[clears throat] >> Mike Richmond Rich Patterson John Pitts Dan Adams, Craig Palmisano Rich Tolson Johanna Persky Herb Asagno Steve Jesaki
Drew Campbell Sam Friedman Patty Rosenberg >> Okay. This meeting is being held in accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Notice has been advertised in the press and posted in the municipal
building and on the city's website. Applicants are advised that if your application is approved this evening please come forward at the conclusion of your case and approach the board administrator Palma to sign a form outlining the process for obtaining any
required building permits and or mercantile licenses. Members of the public wishing to speak during any case must wait for the chairman to open the floor for public comment. All speakers will be sworn in by the board's solicitor and
must state their name and address for the record. >> [clears throat] >> We're going to do the approval of minutes for the meeting of March 26, 2026. I'll second. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Abstention, Mr. Chairman. Motion
approved. >> Okay. Approval of decisions and resolutions 13 2026 Helena C. Hoopenwasser C variants relief. Number 14. 2026
8509 Atlantic LLC minor subdivision approval C variants relief checklist waivers. Number 15 2026 Daniel and Shelley Feldman C variants relief. Number 16 2026 Jane Laurie Weinstein C variants
relief. Number 17 2026 John and Jamie Duke C variants relief. And number 18 2026 Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg C variants relief. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> Aye.
>> Aye. >> All righty. Our first case is FFL Investments LLC. 7701 Ventnor Avenue block 204.03 lot 3 the CBD zone.
Preliminary and final major subdivision and site plan approvals to allow construction of four new detached single family dwellings. Current on taxes, water and sewer proof of notice provided and the attorney is Steve Eisenberg.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Eisenberg. I typically uh turn it over to my engineer pretty quickly. Uh so I'm not I don't appear in in front of my
gate very often, so I'll take the lead from you. >> Okay. I'm just going to get Mr. McCartney sworn in for the night. Mr. McCartney, please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you will give this evening will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll give a little bit of background for
the board's benefit and for the applicant's benefit as well. Thank you. Um Report is based on the application of FFL Investments LLC major subdivision variances. And yeah, this is the This is already approved back in 2022, I
believe it was, and it was a use variance to allow residential single-family residential development in the commercial zone. And then that was approved, and then the subdivision was based on joining S-25 single-family zoning. So, they needed a couple of variances
for that. But, the subdivision was never filed, so it expired. So, by by rule, they have to come back here and reapply to the board, even though the use variance still continues. So, they don't have to vote
on testimony for the D variance, uh just the subdivision, but they're going to display to the board what they want to do and why. Uh and yeah, I believe it's uh pretty much already been approved. There were a couple of conditions from the prior application that, in my opinion,
continue to this application. I'll just go through the applicant will go through the application and then the report real quick. Uh stream is zone AE, elevation 10, so all new construction has to abide by those uh rules. This is a substantial benefit variance for the variances
other than the subdivision. And the applicant was previously granted a use variance for single-family use within the CBD or commercial business district, which does not permit single-family use. The use of major subdivision with conditions were granted on January 27th, 2022, and memorialized on
February 24th, 2022. The subdivision was prepared and signed, but it was never filed, and thus things have been cleared as the subdivision approval, as I mentioned, has expired. So, the re-hearing is for the confirmation of the variances
already approved and to also go through the S-25 zone and so on page three of my report shows the subdivision and then the three or the four lots were each
individually and you see the four lots, one of the board's suggestions was to push the houses further away from Vattner Avenue than they were approved to do and they agreed. And so, I had a wrap-around porch on Vattner Avenue side as well as the side
streets. They agreed to do that. So, there was a variance inherently because of the porch on Vattner Avenue is required to be 5 ft. They got a variance for 2 ft. I think the board would want to reaffirm that. Again, that's to show that the there's two front yards. The board
wanted it to look like two front yards. Uh the now side. And I think they're going to have renderings. Perfect. Um landscape coverage they needed to do 2% landscape coverage before. I presume that's the same. So, I'd say that was approved. But again, they need to
reaffirm that. And one variance, two variances that were that were rid of was the setback from the corner to the driveway. They it's required to be 10 ft. They had 9.67 ft but they re- the testimony before was to get eliminate that variance and they did and
it's reflected on the updated uh subdivision plan. And all the other engineering uh comments from the prior application were addressed. And I will turn over to the applicant at this time. So, thank you, Mr. McLarnon.
So, >> Did you get the memo? >> He's the attorney but it's John, are you going to take the lead kind of? >> John's John's going to take the lead, yeah. So, Mr. Barnhart, the engineer is going to take the lead in about 30 seconds, if not 15, if I can do it quicker. So, one of the questions that Mr.
