um we're going to get going so we're going to stand for the flag of the Republic michael Richmond here richard Patterson here dan Adams here craig Palisan here john Pittz here steven Jaki here andrew
Campbell here rich Ten here patty Rosenberg okay this meeting is being held in accordance with New Jersey statute requirements of the open public meetings act sunshine law notice of this meeting has been advertised in the press and
posted on the bolton board in the municipal building all applicants are hereby advised that if you receive board approval tonight you must come forward and sign a form outlining the procedures for obtaining building permits and merkantale licenses at the conclusion of
your case tonight please approach the board administrator PAMA to sign the provided information sheet we're going to do the approval of minutes for the meeting of February 27th 2025 i'll make that motion
second all in favor i Approval of decisions and resolutions 12-20 okay okay approval of decisions and
resolutions 12 2025 Richard and Donna Bell 13 2025 Alexander Sitanelli 14 2025 Gail and William Levering 15
2025 Jamie Kushner and Ronald Nus i'll make that motion all in favor all right our first case is Steven and Merl Silver 108 South Lancaster Block 13 lot
13 located in the zoning district seeking C variance relief for third floor greater than 50% of second floor maximum eve height former area and potentially others for the construction of a new single family
home current on taxes water and sewer payments proof of advertising and notification provided representative by Kevin Bister thank you Mr uh good evening good evening board members board professionals um my name
is Kevin Bast i'm an associate attorney with the law firm of Paladino wine bell and labar in Atlantic City i have the pleasure tonight of representing Mary and Steven Sber with respect to their application for 111 South Lancaster Avenue which is block 13 lot 13 in the
S30 zoning district i'm joined this evening by my clients uh as well as our architect Dandy Augustino of Plan Architecture and our expert planner and engineer John Barnhard of Pontio's office uh we are here this evening seeking se variance relief to allow the
sellers to construct a new home on their property um I've reviewed and listened to some of the recent board hearings and I know that there has been some talk about how a lot of the newer houses in market are starting to look the same cookie cutter designs um and this is a
function really of the design constraints that homeowners have to navigate the zoning ordinances uh we are seeking variance relief to allow us to build a home with what uh more unique and we think beautiful architectural design that promotes light air and open
space and is visually compelling without being intrusive from the outset I want to stress and you'll hear testimony to the effect that the house we're proposing to build is not some 5,000 6,000 foot monstrosity uh we're not looking to overbuild we don't
want a big bulky home in fact it's only it only has 2,923 ft of living space which is fairly modest by today's standards and and one of the most important variances uh from my perspective that we're seeking is the
floor area ratio on the story if we had maxed out our second story and made it as big as we could by right we wouldn't need that so in a sense we're actually asking for less in some respects that than more and you'll hear testimony about that uh the
proposed home will also be flood compliant be height compliant roof pitch compliant uh parking compliant and it's going to bring all the existing non-conforming setbacks into conformity so from our perspective this application is really about our clients desire to be
able to make a different architectural design choice in line with their personal preferences and tastes and we believe that having a greater diversity and variety of homes in Margate will actually serve to benefit um the community with no real detriment of any kind um finally I'm going to note that I
think this particular street is a perfect place to grant this sort of variance there was another home recently approved for construction uh that has a similar type of design and therefore we don't think this would be out of character with the surrounding properties at all so with that I'd like to call my first
expert witness Dan Dagustinino who is our professional architect yeah I was going to swear the architect in and Roger and if Roger wants to do his report now or later he can do it later but um Diagino just give us your name and address for the record business address
sure it's Daniel Augustino 267 Road Washington New Jersey 0766 okay and I'm just going to get you sworn in please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth i do okay and then I'll give Mr mccclaron sworn in
for the for the duration of the evening mr mcclar please raise your right hand do you swear the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth i do okay thanks mr chair we'd actually like Thank you Mr chairman board members the mission report is February 25th 2025 in
regards to the application of Steven and Mary Silver 108 South Lancaster Avenue lot 13 lot 13 located in the S30 zoning district the required first as a minimum is elevation 13 to the bottom
look at the bottom building height is 30 ft above the first floor is planning and zing report this is a substantial benefit for C2 of course they have to give some C1 test as well
in the schedule 30 on page two permitted uses are single family permitted heights are two and a half stories above parking or first floor minimum lot area is 3,000
square ft they are providing 3,125 ft minimum width is 40 ft they are providing 50 ft lot depth is not a requirement but it is 62 and 12 they meet all the requirements on
page one page and there lies the variances based on their design third floor and a half story must be contained within the roof and a second story it's outside the roof and again once you see the architecturals you'll see why and their testimony will provide
what's needed for their proofs third floor half story area 50% of the area below they're at around 62.3% their testimony will show that the second floor is smaller than it is allowed to be that'll be their argument
roof eight because The the third floor is actually pushed towards the back of the house so the the roof eve is at the roof and the third floor so it's required to be no more than 2 ft and they're around 7'1 in all
four sides again they will provide testimony to that and the dormer area the entire third floor is basically a dormer because it's above the second floor roof so that's 100% again think
testimony and the visuals will support their application and show you why these are not so I will my report with the right to chime in thank you Mr chair
augustino would give the benefit of your experience as an architect also New York Delaware working Jersey across the state my license i'm considered an expert that I'm also on the zoning board
in my own professional is it all right before we begin your testimony along with this application we uh submitted a variance plan consisting of six pages which were the site plans four pages of floor plans and a page of elevations at
this time I'm going to ask that marked as a just for identification purposes so referring to a page do you want me to mark it physically or just reference it'll be Mr
the architectural plan sure so started the project first thing we did was our zoning analysis we the the code is very clear uh it outlines all of the bulk requirements seems to be false we outlined all the bulk requirements and as you could see there
were a number of existing nonconformities we actually prepared this diagram on the left side of the cover sheet that shaded area these are all the nonconformities that exist on the property that we're bringing into conformance as uh it was reported in the
planners report we actually comply with all of the bulk standards um which is the one thing that we always want to do whenever we're posting a brand new home when we started to get into the design of the house the most important thing to my clients wasn't the house itself it
was the outside spaces the recreational areas so I'm going to jump to the third page of this sheet which would be considered exhibit A3 what you're going to see here is the bedroom level of the structure um it's characterized by the balcony there's a
balcony that stretches the whole front of this structure um that's giving outdoor space above grade uh to these two bedrooms at the front of the home okay again everything that I'm describing is as of right and it complies when you get to the level above
that so this will be exhibit A4 it's VA 203 in the set in front of you what you're going to notice is that and I there probably isn't much precedent for this in town at all the upper floor balcony is about double the depth of the floor below uh that's that balcony
called 206 so that's a 12t balcony on the upper floor whereas the floor below it uh we've got a 5 foot3 balcony so it's a little bit more than double the area when we get to the upper floor which is the story where the master
suite is located and I'm referring to exhibit A5 at this point that's sheet VA303 we by math by calculating the math the 50% requirement of this floor is determined by the floor below it and in
stepping back that second floor and reducing that area which considered livable area by about 400 square f feet it imposes this variance that we're seeking here tonight um had we built out the second floor to the level that anybody normally would I hate to say
normally because that sounds like a slight but if the outdoor space wasn't as uh important to them we wouldn't be here for this and what we're talking about today um when I I should share the just a basic walk through of the
elevations and I can depict in one of the side elevations exactly where we're seeing this at most indicated it's on exhibit A6 VA500 it's the side view so what you'll
see on this side view is that this the end of this vertical siding if this had continued up and the roof continued this way we'd actually have no variances um and I'm going to actually as an exhibit
show you a a drawing that I prepared to illustrate exactly this what we did was we went to the neighborhood we modeled the structures the adjacent area everything to a relative scale pretty accurate what you can see here I
shouldn't say pretty accurate is accurate so what we're looking at is our structure here and the compliant version of the structure there this would meet all of the bulk regulations what you're hopefully seeing when you see this or
understanding when you see this is by reducing the area here and by pulling the dormant portion back not having these roof lines we actually create a structure that has a lot less mass on the street line um we didn't I mean the
