##VIDEO ID:9hRb_Te1mVk## for stands naice call Tom Collins Craig pal Richard Patterson here John pits here Dan Adams margar Gober here Steven ji here Michael Ruff Andrew Campbell here Rich Tolson here Patty Rosenberg Michael Richmond here 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 in the municipal building all applicants are hereby advised that if you receive board approv tonight you must come forward and sign a form outlining the procedures for obtaining building permits and mercal licenses at the conclusion of your case tonight please approach the board administrator Pama to sign the provided information sheet we're going to have the approval of the minutes for the meeting of November 21st 2024 second all in favor number 36224 Jeffrey and Joe Hampton number 37 2024 Timothy tgin LLC number 38 2024 Britney and Jonathan Soro second all in favor our first case is Pamela Feld Randall 9715 Pacific Avenue block 131 lot 10.02 located in the multif family zoning District seeking C variance relief for rear yard setback sidey yard setback and potentially others for a second floor addition current on taxes wooder and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented by Brian J Kelly okay I'm going to get Mr McLaren sworn in Mr McLaren please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give throughout the evening it'll be the truth do thanks good evening Brian K Law Firm Brian Callahan 101 North Washington Avenue representing Pam and Harry Randle 9715 Pacific Avenue just for the record all jurisdic requirements been met Roger you want me to turn it over to you to go through your report first sure I'll be brief so well I that's that's good after our last meeting we just so thank you board members the report is based on the application of peld Randall 9715 Pacific Avenue block 131 lot 10.02 located in a multif family Zone some background is the applicant is seeking relief to construct the D on existing attached single family structure within a multif family Zone the Fe simple lot has a previously approved zero foot sidee setback that does not meet the current sidee setback requirements just a little bit background on on this application this is approved as one unit and it was subdivided hence the lot number 10.02 so by today's standard because of the subdivision the sidee setback is now zero and they're too close with the dmer to the side yard and the rear yard setback so one can say that the the subdivision is causing the variances or at least one of them so I'll just go through the variances real quick side set back to the left proposed D the required minimum side your setback is 8 feet Zer feet exists and 3.2 feet is proposed for the dmer so that's an expansion of a nonconform setback rear yard setback to the proposed dmer require minimum rear yard setback is 20 feet 16 ft exist and 16 ft is proposed again a little bit of clarification might be needed on that exact number architect and again it's an expansion of a non-conforming setback no waivers have been requested and I'm not going to go through all my comments but I I did discuss the uh the reasoning why subdivision is creating this side yard setback varant and it's uh where it used to be two units on one lot now it's one unit on a with a zero foot setback so it's attached single family F which is an important aspect of this multif family zone is far below what is required so I will'll turn it over to Mr Callan just as Roger said we're seeking side yard setback rear yard setback was Zero we bumped out to 3.2 footprint staying the same so on the rear 16 of 16 and really what it is is a dormer on the second floor you have half of a roof and then you step down to the four feet clients wish to raise it up to the four feet add a bedroom and a little study so in the sense that they have the ability when they work remotely that they have some place to do it other than a kitchen table owned the property for 12 years kids grown up they have kids and grandkids so they extra bedroom giv them when it was originally built it was the developer on one side and his mother on the other side that's why when you look at the plans the suite bath the master suite is downstairs it's still for the mother two small bedrooms upstairs they then subdivided off sold it off the Fels bought it in 2011 so they've had it for 12 13 years so this just gives them a little wiggle room we we don't think that creating any negative impact on the neighborhood or any neighbor either neighbor we've talked to both they're in good shape let me call Mr masso he can walk you through okay Mr uh masan just give us your name and address for the record please Daniel Scott massion 1409 New Road Northville New Jersey okay please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you give this evening will be the truth yes you're a licensed architect in Jersey you've been here before times correct except yes let me get out of the way I'm sorry we'll mark this is just exhibit A1 this is the plan that was turned into you D want to walk them through what we want to do with the project sir uh A1 shows a couple uh photos of the existing building a zoning schedule both the existing and proposed plans uh the existing second floor um actually has three bedrooms we're reconfiguring the second floor uh to move one bedroom create some living space we're adding about 253 square feet creating a little study area a little uh open living space and adding a bathroom so it's a very modest uh addition and it's in keeping uh in the rear of the build building doesn't go be beyond the height of the existing building it um uh we're setting it back to the very um back wall of the building uh which was approved prior uh you know in a prior ordinance I should say uh you know for structural concerns um to make ease to construction I think it's more aesthetically pleasing and that really summarized you know it's a really small addition just to modernize this building first Flo staying the same yes in the side yard upstairs we bumped it from zero to 3.2 there's a lot of benefit to that um you know it is a zero lot line configuration as was explained this was a unit that was subdivided you know um subdivision at one point that um the way we configured it is really a benefit to the drainage and the fire uh you know keeping it separated from Fire Reasons and then also providing drainage from the roof um continuous rather than tying into an existing dorm room which exists on the other half of this uh you know light air open space yes yeah we I think by placing the addition where we what we did we you know maintain the open space and actually the configuration of this unit goes towards the ordinance as far as making the most uh public Spa you know I shouldn't say public open space around the building uh available so uh you know based on the the smaller lot size that we have in accordance with the ordinance um this is uh really I think uh has no impact negative impact at all roof line we've maintained the height yes yeah we maintain the height uh so the addition occurs completely in the back you see any negative impact on the neighborhood or the Z character of the neighborhood no I don't I think you know where it's placed is is uh logical and I think will'll just enhance this building by by a small amount but provide the living space that will be a benefit keeps within the densities we're really not adding we're adding more living space we're not adding the bedroom the bedroom's just being reconfigured actually being made small slightly smaller aesthetically little enhancement to the neighborhood also property hasn't been really upgraded yes I mean I think overall the the updates to the building will keep it maintained and yeah in in current condition I don't have any other questions Mr Mas I would open to the board anybody from the board have anything one question were there any comments from neighbor the neighbors that were notified no we talked about Neighbors on both sides we were they were okay well I believe I was going to jump in one of the things I think for the benefit of the city it keeps the it keeps a person who bought in the city for the last 13 years in the city I adding the extra bedroom and extra things they don't have to move out of Margate this is someplace they now have the able to stay it satisfies their their needs even though it's a personal need helps them raise and keeps their children coming down their grandchildren coming down and keeps a family that's been here for 12 years in Margate without causing any negative impact to the surrounding neighborhood or anything else so I think that's that is a benefit to the city where people who made a decision originally to come to bargate now when you have family that's grown up and you need a little Elbow Room work remotely still have the ability now to stay in Marg I could just add um I believe this is a unique configuration with the you know the ordinance doesn't all can't take every property into consideration but in keeping with the plan it has a a particularly low floor area ratio for the for the lot so I think that's a benefit to the city I also think with the configuration of the Zone uh with the Dormer on the back providing extra windows is going to be a a good effect of fire safety because it is difficult to fight a fire when it's a windowless story and and there's no way to get in there it's it's just a safer building you know um from from that that aspect so they're the two that that are U you know jump out of me I think this is the proper development for this site that one all got the architect yeah that's a good that's a great question um you know we since it was because it was um previously developed we hadn't proposed anything only because we would be destroying what was there I could uh review that and try to uh perhaps um you know of the other things we could do is do some ground um uh Planters or something like that but I I haven't looked uh at that in a way that would be right some I don't have a an exact number that i' would be able to you know without doing an analysis of that but I I would be you know be able to review that and you make it a condition so that Mr massion could work with Mr McLaren to come up with a landscap plan that add something back to the property is the home owner here yes okay I don't want to speak for them well um I I could would you have the entire I just to get swed I just have to if you're both going to speak or just one of you whoever's going to speak just give us your name and address please miss Feld Rand dely swear from the testimony you'll give will be the truth yes okay thanks so I mean the short answer is I would prefer not because the way the background if you see the backyard I don't know what landscape we could put in there that would make would make sense um you know it's hard to get someone back there even to mow and maintain it I mean I know it's under the deformity but I do have a beautiful front grass we have beautiful beds I mean it's not like it's concrete and papers it is in the backyard but the backyard is used basically for putting a table to eat out there and you know it's not I do understand your concern it's just a bit limiting you know backyard is I just add based on you know her desires too I think it is a limited backyard and and it's used for open space for for the house so we would be limiting that which might be a negative question um no there's two clear but by menion yes I mean I can actually get I know it's not you know maybe EXA can speak into the microphone it's I mean we have fit up to four cars in that in that in that in that driveway but that doesn't matter it it we're talking about legal spots the legal spots are 9 by 18 okay so right so we do have two yeah I'm not sure I I believe we do have the two dimensional parking spaces indicated I don't know where the the conflict is I can't identify that shower is there one that's all right yeah so yeah there's two legal spaces there's two legal spaces so you have enough spaces okay anybody else okay uh anybody else on the board has anything is there anyone from the public that would like to speak public portion is closed I one thing I noticed um when I went to look at the property is that as far as the rear setback goes I mean if you look at the house behind it it's there's like a park back there that that lot I don't know why it's so big but it's like 30 feet it's huge so I don't see that being any impact on you know the neighbor the one to the right their property goes all the way to the you know to the back thing and you know you really can't do anything with the zero setback it's it is what it is and we bumped it off to 3.2 right which I think is a good thing right yeah so that's my comment all right all done we're done all right there's nothing else it's a there's two c variances we we'll need a motion in a second they are as follows there's a side guard setback to the Dormer on the left side 3.2 feets proposed 8 FTS the requirement and the rear yard set back to the Dormer 20 FTS the requirement and do we get confirmation that that that is 16 feet that they're proposing I know we at is that is that accurate okay because I know Roger yeah I okay so those are the two variances and the conditions will just be the standard ones anything in Mr McLaren's report unless otherwise addressed any representations made by the applicant will be followed and uh subject to any outside approval subject to the 50% rule just the standard one so we'll need a motion in a sec I'll make that motion I'll second Tom Collins um you were right you were short simple case small addition I think you tuck it well I know it's in term of a as as goes Richard Patterson yeah I just reiterate that I do see a benefit to morgate in improving a small house that's uh still small after this minor addition um I don't see any negative impact on I approve the application Michael Richmond yeah I agree with Mr Patterson it's a small addition it's going to keep the um homeowners here and uh you know you can probably tear that whole property down if you got together with your neighbor and build it you know four story whatever so I'm G I'm going to approve it Margaret guberti um yeah I see this um as an easy in terms of it it's a um existing nonconformity I think it's a nice expansion and that there's a safety benefit there's maintaining open space because of the way you're building it in the back I see no detriment to the neighbors there's no detriment to the public good or our Municipal land use law I think it's a nice addition Dan Adams uh to Echo everyone else the comments I I think it's a good addition I think keeping the height within the same elevation and not increasing it and Mr Mas spoke on a fire safety aspect anytime we can get more Ingress or egress points for Access for firefighting or or access for the people to get out it's always a good thing um and I believe it's going to be a betterment to the city of Margate and I vote Yes Steven Ji yeah it's it's a small addition and um I would like to see more prvious uh but um that being said we um I'll approve Andrew Campbell I agree with the rest of the board members I approve John P I approve rich Tolson I approve approval is granted with nine in favor and zero oppos thank you very much okay our next case is Scott dorfner 32 North Brunswick Avenue block two 203 lot 11 located in the s25 zoning District seeking SE variance relief for overall building coverage front yard landscape coverage and potentially others for the renovation of an existing single family home current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provide a representative by Eric Goldstein thank you board members the report is based on the application of Scott dorfner 32 North Brunswick Avenue block 20 3 lot 11 again the chairman mentioned located in s25 SLE family zoning District requireed first elevation is 13 ft to to the finished floor C ER relief planning his Zone report background the applicate is seeking relief from the ordinance of the city Margate in order to construct a swimming pool new elevated rear yard deck and front porch roof team complete it's a C2 criteria substantial benefit zoning Charter is on page two of the report and the I guess we need some clarification at some point tonight about the porch setback in the rear it's uh six foot to the edge of the pole and it show 5T to the edge of the uh I guess deck and I think I I denied this as a zoning application and they moved the deck in so I I don't know if you're moving the deck back out but it's shown both ways in the plans so clarify that tonight and continued on page three is the zoning chart plans reviewed documents reviewed so I'll go through the variances that I identified and have been requested rear yard setback to the deck whereas a minimum rear yard setback to decks over 18 Ines from grade must meet the building setback which is 12 and2 ft and about 6 feet as proposed it might be 5T again the plans are might be a little inconsistent minimum landscape coverage total whereas the minimum Total Landscape coverage is 35% 34.4% exists and much less than 34.4% is proposed with the pole construction again po does that count as landscape coverage also exterior steps to the second floor whereas exterior steps to the second floor are prohibited in single family residential zones and one set is proposed again when this came in for zoning that was to be