Barnhart asked me to address on behalf of the applicants, what we got here, why we here again, as was pointed out. So, when we asked for the subdivision approval back in >> in the microphone? >> Oh, sorry. When we asked for the subdivision approval and this board gave the decision and resolution back in
2022, we hadn't anticipated that FFL would complete the purchase of Sonny's gas station or Sonny's service station as it as it became a little bit more promptly than we did. So, finally last summer, Sonny's ceased operations, we completed the purchase. We are ready to move
forward full steam ahead for the subdivision to be fully completed. As everybody knows who lives on this island or comes to this island, I used to work at Castle, so I've been here forever, although I'm not local anymore. Um the gas station is gone, it's level
land, so FFL and a local builder plan on moving forward forthwith to get the subdivision completed and houses built. With that introduction, I am done as the attorney. I'm going to introduce Mr. Barnhart, the engineer. >> All right.
Mr. Barnhart, just give us your name and business location for our records. >> [clears throat] >> Sure. John Barnhart, licensed professional engineer, licensed professional planner, certified municipal engineer in the state of New Jersey. Office address, 400 North Dover Avenue, Atlantic City. >> Okay. Please raise your right hand and swear and affirm the testimony you'll give tonight will be the truth.
>> I do. >> And Mr. Barnhart, licensed planner and engineer in the state of New Jersey, he's been here numerous times, we'll accept his credentials. >> Yes. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Um so, this application is probably new to a a good number of you, actually. Um so,
I'll give you a little bit of a background so you understand, you know, where how how what evolved over the approval process and where we are today. Um but, I won't take too much time in doing that because as Roger described it's um, this is essentially kind of a re-opening of exist of of an existing
approval. But, this property was known as Sunny Sunoco forever. Um, it was um, it was uh, it sat um, uh, unused for a while. The building was was finally torn down. But, prior to the building being torn down back in 2022,
um, our firm was fortunate enough to obtain an approval, um, which was a use variance approval. The board recognized that residential is a more appropriate use of this location. Um, and the use variance approval was to essentially establish this this land to be used as
though it's an S-25 zoning district. Um, so so these the land was divided into four individual lots and each of the lots would met and still do meet the S-25 standards all the way around. That use variance is that does not have
an expiration period as Roger identified. So, that use variance is not something that I have to get into all the long testimony of this evening because that is still a valid approval because that ran and runs with the land. What the reason that we are here this evening is because uh, this being a four-lot subdivision
actually classifies it as a major subdivision. But, major subdivisions in the state of New Jersey have an expiration period um, and we have passed that expiration period. Um, there the you you heard the description by uh, the applicant's attorney with regard to um, move moving forward. But,
the one the one piece that um, that we didn't talk about in detail is one of the real reasons that this took so long is because of the cleanup issues that were that were surrounding the property. Um, the property if if you drove by it, I'm sure you saw cleanup operations taking place. There's been a number of monitoring wells in place around the
property um, monitoring the cleanup is complete, but the monitoring of it is still ongoing. Um, and if you're familiar with with cleanup operations, they take a whole lot of time, they take a whole lot of financial resources, and they tend to make real estate deals delay. And that's
that's what brings us forward to today. Um those topics have been resolved. Um but because the subdivision has actually technically expired, uh we need to re-ask for it so that we can finalize um the recording process. Give you an example of how close we were before
things stopped. Um this this plan was signed off on uh by Margie. We had a conditional approval by Atlantic County. Um I still to this day have a package in my in my office of the Milo plans that were going to be circulated for signature, and then things kind of went sideways with regard
to the environmental issues. And so, fast forward 3 years, and here we are. Um the C variances that were requested with the original application, um Roger pointed them out. One was with regard to a driveway uh distance from a corner, which we have actually resolved and eliminated that variance. And the other
two variances were for setback to a porch on Vetner Avenue, and then overall landscape coverage. Um those variances were not variances that we actually originally were were were seeking to go after. We were proposing a by-right project originally, um but the board at that time, and the couple of
members I'm sure remember, were were very concerned about these two corner houses ha- were having looking like they have two fronts, having a front on Vetner Avenue, and having a front uh on Claremont and Delavan Avenue. So, the proposal was to was to develop porches that wrap the front of
the building, which obviously reduced the overall landscape coverage, and then also necessitated a front yard setback variance. >> [clears throat] >> This would be the view if I'm standing on Vet- standing on on Vetner Avenue looking back at the property. So, um you you can see um that the these porches
actually wrap both of the fronts, um and they give a front curb appeal both on Vetner Avenue, and then obviously they have front curb appeal um on Claremont, um and then also uh on Delavan Avenue. So, the deviations that were granted we think are very minor in nature. Um they
were with purpose to create a more aesthetically pleasing element to the to the two corner lots. We think that all the justifications that were put forward in the application the first time certainly still hold true. I'm sure everybody will be happy to see this property finally developed and
moving forward as compared to sitting as it has for the number of years. We are at a point where if we're fortunate enough to receive the approval this evening the minute that the resolution is is adopted we intend to circulate the plans for signature for final signature so
that we can officially record the subdivision and move forward with the construction of the homes. The home builder that's that's going to be building these is chomping at the bit to get started. So this you will not see any delays this time. They are prepared to move immediately
and even from the cleanup perspective as I mentioned the work is done. It's just a modern process and they've established the wells around the perimeter so that they doesn't impede construction and they can continue to monitor it as required by by state law. >> Do we have any reports from the DEP? >> Uh >> Monitoring reports?