byproduct of this is that the neighbor to the left of us is now going to still have views where they otherwise wouldn't have that's not the reason we did it that is the byproduct here's another This is actually from the east showing the same comparison on the top is our proposal uh on the bottom is a compliant
version 100% compliant for the code and then lastly um a west view looking towards the beach you'll you'll see the sand again the architecture that we're we're proposing here is it's very light we want it to be unique um we're not
looking for the short box that's got the same 512 pitch to maximize area we're trying to do something unique something that hopefully upholds the uh street line and then seeing a little bit more of these uh contemporary homes is something that a lot of towns are are
welcoming and it's nice to see them as we drove around today the upper on the roof I believe so 20 by 30 so on the right side it's 16 ft deep on
the left side it's 21t2 and clear across it's 22 feet yeah on the upper level so the we did the math and we we prepared it uh we would have been able to go from the 817 square ft there up to
1,077 so that's correct so it's the depth of it on the inside is 12 ft and clear across it's 25 so I I could indicate actually if I just pulled this forward by six two that
would that would bring the third floor up to So So in order would have to basically add another square closer to 200 square feet 200 feet correct
we when we created that upper floor we did it based on the largest that we could be which is the floor below all the way it's not coming out of the secondbody understand so
So it's not entirely all around that height um if if we this right here complies this portion of it however simply if we put a line like that came to a peak and did this didn't change a
single thing about this application it would comply because it would be within the roof line yeah certainly i'd be happy to so if I started a roof here I didn't change the floor plan at all i came up to this
point here built to here stopped the living space there continued with storage attic which is not habitable to artificially create these dormers it would comply we just didn't build that we
didn't build the attic space yes yes right side to the plate that picture So that's totally what is that giant
it's a window it's a window it's a window there's a stair behind that and it's a window so you know in the same say that the roof lines are going to break up a facade um that's what we tried to do with these windows we didn't just put a sheer wall of stuck or siding
and and you know the if if I may just address your concern i understand I understand the intent of the code and frankly if if we were to meet the code and if we were to revise this that would introduce an Eve that projects out at
this level and it would not be any less mass in fact it would be and again the comparison just I'm 100% clear on your statement it's 100% correct from here to here is different from here to here
however However from here to here and from here to here this is actually two feet lower than that to the highest point you're getting this this break in the facade but we're introducing other brakes for instance right here with the
actual sheer part of the building stops a full story lower than if we were to go with an alternate version i'm not saying that in a taunting way i'm saying that in an an illustrative way that we yeah we've got more height here but we're
significantly less closer to the street so one more time that elevation yes that's a window it's a yes it's a it's actually a very
large window it's maybe 12 feet wide by maybe 20 ft tall and behind that is a stair you mean an open space or actual glass it's a glass window it's a glass it's broken up into millions
um actually here's a better This is a better picture of it if you see it right here and what that is is again we're trying to make these spaces feel large like outside and open that's a staircase right behind It's not like there's a living room that somebody's going to be
peering down into this is an an all house stair that will bring light in on each of the levels and that window like it looks like by the way that like budget once we get the bud I'm almost certain that's
the first thing that goes so so the window it looks like all the way through through the house no it's it's just it's just at this wall in fact maybe if I
indicate on the floor plan so I'll walk you through the the upper level for instance you come this is an open floor plan it's got a kitchen in the back left it's got a dining area with a little office bench living room with a fireplace on the other side of
that fireplace is the stair that brings you to the upper level so from here to here is the glass and again that's the we intentionally put it there so it's bringing natural light into the hall on the the level below and up to that that upper story
the window may change lesser windows probably the outer wall no it would certainly be windows but at the very least it wouldn't be it would not be it would be the same plane this is this is something
well the timing wasn't great we do that to everybody thanks who's got the remote um so at the very least it would be here and here and here and here and another one there and there so and I would say that's a major concern
i would love that silver and you're the homeowner okay please raise your right hand you swear affirm the testimony you'll give will be the truth yes okay thanks yes i'll speak just for this that's a very important either one
of the very respectful of our respectful budget that was while he's kind of getting things I do want to say a lot of this is about design choice and and again this few
times but are not looking to be greedy here I know this sounds like a lot of various people profiles side by side what we're proposing is not in fact a lot of ways it's less max out
for every square foot we can get back so I want to stress that and then also the design aesthetic know sometimes these new homes can look sterile in some way that's not the intent here there's been a lot of time and effort and thought craftsmanship that's gone into this plan both by the clients in connection with
their architect and again we This is unique certainly yeah i mean you could use correct i mean by definition this will not be structural so theruct there will be a
portal they call it a portal frame and they call it a curtain wall because it's like a curtain so we were playing with the idea of some fritting on it so that it mimics the way that the light casts on the ocean how it like speckles like that that's how you got some of those triangle shapes that's
what we were planning to do it's artistic it's an artistic expression well we'll design a nice 90 to go anyway so elements on that side sure
so we've currently spec the reason we were doing that is because we didn't necessarily want to do a Stuckco home um because those generally But we're actually exploring limestone finished stuck up i'll walk
you through these here yeah we just did a a driving tour through Mary's uh she relived her history as a Philly gal here but she also walked me through all the newer homes so there's uh the Florum panel or
potentially limestone finished stucco there's a koa wood or a comparable type of wood um you'll notice that there's actually two densities to that wood a smaller slat and a wider slat and then beyond that we've even changed the orientation to create it a little bit
more slendering we've concealed all of the gutters uh there's a single down spout that'll get connected underground uh on the opposite side of the house we're dealing with a double tone uh travertine finish here where again
anywhere that there's not a window but to give it the appearance of it wrapping um we want these layers we've done that we've got some built-in planter areas to to bring a little bit of organic nature to this the goal is to feel like you're
in a grotto on on the upper floor any other questions for Mr do you understand it would go from I would like to the exact number so you're asking if we maxed out the second floor what would it be i have that at
177 ft and it's currently 87 oh I'm sorry we would be reducing the second floor deck from 12 ft in depth down to 5' 3 and a half i mean honestly for the
space so there are sections of the country that actually write their code like this to prevent sheer walls so we they do a diagram showing how Higher you get the more your house if every house did this it would actually
be a very well planned community preserve views along the corridor the flood damage prevention ordinance requires all equipment equipment at first level if it's in the house okay so we
have to go up outside for sure anything else what is the dimension 6 feet so it's measured on the site plan six feet from the uh property line to the
the water uh basically the stone coping stone and then this is just the dimension to the deck so there's a foot between the deck that's not this might be a little unclear that five foot dimension is the distance from the coping stone to the deck which means there's a foot between the deck and the
property line you're welcome required versus exist be happy to go through each of them so currently the front yard set back for the building is required to be 14.65 the current one is 14.68 the next one you're required to
have a front yard to the porch of 6.66 that's the average it's only got 5.09 so that's a variance that we're resolving what are we proposing we're proposing 9.38 yes the rear yard you're required to have 12.5 it currently only has
and we're complying with that um minimum no yet they're connected so yes um the minimum sideyard is 8 ft required currently it's only 3 in and then three feet and four 3T 4 in we're going to comply with that
with with some even to the point that I just want to illustrate is substantially improving a lot of existing performance is that right entirely in fact even just the the total sideyards you're supposed to have 18 ft that's 18 feet of air space it's only
3.3 right now and we're complying with the 18 you know one after the next it's it's a great improvement driveway setback we're improving the driveway setback yes yes
I don't actually don't see a dimension we didn't do the civil plan on it but we'll comply i was going to say whatever it is any further questions for Mr so what is that clearance between the
edge and the house so we've got five feet we've got four feet to the back side of the coping stone and another foot to the coping stone correct anybody else thank you
Mr chair with your permission next I'm going to bring up our professional planner and engineer Mr john Barnhard i believe he is very familiar to this board but like I can take him through his qualifications i think we can accept Mr barnhard um John when you're ready just give us your