removed but it's it's on the plans again so I'm not going to go through all my comments I think the varen is alone speak for themselves and the porch roof in the front is VAR free so I'm not GNA even talk about that so Mr Gold I turn it over to you thank you Mr McLaren Mr chairman ladies and gentlemen Eric gold on behalf of the applicant um with me at to my left tonight John Barnhart Harry Harper prepared for plans but John is a licensed professional planner and engineer he'll be giving testimony tonight and just by way of background again this is the house that the property owner is trying to save this is what kind of we call our classic Margate house it's a brick house it's not flood compliant and we do know that the uh potential Renovations have to meet the 50% rule which they will but the property owner wanted to try to make this house more of a house he could use for 12 months out of the year he's not here all the time but wants to spend uh more time at the house and didn't want to tear it down we've got a set of St in the back which as we've been talking Mr Barnhart and I I heard the chief at the prior application presents an extra means of Ingress and egress into the house Mr McLaren is correct about the rear with regard to the pool location and the deck um I'm gonna turn it over to Mr barard to talk about the variant that we're looking for and I think Roger we're pretty close on Landscaping but John's going to go through um the exact percentage of coverage as we've going to uh probably remove some addition so um turn the microphone over to Mr barart and just ask him to get sworn in for Mr Manos and then have qualified as okay uh Mr Barnhart your name and address please John Barnhart office address 400 North do Avenue Atlantic City please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give this evening it'll be the truth I do and you're professional planner and engineer in yes Char he've been before us numerous times we'll stipulate your want you just walk us through the plan and what you've looked at on Mr Harper diagram as well as the pool the step and the landscape cover sure so uh the plan I have before you is the is the plan that was submitted with the application by prepared by Mr Harper um as Eric described um there's a couple of different aspects of the project uh the first is H is is to create a covered front porch the porch is there now but it's the cover the porch um and as Mr McLaren uh pointed out that does not require any variances with regard to the rear yard uh the various elements that are being proposed is a pool that is uh 14 by 13 uh that pool will comply with regard to setbacks from both from the rear and the side and it also complies with regard to setback from the dwelling from the structure itself uh the the second aspect of the development is to utilize um a a first level area that is currently roof area and and create a what would be a second level deck which you would walk out of the second level and onto that deck which you can see best in this lower elevation here and um the third element is a set of stairs down uh from that deck uh into the rear yard so it does this application does create three variances uh one of the variances is with regard to landscape coverage um the as the site sits today it has a landscape coverage of 34.4% so it is slightly under the requirement of 35% uh we' spoken with the client and trying to um trying to mitigate that because the client is is is extremely uh anxious to have the opportunity to have a pool in his rear yard what we are what we are proposing from a landscape coverage perspective is to eliminate uh Concrete in the rear yard um there are some H units which have actually already been removed and moved to the uh to the the roof of the uh garage and there's additional concrete along the back property line leading over to the existing shower uh the net increase or I should said the net decrease in landscape coverage would go from 34.4% as it sits today down to 33% so it's it's only a 1.4% decrease that we are able to uh achieve uh while still allowing us hopefully to have the approval for the pool uh and the stairs that go down into into the uh into the rear yard with regard to the stairs as you know the stairs are not permitted uh coming from a second level deck but I think you have to put those stairs into context because in today's construction new construction as we know um if this were a new home you would have ground floor parking and storage you would have your first floor that would be basically at the second level um and you typically have stairs both front and rear coming from that level maybe it's a rear deck or something like that but in that building that's considered a first level still so stairs are legally allowed to come down into the rear yard from that level this building although it's it's not flood compliant it's very low Ling as compared to the ground it's only a couple steps up so the the stairs coming from our second level deck are very consistent at with all new construction so although the stairs are not technically permitted if we tear the house down build a new house put the floor where it's required to be almost The Identical set of steps would then be a permitted structure so it just it's just because of the fact that we have a low structure and we we have a deck at the second level um creates the uh the need for the variance from those stairs so the the perceived the variance is technically required because of the way the ordinance is written but the perception is that they're coming from what would be the required first floor of a building because of how low this building is I I think the origin of that ordinance is so you don't create an illegal second unit on a second floor understood right which obviously is not an issue here right um then the the third variant is with regard to the to the uh to the second level deck area this is probably the better uh plan to look at this is the second floor plan um there's a there's a bathroom which which then inter intersects a portion of the roof area and then the Fiberglass Deck is kind of like a I'll say a y shape um which covers an existing the existing building there is no expansion to the footprint of the building um that deck lies within uh the existing roof area it's just it's just a a space that he would occupy and obviously put railings on that that rear yard back of the existing structure which then would become the rear step back of the deck is 4.9 ft as it sits today so that is uh the third variance excuse me you know we look at this application as as a balancing uh type of application meaning you have a site that um we have a client that's trying to achieve some nice outdoor living space which everybody's very accustomed to in morgie uh he would like a modestly sized pool um he would like to have an A Space in his backyard to be able to sit um and and enjoy enjoy the outside but but recognizes that putting a patio all the way around his pool is unreasonable because the coverage gets too high so he's proposing which is you know common common place now and part of uh interesting design he's proposing a pool with a pool coping and then a nice manicured lawn around that pool area just to be clear no additional impervious coverage around the pool other than the co that's correct yep and then the ability to sit on the deck obviously Overlook his pool is is the goal here how many square feet is the 1% or whatever your difference is the one uh one well so it'll be like 37 just about 40 square feet and we uh m p we did look if you look at the survey we looked at we looked at trying to balance it but if you look in the even go to the front yard even he's already got wheel strips that go all the way to the driveway there's really not anything else that we could take away so what would the pool how much smaller would the pool be um be 40 ft smaller so the pool is uh 14 by3 so if you wanted to make it if you need to get rid of 40 squ ft you'd have to make it uh yeah like four feet you know four feet narrower something like that um so anyway we look at this as a balancing a balancing scenario you have you know an older home a very very well-kept home brick brick brick home um that's been the community and been very very well maintained the front of the property is absolutely manicured with regard to its landscape and we have a a resident that's just trying to improve upon that property um in we believe a modest fashion and we think that what he has done is create a scenario that really does not have a negative impact uh on the neighbors and does not have a negative impact uh on the Zone plan or zoning ordinance um and Mr Goldstein mentioned it and um Chief Adams brought it up in the earlier case so we're gonna we're going to we're going to ride that um this does this this application does actually provide a second means of of egress from the from the rear of the second floor which which the building doesn't currently have um so we believe that these variances can be granted I mean our client is you know is is is trying to come up with a solution that um that stays as close to the guidelines of the ordinance as possible um but we do need some minor deviations to to make this work and the fact that the homeowner is preserving a historic house and not tearing it down to just build something new creat creates stre going to be on Brunswick for years to come without the possibility of just going in and raising it and starting new there's also a benefit to the public in that regard correct yeah preserving this house at its modest size and uh and elevation um and and working within the confines of of the existing conditions um fits better in with the neighborhood than the demolition of this home and and construction of the home at you know based on today's standards thank John of course we have to go through the positive negative criteria do you see any negatives that could be associated with this as the board would Grant the Vari I don't like I said it's it's it's even though we're adding this second floor deck you have to look at its actual elevation where it sits in the rear yard um it's it's essentially the same elevation of every new construction's first floor deck um so and with regard to coverage I think that with our with our client's um understanding of being of removing some coverage to try to get as close as possible to compliance or at least no uh greater decrease we are um you know we're almost there we're 1.4% different to the extent someone could possibly conceive this to be a negative but the positives of what you just described greatly outweigh that negative yeah I think the benefits do outweigh the detriments in this application um again because of because of the uh of the applicants uh plan to work as closely as he can to within the ordinance guidelines Mr chairman I'm going to just rest deserving the right to call Mr barard of board or members of the public have any questions but I think we've established the positive and negative John's testimony was fairly clear so we'll turn it back over to the board so um in the rear what is the setback from the uh from the property line to the uh to the building where that this where that sticks out there uh 4.9 ft is the ex say 5et yeah and you need to to meet the um Zone you need 12 1/2 ft correct right so what you know was it was there I mean it's a pretty big deck you know what I'm saying and like you say that it's at the elevation of the construction decks which I get but it's not at the setback so that was going to be a new house so it have to be a 12 12 and A2 ft agree so is there any reason why we just can't take another uh you know seven feet back on that um that Pier there to can so at least we get that conforming you know what I'm saying I mean it's a big deck or even without that right yeah yeah the structure stays there yeah so the the only thing I would say to that and and is that if you if you move it back to S that that's 9 ft there so it leave you two feet um so I'm just trying to get get an idea because obviously that was their that's their plann space for being able to have you know lounge chairs and such that's their what I mean that's where they were planning to be able to have lounge chairs and such because it is with the with the bathroom here the way it separates that space um you know that's that's the biggest floor the floor plate of of the deck area so if you come back seven feet it only it puts the that's a 9 foot Dimension there so it puts the railing two two feet off of that edge right yeah but then we so then what do you have from that wall bathroom to the yeah that's what I that's what I was just trying to look at or you know to the right it looks like you have room I know it's not overlooking the pool but chair what about if we moved it back to where it was still a variance but instead of being 5T it was 10 ft back from the property line that's a significant distance additionally and there still be enough room back here Clos but they'd be giving up the railing here as Mr Collins noted be a little bit of room here on the other side of the rail there would be more um roof still but that's kind of close to the setback already without eliminating so you're saying you would bring it back so that set back in the rear was 10t correct is that what you're saying inut bar yeah so two and okay if that's what you're proposing that's what you're proposing you're amending correct okay so the railing would been of course I'm sure Mr MOS would put in the resolution that as a condition the railing have to remain there which property be okay now the railing is going to get moved back so that it's to the 10 foot set back correct corre right because it's a far glass yeah all right anybody else from the board yes they've already been moved you mean over here yeah so you have to you have to look at the ground level uh planed to understand that there's a stair there's a there's a door there and a stair that comes out to the ground level on a shower there you wouldn't be able to you wouldn't be able to the stairs wouldn't work in that location if you look at it here it looks like it would work just fine right but if you look at it on this elevation you wouldn't be able to get the stairs to work there well the design really doesn't have anything to do with the variance if you put the stairs on the left or you put the stairs on the right it's going to be a variance so probably closer access pool that right right want yeah anybody else okay run open up to the public anyone from the public like to speak public portions closed anybody any other comments from the board all right and when so so again that that that's that's a building um that's a building department my job yeah no it's fine this building part so Mr chairman what we would propose as amended refer by Mr by yourself Mr J that the rear set back would be 10 remain Mr barart would confirm with Mr McLaren on the landscape to make sure the coverage came down to whatever number John can get it to um so that's a pretty accurate assessment John right that it but it's going to be 33% is where we be a okay which is about 40 square feet is that what you're saying right around there right right okay okay with that we would rest all right there's no further questions it's a another C variance application there's three variances I'll summarize them then we'll need a motion in a second rear yard setback to the deck is going to be amended it's a 10- foot setback where uh yeah we open to the public where 12 and a half fet is required the Total Landscape coverage 35% is the requirement they're at 34.4% and they're that's going to be reduced to 33% and then the exterior steps to the second floor um are not permitted and they are proposing a set terms of conditions uh believe it's just the standard conditions anything in Mr McLaren's report subject to any outside approval subject to the 50% rule uh any representations made during the course of the hearing I'll make that motion any seconds I'll second Tom Collins at the beginning of this case it really looked like this was going to be a tough hurdle um I think uh what Eric and John did here was pretty good outside St I really don't like them too much but at the same time it does provide rest safy Improvement there or I think it really is a benefit to the city of morate and to the community to maintain this house it's a beautiful Brick House of commotion going on lately about brick this is something where I think you met over Landscaping is minim CL think Richard Patterson well just as Tom said I had very uh strong misgivings against losing any Landscaping um until I heard the effort they went through uh I was looking at it coming down to like 20 or 25 and you just lose a little over 1% uh I think you did it what as best as you could and and U I don't think there's that 30 ft or 35 ft or whatever makes a difference well it does make a difference but I at this point um I see the benefit of uh here improving a house which adds a lot of light to that house as it is with the people would stay there with these improvements so I approve the application thank Michael Richmond yeah I agree I I thought this was going to be a tough road to H with this case too but uh I think eliminating a lot of that concrete really helped a lot and also um reducing the uh rear um setback variants which I think would have