, ChairpersonPresent
Mr. Williams, Vice ChairpersonPresent
Mrs. HutchinsonPresent
Mr. IuratoPresent
Mr. WhitePresent
Mr. SchmidtchenPresent
Mr. ToddPresent
Mr. Meier, Alt 1Present
Mrs. Inderwies, Alt 2Present
Also Present:Mary L. Rothwell, Zoning Officer
Edie Kopsitz, Recording Secretary
George Neidig, Board Solicitor
Craig Hurless, P.E., P.P., Board Engineer
Chairman Pitman entered discussion regarding the walk through of the Beach Theater. Several dates were mentioned with the conclusion date being Friday, October 29, 2010 at 9:00am. The Fire Department will have to be notified of the walk through.
Resolutions:
Pontin, 30 Gurney Street, Block 1056 Lots 4 & 5
Motion made by Mr. White to approve the resolution. Seconded by Mr. Schmidtchen, carried 7-0. Those in favor: Mr. Iurauto, Mr. White, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Hutchinson, Mr. Schmidtchen, Mr. Todd and Mr. Pitman.
Barr, 507 Jefferson Street, Block 1089 Lot 4
Motion made by Mr. Iurato to approve the resolution. Seconded by Mr. White, carried 7-0. Those in favor: Mr. Iurauto, Mr. White, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Hutchinson, Mr. Schmidtchen, Mr. Todd and Mr. Pitman.
Applications:
Celio, 120 Decatur Street, Block 1041 Lot 7
Appeal from Decision of Historic Preservation Commission
Craig Hurless, Board Engineer was sworn inand clarified his credentials for the record.
George Neidig informed everyone that Robert Fineberg, Esquire was present to represent the Historic Preservation Commission along with the Chairperson Maryann Gaffney. He explained the reason for the special meeting due to Mr. Fineberg requesting a determination from Judge Armstrong. He clarified the procedural aspects of a de nova hearing for the membership and clarified the City of Cape May Historic Preservation Commission standing as a strong Board that decision goes directly to the Construction Official. The decision this evening will follow the criteria for demolition followed by the HPC in §525-40. He informed the members of Mr. Dwyer’s applying for a variance for the application (should the Board concur with the Applicant) and it was noticed within the 200 feet procedures.
Louis C. Dwyer, Esquire appearing for the owners Lee and Kathryn Celio whom were present, was sworn in along with their professional Stephen Fenwick of Fenwick Architects. Mr. Dwyer proceeded stating the application sought to allow the partial demolition of a section of a wrap around enclosed porch and open the other section porch bringing it back to its original state. They also wanted to create a driveway allowing on site parking with significant buffering and a gate for the applicant, stating it would be significantly more conforming regarding side yard requirements and on-site parking requirements. They intend to show it is an undo hardship to the applicant and will entitle them to variance relief. Mr. Dwyer referred to the Historic Commission view on the structure was a mixture of both Colonial Revival and Queen Ann style, which created a sort of hybrid. The HPC Guidelines indicate that Colonial Revival has no porches and the Queen Ann style sometimes have porches that wrap around the side of the house.
Stephen Fenwick lengthy testimony confirmed the Historic Preservation Survey on the profile of the property and was submitted into record and marked as A-1. He confirmed the distinctive elements and two architectural styles (Queen Ann & Colonial Revival). Mark as A-2 The Design Standards definition of Queen Ann Style and marked as A-3 the Design Standards definition of Colonial Revival. Mr. Fenwick contends that lack of a wrap around porch would be appropriate. He stated he made every effort to comply with the Design Standards including the buffering, screening, material for paving and stated this design would blend in with the streetscape and be compatible with many contributing structures with driveways in Cape May. He produced several photographs that were marked A-4 Right side of Driveway on 24 Decatur Street, A-5- depicted the other side of 24 Decatur St., A-6 right side of the Merion Inn unbufferd large parking area, A-7 - 112 Decatur Street paved driveway along side of building, A-8 - 114 Decatur Street Driveway left side, A-9 – 118 Decatur St. Driveway, A-10 - 501 Hughes Street Driveway side parking, A-11 – Belle Shield House 501 Hughes Street depicting parking created, Photo boards - A-12 was marked into evidence with all photos, A-13 – Plan dated January 18, 2010 of the Front and Left side Elevations & ground floor plan for 120 Decatur Street, A-14 – Historic Preservation Survey 112 Decatur Street Merion Inn. A-15 – HPC Survey of 114 Decatur Street, A-16 - HPC Survey 118 Decatur Queen Ann Style with Driveway, A-17 – 501 Hughes Street HPC Survey Contributing with parking bumpers, A-18 – HPC Survey 513 Hughes Street Contributing Colonial Style, A-19 Aerial view of subject property and others, A-20 – Resolution granted July 9, 2001 for 501 Hughes Street with parking un screened. He elaborated on the Driveway stating he followed the Design Standard by introducing grass pavers contiguous with property, brick pavers to follow and the introduction of a gate that the vehicles will park behind. Mr. Fenwick addressed 6 of the 9 points criteria for demolition as stated in §525-40 due to it being a partial demolition #7, #8 and #9 did not apply. #1 through #6 described the partial demolition as not affecting the historical significance, opening the porch reverting to the original origin and creating more light, air and open space, creating symmetry to the structure, will fit better on the 34 foot wide lot and the architectural plans provide for adequate buffer by landscaping and gate so the parking is not visible.