name and business address for the record john Barnhard office address 400 North Avenue in City and please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth i do mr chairman we accept his credentials as an engineering planner thank you please take us to the application
from the perspective of professional planner engineer sure um I think the the architect on the project did a great job explaining the project and his goals in in in developing the building as it is um when we looked at it from planning perspective we believe that this that
the deviations that are being asked for this evening really do go to the heart of a couple of purposes um which which is what justifies these variances the first that I that I want to discuss is that um is the uh creation
or uh preservation of light space which is a purpose um what the architect did in this in this specific design is um a number of different facade depths along the front of the building and different depth depths along the front of the
building so although this is a two and a half story building three story by definition because of the square footage of the second floor there is going to be a lot of not only air light space around the building because every single one of the bulk standards complies which is a very important application um you know
we are working with a blank slate we do have a we do have a vacant lot per se with one of the buildings torn down and so our ar this architectural team did not push the envelope they did not ask for a front yard setback they did not ask for sideyard setbacks they did not ask for rear yard setbacks they're
complying with building coverage they're complying with landscape coverage both in the aggregate and in the front yard the only deviations that they're asking for are related to the architectural design of the building and those deviations aren't to the benefit of
living space or more bedrooms or or the things that you might think a a an applicant would be asking for when he's asking for more square footage on the third floor than than is permitted or when he's asking to go to a high for a greater dormer
size he's asking for it he's asking for those deviations to allow for the architectural design to be creative to be artistic as he explained so this design we believe and if you look at some of the perspectives as the neighboring properties we believe not
only does go preserves their light open space in and around the property but actually improves upon it especially at the front step back especially at the front I should say from the street um there is a lot of openness in the front of this building um our client had a great interest in having this home home
this summer home with a lot of outdoor living space you come here on the weekends um you don't want to be inside you want to be outside um it's not a it's not an overly overly large lot the building as um as Mr biser mentioned is for a beach block building is less than
3,000 square feet it is not a large home um but they were very very interested in trying to create a lot of interesting outdoor living space and at the same time uh create a unique architectural appeal interestingly enough when I first looked at these plans and I saw that side wall that was a a sheer wall or
whatever you want to call it um it was you know I'm here a lot it was a concern but when you actually look at the detail of it and as it was explained and then actually as you heard our client actually be willing to commit to it again the architectural design comes into play the use of glass and use of
different materials is actually now creating some depth into that wall so while that wall is vertical it's really changing the character of that wall so that it does not give you the appearance of a blanksided wall or stuckle wall for three and a half or four stories above
the ground so we believe that for all of those reasons um airline open space is clearly preserved with this application which is a purpose of building that advanced municipal land and use law i think probably the strongest argument we have with this application um is the purpose of zoning which states creation
of a desirable visual environment through creative design techniques and good civic design and arrangement i'll go back to what I said there are no bulk requirements that are being um deviated from with the application we are talking about uh we're talking about the height
size of a dormer which really goes hand in hand with the with the uh plate height on the on the walls and the around the side and then part part of the rear of the building um we are talking about a square footage of third floor which as was already reported is I'm going to say an artificial number
because of the fact that they are we're essentially penalizing ourselves by reducing the interior living space on the second floor if we max that living space out that that variance would go away um so what you have is you have a
situation where we have an architect that I've not worked with before is kind of new new to town has a lot of really interesting and different ideas um and is and is interested in creating um an architectural piece on this beach block of Margate that doesn't exist um will it
will it be out of character with the neighborhood i would say no it will not be out of character with the neighborhood um because there's a relatively similar more modernistic style house that's actually just going under construction across the street from this home so um this is a very very beautiful block in the community um but
we think that the that the visual of this home um will create some real interest for the block it'll create some real interest for people that are walking to the beach um and it's it's being done in a fashion we we believe does not create any real negative impacts because of how much thought has
been put into the design of each one of the elements of the structure um we also have to talk about the negative criteria in justifying the variances the first prong being is there a substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance i would argue that there is not while we are deviating at that upper
level it is with purpose it does not it does not provide any additional benefit to our client other than architectural appeal um and for those reasons we believe that there is not a substantial detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance um and the second prong of the
negative criteria is is whether there is a substantial detriment um to the public good you know again it's our opinion that because of the architectural interest of the building although we're deviating with regard to the e height uh and we're deviating with regard to the um the dormer and the other items that
are listed in Mr mclaren's report um we believe that the architectural interest of this building um well outweighs any potential negative impacts of um of deviating from those standards which would um satisfy the negative criteria or I should say both prongs of the
negative criteria this is one of those cases where you have to balance you know what the impacts are versus what the value of an interesting very artistic unique and creative building design is um you know my opinion you know everybody has a different opinion of of
what's beautiful in a building my opinion is whether you love or hate this building it's a very very interesting building and I think it truly would be an asset to Margate um because of the fact that there are no other variances being requested other than to create this architectural feature
that's really all I have i have no further questions anybody else yeah I've got a question thank you very like to speak sure just give us your name and address and I have to swear you in adam Green
317 North Avenue uh Mr green please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes thanks um I just wanted to speak a little bit uh on behalf of my friends Mary and
Stephen mary's been coming for how long 50 years so she's not uh Well I know she does um but yeah she's been here a long time she's not just cruising in here from you know from out of town trying to build um you know the biggest house she possibly
can i've been here since I was four years old i've seen the faces of market change i used to ride my bike to Michelle's to buy two cinnamon buns for 60 cents you guys remember Michelle's bakery across from Castles but you know as a a local
um I drive around and I see things that belong and that don't belong and from my perspective I'm an art director by trade so I I drive around i judge all the buildings as I as I decide which ones stay which ones go but you know really like you know to to
be totally koi um and you know and you know I probably shouldn't be this koi but I'm going to shoot rolls into town like what's in it for them what's in it for us and I don't really feel like they're asking for anything that is for them they're trying to do something out it's a beautiful
uh you know there's it's quite striking even more you know if you have that it would be awesome to share it might actually uh it might actually help visualize this but um again I don't really feel it's a it's more of a give
than a take it's a beautiful statement it's not like they're trying to build biggest house they're quiet respectful they're helpful people they're they're members of the community that we would welcome um you know they're uh you know they're not uh you know it's look you
know certain uh certain characteristics of this town are less uh compelling to me than they used to be and we uh I this gets uh this local's uh stamp of approval if it means anything which it probably doesn't but uh they're great
people and I think they're trying to do a a really it's a killer project i it's it's beautiful and I can't speak to some of the things that it put the with the windows we'll make
it a condition of approval and I'll state it when when we bring the motion and I'll put into words a little better than I stated probably you have anything else no I I could give you a big closing statement but I would just be repeating myself um and wasting your time so we really
appreciate your attention and the consideration project and um thanks again um okay so it's going to be a C variance application and I'll summarize the C variances and the conditions and we'll need a motion in a second and a
roll call vote the third floor uh has to be prior ordinance completely completely within the roof of the second floor and and they're non-compliant in terms of that the third half story we heard a lot of testimony about that has to be 50% of