been maybe the only negative that I would have seen to the neighborhood uh as far as the outside stare goes I have no problem with that so um I'm G to approve it Margaret goer um yes I see this is a this is a case of give and take um I thank you for your concessions they want a deck and have pool for their family um I think the Landscaping coverage is Minimus the pool is not oversized and I think we're maintaining an older home that's charming and fits better in the neighborhood than say a new construction had there been one built um it's a modest sized home don't negative imp to the neighborhood Jan Adams thank you uh I I have to agree in a lot of aspects one the historical value and the beauty of this home to keep that in Margate to me is is one of the the main reasons why you know I kind of support this um to talk about some of the other aspects of the stairwell if you were building a new house you would have the same stairwell and to use your own comments that I used earlier against me I have to agree and anytime we can add value as far as safety for the residents or occupants I believe in my aspect in my career and my passion it's a good thing and it not only gives the people a chance to get out but it also gives us a chance to get in in the event that something's wrong um the landscape aspect of it again the pool is not something that's overed the entire area the fact that you're conceding and taking the concrete out of that area in the back and willing to put landscape in there I think it's minimal in the overall View and just to keep that value of the home and that look and I love the idea of adding the permanent por on the front because I think it's just going to give you the house a little more character view i i v yes Stephen ji um I'm not totally convinced about uh this being um receiving the the flat uh sea variants um I think even though the land coverage is small it's it's important it's very important and we're not just losing the cubic feet of the pool but um um the square feet but we be losing cubic feet and with the flooding that's happening I think that's um pretty sign ific so I'm not going to approve Andrew Campbell when I first looked at the house um I got to admit I was a little skeptical about um some of the things here but um I do appreciate your flexibility in uh trying to bring it up to a standard that um we all could work with the pull you know being a 14 by 13 foot pool is a small pool um and I think that's going to make a difference with the landscaping or anything like that and uh to Echo um Mr Adams comments about safety um that's a big deal to me as well so I do approve John pitz yeah so I think GR Bri TOS I believe the applicants um cooperation on concessions to get as close as possible to the requirements is admirable I think the preservation of an existing home in the City compared to the Demolition and construction of what we're seeing going up over the last five years or so um it's benefit to the city anybody knows my background the preservation of a brick home is even more important um so I would uh I'll vote in favor of this approval is granted seven in favor and two opposed thank you all right our next Cas is Thim Sim Capital GP LLC 110 South Andover Avenue block 1.02 Lot 12 located in the s30 zoning District seeking SE variance relief for curb cut width and potentially others for a new single family home current on taxes water and silver payments proof of advertising and notifications provided representative by Eric Goldstein thank you Mr chairman I think the board will remember this is the continuation of the case we had back here in October um at the time I was with Jerry Blackman the architect from OS design going to rely on his testimony but there was some confusion as to the curb cut width that Roger had a Distance on the plan and the architect had a different distance Roger was correct that the curve cut width shown on the original plan that passed through zoning was uh 18 ft the curb cut that had existed was actually 27 and a2t and it went over the property line the board wanted to know how that happened still don't know other than uh I've been going back and forth a little bit with Roger and with the architect and this concept of the 27 foot wide curb cut the board made it pretty clear that that was just too much um even though this is a true double lot and could be subdivided uh we went back and um I think Roger had asked for a distance of curve cut width that we'd be asking for for this reason and the the ended application is for 22t not for 27 so originally put in for 27 there was a 27 that was there over the line um and Roger and I talked about this concept of flaring out the house itself is 100% compliant correct Roger so the house needs no variances the only thing now based on Mr Blackman's testimony we're seeking is the curve cut to be narrower than the driveway and it's unfortunate I think 27 would have been a nice width but we know it's too much that the property owners are going to have to pull in and pull a little bit to the right on the right side a little bit to the left on the left side but it will eliminate the uh need to realign with the neighbor's property next door because it'll be shortened up greatly and uh the Builder Mr poy who's pretty much done with most of the house just has to now re uh lay the curb cut to be 22 feet wide if the board approves as opposed to the 27 that they were going to put it in and with the rest of everything else we've been doing we're going to rely on Mr Blackman's testimony I'm certainly able to answer questions but that's it we're just talking about a clarification of the width we were seeking um Eric was that last month it was October October should we uh if you're going to rely on the who who was here in October who was not here in October let's put it that way I don't think Dan was I don't think is it just a three was everyone else here in October all right I'm going to ask since we're relying on the past testimony sure L ask those three board members just to you don't have to go sit in the crowd or anything like that just you're you're you can't participate in this application because it's really a continuation and relying on past testimony okay so as I understanding it's a 22t wide curve cut now correct corre well no the applications for 22 right there's an existing wider curve pet there which will get redone and just by way of background how this happened was miscommunication with the architect and the Builder there was as I said before the 27 foot wide cut that extended past the architect thought that if he kept it at the same width all they would have to do is shift it over a little bit and it would be fine but the plans that were submitted showed 18 feet Roger was right that that was the submission that's why they got the permit had they submitted with 27 ft I suspect that wouldn't have gone through so that's how we got it um here it shows two two driveways correct what's this over here that you need a driveway it's not well it shows it going all the way over to this it says existing 27 realign 21 and it shows the 21 that's 27 27 it's not 27 ring it it looks like a one but it's a seven so um on the right hand side where it says garage there is that that's grass right that's not concrete correct I think it might be concrete up until the edge of the house and then on the right side is is cor yeah all right so what why are you requesting a 22 foot curb cut instead of the why why would an 18 feet curb cut work there I think uh Mr rich just from the architect told me because they're going to be pulling in from one side of the street only they not going to go to the end and come back that it just made it a little bit easier to get in and out of the parking for both garage spaces because in most most homes you're going to come in from potentially from both sides here it's probably never going to happen where you're gonna enter from the boardwalk side of right there's no Boardwalk there but I mean I'm sorry the beach side you definitely can but that there's really no good reason for that other than it's easier to come in from over make a right and make a left so the the plan I'm looking at it's still it's it's still I mean it says realign 27 for curve cut I is is there was something that shows 22 scale there right might be moving over a little bit right so the what your justification is that nobody it's going to since most curve cut you can come in well not necessarily well I guess you could even though it's a oneway street I guess you could do it your justification is is because it's so close to the beach that correct and Mr Blackman testified for the last time I'm sure maybe board members remember don't and they were busy that you're not losing a spot on the street because there's no parking on that street across the street is a wider their two homes but it's a wider curb cut for both because they're side by side so you're going to have less of a curb cut there on this side of Andover as you do on the um ventor side so it really just makes it easier to get in and out of the property why can't you just make it a 20 foot curve get shouldn't be I think Mr P we could do that Mr Richmond I think the reason it's not 18 is just easier once you're coming in to access because the flare of the curb cut it's just ease of use for the owner you say you're too close to the beach isn't the driveway on the opposite side of the house from the beach it is so they have plenty of room to back out or whatever to get in that driveway from right they're not going to be coming in head first from the beach side they'll be coming in head first from the and I understand that as far as getting out there's no problem it's not like it's too close to no your turning radius won't be thing that's we can do 20 if that's well that's my suggestion that's not the board well you're the chairman of the board so I would say that uh if 20 is the suggestion I would U I'd be able to get that through the property own it's a 50 foot RightWay so usually means a 30 foot cartway 10 foot RightWay on each side so 30 ft is pretty narrow no it's not but they're usually oneway streets this is two-way for the house I think four now my eyes are bad here I think we're we meet or exceed par yes yeah we're not looking for any parking varant and the house itself meets all coverage it's more than yeah 100 by property under 20 is a I said I don't see any reason hopefully somay we'll allk street so they don't park on Atlantic Avenue in the summer so they can park their own property think it's a special property and I think it's what they come here for so we would have VAR and because it's a proper and because is different we have to look at each case as an individual case and I think that's what we're doing here a beun property there's no parking on the street it's a double lot and I think that's why the applicants come to us so we can at and I agree with you really do I think yeah I gotta say I go with these Beach blocks and I do I mean you can say hopefully in the future we'll have Beach block parking which I would like to see but in the meantime I don't know that we've been talking about I've been talking about we've been talking about this forever for since when I got on the ward and that's been like 16 years so in the meantime like Tom said I I don't think that redu I I don't think a 20 foot uh curb cut is really detrimental that's just my op that's what it used to be it was bigger than that was it 20 foot oh it was 20 foot so no I mean we used to approve 202 uh but it just well doesn't matter but existing was 27 right yeah Eric the we're looking at the realigned curb cut correct correct okay so the realigned curb cut where it ends okay closer to the Atlantic Avenue side right okay you're saying that would be instead of it says 27 ft on the plan right here it would be cut down to 20t correct okay so that 20 feet is not GNA at what point does that where is that 20 foot in in reference to that extra space on the side of the house right now which is grass the gas meter and the um looks like it's about seven feet in well it is seven fet in because right now it's 27 feet and you're reducing it by seven okay it's coming I'm sorry it's coming off of the house directly to the right of the house if you're looking at it which would be the second one lady gav gav right yeah right so the okay now as we go there right now you can pull right into that spot that could be an extra spot today right right this second when you look at the house right because you've got it correct but that will be gone correct it'll be seven feet less than it is now okay and you're you're saying that it would be enough space for a golf cart or something like that they would have to pull into the driveway you have to pull in Mr Campell you'd have to make a right and kind of work around yes well you're not going to you're not going to pull a golf cart on to to the grass you might I don't know people are parking cars on grass well I think there's I think there's a they're not supposed to they're not supposed to in the summer there's cars in the yard take back right but I mean I'm just saying in morgage right I know we're not I know it's not permitted you but practically speaking you're going to see that right know house you have all these cars they come up they park in front they empty everything out and they they're backing around and doing a three-point turn to come back you know they sit there un thing Ian you know what happens at the beach front you got Leo's yum yum truck and then you got four other people backed up in order to empty their chairs it's a beach house they want their parking I it's my three and I appreciate that it's not even so much a different property it's it's a it's a very large house it's a double lot and you know as Mr Patterson said these are first world problems but every case we have is a first world problem for the most part you know we're not helping someone to bring their you know Indigent family to live next door all the homes in town have very nice you know facades and new homes are built well because the people want to live here so that's a good thing anybody else from the board okay we're going to open it up to the public dag Leo 9600 Lan Avenue Margate New Jersey Mr bagle though swear to tell the truth most of the time yes all right so if the curb cut exists at 27 ft wouldn't that be grandfathered in if they don't touch a sidewalks in the curb explain please no no why it's Redevelopment of the property then Redevelopment thank you yeah I kind of example I think of that is like the gas stations someone knocks down the gas station where there's all that depressed curb you don't get to keep that and that's the the easy example yeah anybody else from the public okay public portion is closed anybody else from the board I don't know ask that Leo yeah so we doing 20 or 22 20 20 okay so it's it's the one variance 18's permitted there's 27 there they're proposing 20 fee and I would just say in making your decision it in my opinion it shouldn't be based on something you're hoping to happen in the future that's may or may not ever happen you know in terms of beach bot Bo Park but um that said the conditions would just be all the standard ones we put in every resolution and we'll need a motion a second and a roll call vote I make that motion I'll second Tom Collins a lot of time spent on two feet of a driveway we're talking about Beach Block Street we're talking about no parking on the street we're talking about what could be but that's not what we here tonight we have to vote really on what exists today not what think you got a five or six million doll home and we want to punish them you're trying to keeping so it's harder to park and then they just use it's so much easier to have a beach block home for all the parking do that leave the street parkone else this is a simple I think it's it's a great benefit we always give extra allowances I've been on this board over 23 24 years always that's what is Richard Patterson well I've recently learned a lesson I have to clarify when I say things my opinion has nothing to do with possible future parking I apologize for making that comment my objection is I this is one of the most ridiculous uh applications I've seen for an 18t Park is easy to get in and easy to get out of it benefits doesn't benefit anybody um again it's not because uh there may be parting in the future that has nothing to do with my opinion my opinion is this it just isn't necessary and why we do a favor for someone on the beach makes no sense I vote no Michael Richmond I don't think that two feet on 100 foot lot is a big deal um it could be subdivided and if it was subdivided you'd probably have two 18t curb cuts which really doesn't make any difference anyway because there's no parking on the beach block on that block on that beach block anyway so um I uh I don't have a problem with I'm going to put yes Margaret gobern yes I agree with Tom Collins and our chairman two feet on 100 foot lot is the Minimus I was okay with 22 um I it's a double lot it's spe front it's beautiful Improvement to our city and to the street and I vote in favor thank you stepen J I think it's going to be a benefit for the people um to ease of erress and that um getting in and out of driveway and makes things smoother so I approve I do want to make a comment that that