>> I do not but I don't know. >> So I have I don't have any final reports from the DEP because it was a commercial property at the time. So [snorts] it's a um >> Tell us what >> closure report. It's a I'm forgetting the name of the other report. But there
have been submissions to the DEP already with regard to the cleanup of the site. And the testing was done which is what led to the well monitoring. So we're in the 6-month phase and we'll see what the wells report on in the next looks like two more reports before we
get out of the 6-month phase. Um but most likely from what the test results were and I can pull up the name of the testing company the the cleanup company on my computer. I don't have it on my list. Um we expect that it'll probably be a 3-year monitoring period.
And then we expect closure. It was It was a couple of reports that came up just out of normal which is then triggering some additional reporting and well monitoring. But >> And that's in the ground water, right? >> In the ground water, yes. >> And all the soil is in
>> The soil Sorry, yeah. I don't I don't want to speak over you. I apologize for that. Um I know it's not as formal, but uh all of the soil was completely removed and clean fill put in as part of the remediation process.
So, they had hoped that they would get every last speck of potential contamination up considering how they took all the soil out. Contamination usually floats at the water level, uh but apparently there was a little bit above the acceptable level that remained. So,
uh they did some additional testing and some additional remediation and now we're in the monitoring phase. >> Right. And all four lots will be on city water and city sewers. There's no wells. >> Correct. >> Potable water. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Yeah.
So, just so you know I know you you're talking. So, when you originally came in it was a 2-ft setback for the portion of the vent right in my opinion that was a portion of the setback. >> that approval was to push the houses back which the current plan shows it at 3 ft. >> Okay, great. And it shows the complying curb cuts.
>> And it shows the complying curb cuts for the two corner lots as well. That's correct. >> of the conditions in the file after some discussion, but that condition is now reflected on the new plan. >> That's correct. So, we've actually been able to learn from the first hearing and adjust. >> Okay.
Good job. Do any of the board have any questions or comments? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. But, good Roger, on page nine of what we received tonight where your comments are. >> Yes. >> And you had the bold print confirmation required on the comments.
I'm not going to assume that. I'm asking think these were been >> Yes. >> I just want uh >> [clears throat] >> John, we can go through the comments real quick. Just get it on the record. >> Sure. >> Uh use variance is granted that this will get S-25 zone will be utilized. We already have that granted.
>> Correct. >> Uh shifted quarter lot proposed structure going forward 1 ft and I believe >> Yes, the submitted plan shows it was 2 ft originally and now it's 3 ft to the decks. Correct? >> So that's confirmed. The patio should be pavers on a sand base or a stone base.
>> That's correct, yes. >> Okay. Uh the subdivision must comply with the title recordation law. >> Which is part of that final review and signing of the map when we submit it assuming that we receive an approval, correct. >> Confirmed and it's ongoing. Uh checklist items and the waivers, I
believe those waivers that were granted before should continue today. >> Agreed and we're not asking for any additional waivers. >> Correct. Uh grading plan, you have submitted that. That's confirmation. >> Yes. >> Confirmed. And the lot numbers have been adjusted
already based on the tax assessor's office. We we prefer that. So that's lots 3.01, 3.02, 03, 04. Correct. >> Uh yeah, I believe that's correct. I don't I I don't I wouldn't I'm sorry, we have shown them on the plan now, yes. Yes, correct. Yep.
>> Um and then deed restrictions, there's no deed restrictions. The DEP did not impose any deed restrictions based on the monitoring wells or I guess obviously they can't be disturbed. >> Correct. >> That'll be a condition of approval.
Any environmental issues, I I believe that attorney just discussed that. If you have any reports, we would require a copy of those reports for our records. Um front yard setbacks, you addressed that. You actually pushed the house back a little bit further, so that's confirmed.
All rear yards shall comply with setback requirements based on elevations. Again, that is confirmed. Driveway setback, that's confirmed. It's going to be pushed back at least 10 ft. Uh no trees shall block or interfere with the viewing of any regulatory signs.
And again, that you still need county approval for the subdivision and >> Yes, we we actually already have county approval. >> Right. >> Yeah, we have a conditional county approval and um what once we resolve this issue, then we will go back for final with the county. >> Whatever they permit on Vetner Avenue is what they permit.
>> Correct. They've required sight triangles, correct. >> Right. And I believe they're all there. Um And again, items number 14 and 15 you would just address and we're we're good on those. So And You're welcome. >> Back.
>> Check off. >> Yes. Sure. >> What's your name? >> So bottom left would be the view from like looking at it from Vetner Avenue. >> Right. >> That's looking at it from Claremont and then this is obviously Delavan. >> Could you
talk into the mic? >> Sorry. >> Thank you. There you go. >> I think it's on. No, that's not >> No, it's not on. >> Green for go. >> Yeah, the red light button wasn't on. >> It's on, the green light is
>> The lights are at the top of the table. >> The Vetner Avenue properties are this corner one right here and this corner one. >> So um I'm a little confused because on the site plan
where you're showing the stairways and the bump out it's seeming to correlate. Are these plans that are just fitting in the cabinet? >> I'm not sure what those are. >> Those those are not um
Those are like basically um plans that aren't uh being utilized right now. >> Yeah. >> But that aside, if you're showing the stairs on the front side or the bedroom side and I don't see that there are stairs up
here and you know, you got to see the guy you know >> Yeah, I would actually agree with you. Um but I'm just looking at the dimension of the porch. Those You are correct. Those those stairs do need to be added to the to the site plan. You are correct
about that. You're talking about the decks and things? >> Where the stairwells are. Like I'm assuming that's what it is. It's the boat docks. >> Where are you looking specifically? >> Right there. Right here. From >> You got the the side projections?