the second floor and they're at 62.3% the roof eve height uh is non-compliant and then that dormer area you know nearly 100% of the the floor area is a dormer for the third
floor um so those are the four variances the conditions I will put in there that on that uh elevation two shown on on the plans that they'll install the windows as represented during the course of the hearing um and then also note pool equipment
they'll make that comply with the ordinance you can work with Mr mclaren to get to make sure that's in the right location then the standard conditions that we put in every resolution the applicant will comply with any representations that made during the course of the hearing uh anything else in Mr mccclar's report unless otherwise
addressed subject to any outside approvals that may be required Richmond okay so maintaining a 512 pitch a lot of thought behind you know having the was the you
know having this case I really don't think that the way this is designed especially with that window I really don't see that as an issue then I would have an issue obviously to replace allows for a lot of
air for the neighbors house they comply with everything else i think for this location especially with the house that we approved while I think this househ yeah this is one of those cases where I
had a lot of concerns coming into the case but I'd like to uh commend the presentation i mean it really uh I think you guys all did a really good job Mr bar i'm looking at the third floor of
that master bedroom suite modest is modest surprises i shocked that it was % of the floor below because it's really small i mean my house is bigger than
it's not a beach um every one of my questions was more than answered again I think the presentation was spectacular i approve the Dan Adams yeah I'm gonna
echo echo Mr richmond and Mr patter on the comments i really have to say the architect did an outstanding job and the uniqueness of this with the open spaces is outstanding and the fact that you're going to use the open space for outdoor living is even better and being from the
fire side anytime there's another deck available it's another place of egress to get in and out in the event of a fire so I think he did a great job and everyone did a good presentation and I'm going to vote for this recently we approved
one overall mass Stephen just um I believe that everything does meet the uh the positive criteria variance and I want to mimic what everyone
else chairman said so I approve Drew Campbell um I too echo the uh thoughts of um the other board members uh you articulated this design in a way that made me and helped me better understand
what you were doing you did a phenomenal job with that um and I'm going to approve Bridge to couple observations first of all I struggle with that
the fact that you did it as strleg That's just an observation that being said the presistribe Patty Rosenberg and That's my only question
all right anyway John motion carries eight in favor and one opposed thank you all very much thank you okay
our next case is Michael and Mandy Dorfin 206 North Brunswick Drive block 502.04 lot 39.01 located in the S30 zoning district seeking C variance relief for rearfacing
third floor deck and potentially others for the construction of a third floor deck in the rear of the property current on taxes water and sewer payments proof of advertising and notification provided representative by Eric Goldstein
i'll just say yes the they were in here last summer for an application for the two and a half stories over parking for a lot less than 40 ft i think they're a fraction less than 40 ft so they got that barance originally they were going to seek the
third floor deck and the rear of the house but they they pulled that in order to get the other so here we are again to the third floor deck at the rear of the house and by definition thank you M mclaren and Mr chairman eric Olsson on behalf of the applicants
Michael and Mandy Dorfman uh we reviewed Roger's report you recall this lot is 3 in short of being 40t wide so we needed a variance to get started on the construction at the time we came in uh last year property owners weren't sure
what they wanted to do about deck being at the front or the back they've since discussed this with their neighbor i sent over to Leo and to Roger and to Mr richmond copy of the letter from the rear yard neighbor who I think everybody should have a copy of that is in favor
of this couldn't be here tonight but wanted to uh express that they're the only people affected by this variance and are in favor of endorphins getting Bob's going to walk through the plan itself especially deck sits back far
from the property line it's cut in as you want it with the uh pent roof which is important it's another area for ingress and egress out of the house and instead of having it up front on Brunswick they just have it off of the back so having that I'm going to ask u
Mr lolio in he'll describe the project and uh ask the board if they have any questions okay uh Mr lolio just give us your name and business address please robert okay please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening will be the
truth mr richmond thank you thank you for So just before Bob gets started I'm sure all of you have reviewed Roger's report with regard to the fact that the house itself
conforms in all aspects it's not maxed out um most importantly of course building coverage at 35 or 40 is allowed um it's not at the very limit of all the setbacks it's a little bit more on each
one but the only change that we're proposing here is the deck that would have been off the front of the back so if this were in the front it would have to be less than 50% of the deck below it this is in the back but it's still less than 50% below the deck on
the second floor requirement So the rear deck is um a weld deck it's tucked within the pent roof of the roof structure in the rear so um you really only for that little bit of third You wouldn't even know the deck was there
it's not a large deck it's not It's only going to house one or two people um and we're here for the variance because it's in the rear not in the front we're only allowed one per unit why did you change from the front to back
well at the time the rules were changing I believe and we didn't we never had one proposed in the front they always wanted in the rear because of the views and the sunset michael Leo
sure question as well okay mr dorfman you're obviously the property owner yes please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony will be the truth thank you windows up top so when this case first came up for
the third floor deck in the rear part of that it was part of it but then we took it off right why' you take it off just wanted to get started with the construction we had to be here because that if you remember the lot itself is 3
in short i thought that was a pretty dimminimous change so we wanted to get in get the approval and then come back as the house is being built when the homeowner decide how to figure
michael of the most important of course when you were here the first time you'll remember the board members that were here you had several of your neighbors who came out they were very supportive and they wanted you to have the house built you are friendly with your rear
yard neighbor and your rear yard neighbor that was something he did voluntarily do that has everybody on the board seen a copy of that letter now look I don't have a problem if you make the representations and neighbors
don't object but any obviously here say I understand but the board can give it whatever weight it decides it's the only neighbor that's affected by this and that would the neighbor the board can draw inferences the neighbors aren't here and you know they obviously did send a
letter saying that they have no issue with it well somebody might be here um neighbor at 206 North or the the the neighbor on Clarendon Avenue the Broads Jackirect
yes testimony you had to say about professional opinion as a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey do you see any negative that could possibly be associated with with that i don't see any negatives it doesn't affect the light air and open
space of the rear yard it would just be a roof structure it just tucked in a small deck in the roof i don't see any to the extent there could be any negatives associated with the application the positives of your design
neighborly state of New Jersey and city market yes so Mr chairman I would rest um we've established positive and negative neighborhood testify if the board has any further questions
does anyone else on the board have anything to say questions okay uh anyone from the public likes to speak just give us your name and address please uh Joe Sandoli i'm at 211 North Clon i'm not directly behind the
property i'm one over okay mr sandoli uh please raise your right hand you swear to tell the truth tonight i do thank you um my wife and I have been permanent residents of Margate since 2016 so almost 10 years so this is or fulltime
home um the house that's being built at 206 is one of the newer designs where the garage is on the first floor so from what I understand you're allowed to go up higher than that so the rest of our houses that surround that house are all
older construction so this house already towers over every house around i wholeheartedly disagree that he says it doesn't affect anybody whoever is going to be out on that deck has a view right down into my backyard and I think that's
infringement on my privacy not to mention back bedrooms I have i don't know if they're going to be any entertaining out there just two people or friends over whatever but the house already has two decks in the front i don't see the purpose of having two
decks in the front i don't see another privacy i don't want to be looking at other people and I don't want them looking anyone else from the public can I just respond to that sure so the the the main building in the back
um it steps back 7 foot2 from the building set back line if we brought our building all the way to the building line but big windows it's you're still going to have view of the neighbor's backyard that's why I said it doesn't really affect the neighbors by the way I have a big window overlooking their
backyard that opens or a bay window um a small deck serves the same purpose well the thing is that Unless you open the window nobody's got people people will be on the deck so I understand what he's saying the
neighbor that somebody's on the deck maybe they're there at 8 at night maybe they're there at 10:00 tonight maybe they're there at 2 in the morning but I I understand what Bob's saying but at the same time it's a deck it's not a window we're also allowed to do a second