when we talk about Beach parking we do have Beach parking it's just on a certain hours that we don't have Beach par and I we have to that in mind but anyway I appr Andrew Campbell to piggyback on Stephen's comment um bringing that down from 27 feet to 20 we gain an extra seven feet for possibly a small car to park there during those hours of parking I appr Pro John I approve approval is granted with six in favor and one opposed thank you all have a good night application yeah for the for the last application uh mrd Margate 9211 Mammoth Avenue there's a d variance involved so that disqualifies by law uh two of our members and the mayor's designate and our city official John John Merry Christmas huh yeah okay we're going to take like a uh three minute break you three our last case mrd morgate LLC 9211 MTH Avenue block 426 Lot 21 okay everybody on uh located in the uh s wsd zoning District which is the Waterfront special district seeking major site plan approval D variance relief for residential structure C variance relief for landscaping front yard setbacks and potentially others in order to construct a six town home development curent on taxes water and silver payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented by Christopher Bon so I'll lead off real quick report is based on the application at mrd marate LLC 9211 Mammoth Avenue block 426 21 located in the wsd OR Waterfront special district in the city of Margate see con C varant and deance relief for and major preliminary and final site plan approval planning an engineering report background is as follows the applicant is seeking relief from the ordance of the city of morgate to repace an existing multi-unit residential structure with six attached town home style residential units in a zone that permits residential provided is above commercial several variances are required which would be for conditional use meaning no commercial element of and the residential dwelling units as per multif family zoning standards a fuel bulk requirements are not being met and again the testimony will be provided so a little background on the zoning of this as you can see on page one of the site plan plans this lot and the neighboring lot are carved out and included in the WB zoning District when we discussed the master plan 10 years ago n years ago we kind of left it alone so we wouldn't outzone what was there and not knowing what knowing that something was going to go there and we created the wapc zoning District which is Washington Avenue pedestrian quor which my opinion this lot is better suited for the Washington Avenue pesan Corridor zoning requirements than the wsd and again commercial parking lots and stuff like that are still permitted in either Zone but with the Washington Avenue pesan Corridor and the grant we have this is more suited to follow those zoning standards versus the was Waterfront special district which is this is not even on ammer Avenue or close to that water area close enough so a little background on that so this is deemed complete the zoning chart is on page two highlighted in yellow or gray depends on how you made the copy or the Varan is required documents reviewed on section two page three plans received and reviewed on page four and section three identifies the variances needed first one is the use variance D3 conditional use whereas in the wsd zoning District use is not permitted on the ground floor as condition of mixed use and residential use is being proposed on the ground floor meaning parking storage and entryway and no commercial front yard setback to a building along Washington Avenue whereas a minimum front yard setback based on average within 200t is greater than 15 ft and 15 ft is proposed front yard setback for the building on Mammoth Avenue where is the minimum front yard setback based on aage within 200 ft is greater than 9 ft and 9 ft is proposed minimum landscape coverage total whereas the minimum landscape total recover required is 35% 62.3% exists and 26.5% is proposed and again that barrance is dedicated or a result of the additional parking being provided on the site and again the testimony provided by Mr Baler and his team will discuss St further again my some of my comments I'm not going to go through every single one so I think you ought to hear the testimony prior to my all my comments um going back to the Washington Avenue pedestrian Corridor project we just got an extension from do because there's Federal money involved I I think we we need to work with the contractor if they get approval tonight or whenever that we will work with them in order to satisfy what the city wants to do on The Pedestrian Corridor and maybe so we don't want to do things twice we don't want to have them put the sidewalks in the trees lighting and all that order if we're just going to go in there six months later and rip it out but they have to make the site safe no matter what so if they have to put a temporary sidewalk in for a duration so be it and maybe not maybe not even include the street trees on this project on that quarter so we all have same size trees from the city project down the whole way that that my suggestion if you're fine with that we can make that a condition of approval uh site lighting is presumed to be all building man lighting plan is required again that can be satisfied by the application again since this is a major preliminary and final site plan they have to follow all the site plan requirements including the landscaping and again a lot of this will be wable items fences and walls and also an engineer's esit has to be provided as well as a performance bond and escrow you're agreeable to that of course okay and again I I write my recommendations for the what needs to be proved for the use SPS that again it's a conditional use not a standard use so that the uh requirements a little bit less so Chris I will turn it over to you thank you Chris just alls he no what I was referring to was the fonding and the engineered cost estimate there are some site plan requirements there that relate to standard commercial site PL buffers and things like that that we that we would wave and I can work with Leo on that Roger on that if any time that that you think should be incorporated but let thank you um board members I repres I'm Chris Bon I represent mrd Margate LLC with respect to this application for 9211 Mammoth Avenue it's the site that is currently improved with a 10 unit former Motel 10 unit apartment building five grade and five above that we are hopeful that that building will be replaced with what we propose and mrd proposes mitel Davis mrd is here he's the principal hello um what we propose uh to develop with a six unit townhouse style development with units facing Washington Avenue and of parking coming in off of Mammoth Avenue um the property that we're here to deal with is Lot 21 and block 426 as Roger said it's in the Waterfront special district although for those of you who may remember why Roger I believe said it's more appropriate in the corridor District without commercial grade because like 20 years ago there was a long-term plan committee um which some of us were members of and the proposal at the time was to hopefully generate a commercial Corridor going to the bank that's right and in the 10 or 15 years that elap since then the only thing that came about was Wawa and that's it Ocean City Home Bank which is now closed not one other not one other new commercial development was developed in that Corridor and that's why as Roger said it should have been cared out placed with the the new Corridor concept as opposed to State and wsd the distinction being wasn't clear the distinction being the corridor zoning doesn't require the commercial inade however for advice purposes it's in that zone and we have to ask for variance for it not to be included so typically what you would have to develop here would be commercial upgrade if you want to the residential above we are requesting not to do the commercial grade for a variety of reasons I touch upon number one the entirety of Washington Avenue until you get to the Bay is multi family and this is more consistent with that number two to put six units which you could do above a couple thousand square feet of commercial with parking would cause as much of a parking problem circulation problem traffic problem as we might have forthcoming on an Adams Avenue soon um to not compound the traffic problems and concerns we have already in that area we think it's still in commercial there we just compound that we don't think it's a good use at that intersection John can touch on that a little bit more specifically uh as has been pointed out we are requesting front yard seac variances based upon the average on the street if you with the area M Avenue stuck with measuring one other property next have no variation with their set which was 15 we're asking that' be nine and we think that's appropriate because in that location you also have some right of way up in the lawn area meaning it appears larger than the nine fet more like 11 or 12 feet from a set and the same thing on Washington Avenue it appears further back than the 15 ft we're proposing because you have the lawn area that's up on the site but right away can't tell the difference just looks like the front yard set back is bigger than the building forther back so we're asking for nine on M 15 on Washington which which you'll hear we believe is appropriate the it also allows us to to provide additional substantially more front yard landscaping we're up in the 80 percentile of both frontages or only 60% required like 85% 83% of landscaping the front yards on both of primary frontages we're asking for a variance to eliminate some in the rear where the parking is Roger suggested favers whatever whatever works however I I will tell you this if we eliminate some of the extra parking we can be GL you guys can discuss that I think we'd rather have the parking back there um with that I think you'll it's a good application it's a it's it's been a long time coming to that site a lot of people looked at it everybody wanted to Max it out what you'll hear tonight is that site could be developed with density we're allowed to have seven units seven and a half units we are doing six we are providing about 10 extra parking spaces um with that having been said please swear in Mr barart Mr penwick and we can get all right uh Mr Fenwick Mr barnhard just your name and addresses for the record please microphone please Steve Fenwick um licensed architect and planner state of New Jersey offices in Lynwood New Jersey okay Mr barnhard John Barnhart uh New Jersey licensed professional engineer licensed professional planner certified Municipal engineer in the state of New Jersey office address 400 North do Avenue Atlantic City and if you can each please raise your right hand each sar from the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth I do I do Mr barnhard you were here earlier tonight we accepted you as an expert and Mr Fenwick you've been here several times correct yes it's a licensed architect and a planner correct yes yes Mr penwick as an expert yes okay thank you my intention is to um have Mr P testify first he designed the building we'll go through the building for us so if you have questions about the architecture the building layout design bedrooms anything like that that's for Steve going to testify now Steve if you would without me asking 100 questions take the take for through the building and what you've designed thanks Chris so I guess we'll start out with this uh the 3D uh perspective drawing that was handed out um this is could be one okay this is the view rendering I'm going to block people rendering this is the view for Monmouth and Washington um there are other uh I think there's four units townhouse units just next door that our firm actually designed I don't know like 16 years ago I don't remember a while back um and these kind of align with that um supporting this pedestrian Carter that Roger was alluding to to some extent um yeah so the the the buildings are are basically two and a half stories over parking storage and um so this is the parking storage area the the garages at the back I'll show you in a minute you have uh uh bedroom living dining kitchen and master suites there are four bedrooms in each unit not sure what you folks have in front of you but this drawing shows the the plans so a John will take you through the parking access and how the site's like so vastly improved with with curb cuts and parking but we we arrive at the back of the unit this being Washington and there are two spaces for each unit one inside and one just outside the garage that access is off yes John I'll show you there's a parking lot yes you come in off of Monmouth and you pull into your own building and there's open parking across so there's I think there's 20 six parking spaces for six units one of which is a barrier free unit which is important to have like an extra unit on my opinion it's not really codified properly anywhere um except for commercial uses so anyway so so you come in you have a front door off of Washington um and you have a back door off of the parking area you have an outdoor space you have a space in in the garage and then there's an extra uh 8 by8 space in the back of the garage and then you have a another storage room in the front um the there's a stairs and an elevator um the next floor has three bedrooms um and the uh floor above is the living dining kitchen great room with a nice deck there are views to the Bay um we've tried to take advantage of that and you go up one other level you have a half floor per the ordinance um that uh provides space for the master suite which also has a deck yeah these sections basically show cut through parallel to Washington you can see there's basically six units uh the top floor is a half Story the lower floor is parking and storage um and um parking one space that's under the building one that's underneath yeah one space is in a garage behind a garage door and then actually in front of your car you have another 8 by8 space and then you have a storage room uh I have there's really not room for much else other than the storage area and the park inside downstairs no no there isn't it's just an entry entry FL elevator and a staircase um the the storage room is is nice it's like 18 by8 how do you get to the storage room you have to go through the garage you can go through the Foy there's a door from the fire and there's a door from the garage both ways yeah I didn't see it okay that makes yeah yeah so it's nice you know put all your junk in there um yeah so it's nice in that respect um so this drawing is the orthagonal elevations this is Washington Street um this is from the parking area this is umou this one is Monmouth Avenue and this is you know the faces the town homes closer to the Bay um so uh our client asked us to yes yes the height complies overall um we tried to take advantage of uh the opportunities for view wherever we could and um you know um our client wanted an up to-date um sharp looking looking building when when you first met you realized that you could do actually 7 half on this 16,000 but keep it conserv with sixce you know we did a whole feasibility study actually and I don't remember all the potential yields but this was not the most dense yield that uh we could have come up with so we thought this was uh practice iCal yield and uh an aesthetically pleasing yield uh and it provides uh good space and facility for parking and access to the building and a really nice view uh along Washington Street you you have some nice single family homes across the street you have the nice Town Homes going we did a duplex over on the other Corner C Amur that runs parallel to the water um I don't know years ago that turned out well Steve real quick yeah over here oh I'm sorry oh hey Roger you mentioned the height complies on the plan you submitted you said you need a variance the site plan says you comply oh you're right no it doesn't comply it doesn't comply but it's less than 10% right so it's a c variance for the height seing 2 feet 11 Ines over where three feet would be yes the D variance so yes just one section just a peak sorry about that right you can see it here on this section here 4 C you can see it here that you to keep that's a technical question CHR I don't know I'm able to answer sor well the the you know the so there's A's there's a big overbearing uh continuous Gable and then there's these cross Gables which are more than 512 I got to give you the aesthetic look that you that you need and want perfect thank you anybody have any questions for Mr pen St look at when he said so the roof the roof that you really never see is less than 512 you want me to explain that to you sure so it goes well here's so this roof is less than 512 but these roofs which are really what's in your in Your Vision are greater than 512 so yeah that needs a variance that needs a variance yeah you like to amend the application to include those two items that Mr fck just mentioned so what is the um what is the average on the height 2 11 in 2 11 John Which is less than 10% correct right the steeper root pitch looks that section looks better for that area yeah the section fronting on Washington D see yeah and the and the end end views you know on uh mon you know you you