And then if you look at the front of the house is it this is the line of the furthest point out and then you can see the different the different building lines as you go back at different elevations. Correct. >> You know.
All right. >> The stairs do need to show. Yeah, I agree with you. >> And and if you there would be sidewalk or something coming down to meet the public sidewalk. And And and then this was all pavers in the back. Is it Are there pools planned for
these houses? >> Not on this plan, no. >> They're one on another plane? >> No, I mean that No, this is the this is the plan we got to approve. This is the plan we're asking for approval of. >> [laughter] >> Oh. This The proposal is is just a patio.
>> Okay. To the extent there was some other um alternative plan in there, it was probably my fault that somebody at my office was having some good imagination that day. So, we're going for the original Rodeo
plan, the exact plans that were approved previously in 2022. >> Do I understand correctly that the the two homes on Dana pushed back maybe on we have What What is the the porch setback now for the
>> So, the original plan back in '22 had a 2-ft front yard setback to the edge of the porch. The plan that I have before you this evening has a 3-ft setback to the edge of the porch, which was a condition of that prior approval. >> And then that changes the
the weight side setback. And what's the What is it now on the >> Um now it is uh 8 ft to the to the main body of the house and then 6 ft to the uh to the to the projection. >> Okay. Anybody else on the board?
>> Yeah. >> So, >> Okay. >> Jeremy. >> Are the addresses Claremont and Delavan not Rednor Ave? >> They are They are known as uh let's see
2A >> I know this is not >> Um >> Yeah, one of them one of them That one had the vet near Yeah, the two corner lots actually have Vetner Avenue addresses. >> Although the front door will be on Del Van and Claremont. There won't be a
front door on Vetner Avenue. Tax assessor made ask you to change those addresses then. >> Well, I mean we we They were assigned by the municipality, not by us. >> All right. We'll just say confirm with them that >> Yeah, we can re- we can reaffirm that or
reconfirm that. But those were not I mean we don't ever try to select an address. So, we got them from the city. >> [laughter] >> So, those steps will affect the landscape coverage? >> So, I have to look at that, Roger. They actually They actually will a little
bit, but This looks This looks longer than um what's on the architectural plan. So, I have I do have to confirm that, Roger. >> I mean the steps allow you to go down to 30%. So, as long as you stay within that 30%.
>> Oh, well then we're fine actually. Yeah. With the stairs going down, yeah, then cuz right now I think we're at 33 and 35, so So, then we would be fine. If we can go down to 30 with the stairs, then we'll be fine. >> It's one of the caveats of the new limits. >> Okay, anybody else on the board?
>> Yeah, I have >> another question. >> So, you moved the two rooms on Vetner to the back. If you move them back another foot, you would eliminate the variances for the porch. >> We actually requested those variances. The board did.
>> I know you did the porch on I wanted to look like the front ones. >> Right. >> So, they can still leave the porch on. And slide the house back another foot. And they they eliminate that variance. >> Why would it I Is it 3 ft now? It wouldn't eliminate the variance cuz
the variance is 5 ft. So. >> Plus you're going to be getting into the combined side yard setback. >> Right. Okay. Anybody else from the board? Anyone from the public like to speak? Public portion is closed.
>> All right. If there's nothing else, I'll just summarize the meeting. So again, we approved this virtually identical plan back in 2022. Some different members are here, but it was a planning board. We're still the planning board acting [clears throat] as a board. The use variance and the
planning board were for the single family home there in the uh special business district. So that was the use variance. That carries over. That relief is no longer necessary. So what they're back for is that they didn't have time to perfect the subdivision.
So we have a preliminary and final major subdivision approval to uh reapprove subdivision so that they have time to perfect it for the four lots. And there's a preliminary and final major site plan approval. Um
the variances are on lot 3.02 and 3.03, which are the Ventnor Avenue lots. The porch setbacks are at 3 ft where 5 ft is required. Total landscaping coverage at Rogers, if my understanding is that when they put
those stairs on there, they can go down to 30. So those variances could potentially just go away. Or they still need >> Uh I believe because the steps weren't There was no front door and steps before. Now they're adding steps. So now that could trigger the allowance of
variance. >> Okay. >> So, it could possibly eliminate the variance, but it's possible. >> Okay. Okay. So, right now, total landscaping coverage is 33% with 35% required. >> And they they're going to One of the conditions will be the setbacks on the plans, which might lower your
requirement to 30%, which sounds like you might be those variances could go away, but I'm going to note them. Um And if you check with waivers that were previously approved submission items, they're all detailed in our report. We
went through a bunch of the comments. Um conditions Those were the condition in the prior approval that you had to move the the setbacks back to 3 ft to make the current variances go away. That condition's been satisfied, so and it's shown on the plan.