floor right so that's a second And you're allowed to do that you're not allowed to do a third floor correct but just if the house were built all the way out which it could be Yeah but should have could that seem to work
you finish what you're gonna say go ahead if the deck were built out to the edge where it could be on the deck of the window it's more of an obstruction than as far back as it is because the roof is still further back from the edge
of the roof below so this design is less obstructive on the neighbor than if they put a window all the way out to the edge of the property line or did a second floor deck both of which can still be built because the house is being framed we thought this was less of a problem
i have a one and a half they built homes behind me and the people see my bedroom up the less viewer up to me fire hazard out
back side of the house i appreciate that Mr paul i'm getting back to what Mr paulson said you know the could have would a should have argument but it does make sense here that this design was purposely for Bob put in place to make it less of an
annoyance to the neighbor and we live in town where all of our setbacks are pretty close together at some point everyone will be out either in the front yard on a porch or looking we're tight all the homes are very tight we think this design is better being less tight
than if it were you say maxed out and then the property line sorry the third floor window was further out and the second floor de this is by its very nature almost impossible to look over it is impossible to look over Mr and his
wife will be looking over at a roof not into the neighbor's yard so certainly get it that it's unfortunate that we're as tight as we are but um All right hold on you got to get You should give us your name and address come on up i'm Linda Sandoli i'm at 211
North Avenue okay Miss Sandoli please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth i do okay okay and the concern that I have is looking into my yard right now as I see the house being built
and I go in my yard I see the where the deck will go and that will look directly into my yard and so if I'm entertaining or out there I feel my privacy will be violated thank you
view straight down we've been watching this house be built we're fulltime res we've been watching this house built since it was Don't they have the same view from the second floor and first floor into your yard with a third floor deck they got a real
view well they got a view from all these four or five windows mr off the back there's nothing on the third floor they would have put it in there
and allowed it to begin i just want to mention that they're when they're sitting on the deck they're sitting in this chair there's going to be a low high so when you're they're going to be mostly sitting they're not hanging out it's not a party deck so when they're sitting here they're not going to be able to look over the wall down into
your backyard space it'd be easier to look out the window standing up okay anyone else from anybody else from public portion is closed and Yeah there's nothing further and it's just a variance
application one variance to allow the third floor rear deck they're not permitted um terms and conditions just the standard ones anything any other approvals you may need subject to any
representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing and any other conditions Mr report unless otherwise addressed we just need a motion a second and a roll call vote i'll make Michael Richmond
uh so I kind of think that it would have been good to address this when you came originally but that didn't happen um the only comments we got from the neighbors in the rear that have
an issue with it um and I do agree with Craig that I do like you know third floor decks for safety but in this that didn't even come up when we
were talking it was more like the the front elevation and the sunsets so to me that's not a compelling argument to um approve the Richard Patter when we were changing the rules I was I
was a big proponent of decks anywhere especially the back sunsets um and we have approved a few in the rear but I think in I think two but in
both of those cases there was actually rooms on the side of the deck too that were really tucked into the house i was out voted i mean this is just a plain rear deck that we specifically voted not to have
regretfully I have no Dan Adams okay well I I have to echo Mr pomisano's comments i understand what Mr richmond and Mr patterson both said but when I look at it from a safety aspect I always
have to arrow on the side you know from a fire perspective of safety of the residents and it's just another place for them to go in the event of a fire and for us to gain access to them um I understand what the neighbors are saying
but based on the safety aspect I'm going to vote for this and approve it build i know you're not here for the drop i'm with you i've been there i've seen beautiful
i'm not a big proponent of of the decks outside in the back and I would prefer to see the deck in the front where it would be easier for the fire department to do a rescue i was here for the original plan on this and I approved it
then but I'm going to deny it on this i'm not in favor i agree with Mr abby Rosenberg yeah I was here for the original request and the rear deck application is denied two in favor and
seven okay our next case is Sonia Beex line 606 Vendor Avenue block 130 lot 37 located in the C2 zoning district seeking Dvariance relief for
residential use in a commercial zone together with C variance relief for the lot width sideyard setbacks of the house and potentially others for the construction of a new single family home current on taxes sewer payments proof of advertising and notification provided
representative by Eric Goldstein mr chairman I'll start on this thank you for chair chairman and board members the application is signing 966 Ventner Avenue block 13 block 13 lot
37 located in a C2 zone it's currently a single family non-conforming structure and they're seeking a dearance to continue that use at a higher expansion of the house so it's a hardship based on the undersized
lot and it's also used indicated the background zoning chart two zoning charts one is for schedule which is the location of this structure and they need a use fair because
commercial and ground floor mixed use residential is only allowed above existing structure is single family residential and the proposal is single family residential to continue that non-conforming use wide area required in
the C2 is 4000 ft existing area is 3,125T lot width minimum required in the C2 is 50T they have 25 ft so that's in the ordinance it says single family residential construction the C1 C2 CBD
WSD shall comply with the single family requirements in schedule B2 or B1 I'm sorry so the second schedule was uh S25 and I mimicked the S2 zoning standards which closely resemble
what this is going to be we're asking for minimum lot area 2500 square feet they have 3125 which is would be conforming minimum lot width of 40 ft minimum they provide 25 ft which is existing
non-conforming lot depth there is no requirement for that but they do have 125 ft and typical of this zone this area 25 wide lots is not unusual front yard setback to the porch
of the deck where 19.2 is prevailing 6.2 ft exists and 15.67 ft is proposed setbacks for both the left and right 5T is required in the S25 3T and 6.8
exist and 32 ft for both sides is proposed combined sides are set back the minimum required is 37% of the lot width which equates to 9.25 ft and 9.8 ft exist and 7.7 ft is
proposed that requires three yard setbacks if they apply to zone standards they apply the only remaining variance they would be seeking tonight is the building coverage where 39.37% is the maximum permitted and
43.2% is proposed therefore requiring again they have to use varants to be able to use the S25 zoning district requirements so I turn over to Mr thank you Mr chairman and I do agree
with Roger with regard to the use variance and then the baso is use on the record first but before doing so I think it's important to realize I'm sure all of you went out to the property this is a single family house that exists a lot clearly is not
in existence just yet there's a house there now that's flood damage on one side is the Verizon hub it's actually owned by Verizon on the other side is a building which not shape the subject property um does
not meet requirements but it's also a single in what is now a commercial zone okay so here are the choices the board has with regard to the use commercial would have to be a 25
foot wide commercial structure built there clearly over the course of however many years nothing has occurred on this specific piece of property nor in the surrounding area i would submit that on the D alone the board must grant varian
or it constitutes a t and I do want to go through some of the cases le because it's important before we get to the carian relief okay I'm sure you're aware it's pap versus board of adjustment which is 254 NJ super 52 it's the versus
which is 360 NJ super 586 both of which are division cases which says in a situation where the property is presently zoned with a non-conforming use or a structure as this is the denial of the ability to use that project
meaning the way it's set up now as a single family constitutes so I'd like at least to discuss that issue now we'll have Mr barnhard discuss um the planning But I want to make sure all the board
members realize that you have a single in a commercial zone already the failure to let the property owner use it as a single going forward constitutes in my opinion we always want your opinion on that so we can use that
as before we start talking about and you know you can take a look at the cases i've got here on page 534 section 36 thanks um it's a complex case because first you have to decide if the property
owner can use the property as a single family home residential use and then we can get into Bob's um work on the plan itself and the but before we get there the board first has to make a decision on the variance which is a requirement
that five of the seven of you have to vote the affirmative i would submit that all seven if you have to vote the affirmative but I'll let Leo give you the advice on that so it's your it's your position that you don't have to put on any proof for a use if we say no
it's on but obviously we have to establish the positive negative criteria but right now you've got a single flood damaged house can you raise it as it can you raise it as it is right now you could raise it in its current so how's that taking
well you'd have to agree to the variances for the raise and that would be to raise it by right can't you yes well no if we wanted to raise it up we'd still be raising it we'd expand a existing nonconformity is there a state law that lets you raise it it does i'm not saying you don't have a good project