don't you you don't you don't see the the lower pitch at all you see the steeper pitch so see what I think purpose in the ordinance I believe see I think what we're talking about is the roof the roof slopes that you see visual to the eye from Washington Avenue primarily they are 512 or greater they're greater than 52 the rear section um no no the the the the main spine that runs down the middle here I'll show it to you again the main the main the main over overriding roof this roof is less than 5 T but the cross cables that you see from the street what what what what people see from what's visual you don't really see that pitch going back you would never know what was between these Gables pitchwise it doesn't have any aesthetic Factor at all thank you thanks good question I don't have a dimension on them I can pull a scale out um but do you have a dra no you're doing the div you're doing the math on it I I have a scale in my brief what what are they're 18 18t there you go like this deck is 17 feet with within the walls they're 18 ft wide got sorry that's joh we're good sorry there's four boms that requ any so why why on the um on the one thing does it say 15 sponsor re 15 15 requir because rsis it's 2.5 okay for this type of a multi family unit as opposed to 12 right and you have 10 extra yes there 25 spots 23 23 spots explain that Steve is there any materials you can use to uh increase the permeability on the ground on the ground well we've been talking about using uh permeable pavers for some of the spaces to get closer to the uh requirement I mean I don't know still parking space yeah no but Roger has ideas or there's different papers you could usee we' talked about that and we're happy to go along here building cage is also Underwood's permitted front yard landscaping on both sides way over yeah so J explain all the site uh coverages and Landscaping and parking Arrangements which are so thanks good better than before John you're a licensed professional planner and engineer correct and you designed the site plan that's correct and one of the things we're requesting is preliminary and final site plan approval yes along along with the variances that we noted correct why don't you go through site plan and then we'll talk about the Varan and some of the technical aspects of the site so I'm to start with the survey that was sub with the plan um a couple things I want to point out with regarding the existing conditions and you know I think it's important to understand where the site sits today versus where we're headed with with this proposal So the plan you have in front of you or that I have on the easel right now is the survey plan that was submitted with the application there's no changes to it um as I'm sure everybody's familiar um um old Motel style building two stories there are 10 units in that building um it is extremely out of character for the neighborhood at this point uh this neighborhood from Amherst Avenue down Washington um you know all the way to the ocean at this point the majority of those properties have been redeveloped um we've been very fortunate enough to work on a whole lot of them um and specifically in this block from Amherst down to Mammoth um many many of them went from commercial to residential at different times Mojo restaurant um there was pizza place that is currently still a vacant parcel that has been temporarily used but um I think time has proven that this area is a residential area but this as far as the existing conditions are concerned um the building is obviously non- compliant with regard to flood standards or any building codes there is an aggregate between Mammoth Avenue and Washington Avenue uh there is slightly over 95 ft of of curb cut um because Mammoth Avenue has uh parking uh at driveway driveway for the majority of its Frontage and then you've got about a 15ft wide uh Drive uh apron on Washington Avenue um which is currently impeding a lot of on street parking um and you know the site is just it's it's non-conforming um in many aspects obviously it's underdeveloped as compared to the majority of properties in in the community um but it is certainly time for something to take place uh on this property and John we don't realize it's it's in excess of 16,000 ft a third of an acre yeah so the site is 16375 square ft um I'm sitting in the wsd zone as Mr McLaren um ascribed earlier um and it's it's it's the fact that it's in the wsd zone is what creates the challenge or the variance that we're we're asking for this uh this evening but what I did bring here is this is a 200 uh 24 Google uh Google aerial image just to just to kind of just go through the lay of the land because it really goes to uh why the request the use of Varian request is very very much appropriate with the application so our site is sit right here in the middle 9211 am MTH Avenue uh Winchester running up and down on the plan Mammoth running left to right on the plan you can see our our building on the property and what you can see in this block is um you is you've had you've had a number of what were commercial uses along Washington they've turned to multif family residential that's a sixun building that I believe is a 3unit that might be a 4unit building uh there's some duplexes behind us there's a multif family behind us across Mammoth Avenue you've got multif family buildings across uh Washington Avenue you've got some single families so if you look at our little Community right here there is no commercial it's all residential various types of residentials some single family detached some single or some uh townhouse attached some uh apartment style or multif family type buildings but it is residential there is nothing commercial about this area whatsoever so the context of the area and how the area is develop you know this is not we're not talking about a block that has a bunch of old construction or or properties like our site where it's in it's it's plan or eventually going to be redeveloped we're talking about Parcels that have all been redeveloped the majority of the parcels in the block have already been redeveloped in the last 15 years you say that because the idea of commercial coming to those spots is not not real likely it's not realistic at this point these properties have red veloped and they've redeveloped as residential uh with no commercial aspect so what are we asking or what are we proposing as Mr fck described already um we are um proposing a six-unit residential development poundhouse style uh with Frontage Frontage or or access I should say front doors uh onto Washington Avenue uh you can see from Mr fook's Design um it is a very I'm going to call it a very pedestrian friendly type of design we're not proposing any driveways on Washington Avenue you have nice walkways out to the street a couple of steps at the right of way um to create some separation between The Pedestrian the public pedestrian and and the private property um all fully landscaped uh to the point of a front yard landscape coverage in excess of 80% which I don't know that I've ever uh had a project in Margate that has been able to achieve 80% landscape coverage in the front yard and that's on both both front yards that's on both sides yes that's correct um and then as you go to the rear the building that's our access so there's a single 24t wide curb cut it comes off of Monmouth Avenue that accesses a 24t wide driveway which is a standard two-way driveway uh that access Drive allows the units to pull in and they have the the two triangles that I show my plan the forward triangle would actually be inside the garage and then the the rear triangle would actually be the parking space that would be outside the garage or a carport style of parking space it's under roof that's correct it's under building that's correct it's covered but it's outside there's no there's no door behind it the garage door would be right here so there's one space that's inside the garage one space that's outside the garage Gage door Gage door about halfway up the building correct that's correct yeah if you look at um Steve's uh if you look at Steve's plan you can see like that gray space right there is outside the garage but that is that is still underneath the building so then we also have a bank of standard 9 by8 parking spaces a total of 11 of them one of them being a handicap space or Ada space compliance space uh with a multif family building like this uh an ADA compliance base uh is a requirement um the of those 11 seven are exess plus so the yeah so let me just touch on the requirement for a second um the requirement uh for a four bedroom home is 2.5 spaces per unit when you're dealing with single family detached type of structures the residential site Improvement standards tell you that you get to round down so two and a half spaces per unit on a four-bedroom house becomes a two space requirement which is what everyone is used to hearing for a four-bedroom home when you develop a multif family building you're not allowed to round down until the end so you have to aggregate that 2.5 across all of the units so it's 6 time 2.5 and then whatever your resultant is at the end of that then you can round down take the half a space off so this technically requires 15 spaces we are proposing 23 spaces um this this would I think believe I would Mark I think I'm 27 years now doing this this would Mark the first time I've ever been able to propose more parking on a site Margate than what is required by ordinance um and I think it is I think is it's it's it's an interesting thing we talked about at length with our client and we could certainly we could certainly blow out all the spaces to get to a 30 5% landscape coverage and we would still comply with parking we could do that and eliminate a varing which typically is what you want to do but we are in an area as we all know that is a very congested area and it's only getting I'm going to call it worse but better depending on how you're looking at it it's a very popular area um and it's not just in the summertime anymore so what what we felt from a development perspective was that when you when you look at what the benefits are to be able to provide that extra parking because let's be honest we have six units here these folks are going to have guests and those guests are not going to park in their garage so this is a scenario where we can really truly provide like easily accessible off street parking for the guests of those residents which are absolutely going to use them because if you come to visit this person in the summertime you're not finding a space on your street that's going to be available to you so we believe that the benefit of having those additional spaces um far outweighs the negative impact of the of the of the reduction the landscape C what what is that reduction so it goes to 26.5% but um we did uh Mr McClaren made a made a suggestion in his report with regard to modifying the the surface that's within those parking spaces we've discussed that with our client he's more than happy to do that we would select select a grass paper block or some other um some other material that would increase the the perviousness of those spaces but from a Ban's perspective planning perspective um we think it makes a a whole lot of sense to allow us to develop the parking as we see as we show it um the only space that we can't we can't get into or I wouldn't want to get into um grass paper blocks or some other some other surface is in the Ada space with and also the gourd space we want to keep that as a as a as a flat clean surface so what so what we would propose is the the other 10 spaces we will modify the surface um it'll still be a variance but we would modify the surface to improve upon uh the poorest nature of those spaces credit for certain percentage of those or we don't do that yet yeah so that that so that number will bump up the landscape coverage would go up yeah I mean if we can get to 40 or 50% it would go up you know um the spaces are 16 20 it would go up by we would we would pick up roughly 810 square feet of more landscape I don't think that's quite enough getting better question yes sir in to that was AAL well so one thing I do El so yeah so the the the street you're you're 100% uh correct colins the street is in the threes and fours um what we are doing is we are obviously we have to maintain the grade across the public sidewalk we are sloping up very quickly which is why we have stairs at the back of the at the property line for each one of the units um and we are ramping up very quickly along Mammoth Avenue so we're getting the site and the garage slabs uh up to Elevation six so it's going to be a dramatic dramatic Improvement um as compared to the uh the surrounding uh the surrounding land area so it could it still flood of course it could um but elevation six correct correct we're also from a design perspective I'm looking at small retaining wall along along that front obviously keep the water to the best possible off of the landscaping and people as well that you want to compare what's there now compared to what we're doing well from a site plan perspective we can't make it worse it's got to be the same or better under the law but I would I think John can address the fact is what coverage is now and the ability to to direct water to the street what we're doing opposed to what's there now obviously it will be an improvement will it be a Improvement that is observable or that you can see or notice well it's pitching to the streets in both directions which would then eventually to the B correct right right so I'm just looking here the existing landscape so John by D definition is this a major development so if so we're talking about a couple different things here we're talking about landscape and then we're talking about storm water so from a storm water perspective um the two the two the two threshold elements that that determine whether this is considered a major development and requiring storm water measures to be installed um are total impervious coverage um and I'm sorry total increased impervious coverage uh which you have to be increasing the site by more than 10,000 square feet in order to trigger this the storm water management regulations from existing from the existing condition which which we are not over that threshold and then the other threshold for requiring storm water management measures is if you are disturbing one acre of land which our entire site is not one acre so the site is not considered a major development in so far as the the storm water regulations of the state of New Jersey are concerned which means that it is not required to provide storm water management uh on on site now with regard to landscape uh I mean this is a this is certainly a reduction in in landscape I'm just looking at our existing numbers here it looks like uh yeah it doesn't doesn't look like we 62 62 2% is what it is now um and we are we are again we're proposing 26 and a half if the board is if the board feels that the Landscaping coverage is is is a more important thing than the parking we can comply we can make this 35% as per the ordinance requirement eliminate parking and then we would um we would comply with the ordinance I have a question um because because he's building this does he have to have amount of electric charging stations in here does that fit in what you do have to do is you have to have commercial site it's not a what it's not a commercial site so on Commercial sites that's where you need the correct because I know it's a new law right but you what you do have to do when you build the new construction you have to provide like in the provide a circuit you just dedicated circuit so every if it's required it'll be there yeah but but educ that's a new law now that thats have to have any new construction youc contractor provide yeah that I I've dealt with this quite a bit um in other communities the the term is make ready you have to make the facility ready for a charging station so that so that if if a if somebody buys a unit and wants to put a has an electric car the unit's ready to go they just they just buy their their electric charging unit and the power is there for them so this good theoretically it's going to be will be a provision for six St right 40 50 yes 265 total landscap get how many we would be able to maintain a total of 16 spaces which would only be one in excess of the requirement it's about 24 inches that's correct yes yes so John if you in the parking if you have the grass papers on Stone base you would actually recharge keep some recharge on the site too right yeah I mean if we if we go to up a grass paper block with stone base uh I mean you you're going to get the benefit of the volume of the voidage of the stone below the grass P block be better than just grass which will promote recharge and absolutely promotes recharge more than grass that's that's correct members understand what recharge means it delays the release of the water as R it's on site correct like doing a that's correct and John show the board if you could what area of the parking area would be the for paper yeah so the proposal would be it would start just past the striped area next to the Ada space and it would be all of that parking space right that I'm outlining with my finger so it would be 10 spaces um they're 9 ft wide 18 ft uh long and that area would