Mr. Dwyer contends the Historic Preservation Commission decision to deny the relief for 120 Decatur Street was arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. He states they fail to consider that the structure was a hybrid of styles and that the wrap around porch, although original was not integral. The building had been substantially altered. The building will be brought more in keeping with the Zoning requirements. He contends the HPC failed to give any precedential credence to a nearby structure (513 Hughes Street) that was granted prior approval for the identical relief sought for 120 Decatur Street.
Mr. Pitman called for a five (5) minute recess at 8:00pm. The meeting resumed at 8:10pm.
Mr. Dwyer strenuously objects to Mr. Fineberg participation on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission for the record.
Robert Fineberg, Esquire represents the Historic Preservation Commission he statement was that the Commission was not in error for its decision for denial of the application for 120 Decatur Street. He carefully explained the reasons for the denial in depth by referring to Resolution 2010-14. He emphasized the qualifications of the members of the Commission and clarified their classifications explaining Class A, B & C in depth. Mr. Fineberg then stated Mr. Fenwick is not an Architectural Historian but did acknowledge Mr. Fenwick Architectural work in a complimentary way. He then explained the porch in question is over 30 feet in length and a very substantial part of the building and the point the HPC made was the porch was original to the structure built in the 1890’s and is an historic element to the structure. He referred to the aerial photograph marked A-19 and stated properties that were omitted from it were other houses on Decatur Street 132, 130, 128, 124 and 122 that do not have driveways and elaborated on front and side yard parking not acceptable to the HPC for reasons indicated in the Design Standards page 64. He explained the Design Standards adoption was in 2002 adopted into the Zoning Ordinance and the approval of 501 Hughes Street and 513 Hughes Street was in 2001. Mr. Dwyer then objected to Mr. Fineberg statements regarding the Design Standards and a ploy to avoid precedence. Mr. Fineberg disagreed and proceeded with his presentation stating it was noted in the Celio’s Resolution 2010-42 of this previous approval denoting it was conducted before the adoption of the current Design Standards. He then introduced Maryann Gaffney, Chairperson to the HPC who was sworn in and she shared with the membership some history regarding the houses on Decatur Street after 1879 that were called thumb print cottages that had two and three styles for one structure. She produced a Book called the Sanborn-Perris Insurance Maps dated from 1890 and referred to page 8 that depicted the structure and its inclusion of a wrap around porch and was marked O-8 into evidence. Mrs. Gaffney informed the members that the City is a National Historic Landmark that must adhere to protection of the buildings rated in the Historic District. She also stated that the City of Cape May was removed from the Watch List in 2008 due to the strictness of the Historic Preservation Commission adhering to the Design Standards. Mr. Dwyer then asked if there were other wrap around porches on the block like 120 Decatur Street to Mrs. Gaffney responded that there was one at their neighbors. All members were given an opportunity to peruse the Sanborn Maps and questioned Mr. Fineberg and Mrs. Gaffney regarding the subject property.