The other conditions in in the prior approval were just our standard ones, which will be reaffirmed, you know, subject to any outside approvals, subject to any representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing. Uh subject to anything else in this staff planner's report unless otherwise addressed, we'll reaffirm the allowed
addresses are not under the tax office. It sounds like you got them from somewhere, so I assume that that that they'll just say, "Yeah, that's what we want." But if they want to change, that shouldn't be a big deal. And um Roger, do we have to say anything about the monitoring monitoring wells? They won't be disturbed or anything like
that. I'll put that in there. Shall not be disturbed and we would need the reports results of that. The construction office will will be over it at some point. >> Okay. >> And provide results of tests to the construction office or something like that. So, that That's the
review. The gain is it was previously approved and and have they actually stuff happened, so they're just back there with reaffirmed prior approvals. The use variances that are already approved, so they don't need that again. So, we'll need a There's no further
question. Need a motion a second and we'll call the vote. >> I understand this is expired in 2018. Why is um the the two houses over there in the double and a half lot? Um backyards. And the one on the corner over there is
a single house. How do you figure that out? >> That was actually Westover. Or that orientation. >> That's a side yard. >> Yeah. Right there. Wouldn't that Wouldn't that be a side yard? >> That's a side yard, yeah. >> Because it's a side of the corner lot. >> Okay, I got it. Okay.
>> John, I think there is a waiver that you need and I'd say updated survey. The survey is submitted with the application. Shows the gas station still there. >> Oh, okay. Well, you know we'll we'll we'll just update the survey. We We need We need to anyway, so
>> Right. Our city was going to do that. I suppose it'd be part of this application. >> Oh, okay. Okay. >> So, just so you know that I'll make that a condition too. You're You're willing to do that? >> We'll update the survey, yes. >> All right. So, we need a motion and a second and a
roll call vote. >> I need a motion. >> I'll second the motion. >> Mike Richmond. >> Yeah, I'm going to approve it again. Um last time they came in we asked for some things and uh uh they were amenable to that. So, I think it's going to be a
nice project. I think it's going to be nice to get that lot something built on it and uh I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson Rich Tolson >> Based on the conditions being met at the
previous approval by a previous planning board, I will approve the online. >> Johanna Perski Herb Pisacano >> I'll approve. >> Drew Campbell >> I approve. >> Sam Friedman
>> I also approve. >> Patty Rosenberg I can't hear you, Patty. Please speak. >> I approve, but I do not like that lots are close together. >> John Pitts Motion carries eight in favor and one opposed.
>> All right. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right, our second case is Dr. Richard and Robin Goldberg, 17 North Nassau Avenue, Block 214, Lot 3, in the S-40 zone. C variance relief for minimum side yard
setback and combined side yard setback to allow installation of an elevator at the existing single-family dwelling. Current on taxes, water and sewer proof of that is provided. The attorney is James Swift. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh board
members, thanks for having us. My name is James Swift. My office is at 1335 Tilton Road, Northfield, New Jersey. And I'm appearing this evening on behalf of Robin Goldberg and Dr. Richard Goldberg. Robin is here with us tonight in the front row. Um
Richard is an orthopedic surgeon. He's working. He would love to be here cuz this is an important application to uh the Goldberg family. We are simply This is a simple application, um board members. We are requesting that the board hopefully uh
return a finding that this is an appropriate application to permit the Goldbergs to install an outside elevator on the right side of their property, basically at the end of the driveway. Um the property is largely compliant. We
need side yard setback on the right side. We also need combined side yard setbacks and a relatively minor uh building coverage from compared to what it presently is. It's presently 48% uh building coverage. We're going to ask
for roughly 50% And if you could take a look at the at the plans, the only part of it here that we're going into the setback is this little bump out roughly 7 ft 10 in for the elevator. I would expect the
board to say, "Why are the Goldbergs asking for an elevator that only goes to the first floor?" And the reason I'm giving this information is not basically to you know, guilt you into approving this application, explain what we're trying to do.
The Goldbergs have two family members, very close family members who are um have major significant physical challenges. If the board wants to hear specifically what they are, Robin can explain them, but hopefully you'll take our word for it. One of the family
members is not ambulatory at all, so they can't get up one step, let alone seven or eight steps. The Goldbergs took historically an old property, which was in really poor condition, have made it absolutely beautiful. We're We're asking for the board's consideration so they
could simply have their family members come down this summer. First floor elevator will access the first floor. >> We This is the ultimate plan that's before the board this point is subject to multiple modifications.