all be whatever we select with regard to open pap or grass paper block they're not intended to be because the spaces have their individual private spaces or the I'm sorry the units have their individual private spaces um I I yeah I don't know that we've gotten to that level but our client's telling us that there's no intention to actually um assign them they would be used for use by guests if the Condominium Association wanted to do that ultimately they could it became a problem they could designate them amongst themselves best we could do is sign sign it okay John I'm sorry you want you want to touch upon the C variances then yeah I finished with the site plan we kind of got into question there let me just finish with the site plan so um with regard to the balance of the site plan aspects um Mr Fenwick already described uh from a trash and storage perspective um once you get inside the garage there's the there's a the the garage space is actually an oversized space or oversized area so you can keep your trash in that space so you don't have to take it into your storage room um if you don't want to but then there's also a dedicated separate storage room uh by for Access or access both from the garage and the foyer area um excuse me from a landscape perspective you can see that we've got a full landscape package here which inclusive of Street trees grass curb strips uh as Chris mentioned there is actually a grass area behind the back of sidewalk before you get to the property line so the perceived front yard is actually larger um than what is what is measured on the plan um because when you walk by you'll see you know we've got a 15 foot set back on Washington but you've got another uh 3 feet so really you're 18 ft back from the back of sidewalk uh similar a similar character characteristic um off of Mammoth Avenue where we have we're proposing a 9ft setback but we've got another 3 feet so the building's actually going to sit back 12 feet uh from the sidewalk um the back area where the parking is uh we are proposing an evergreen hedge row um which will help knock down uh both noise from Vehicles also light light from vehicles um to create a nice buffer between us and the neighboring properties around the parking excuse me um the the site will be lit uh we are not proposing any fre standing light poles because we just don't think it's appropriate given the residential nature of this area um Mr fck is proposing to light uh safely light but not but not overlight the parking in the back by way of uh building mounted light lighting that will shine down uh onto that parking area and I'm sure he'll have some pedestrian friendly lighting along the front as well talk about the on street parking that will be picked up as a result of the closing c c on sure I did some math today and what I what I what I believe is going to happen is I I believe we're going to pick up at uh three spaces on Mammoth Avenue uh with the closure of the curb cut three additional on street parking spaces and we will pick up uh one space in Washington Avenue so that's a rare condition where you where you propose a new application and you pick up pick up parking on on the street so this project will pick up four on street parking spaces and there's only one street access for the entire site and that's off of Mammoth Avenue that is correct yes sir the every space is 9t wide oh I'm sorry uh that space I think it's slightly it's slightly B it's 10 feet plus or minus yeah our client is amendable to what whatever the board thinks is appropriate I you know I mean we can work backwards we can work backwards from this from the six additional spaces yeah I mean we come for this board and other than single family houses every every project the discussion is parking so we we have an we have an ability to provide more parking and really get the cars off the street you know you say oh we've got we've got an extra space in our garage well we know nobody's using that this is this this is real parking if the board wants us to lose a little bit of parking to to increase Landscaping we're happy to do it yeah n nine times out of 10 what would what would be before the board tonight would be commercial ing grade the parking variance and seven years above that we have really tailed this project back to make it work at that location with the five or six additional spaces as well yeah it's really it really is drawn back from what the zoning the zoning in that corner calls for John I I I agree I I'm a stickler for landscaping that I think in this case with the congestion in that neighborhood and if you put in the grass block or something you could probably get up closer to 30% yeah it's I think in this I think it's an exception neighborhood to go with the extra part I agree with Rich also and you know what we talked about doing with the perable or grass papers and doing them over effectively your percent teally percent would be higher as and we have spoken to the neighbors right across the street they sent us a letter they that Association the rounded round front building they are fully supportive of the project they're happy to see it we're happy that there's no commercial govern corre I I think so we could certainly do that um I think the other the other main issue with with having sidewalk up people from from govern in from Governor strip Street trees is the tree selection the type of tre it's it's you need you have if you a lot of older developments selected trees that had roots that grew laterally and that's what creates the issue um so and Roger actually pointed out I believe a different species than maybe the shows and we're more than H happy to work with them on Washington I I I assume there's going to be a specific Street tree selected as part of your pedestrian Corridor project yeah so my suggestion is don't include the street trees on Washington yeah that's that's fine with us um you'll tell us what the selection will be then from MTH Avenue we can remain right and the other option is put them behind the sidewalk which is what the insurance company wants us to do now too yeah and we we're happy to do any of those three things um I think that there's more benefit leaving more Lawn and Landscape to be to have an appearance as part of the front yard than there is to make a wider Governor trip um but we can we will eliminate the street trees as part of the as part of the compliance package assuming we have received an approval so that that can go with The Pedestrian carer project and then as far as Mammoth is concerned um you know we could we can leave them where they are we can move behind the sidewalk either way I mean we can accommodate either I do want to point out that the applicant has work City getting all the all stre parking off the MTH Avenue instead of having six curve cuts on Washington to respect the pedestrial quarter project we have coming up so I think that's a that's a big safety issue and and a plus for the applicant yeah I before I get into my use Varian testimony which I I'll be as brief as I can I mean this is a unique project it's it's extremely rare that we come before this board um with the ability to provide ample parking or excess parking for for for for guests together with a project that is below the density I mean this this property calculates to 7.44 units we're proposing six that I don't know that I've ever had an application in front of this board that didn't that didn't go after the the density that's required or permitted I should say so we have a we have a developer and we have a developer that was very very um adamant about developing a a project that's not overbuilt and that does does work with this neighborhood another aspect that is the Flor area ratio in this project is is under 1.0 that's that's permitted to go up to 1.0 I think FL area ratio is8 yeah and the building just to understand also the building coverage which I believe is permitted to be at 50% is only 42% so it's 8% lower than what is permitted all the density type calculations whether ratio building coverage or front your Landscaping they're all fall well within lower than was permitted correct and I just did some quick math while we were talking um if we if we select the gra paper block that gives us about 50% uh openness um I don't know if we can get one that that that's that's that's that that high but 50% openness would actually add would take us up um 5% in landscape cover 31% so it take us up it would take us up to 31 I don't know that we can get to a 50% but I was just doing that math to see see what it would be so we're going to be somewhere around the 30% range with that change and a 12in deep Stone bed at 40% void you Destro quite a bit of water yeah yeah whole lot of water so that's it that's kind of the I think um everything with Rel with regard to the site plan layout um we'll go to the use variance testimony I guess next question yeah we'll incorporate the C variances into the use Vari testimony testimony you're going to hear not I agree we're not up against the building I think these guys talking about inside we're going to follow whatever the see streetcap proposed is we're going to follow follow that Rog uh are you yes from starting at the back of sidewalk it's raised up that's correct yes M just for the resolution the testimony is going to Encompass the VAR C variances because without the D we're not going anywhere comp variances and we're going to address the variances with respect to the entire project not the individual element all if Governor trip is too narrow it's not open to s if Governor ship's too narrow it's too narrow it'll or we'll adjust it one one of the other sure okay go ahead okay so um you know we are here for use variant because of the fact that we do not have commercial Li grade um it's it's it's extremely important to point out that our use as proposed is a permitted use in this Zone um it's just not pered to be at the ground level so that we're not instituting a use that's not permitted at this location it's just it's just the fact that that there is no commercial at the ground floor uh that that creates the D variant so per we have as you know we have to put forward purposes of zoning purposes of the misenus law that are Advanced to establish the positive criteria for a for use variance of this nature we believe that there are a total of four that actually apply to the application um the first is we believe that this application promotes the general we so why do we believe that well first of all we are redeveloping a site that is non-compliant with regard to flood um it is non-compliant um with regard to parking it is not compliant with regard to uh building code um and we are developing a uh a compliant structure that is very very much in character with the neighborhood um we also believe that the that the general welfare is in advance because elimination of the commercial from this site we believe is actually a benefit to this specific property and to the neighboring property around it because it helps reduce potential for congestion or potential for friction between that commercial versus residential that you know on a number of applications you you hear that time and time again uh within the community this is a I'm going to call it a locked in residential area there's new residential in all directions this is not going to switch to a commercial space your commercial cars we've we've done a lot of products we fully understand um the level of importance in protecting them uh lantic Avenue veter Avenue you know parts of Amherst Avenue it we fully understand that this is not one of those locations this is a residential location and having commercial in this location We Believe would be a negative impact to this area um so we believe that by not having the commercial space the general welfare is Advanced the second purpose of zon we think is Advanced is the is the providing a desirable visual environment through Creative Design techniques uh Mr fck always does a wonderful job I believe he's got some of them he has developed some of the most beautiful buildings in the community um while he's asking for a a minor deviation with regard to the roof lines uh both the height and the slope um if you look at his architecture um you see that um those those variances are what's creating the uniqueness and and the of the building um so those variances that he's requesting with regard to his building um really are function of Aesthetics um I believe that that Mr fenwick's Design has very much kept uh the The Pedestrian Corridor and The Pedestrian nature of this community um in his in his mind because it because of the step back feel and look of the front set back of the building you know many of the buildings that we work with you get you they go after that 50% top floor and that 50% top floor is right at the street so while it's only a half a story it's kind of up looming in your face that is not what Mr fick's team has done here he has a a really nice step back design along the front of the building which we think again creates less mass less Mass the street Frontage um and and a really pedestrian friendly record when you talk about step back design you talk from that first floor deck back to where you catch up the second and third floor is well back from the front yard correct there's a number of levels of relief as you go up the building correct um the third the third purpose of zoning that we believe is Advanced is the is the promotion of free flow of traffic um we believe that's Advanced from a number of aspects um by not having the commercial um it reduces that that potential for a number of trips uh both from the site for the commercial use both pedestrian and vehicular and many during the day for the most part likely commercial in and out during the day would be eliminated with just having solely residential correct um uh the other thing this application does um is promotes or I should say increases on street parking um which is something that frankly never happens in this community with with with a new development um uh the third aspect of promotion of free flow of traffic is that we are able to provide more parking than the ordinance requires for the use um so this project goes a long way to help while we're building six new units to help um promote the betterment of the parking scenario in this in this area and for a project for a project site as large as this having limited to one curb cut for the entire site on two front of does that also advance that free flow traffic ccept absolutely because it's it's less it's less access points in and out in and out of the traffic streams on Washington or Mammoth Avenue that's correct and then the third purpose of his Zing that we believe Advance with the application is the establishment of appropriate population I'm sorry fourth the fourth purpose is the establishment of appropriate population densities um as I mentioned already this site uh calculates the 7.44 units we are proposing six units um so the development as proposed is a reduction in the density um it's very much in keeping with the level of density in in in this area uh the majority of these other other properties many of which our firm was fortunate enough to work on um were right at the max of the 2200 ft of land area per unit um we are uh well under that by only only proposing six units where nearly seven and a half units are proposed so our density we believe uh is very much appropriate for the specific location So based on those four purposes of zoning uh we believe that the uh the positive criteria is clearly established with the application about the negative criteria whether the application can be vage granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the int purpos of Zone plan and zoning ordinance so the first PR um is there a substantial detriment to the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance well from a Zone plan perspective it residential is permitted at the location the density we propos is below what is permitted at the location the only reason that we don't comply with the Zone plan with this application is because we don't have the commercial atre um I've already discussed at length why we believe commercial at grade at this at this location is not appropriate uh I believe that the that the development pattern in this area has proven that out and I believe that um this board while maybe not the folks here that tonight have have on many occasions voted on applications in this area that are residential projects uh which has kind of developed the pattern uh or or created the pattern of development which is dictating what what we're proposing here tonight rather than there being a substantial detriment you testified before this we believe is actually a benefit not having the commercial that is correct that is absolutely correct um is there a substantial detriment to the zone to the zoning ordinance um the the three items that with regard to the the bulk standards or the zoning ordinance that we are deviating from is one is the roof items that Mr Fenwick described as I've already mentioned they are architectural in nature they don't provide any additional square footage to the building they don't provide anything other than aesthetic appeal um so we believe that that um that is not certainly not a detriment to the zoning ordinance um we've discussed the coverage