but to take a taking analysis and and for me to instruct the board that if you say no this is a 100% taking of the property I I'm not in a position on the spot to do that without reading 87 briefs correct mr barner puts on
testimony that establishes the positive and negative at that and the board is satisfied with the positive and negative sure i look I think your argument as to it taking holds some weight and I think the board needs to think about that that there's very little utility to a 25 foot
lot in a commercial zone as one of the arguments you advance whether if the board says no opens the city to a lawsuit that they have to now compensate the owner that's why you have sure threeyear
litigations with judges and everything like that is that But I just wanted to be clear that the house has existed for quite some time right and it's damaged yeah so we've got this is the classic Dvarian hardship
case and then of course the C variance hardship case flow from from that with the size of the lot and everything else based on what's on the property now but yeah the house could be raised but you'd be raising a flood damaged house in a commercial zone so you'd still need some
variance relief if we went over what is otherwise allowable by way of the automatic the automatic flood you wouldn't need a variance if it was raised to a certain height correct so John put some testimony on it yes and
the other thing the other question I have is from what I understand if there is an existing house on the property then you could build another let's say this was just an empty lot that was never built on that might be more of an
issue I except Mr richmond respectfully the house that's there now is so badly damaged that it may not be I I as a builder n times out of 10 does not make especially
something you know we saw that in a couple yeah the raise and then they went to do it in the house then they had to come back so I'm not I'm just saying for a fact that go ahead you are allowed to replicate what was there a higher
ele beach drive if you couldn't raise this house an existing house you can re in a higher elevation same exact dimensions well this isn't that right and you know part of the argument if you could do that maybe what you're proposing is better
john would you like to come up and get sworn in please okay so John's been sworn in already once but I just want to uh Yeah mr barnhart just raise your right hand you swear affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth you already qualified and already sworn
tonight as an engineer and a planner so you're fine to proceed structure so um it is a unique property um there are a handful of handful of 25 foot wide lots in your commercial zone um we have been in front
of the board on a number of occasions for just exactly what we're here for this evening um existing single family houses on these on these narrow lots that have when you look at this application from a use perspective you kind of have to look at at the specifics of it in
that this property sitting on Veter Avenue immediately to it right is a that's going to be there forever um you've got residential to the left of us if you look at this block while you're in a commercial zone once you get past kind of part of
commercial line shares block is residential even across the street you've got some multif family resial but the line share this block is residential in character so in order to justify the dev we think that there's two purposes of zoning that really apply to this application um the first is that the
application promotes the general The reason that general welfare in this case is because the site is particularly well suited for the use why do I say that well based on how I just started we have a single family house on the lot um this neighborhood is accustomed to
having a single family house on your lot for many many years we're proposing a single family house so we are matching the use that's been on this property for many many years um we have a lot that is so narrow that the permitted uses of the zone really don't work to create a
commercial space on the ground floor um to have any any level of uh any level of circulation on that property or parking for that property is very very difficult there is no ability to purchase adjacent land on either side both of those are
developed um so because of the the particularness of this site to remain as a single family home we believe that the general welfare is promoted by allowing this house to be demolished building fully compared to flood and all current
building codes it does certainly advance the general welfare and I think the second um the second purpose of zoning that's advanced this application is um establishment of appropriate population again it's a narrow lot if
you try to develop it commercially look at the commercial zoning require allowances this lot could be 60% covered it could be more intensely constructed or built um was being proposed um we are not proposing structure is just one unit
one single family home so for those reasons we believe that this is a very appropriate population for this specific piece of property with regard to negative criteria plan zoning ordinance
um while this is a departure from the zone plan because this is a commercial zone um its compatibility with the neighborhood kind of we counteracts that because there is around it and inability to acquire other parcels when you have
small and other maybe it doesn't make sense to develop to redevelop a small parcel but you don't have that substantial deterior is only for the public while
there are some guarant and eliminating the damage home that sits there So from a devarian perspective we believe that positive and negative criteria are clearly established mr mattis what I'd like to do if it's okay with you and Mr chairman Mr
mccclaron is have the board vote on the D and then Bob can get started on the design of the house if that's okay i think that's um probably the better way to go yeah I'm fine with by for creating the vote just so the board understands and I I forgot to just know for the
record uh uh Mr pittz and uh Danny Adams recused themselves as because it's a B variance um does the board understand that so essentially what they put on testimony that since they're in the commercial zone
technically they need a use variance to demolish and rebuild a single family in the commercial zone um It's not uncommon the first vote on that because they need five votes to get that and the board would be voting on yes we
think this is appropriate for a single family on this property then they would get into Mr lolia's design um that would establish that they can build a single family then we would get into the
setback request does that make sense so we're going to take a motion and a second to grant the use 25 out of seven the next vote would probably be four out of seven
so that motion I think no it's a good point it's a good point on the use variance aspect of the case does anyone from the public want to Come on up please give us your give us
your name and address salmi 2A Madison Avenue sal can you spell that for us c H I L L E M I okay okay mr schlei please raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth okay thank you
single family house am I right he wants to be right there and you talk about that's not what he's asking no no oh he's not asking foot and he'll stay
well here's the deal go ahead they're not They're here for the use in order to reconstruct that you're discussing the C varants which is if they're successful with this vote that'll be next oh yeah better to wait
until Yeah anyone else as to the use itself okay oh yeah okay so we're going to close the public portion does anybody from the board have anything okay a motion i'll make a motion i'll
second michael Richmond go to the property look around majority of the neighborhood is residential so I'm not really concerned about losing commercial space on this
one i think it would definitely my opinion well it doesn't matter at this point but anyway I'm going to vote yes for the parents richard Steven yes campbell
richson yes motion carries thank you all having gotten that out of the way there will be a new house built there i guess the question now is is Bob's design
okay now about the actual dimensions of the house John's also going to discuss uh planning aspect of this less than 40 wide so you designed a house to be built over parking not and
So we're limited a little bit walk us through what you propose to be built recomment any shift satisfy of course we we want to be good neighbors of course wants to build
something that's going to be good for the neighbors and good forelves so that's a good idea that'll be shifted over 6 in now Bob before you get any further that prevailing average is based on what is that a normal front
it's a little but it's skewed because the only other one so far that one didn't exist that's why Max Is that Can you go back any further than
that or is that what it is okay as a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey designed this house take consideration city in your opinion professional strike this project as considered
negative associated to the extent someone's here to answer any questions of I'm going to ask John to give some planning testimony um that's really it for the house this is unfortunately Marget has a lot of these 20 foot wide
lots and we've developed them fairly well but there's going to be it's going to be tight we want to give the gentleman a little bit more room on his side shift it over a bit and all we can do with the lot as far as width so the actual width of the house
is 18 18 we could have done a commercial like the neighbors would complain there'd be noise there' be people smoking something would happen never going to get um Mr chairman Mr barnhard's already been sworn in on this
application so I'm just going to ask him to continue as far as the goes on the John planning perspective knowing lots I think access uh which while it does uh our proposal
does uh deviate I'm sorry not I said the requirement for the proposal is 156.67 it does deviate from the average um but nearly 16 ft is a very set for many of res so uh we
believe that it's an appropriate setback for this block um and it is a is a minor deviation and then last that's correct the house the house wall does comply that is correct um with regard to the the last varianes with regard to building coverage um it is a
very modestly sized house um so Mr developed a ground floor that provides two garage spaces and then also has a reasonably storage area because the living quarters above is just not that big it is a we believe a dimminimous request we're allowed to be