The reason that we we went back to the drawing board multiple times is to honor the purpose and the integrity of the Margate zoning code, and also to to be considerate to the right neighbor. Um The Goldbergs have spoken to that
neighbor. The neighbors have no issue with this at all. It's simply a very minor modification to the property, which will permit the Goldbergs to have their family members here to enjoy the property. It's as simple as that. I don't want to make it complicated. At
this point in time, I would like to introduce our professional, Mr. Bornhardt, to explain some of the technical >> Thanks, Jim. >> Thank you. >> Jim. >> Yes, sir. >> Did Did you >> Yeah, I just want to make a couple comments real quick. Just to
supplement what Jim said is that this house couple years ago was raised by right. Elevated out of the flood zone to the minimum minimum highest standard we can have. And so I was aware of the floor plans, and there really is no other place for that elevator.
So, I was privy to floor plans when they come to lift. So, I worked with the architect for months trying to jockey around a location, and we always came up to this one spot and there's a parking issue that went away. It's not a parking issue at all. RSIS
allows us to go down to two spaces because they need two and a half based on the number of bedrooms and RSIS would allow you to eliminate the 0.5. So, John, I >> Thank you, Mr. Barnhart. And and the bottom line, too, if I may maybe let's
think um a lot of places those comments is that Mr. Barnhart also looked at this application and we said, "John, can you position this elevator in such a fashion that we won't seek any variances?" And he said
from a practical point of view, it is no. So, that is basically consistent with uh Mr. Barnhart's comments. And also, too, the uh the the Goldberg, when they initially got the property, it was a disaster. And Roger, you remember, and they made it absolutely beautiful. So, we're asking
for some of the board's consideration to let them enjoy it a little more. It's not going to farm. It means nothing to anybody else. My apologies. So, Mr. Barnhart, sorry to interrupt you. >> All right, Mr. Barnhart, could you give me your name and address real quick? >> Uh John Barnhart, 400 Northover Avenue,
Atlantic City, New Jersey. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth? >> I do. >> Your credentials are accepted as an engineer? >> Yes. Thank you. Um >> [clears throat] >> As was already uh pointed out by Mr. Swift, I Mr. This is a pretty uh basic
application. Uh it's for one topic and that is an elevator. Um the elevator only going to the first level uh of the of the building as you see in the plans that were submitted uh as part of the application. Um the deviations that are being requested are with regard to overall building coverage. Uh it's just
2%, very very minor. You can see uh the small size of the structure as compared to the development on the lot. Um and then the side yard setback from the side wall of the elevator shaft uh to the right side property line uh where 8 ft is required and we are proposing 5.4 ft
I believe the number is. We look at this type of application we use the word de minimis. It has very little impact frankly either positively or negatively on this property or any of the surrounding properties. But what we think is a key item to this type
of application and it's interesting your Morgate's ordinance actually has a provision that allows for deviation in the set back for ADA purposes. It's actually it's actually 175-30-C6. But that section of the ordinance talks about ramps. Well, ramps when that was
written they were feasible. You know, you had your state your finished floor was 3 ft 4 ft above the ground you had a ramp in. That's that that doesn't work anymore. Just to put into perspective to to develop a compliant curve compliant ramp to get into this building would be about
108 ft long. Um so that's what we're talking about here. So we have a condition where if you want to make this building ADA compliant it's an existing structure. They beautified it they raised it they didn't tear it down and over build the lot. Um this is their only option. And
you know, the idea that this is that this is out of necessity it's kind of proven by the fact that they're only going one story with it. They're trying to keep it as minimal as possible. So you know, is this a hardship? It's hard to argue that it's a hardship. Um is it benefit to the community? We think it's a benefit in that it keeps a wonderful
family together in in this house that they've spent so much time rehabilitating and continuing to beautify and they're putting a lot of thought into what the structure will look like. It so it does it does tie into the character of the architecture of the building. But this is the type of application that you really have to look
at the negatives. What are there any negatives? Is is this is this substantially hurting the neighbors? Our opinion is not because the deviations are so minor. Is it substantially harming the zone plan or the zoning ordinance. I would argue that your zone plan zoning ordinance contemplate this. It's just
that it's a little bit outdated based on what the requirements are now for finished floor elevation. So, we believe that from the positive and negative criteria, um that both are established with this application. We think that there is no harm to anybody whatsoever. Um this is obviously a a needed thing
for the family that lives in this home. Um but they've done it in a fashion that's very respectful to the zone plan and very respectful to their neighbors. So, for those reasons we believe that this application can be granted. >> John, I just one question for you.
There's no consideration going to the second floor either? I mean, I know you don't want to now, but maybe a suggestion would be is to allow that there I I don't want to see you come back here for cuz he need that elevator to come back up again on the one more story. So, the suggestion would be
ask for the two floors and then they do the one now and if you need to do our elevator later on, you can do it. >> I If the board is comfortable with that, we would be thrilled thrilled to amend it based on that. >> I think it makes sense.
Yeah. >> Give us some flexibility. >> Right. >> If you make a condition up to two floors. >> Yeah. >> I guess we So, we respond to a >> Or up to the second floor. >> Make an application to amend uh
our application consistent with the zoning officer's comments. >> So, recommendation >> Obviously no objection. I mean, Robert, right? >> Thank you. >> It could be a condition of approval that we we Okay. We'll allow we'll allow that. >> Thank you for pointing that out.