Meeting opened to the Public at 8:55pm. Mrs. Libby Goodman of 118 Decatur Street purchased the house 1988 and is present to oppose the application. She stated there are similarities depicted in her home and the Celio’s (the peaked roofs, front windows, 3rd floor dormers and wrap around porches that hug the left side). Mrs. Goodman stated removal of the wrap around porch would be a detriment to the building. She introduced photos of the street depicting the properties (120, 118, 116 (empty lot) & 114 Decatur Street), marked into evidence O-2 (winter scene) & O-3 (summer photo) were older photos (100yrs old) with horse drawn carriages before there was paving or automobiles lining the street. Current photos marked O-4O-5 depict the area between the houses where the proposed driveway and the narrowness between the properties. She also noted that no buffer exists and the bump out on her building could not allow a proper opening of car door that measures 8ft. from her building to Celio’s proposed narrow parking tube. The public portion was closed at 9:15pm.
Mr. Dwyer contends Mrs. Goodman was not clear in her measurements; she should have measured from the proposed demolition of the side porch, which would then be 17 feet, plenty of room for a vehicle. In his closing Mr. Dwyer then recapped his position that the HPC decision was erroneous, arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. He believes that in 2001 allowing 501 Hughes Street the same request his clients are asking sent a precedent. He stated the HPC always had the same Guidelines that were legalized in 2002 and referred to as Design Standards. He stated precedent binds the Zoning Board and the HPC ignores precedent. He believes the HPC ignored that the property is a hybrid having two Architectural styles and one style does not include porches and by that it diminishes the importance of a porch. The existing porch has been bastardized by it being enclosed several years ago and is not historic. He stated removing the side porch and opening the front porch would be in keeping with the historic nature of the building and give the structure many benefits. The applicants proposal will allow more light, air and open space to the immediate area and reiterated that the section of porch to be omitted is not integral to the building. The building is rated Contributing not a Key structure and believes his client’s structure was treated as a Key structure by the HPC.
Board Engineer, Craig Hurless then reviewed his report of June 2, 2010 for the membership. He detailed the proposal and verified the applicant seeking an appeal form decision of the Historic Preservation Commission and is located in the R-S Residential Seasonal District. He stated the application is being heard de nova. Mr. Hurless refers to his completeness review on page 2 and stated the appeal process does not have a check list, should the outcome result in the positive for the applicant, they would have to supply the check list for the variances requested to be heard at a later date. He addressed the Zoning table on page 3 and sited ordinance #525-20 Single Family Detached Dwelling. He continued with the Appeal summary supplied on page 3 & 4 of his report for the membership. He stated the members are to rely on the testimony presented this evening and not on his summary that included both sides information. He concluded by reading the final paragraph of the Appeal summary by indicating if in the case of an appeal, the Zoning Board of Adjustment determines that here is an error in any order, requirement, decision or refusal made by the Construction Official pursuant to a certificate or denial of certificate submitted by the HPC in accordance with NJSA 40:55D-111, the Zoning Board shall, in writing include the reason for its determination in the finding of its decision thereon. He went through HPC §525-40 and stated it is impertinent to the Boards decision.
Members were allotted time for questions and were numerous regarding the exhibits particularly A-11 photograph of 501 Hughes Street and A-23 photograph of 513 Hughes Street. One member had in depth question regarding the definitions and referred to the transcripts provided along with clarification pertaining to §525-36 Historical Structures.
Chairman Pitman clarified how the motion should be presented. He requested every member state their reasons for their vote for the record.
Motion made by Mr. White to approve the demolition of the porch. The motion will overturn the decision of the Construction Official. Seconded by Mr. Iruato, was denied 6-1. Those in favor: Mr. Todd. Those opposed: Mr. Iurauto, Mr. White, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Hutchinson, Mr. Schmidtchen and Mr. Pitman. Those abstaining: None.
All members voiced their reasons for their vote for the record.
George Neidig stated Mary Rothwell, Board Assistant/Zoning Officer distributed packets regarding the New Jersey League of Municipalities on November 16, 17 & 18, 2010 at the Atlantic City Convention Center and recommended all members to attend. Mary Rothwell also informed the members she would distribute to all members a copy of Historic Preservation Commission’s Design Standards.
Adjournment was made by Mr. Meier, Seconded by Mr. White at 10:15 PM, with all in favor.
Respectfully submitted: Edie Kopsitz, Recording Secretary.
Adoption date:
December 15, 2010
1
City of Cape May Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of September 30, 2010