39.375 design is at 43.2 and although we are the 39.375 is based on the S25 criteria or the residential criteria um if this were actually being developed as a commercial property as high as 60% so um it's
variance because we're going under the S25 standards but building this area um so we believe that is an appropriate request but this is requesting property one of the big
factors if you look for landscape coverage 48 48.9% don't see very narrow properties and Mr was also still able to even though the only 25 ft wide was
still able to kind of go over to the best the board's information as well and Roger did send this copy over to the county because this is on Vendor Avenue
which is a county road it also is subject to another set of eyes atlanta County Development Review Committee has to look at this and approve it so uh once we're done whatever the outcome is it still has to go to uh the Atlantic County Coron for review there is a curve
cut that exists on Avenue one only we're replacing it with one other curve cut so we're not changing the traffic pattern we're not changing any of the circulation and it the house is there so we're going to add another
to that total of a foot so the city has passed a new or provides an ordinance for water and sewer utilities where the developer has to install the water and and none of the
valves in the apron or drive so just build anyone from the public okay Mr you're still sworn in so I don't need to swear you in again
no that's all right i'll get all I'm asking for is the five feet because what I'm saying is if you could see this look how close and my grill's there the comes up i'm going to I'm going to black mark his house just saying give me the five feet instead of
varying it where he take he's only two and a half feet or three feet what's it supposed to be five i have five i know they can't build a house
no it's not i'm on the deck i'm on the deck his stones are I think I got 8t so I got now his stones he can pick up a few inches there that's the house next to the office 25 ft of lawn back
25 home to the end of my property i don't know where I don't know whe Show where the building look I got a 5050 chance building the house this house I wouldn't
even got in complain about it from here is that a problem that was my question you gota be more being a builder if you get
closer that kicks in this whole thing is pretty much you don't want to be any closer right right so you're gonna have four foot 25 ft the building's going to be 25
thank you thank you um let's go back to Let's go back to All right okay so anyone from the public public portion is closed
uh a motion yeah do we need just to specify the use was already granted the front yard set back to the decks and the porch they're 17 15.67 ft were 19.2's requirement requirement just so I have this right on
the right side which is towards Verizon you're going to have 3 feet one inch and on the other side 3T 11 in that total seven okay and that's on and then the combined sideyard is still
at seven where 9.25 is a requirement and building coverage is 43.2% 2% where the permitted maximum is 39.375% then the standard conditions noted that it's on a county road subject to county approval subject to any other
conditions in Mr mclaren's report subject to any representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing and we'll do another motion another roll call vote just out of curiosity why is it because now now it's essentially just C varian so when they needed the use part
that was so they Well he already kind of technically recused himself when I put it on the record had I known they were going to buy for probably still still better off to
keep it eleved but then we're ready to go yeah i don't know if we made a motion or not all right do I hear a motion michael Richmond yeah
i I think this was a hardship variance you really can't 18 there's a house already there that's existing most majority of the neighborhood is residential uh I think it's a vast
improvement to what's there now and I'm going to Richard Patter i think the commercial is crazy it just doesn't make sense i see no problem 25
agree with my board members andrew I see the hardship here i mean it's too small for commercial too small for mixed use um thank God there's not a pool um the only the only negative I see
is that we're losing some uh permeable space but besides that I approve rich D yes i don't know what type of commercial testimony accurate
how do you All right we're going to take a five minute break i think so okay um our last case is Alexa LLC 8411 Benter Avenue 3 North Jerome
Avenue block 212.01 lots 18 and 28 located in the C1 and S25 zoning district seeking subdivision approval together with certain C variance and D variance in order to
subdivide and adjust the lot lines the existing parcels into four newly configured lots and for the approval of three new single family residences along Durham venue on taxes water and sewer payments proof of advertising with and notification
provided representative by Thank you Mr chairman um this application I think okay so Mr chairman Mr mclaren and
I and Matt's permission today regarding the application itself with regard to the subdivision which is C variance relief necessary and depending on how we look at the subdivision being a major or minor versus another use variance for
residential and the commercial zone because there are a lot of moving parts with regard to the sizes of lots the lot line reconfiguration Mr mcclarn and Mr os and I just went back and forth on email as well is that we're seeking only
tonight we're not this isn't really bifurcated for one meeting we're seeking only tonight uh the Dvarian to determine if the new could be residential not commercial in the event the board votes in the
affirmative and we're going to come back we have to apply for some waivers and submit perhaps a new plan for the subdivision it's very similar to the prior case where we're just seeking the ability to use the property in a residential manner if that doesn't pass
and I guess we come back to the board maybe we'll go back to the drawing board so I think I said that correctly Roger we're just seeking the DU bearing tonight along Jerome Avenue single family
three new lots but they're reubdividing the existing lot so in essence four new adding 100 ft so you're in essence there's no new street the other question I had for commentary to use those lots for the
parking so it's an amended site plan next time also subdivision and and John's going to talk to the fact that it's a major or minor we're still a little confused about that but Mr saganos who's owns the property um said before we go get that deep into where
the lots will actually be and the actual homes that will go there presumably wanted us to come in first just for the single variance of the Maybe John can get into that
ask for a lot of waivers look if it's a major it's a major so I don't know if you want to have John start talking about the use if you want to go through your report we're good either way we agree with your report um it's up to you i'll just I'll lead
into this so master plan this lot which was 18 used to be within the S25 zoning district the master plan recommended the planning board extending that into the
C1 to match the foreign property hoping that commercial site would expand and actually in 2022 it was expanded by utilizing that lot for the residential parking above corner
and the commercial property parking below so now that would go away this is developed single family residential so I'll stop there okay thank you Mr mclaren mr chairman um John
Barnhart licensed professional planner professional engineer is with me we're going to discuss just tonight for the use along building itself has barrels everyone knows John explain that a little better
can I just clarification as well okay Mr barnhart just uh please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth i do okay and we've previously qualified you as an engineer and planner you're good to go
john take it away um so I'm sure everybody's extremely familiar with this property um sits right on the corner of Jerome Avenue and Veter Avenue um the site is It's actually two separate lots as it exists the corner property of Jerome
Avenue and Veter Avenue is where the existing building sits that has ground floor commercial um and as we just discussed I think it's broken up into three three individual rental at this point um and then there are there are
two small res on top of that structure and then behind that um there is a second build on it one is a resouristond that is an asphalt surface that is off so just to give some of the folks who
are new on the board a little bit of history this property I'm sure you know the property watch over the years but this property uh sat kind of for a little while not and with a number of developers looking at it and trying to decide you know what was the highest and best use of the property many of the clients came to us
and actually had some prevelop this property entirely as resial um and the sentiment of the of the board and application was that was not appropriate for the location he wanted to preserve the commercial at this location um fast forward a few
years Mr who we all know is a very successful commercial business operator and tenant for for all types of different retail restaurant and u entertainment uses purchased the property and
recognized an approval that Mr ml just discussed which and what that approval did is there were some other buildings actually over here Mr they were little res he tore those down and we came in and we got an approval to allow this the
existing commercial structure to have ground floor commercial as it as it did for many years um there were some there were two small res on the second level not by Mr and we we got those legalized they were built and I don't know I don't
think they're actually occupied but we got the approval to legalize those two units and then we also identify discussed so that approval what we what we left with with that approval was the ground floor commercial and four resial units
how the site currently sits as part of that that fast forward a few years Mr has done a tremendous job of beautifying that building in that corner it's absolutely magnificent what he did to it with regard to the stone finishes and the and the lighting and and he's been
able to find tenants to occupy the building it's it's been great um what he's recognized since that time is that the units that he has in the rear are just kind of problematic for him um he didn't parking but he's been fortunate enough to be successful with the
commercial space um um without really utilizing that parking to any major major extent so what he then asked us to take a look at is is there a better use for the back piece of the property other than how we got it so what he would like