>> Again, I just don't want to see you come back here for the same thing. We can prevent that. >> Thank you very much. Um can I >> That's all I have. going to ask you >> questions? >> Sure. >> Uh John, you've obviously reviewed the plans, right? >> Yes.
>> You're obviously familiar municipal with the municipal land use act, right? >> Correct. >> Would you submit submit to the board in your professional opinion that this application is de minimis in nature? >> Absolutely. >> Would you submit to the board that this application furthers the municipal the
purpose of the municipal land use act because it would permit the Goldbergs to enjoy their property slightly more and accommodate some family members who passed some challenges? >> Yes, I agree with that. >> And would you submit to the board that this doesn't do any sort of injustice or or harm to the purpose of the mortgage
zoning code and zoning ordinance? >> For all the testimony I've already provided, I agree with that. >> Do you see any negative or downside? >> I do not. >> All right. I have no further questions of uh Mr. Bongard. >> Okay. All right. Anybody from the board?
>> Chairman, just one question and this may be more for the construction officer than us, but the anticipation that the building will go from one to two floors may change dimensional construction
support for elevator in that >> Not really. No. >> Just >> No, it won't. >> You don't think it will? >> It's going to be the same foundation if it's one floor or two floors. I've done a I've done a few of these. Okay. Um anybody else?
Anyone from the public like to speak? Public portion is closed. >> Okay. If there are no other questions, it's to see there any application elevator shaft to work. Variances are applied.
Are the following the side yard setback on the right side? There are 5.4 ft elevator and 8 ft is the requirement. And there's also the combined side yard setback, they're at 18 and 19 and 24 ft is the requirement. Building
coverage, 34.2% is the permitted. They're at 48 about 48% are going to 50%, so about 2% increase. In terms of the conditions, I'll note that part of our approval is allowed the applicant, should they
choose to go go to the second floor as well. The initial proposal is just to keep it to the first floor, but they'll have that discretion or flexibility and the standard conditions subject any outside approvals that may be required. Uh
Anything else in Mr. McLaren's report unless otherwise addressed. Any representations made by the applicants will be complied with and uh It's pretty much it. Need a motion, a second, and a roll call vote. >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second.
>> Mike Mike Richmond >> Younger and I approve it. Uh it truly is at the minimus request. Uh they're not taking away a parking spot, which I think is important. So, uh I'm going to approve it. >> Thank you.
>> Rich Patterson >> With the fact that this was a rehab so therefore they had no choices to where they where to put the elevator. Uh and they didn't have to rebuild the whole house. Uh and regaining the parking spot I approve the application.
>> Thank you. >> Rich Tolson >> Seeing there's no negative effect on the community and you're hearing no opposition from the neighbors certainly [clears throat] a necessity, I approve the application. >> Thank you. >> Johanna Perski >> Um nothing further to add. I approve.
>> Thank you. >> Herb Sagina >> Um you're going to have to make your family members feel comfortable, I I approve. Good. Thank you. >> Drew Campbell. >> Um I don't see any negative um
issues with this at all. And uh it'll probably bring up the property value as well having this in there. So I do approve. Thank you. >> Sam Friedman. >> I also approve. I can have one consideration observation that should we
approve, we are approving the second floor that should there be any mechanicals uh that raise above the existing roofline or uh for the second story elevator uh that
they be blended in and be compliant with with elevation, but uh as long as that is all met uh and taken into consideration, I do also. Thank you. >> Patty Rosenberg. >> Um I approve. Thank you.
>> John Pitts. >> I approve. >> Motion carries nine in favor and zero opposed. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay, our next case is James and Christina McCrodden, 213 North Mansfield Avenue,
block 413.01, lot five, zone S25. Request to see variants relief for side yard setback and roof pitch to allow construction of dormers creating an additional bedroom and storage area at the existing
single-family dwelling. Current on taxes were and sewer proof of notice provided. The attorney is Brian Callahan. >> Good evening. Brian Callahan on behalf of James and Christina McCrodden. Property's located 213 North Mansfield. Just for the record, all jurisdictional
requirements have met. We're in the S25 district. It's a one and a half story single family home. The McCrudden's have owned it for 19 years. Mr. McCrudden is now classified as completely
disabled. He has a rare eye disease. Um the object is really has a circular staircase at the first floor level. That's really impeding. The object is to get rid of that circular staircase so that since he's now going to be living
down here on a permanent basis, his wife works in Philadelphia 3 days a week and comes down. It gives him the ability now to have one clear space at the first floor level. Bedroom, living room, kitchen, in and out of the house three steps.
Uh the second floor with the dormers is technically going to be kids and storage area upstairs when the kids and grandkids come down to visit. Um I have Mr. McCrudden here just to give you a little background on him and his both he and his wife are here. And then we have Mr. Donahue to give you
a little background on the layout of the house existing and what we're trying to do to modify it. Uh uh Roger, you want to Roger, go first? >> I I think we're all right. We're all right. Okay. >> Mr. McCrudden? >> Yes.