at length the landscape coverage at length I think we've come up with a good solution or a good balance between the parking that we're proposing as compared to the reduction in coverage which is again we believe not a substantial uh negative to the zoning ordinance um and then with regard to the setbacks as Mr Balon mentioned um the way that the Lots lay out here if you go down mammouth Avenue we're subject to the setback of one other building and if you go down Washington Avenue um we're subject to the setback I think of only two other buildings because the parcels are are large as you go toward Amherst so the setback the average setbacks that become uh the calculation as a result so are are excessive they're 40t and 20 20 almost 22 ft I two of the projects next to was they have parking in front so those setbacks are increased by the 18 ft you have for a car because of their parking correct this the setbacks that we propose here we think are very much appropriate for pedestrian Carter um and the ability to have the building where it sits still 15 feet off of Washington Avenue still having really nice landscaping and not having to have all the driveways on Washington um we think makes those setbacks uh very very much appropriate so all the C variances that we are asking for we believe uh certainly do not have a substantial negative impact to the zoning or the second prong of negative criteria is whether there is a substantial impact uh to the public good um the site was going to be redeveloped at some point um we as as Chris mentioned I can't tell you how many clients over the years we've done concepts for on this um and the majority of them have been seven units or weight how can I get eight you think we can get a variance for that I mean that that was the majority of our conversations over recent years um we found or somebody found the right developer for this project or for the community I should say by proposing a project that has six units um so keeping the density down if I live a prer street I would be thrilled to death to have this coming as a as as opposed to a couple thousand square feet of commercial at the ground floor which you know the houses directly across the street are single family detached homes that's the last thing those folks I'm sure would want is commercial across street from them um we think that this truly is a benefit to the public good in this specific area uh and not and not a detriment in in any way all of the needs of the building have been met by Mr fick's Design meaning trash has been well thought out storage has been well thought out um parking has been well thought out circulation has been well thought out um the architectural appeal has been well thought out so for all those reasons there is certainly not a substantial detriment uh to the public good so with that we think that both the positive and the negative criteria have been established John there's special reasons with respect to the D variants we're asking for and that's whether or not the site not can accommodate the variant use the lack of commercial but can continue to accommodate the variant use being a lack of commercial can do do you think the site is appropriately suited for having this development with no commercial aggrade yeah I think they call that the medich criteria is the site particularly well suited for the use as proposed um and the idea there being if if you're not proposing if you're not proposing permitted use why is that site the right uh the right site for the use that you are proposing I think we talked about that at length at this point we believe that this site is particularly well suited for the use as proposed because commercial at on Commercial at this location even if there was no residential above it take a residential off the project if it was just a commercial project I would argue that it's not appropriate for this location thank you John great great job that's that's what we have anybody else from the uh other comments anybody per unit inside the plan there was to have trash um the garage is oversized in all likelihood folks aren't going to want to store their trash in their nice storage unit but there's more than adequate space for cans in the garage uh we actually even discussed the idea of a trash enclosure which I don't particularly think is a good idea in a residential area like this um it's more it commercializes the site so the proposal is that each unit owner would have an inside the folks would have to take it to the street so in in this case they would likely take it to Mammoth yes so we we actually discussed the bike rack with the client um it's as you can see our clients's very willing to work with the board uh my opinion about a bike rack on a private residential project like this is that it's not a great idea because the unit owners they're not going to use it because they're not going to let their bike stay out in the rain and and what have you and they've got a storage room which is where they're going to store their bikes so a bike rack is probably going to is probably gonna create a scenario where somebody else is leaving a bike there open up to the sure you've taken a priority just name name an address and I'll swear in oh yes sure Steve Bruno 9200 Mammoth okay Mr Bruno do you swear affirm that your testimony you're about to give will be the truth I most certainly do thank you um I want to commend the presentation the are you the developer and your name iSell Mitchell nice to meet you I literally live across the street from the the development site and I will tell you that for you to take this approach and develop it in a way of which has been presented aesthetically appealing beautifies the area um all the components that were part of the presentation was incredible um I do have a little bit of a concern if I may the drainage and the parking so when you look at Mammoth Avenue the apron that presently exists I think there was some discussion of opening up three more parking spots on Mammoth okay so what is the apron Dimension presently and are you going to scale that down to 24 so it's almost 60 feet an on street parking space typically is about 20 ft so that's where I've arrived at the three spaces being added to the street I would just ask that there be some awareness awareness to Mammoth parking there's one spot presently that is offered now on mammoth in front of the apartment or the 10 11 unit there's one one parking spot present so when you scale that down and make three more additional three additional spots all I ask is that the encroachment to decater is a very dangerous spot now I say that to the board it's very dangerous there the intersection is is very dangerous so if you're going to open it up to three spots I would ask the board to recognize that the one spot that is there now it's minimized to two only because of the safety of the intersection of Mammoth and decator it has may not have anything to do with this yes okay well right now it's too close to the cater so if you're going to expand it to three additional spots that's a concern of mine um I sir here MTH is going from 60 80 about that spot or that spot so here's here's M right you're going from yeah correct to 24 cor so this spot here is only one there's only one par in spot and here is Decat buing all right this is Decor okay so right now there's only one spot and this spot is is a very dangerous intersection for parking okay we're not changing any parking this exp to but down in front of our spot our property toward Washington down here is where we're picking them up on and that may change okay so that makes sense because the other area going up towards the cater is pretty dangerous yeah we're not touching that okay um the drainage you talk about drainage and the pervious the pavers I think would be a great U compliment to the to the property U so I asked now after all the presentation where is the water going to drain pres where where after the development are we going to have drainage on Washington or mammoth so both it'll be split between the two streets which is what the site does now we're not changing the flow of the P of the site we're just elevating it but but the flow of the site will still go out towards Washington and towards Mammoth so we are and we're not permitted by ordinance to allow any storm water to flow on the neighboring properties okay all right so where storm water goes now is where it's going to go upon completion okay so you know there's significant very rare on Washington Washington is one of I know you've said it many times you've been of report many times um the height you're 2 and2 ft higher than which is permittable now correct right but I think it's a little more than that right 2 feet 10 or something steeve 2 feet 11 in okay so what is what is the height limit present 30 feet so we're going to 32 and a half approximately just under 33 can I can I also look at my notes real quick because there was so much and believe me me I think the setbacks are incredibly reasonable you know the setback on Washington setback on Mammoth I think is is very reasonable I don't think there's and this will be a condo association yeah there was some talk about a retaining wall so the the Mr mcin requested or or suggested um suggested that with what with the couple of risers or stairs we have at at the at each one of the uh entrance walkways to have uh retaining walls between them to create to to create like a nice elevation differential between The Pedestrian the public sidewalk and the private property so you don't have a steep slope and that doesn't have anything to do with drainage No No in fact it would it would yeah it's not bear with my my ignorance here I'm just trying to understand this so back to the commercial I think it was originally presented by Mike with the commercial it was Zone commercial for a development eventually to Amherst you know the flow from Venter to Amhurst right I think it was I think it was called wsd or something I'm sorry if I'm if I'm not fairly representing I'm trying to go through a lot of DET right now so wsd so now it was it's originally now commercial we're going to change it to residential corre which I think well it's mixed use is an unbelievable enhancement to have that change made I really believe that there's far from a commercial area absolutely far from it so I commend you for even the application on that um 23 spaces to 26 how many we have there's 23 23 23 correct right it from 26 okay I support the the application I'm sorry if I'm a little bit nervous but there's been a lot of detail which would represent it and so try to summarize it as best I could thank you I really commend you again thank you name and address please Joel narof 223 North Washington Avenue Mr narof please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth I can't I got an artificial that's good enough swear to tell the truth I do thank all right uh I live just down the block on Washington I have one positive to say two questions or negatives to say about the the issue of not having commercial kind of a shock to find that this was still Zone mixed use but uh you know it's clear for somebody who lives in where Mojo used to live uh I I can understand moving it from commercial or mixed use into strictly residential so I think most of the any of us that live on that area would support that that aspect what I don't support is the issues that are being raised about setbacks and even the use of the pavers um our our problem is not th for those of us that live on that street okay on Washington our problem is is water is flooding it's not parking I mean yes we have parking but we lost that war a long time ago uh and with the development that's going on across the street on ammer it's only going to get worse and one or two spots here or there are not going to make big difference to us um but you know the we we should be maximizing the amount of of the landscaping that's there and not coming up with you know questionable what I think is questionable solutions that are uh the pavers we're still going to get additional water flowing onto Washington and onto mouth and I think you should be worried a lot more about the the flooding that we have there so uh I object to it because and I I think if if they get rid of the spots uh the extra spots which is a nice idea but in terms of our problems on Washingtons okay uh the problem is is flooding and this can it can't make it better it can only make it worse and so it's a negative it's not a positive the other is I I don't think the setbacks are far enough and indeed the idea of getting rid of the parking spots gives you a potential solution you can reorient the location of the um the building moving it back a little bit off of Mammoth and you've got a big wall there uh you know that's while it's great on the Washington side it's not so great across the street from the mammoth people who live there uh I'm glad I'm on the Washington side not the Mama's side to tell you the truth but it's also the 15 feet that's a lot you know narrower than any of the other units are the units between that development and my development I think those are the ones that are like you know 28 or 30 feet whatever it is and ours are are shorter um even the 20 feet the 20 feet is is gives us a fair amount of distance 15 ft given the sizes and even given the setback though that the design has I think is just simply not enough and I don't know what is I I didn't bring my map of this but if there I thought I saw there were were there parking spots uh along the entryway off of Mammoth no okay you know I I just think that 15 feet for building that a structure that big is just not enough um um and uh I I can I can picture where it would be uh on on my development our our uh our house if it was only 15 feet it would would just not be enough of that so by getting rid of the parking spot you'd have the room off of Mammoth to move it back and and increase the uh what's it the governor's uh Parkway is that what it's called uh and you'd have you'd have extra space in the front and if you can find some extra space along Washington that would be good and I think getting rid of all of the extra SP parking spots was would be an absolute necessity given the the flooding issue that we have there so that's my concern uh just there's one thing I wanted to comment on with the 15t the 15 ft is to the property line the actual space from building to the sidewalk is I don't have scale big 18 all right right uh Miss Kenny just your name and address for the Joanne Kenny um I live at 302 North pem Avenue but I own five units on 122 and 124 Washington Avenue swear to tell the truth right I will definitely okay I say Kudos this is a long time coming I know how they feel my husband and I bought up all these old units for years and years and years redid them and this is about the last project in this area uh and I think it's wonderful what you're doing I I really like everything um the I only have one suggestion which is probably stupid but I think you should sign one of those parking spaces in the back of each unit before somebody comes down and they fight each other for it but I I I approve everything I think it's wonderful I think it's wonderful thank you just a couple simple questions Sten bag leave 9600 Atlantic Avenue maret New Jersey and you swear tell yes I do um could you explain a little bit about The Pedestrian Corridor because I'm not familiar with that what what is that plan well you you you Rec you you referenced The Pedestrian quarter for that region what is that years ago when we did our master and it was mentioned at the commission meeting by Mr D Dennis yeah I don't I don't follow meeting that's why I'm asking otherwise you know I'm a little bit ignorant but is there a grant that has been but that's not what he's asking the city has a grant now they're the Street's going to become they're going to be narrowed with with Landscaping down both sides of it that's what the pedestrian so so the previous the previous streetcape is not going to be applicable to this region right to this Corridor the what the streetcape that we commonly like the bricks and and the light stands and the well that's going to be part of this too it's going to extend that's part of this port that that's that was my and I and I think that's a great thing I I think we should have that um C I understand and and really most of that Corridor is commercial because once you go over two units per building understand but in relationship to residential to commercial use on Washington Avenue the majority of Washington Avenue is commercial but when you over two units not not true not true okay so if if an individual is in a unit that has 10 units in it a building with 10 units or 12 12 can that individual owner go pull his own permit or is it considered commercial has to be done by commercial Chris can you gra a mic let's U let's everybody can we just keep the chat down and let everybody that's a philosophical argument not you know not for tonight I'm just asking I'm just asking um the notices for this meeting tonight was this delivered to to the residents in this region for for this project tonight 200 foot list or was it delivered last month when it was postponed to this it was delivered for last month an announcement was made in last month's meeting tonight that they will not be mailing out