to do and is is to turn the back piece of the property which in the prior in the prior your prior zoning map was in the S25 zone as as Mr and then your master plan reval brought it into commercial zoning although it still had residential uses
on it but we now have a commercial operator that is looking at it and saying you know I'm doing okay with this but but to expand commercial andor try to create more commercial in this area really from his perspective as an operator doesn't make a lot of sense
what he's what he would like to do is he would like to take that back property and essentially put it back to what it was in the S25 the reason that we think that that's an appropriate request is because if you look at the development of the road map
you have us right here on the corner commercial space to the north of us to the south of us across the street once you get once you get the back of our commercial building from that point the way the
So what we're trying to do is mirror what's behind us and what's on our side of S25 zoning and what that would look like is it would be a reconiguration of the lot building that's the lot location now
we would move that over a little bit to give proper access around the commercial building and then it would allow four I'm sorry three foot wide single family lots that would meet all the S25 criteria um which is I said which is essentially what the
zoning was prior to prior to albeit we do understand that you had a master master plan change so you had a thought that that that making that space commercial is what was appropriate for the community but a little bit of time
has passed at this point and and our client is looking at it saying he thinks it's a better plan and our opinion is that as well eliminate those two kind of non-conforming residential buildings that really are out of character with the neighborhood
and the single family nature of Rome Avenue building and build three nice properties this that this site would be fully built out at that point very well so that's kind of the the long and
short of how we've arrived at where we are as pointed out the only thing that we are requesting for this evening is uh the use essentially to um allow this property area that is currently uh
commercially zoned to be allowed to have single family homes and we have to come back if the board agrees to then show you what those homes look like show you how it's going
toffect the existing commercial show you curve cuts this of course is on two county roads and on avenue so we have to go to the county regard to new curve cuts off of Jerome Avenue which potentially might be a little bit of a heavy lift
once we determine if we can go forward then this board can figure out what works there with regard to what happens to the existing building and then of course the parking over on the new
subdivided we have the positive and negative for change of use but nothing else yeah I was going to ask so having said that John is going to describe the reason so with regard to obviously we have to
show and criteria as well we believe that the purp of an expanded commercial commercial it's hard to keep viable commercial especially in an area such as this where there's not a critical mass of you and other areas and you have
store and you have folks that are going to be walking down the street and pedestrians and there's a lot of activity there might be other restaurants in the area that people becomes more viable this building is kind of a oneoff type of building where I've got a church on one side I got a
synagogue on the other side and then the rest of what's around me is houses so it's it's a destination commercial there's a restaurant in there you want to go to restaurant you're going to go there um to go there you might go the other studio again it's a destination
but the idea to be able to expand upon the commercial when you're really not going to be able to create any additional critical mass of commercial because the balance of the area is res john you know at the same time that we made that commercial specifically that lot we also made the church property
institutional so that we know that in the future if by chance or combined or whatever we change that too saying that whole on both sides would be commercial so it wasn't just these three lines
um so again I believe that this general welfare this piece within the parcel is particularly well suited for this specifics appropriate population densities although the units are very small we're
getting rid of two res are you getting rid of the two units on top of the property we are not at this time but you're getting part of nothing concept of change i guess that would be amended was
that amended major or something uh yes getting that approved none of this happened so so how can we vote for a change of use or we can vote for a change of use but what are you going to do with the
parking when this project was approved in 2022 number seven says the applicant is proposing to revamp the parking area with a new service and improve landscaping and buffering the curb cut along Jerome Avenue will be relocated slightly did that ever happen i don't
think so did it no and 11 parking spots will be delineated in the parking area for commercial uses one of which will be a handicap parking spot and four parking spaces will be delineated for the two
existing one-bedroom residential structures which I'm assuming are on top of the commercial is that correct right and then the then the whatever it is that has two spots so if we change the use on that where are you going to
buy another lot somewhere else for the park I mean what's going to happen one of two things Mr first the approval on the elimination of the residential units above i think that seems to make you okay um
um so that that would be one option to eliminate the apartments above in the event yeah but that only takes care of only takes care of four spots she still had the 11 spots in 2022 which wasn't like it was 10 years ago
so you know um that's that that's really my main the whole project that's a That's a good point it's a busy court anybody else on board
isn't there a gym in there in the building a gym I guess i' never been there all right so anything else from Go ahead right rich
why we changed it to commercial to encourage continue to extend my We might as well make the whole thing because it's res the corner seems like a logical spot
yeah that's that's a good question but I think another another argument the board's headed here is the fact that the board wanted to or the municipality when it changed the zone wanted to encourage more commercial you know respectfully it hasn't worked because
over the course of however many years this property has been in need of development nothing's come close to being built hasn't had the property that long prior to that it just sat there was an old shed that was dilapidated it just
seems like everything there was I remember that wasn't that was I know I mean frankly speaking I'm not totally opposed to maybe there but I am very opposed to
eliminating what was approved three years ago that's fine i understand and we're trying to figure out how to make that work well I don't know how you make it work i think I have an idea because we don't want to get a no vote on the
D maybe we table this respectfully go back to the drawing board ask the board to retain jurisdiction we have to come back we'll renotice and read we don't want to have to f a whole new application if we can come up with better plan but this is what we came up
with to date it doesn't seem like the board members are really liking it that much and in order to get an approval we need five of you to like it that much so it's important that we do this correctly mr scanos I'm sure will agree that it's
not about forcing something down the throat but it's about getting a plan it sounds like parking is the big issue well I wouldn't but my big decision that's not every that's a it's a problem that
changing it back to S25 to say yes canend That was our business which was an existing business in clothing store and the fitness studio
but it's not as if there's a big call for commercial along this area because if there were it would be yeah you haven't tried anything that does have the potential to be a flourishing thing because
Um I look around here Mr patter probably remember there was a gas station there long ago and a library there so putting commercial there you know there's a church and there's a synagogue
and probably a breakfast restaurant would serve great i know what you're saying but you know you have to leave it up to the developers what they want to put that in so it's more than just so you know if you're going to come back
yeah I just if they if they want to come back I I'm I'm fully in agreement with that i guess if we if we vote on it and and deny it then that puts them in a tough spot and then if we
vote on it say "Oh yeah we're we're approving residential for this lot and then they have to come back the board might be a legit little pigeon hole when you say "Well you lost all that commercial." So but but you already approved residential
you sort of know that when you're approving the resial so yeah that makes sense so we're just going to withdraw for tonight testimony is testimony john's testimony still stands go back to Mr
sos something i do think however with all due respect the idea that commercial is going to increase in this area is not necessarily going to count
um commercial unfortunately is going away and I know the board wants to hold on and keep saying we have to protect our commercial but what you're protecting are empty lots right nothing's going to get built so is it better to have the concept idea of
protecting commercial or put something there tastefully designed homes that actually will work I think it's again right now it's All right so you're going to come back correct i think that's good
just one comment is section 175-36 off streetet parking section A minimum required off street parking schedule for non-residential uses the number of off street parking spaces shall be shall be required for any non-residential use shall be determined by course as we know
and it goes down a little bit further cbd C1 C2 waterfront special district or repairing zones however existing parking must be maintained so what that does if somebody comes in builds a parking lot or like
you did in 2022 you read this he really can't get rid of that but you're seeking the parking bear so Do we have any other business uh just one comment i think uh John Pitts and I and else we're going to
start looking at redeveloping that ground floor parking being open again we're going to John's going to do some lab all righty make a motion we second anybody second it be fair