notices correct correct okay thanks how much is the grant that has been provided that's for governing body to deal with not it's not in point work to deal it's just a question not tonight just a question I don't know give me one second Roger in your notes you reference in your opinion the commercial use in this area would be limited which would likely cause uh difficulty in finding tenants how do you base that determination how did you come to that conclusion with the new development going on with leaves gourmly tomatoes all that new development on the bay right there around the corner probably the 20 people that came to met with me and said that walked away because they couldn't get a commercial tenant to oper there so this does not follow the garden Garden Apartments code relationship to parking and things of that nature or it does is a not guard Department to so that that code does not apply to this prop same code applies to different section of the code resal site Improvement stand what section the Cod resal site Improvement standards when type different different categories one is Garden Apartment okay the Overflow you talked about increas in the grade to handle the flooding conditions there how does the Overflow discharge on the two areas that are adjacent to other residential or commercial property so you have two or Street M and Washington but there's two that are adjacent to the other residencies on each side get direct to the streets stre the other proper can I don't think you have any other questions thank you very much anyone else name and address please and I'll swear in uh my name is Dennis block and I live at 204 North decada rabido 204 North North de blog block block I'm sorry Mr Block you sarir the testimon you're about to give you the truth yes thank you um I live at 204 North decar um if you're on our back deck I'm looking right into this development it's going to be built I'm concerned about this back where you're going to say you have 26 cars that's a lot of cars in a I don't think a very big space how are you going to maneuver people to drive in and out each each house house the garage which all one car and one car will be behind that each right okay so what about where are you going to put 20 cars if you look at the site plan here sir you see I tried to but blocking when you talk okay well here we are I'm going to show it to you right now so the if you look at the site plan you come in there's a driveway off of mammouth Avenue that comes into the site okay correct they have fence their fence is over here this is their fence correct okay so you a car would pull in if they were going to park in the garage they would turn in and go into the garage or they could park in front of the garage door which would still be under the unit and then the other parking spaces you would come in and turn and pull into the space this this driveway at 24 ft is a is a properly sized driveway to have parking on either side of it which is what this this which is what this layout is this is a this is a very standard set of dimensions for parking spaces and drive aisles in any parking lot in the state okay so these are Alles correct that's correct and no sir there's 24 feet between what would be the back of this car and the back of this car so if you have if you ever drive into a shopping center and go into a par into a parking lot you drive down a drive aisle and there's parking on the left and parking on the right this is this is the same exact dimensions as any any parking lot you've ever gone into and then and then there's another there's another 10- foot buffer between the edge of those spaces and the decator that property you were just speaking about there's a 10- foot landscape buffer between the edge of the space and the fence so the parking is not even up against the fence there's still another 10 ft of landscaping and evergreen trees before you even get to that wall that's correct uh the other thing is you mentioned that this property right now I think believe was private and they had their own contract that take the trash away into the dumpster area that in back which is right behind where we live that's going they'll be okay so you're going to tell me that all these people going bring their garbage and recycle out the m for that the truck come city or county truck the trash will go on Tuesday morning or Monday morning whenever it may be right where everybody else puts it along the Cur line picked up that M just think everybody else's okay if you're on where I live to sure we all have two spaces and 200 blockes okay you're putting your trash right on okay not there's a driveway here your car is here and trash no you're you're still misunderstanding where the Cy plan is we the curve line where the trash will go is 20 feet away from the first parking space up on site I don't understand sure I mean respectfully was here yes the curve is here yes first parking space is back here so maybe I don't understand what you're saying so the trash is likely in this area or in this area yes okay how about it will go either in this area or this area it won't go in front of your house well I live for years that dump behind so you should be happy that's not going to be there okay thank you thank you anyone else else I think for this gentleman as the way I understand it he's picking up you're picking up 40 almost 40 feet on mam 40 feet of per because that 60 is going to go so you're going from 80 to to 20 roughly roughly right so you're picking up 60 feet of curb right so think of that curb space can be used for depositing the trash can at the curb for the trash pickup and believe me I live right across the street I'm with you I I'm I'm I believe me I get it and I respect that but picking up almost 60 ft is amazing to me it it's it's a compliment believe me that apron but I I I know there's a lot going on I just I wanted to help interpret a little thank you sorry for that all right no one else from the public nobody else from the board just have a question for John or quasi question statement the predominant flooding in his area is title flooding do it I'm looking at the elevations they're pretty darn low yeah there this will not impact title flighting won't make title flooding any worse that's correct there is uh there's a lot of conversations about flooding um this is an extremely low-lying area Washington Avenue is um frankly from one end to the other other than maybe the beach block and the the increase in impervious coverage here um is is will nominally affect even storm water runoff let alone the actual and the title flooding will will not be affected whatsoever by uh the development of this the majority of of the that we deal with here are as a result of the tides um and if you have a tide together with a together with a a rainstorm that's when you see you know the the worst case scenarios right and as a flood plan manager and engineer and you're an engineer elevating the property just a little bit to get it out of PM's way out of the flood zone or higher out of the flood zone it's an improvement correct yeah it's a it's an improvement is it doesn't solve everything no but what it does is it takes this property um and the garages and and the property high enough to an elevation that it that it avoids a number of the nuisance flood conditions that you deal with throughout the year correct all right yeah let's get I think first let's get on the same page with the conditions um Roger am I accurate in saying that the the applicant will agree to work with the city and its officials with respect to the the Washington Avenue pedestrian coordinator and the streetcape yes there so in that regard there may be some incomplete items on their part that aren't incomplete because they're we're trying to schedule the city's work with their work yes okay should we should we have an understanding as to if a project would like to be finished and look finished should it be grass should it be concrete or we will we will work with you and the applicant to make sure that you get your cosos and nothing that's not done hold you up won't hold you up we could it's usually up to the applicant if you want two separate votes you think everything's so interrelated we can just do one I think might as well vot on it together the de variance isn't granted there's no point in being here for anything else so I'm okay with that yeah all right then the other conditions you'll you'll you'll provide an engineers cost estimate and the required uh bonding guarantees as as required by law in the 10 in the 10 additional parking spaces which excludes the Ada space you'll you'll do some I guess we'll call Grass paper block with stone base there there's 15 spaces that are required and we have 23 so there's eight additional spaces there's eight additional and that includes exess space okay so the seven additional spaces and an accessible space okay so there's seven additional spaces excluding the Ada space you'll provide those I assume that's just in the parking space it's not the whole um parking surface correct okay and then in terms of Street trees I think we said along Washington Avenue no Street trees and we'll deal with those as part of the of The Pedestrian Corridor on Monmouth as shown on as shown on the plan as shown on the plan which right now they're they're in the governor strip right but on mamit but if it's too narrow you can move them back onto the onto the on behind the sidewalk that's that's M uh I'll not a bike rack won't be required and then the other conditions will say anything in Mr mcclaren's report unless otherwise addressed subject to any outside approvals that may be required subject to any representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing um I've reviewed the checklist there's no waivers requested no checklist waivers and in terms of design waivers it's this isn't a commercial project so we'll say to the extent not applicable they're waved um is that that yes it's respect to commercial you'll comply with what you can to the EXP extent not applicable to this type of development the design waivers will be waved in terms of variance relief it's the use variance because uh there's residential on the ground floor and that's not permitted in this the Zone residential is only permitted above commercial and then the the front yard set back along Washington Avenue they're at 15 ft um what the actual prevailing minimum John said it I think he said over 40 feet on that Frontage and unless have backwards and then on MTH they're at 9 feet and the prevailing minimums in the 20s okay well all right um we'll get those exact figures but the what they're proposing is 15 along Washington nine along mouth um the landscap coverage the requirements 35% right now they're about 26.5% but we think that'll get up approx they'll get up to approximately 30% was the testimony um so I'll I'll craft that in a way that that makes that clear the height of the building they're 30 FTS permitted they're at 32 feet 11 in so that's a c variance for height then the roof pitch uh 512 is is the minimum and then they're they're less than 512 is my understanding for ation between like between the Peaks is that they're like the Crickets I think right between the gables yeah that's kind of what for a portion of the roof and um and and and included with that is preliminary and final major site plan approval yeah there's eight members it's five it's a five vote variance are there seven members that vote what alternat there's one alternate and there'll be seven voting members you'll need five yeses correct I'll make that motion second sorry Tom Collins gentleman you did a really nice job tonight answered a lot of questions I think the hardship in this case we do not know or have Vision as as thear enhances and clears up of our and it's the way you design this project it's quite obvious you're giving a lot back to the cityor benefits getting rid of old we used to hang outs and you're G to make really I think you're meeting every aspect of Richard Patterson I I agree with everything Tom said and and again how this could negatively affect title flooding beats the heck out of me uh it's not going to make one difference positive or negative it's not going to affect the title flooding uh and I also think the parking is crucial here uh I also think the setbacks are very sufficient you have 18 feet in the front um the other uh the other places have parking in front of their their houses which push them back which is uh makes it harder for these people so I think it's a beautiful project uh I think the fact that you with only six units is very commendable I know we met with a developer preliminarily and he was very Cooperative uh uh for uh listening to the city's point of view and I approve Michael Richmond ating the um commercial is an improvement a benefit to the neighborhood uh I think that's the setbacks because of the um is skewed I think that's almost like a hardship to try to have them conform that their set backs I also like I said before the property line actually sets in from the uh sidewalk so it says 15 ft but in reality uh John said about 18 ft from the from the sidewalk um I think in that area with all the uh other um multif Family buildings I don't really think that the height variance is a problem the uh the roof pitch is like I said imperceptible you can't really see it between the two roofs that um exceed the pitch that is required 512 I think it's a great project um and I'm going to approve it Margaret goer um so I think the site is certainly well suited for the use proposed um quite frankly I think that this project and thank you you did a great presentation is a gift to the city of Margate I mean it's a gift this is a great project um it lends itself to The Pedestrian Cor parking the parking is more important than the Landscaping at this point it's flood compant it's below density positives certainly outweigh the negatives it promotes the betterment of our community andam stepen ji as I mentioned before flooding is my biggest issue here and and although it is title flooding storm water flooding is a big issue but I think you understand the bioengineering that we're trying to do with creating a more of a big sponge underneath by raising up the level got about four feet so I'm in favor of that I think that two feet okay but even still it's good um the roof pitch I think negligible um and the fact that you had this building teered back tear this back because I was afraid that we were going to be looking at a 40 foot wall as we walk down Washington Avenue and that could possibly happen if it wasn't for this if it was for something else I think those benefits approve Andrew Campbell I really appreciate the um commitment that all of you guys made um to improve in this property and uh it's going to improve the surrounding areas as well um the concession that you made to to either get the landscape to 35% by eliminating some spots of the off street parking um just showed me that um you guys are willing to work with us on that and I I agree with Tom and some of the other board members that it's not going to make that much of a difference the the 5% um when we lived on this Island forever and all the flooding comes from the Bay Title flooding um and then picking up four spots on the street is huge so I'm in favor Rich Tolson per approval is granted seven in favor and zero oppos thank you very much thank you yeah we do I have uh this is Pinky's last meet pink for the board I got one too very very Pinky's last meeting I mean you know obviously I think pinky was a great board member because I chose her as my vice chair I think she had a lot of common sense I always appreciated everything she said I think she was very openminded um I just as a friend human she's a great we still doing business here would you keep it down please Anon Steve keep it down it's been an honor my honor to be on the board for the past I think it's 12 years or so I think it was 2012 12 years um I've been privileged to work alongside the board members that are present and that are no longer present um I think I made a positive impact on a city that I raised my family that I love that I will continue you th night but thank you all so Mike just real quick before Leo goes I guess everybody knows between zoning and planning i' meting I know you didn't plan any speeches it's time for young younger blood in ideas go in the right direction you'll still be part of planning process you know you know I go Florida I go to the hardware store a lot and and Tom and I really have some good um good yeah just us two though cor right it's uh over the years Bill Ross appointed me I had an extensive background f people that I've met here it's been a long ride it's each time going from AE forec doesn't always work you know to was I took it as a compliment the only thing I have real quick we our our January meeting is not scheduled so what were you looking at P the Third 30th 30th it was did weed it last year we put out technically it the right way maybe we maybe we schedule we'll we'll we'll check if not if not we're going to schedule for the 30th 30th would be better at the on the 30th we'll have our 2025 calendar that we'll review and approve that so either way it's going to be the 30th whether it's scheduled or not that's it um I hear a motion to charge that second all in favor thank you