Right here. >> Talk right into the mic. >> I talk kind of loud, but talking into the mic here? >> Yeah, you got it. >> Okay. >> James McCrudden, right? >> James McCrudden, correct. >> You're the applicant, obviously. Uh please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth? >> Tr- I do.
>> Thanks. >> James, just give a little background. >> I I Okay. All right. Good. So, um um as Brian said, we've been here 19 summers. This is our 19 years. This is our 20th summer. Excuse me. Um
so uh we've enjoyed the property. Uh overall goal is to be here in 20 years if possible. >> [clears throat] >> So, uh what we've done over the last uh uh you know, um kind of kind of two or three years is look into kind of every aspect of what we can do with the property. Um
Just go on through [clears throat] one more time. So, um I have what's called an autoimmune retinopathy. So, it's an autoimmune disease that hits the the back of the retina. So, had it for about 10 years. First 4 years kind of sat dormant. Second 4 years at work, just got a little bit worse, you know, lost
my license, lost my peripheral vision. Last 2 years it's kind of, you know, really gone downhill. So, um you know, uh I can can't see in the dark and each year my vision gets a little bit worse, right? So, uh what we've done over the last 2 years
is we did a full analysis of all the different options that were available to us, right? Um our overall goal, I get out of the car, I walk up two steps, I walk into the house, then we have a lot, you know, a um living room, dining room, and then we walk through. There's pictures, I know, somewhere where
there's a big spindle staircase, um that uh is really the the gist that the gist of what we're talking about, but my background kind of correlates to that spindle staircase and what we're trying to do, right? With my bad eyes. So, um first thing we did was we looked into raising the property, right? So, we
thought, "Okay, we can raise the property." So, if we do raise the property, um you know, there were there were two issues with that. The first issue really was it's 13 steps. So, we're looking at the 13 steps and that's not really what we want. It kind of defeats the purpose. So, we're trying to
if we can, if possible, stay in this property and have it where we can just kind of walk in and not have as many steps. Second thing with raising the property was if we raise it, we still have all of those different issues inside the house with the staircase and how small it is. We'd have to open it
up. We'd have to do the same thing. So, uh we didn't really feel that was a viable um alternative. Then what we did was we looked at at knocking the place down, which was uh what some people told us, "You may be better off knocking it down." So, we did that. We did an analysis and we looked
and if we were building a new home, we're going to have the same issue, unfortunately. What's going to happen is we're going to still going to have those 13 steps, whether it's like seven and eight, it's still going to be a big walk up, you know, to the second floor. And my wife really doesn't feel comfortable
with us retiring near New Dorp Heights, but it's really up to her. She's the one that's kind of like looking after me as my as my you know, vision goes. The next area we looked at was, "Okay, we could build the house, but what we could do with the flood level is we could just go with the driveway next to
it, right?" So, we could go the 10 ft with the driveway next to it and then that would limit the number of steps. I think the steps were maybe seven or eight, something like that. So, you have the 10 on one side and the 6 ft on the other. The problem with that was if we did
that, our lot size is only like 37 37 and 1/2. So, if we do the 10 on one side and the six on the other, the size of the house is only going to be like, you know, 18 and 1/2 or 19 ft in width. So, we looked and thought, you know, it's
really going to going to be a much smaller house, like a box house. It's not really what we wanted, you know? Also, as we got further into it, we found out though when you have a small lot that's only 37 ft wide, you can't go up another story.
So, if we were to knock down the house, the maximum we could do anyway would be two stories. So, when we talked to builders about that, you know, all of us all of them said, "The price of building the home remains the same. There's not a real different
discount on the home just because it's 18 ft and it's only two stories." Most of the builders, once you go in and once you, you know, knock it down and dig that hole, you know, you're spending almost the same amount of money as you would on a large, you know, a larger home. So, um
what we've done is uh we came up with this and um and again, the yesterday is uh you know, um I have this issue. Everybody has issues, we realize that, but just based on the way my house is set up now, what we're hoping to do is keep this particular property, you know, uh we like the neighborhood, we've been
there a long time, and just be able to, you know, open up the downstairs, be able to walk in, and then, you know, hopefully have this set up. Uh uh we were able to find um you know, Dave Dave and um Rick who the architects are here today, they came up with this solution for us. And then, going up the one side,
you know, um it wouldn't include a little bit above, you know, as far as the ask goes, and then on the other side we're asking for um while they're up there, um you know, a little bit more storage space um in the property uh as we move downstairs. So. >> All right. >> Move down here, so okay.
>> of Mr. McCutcheon? Mrs. McCutcheon, do you want to add anything? >> Yes. Um >> Hold on. Rick, I got this morning. Let's get him seated. >> Okay. >> And you're Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> And you're Christina McCutcheon,
correct? >> Yes. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give this evening to be the truth? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes, I do. Yes. Hello, I'm um uh Christina McCutcheon, I'm Jen's wife, and uh we've been at that Margate house for about 19 years. And yes, we did our due
diligence. I mean, we looked at every avenue that we could have to make sure that my husband with his disability can enjoy his quality of life when our grandkids come down and our kids. And the one main thing is uh the safety hazard of these steps. And
the spiral steps is right by where you would go into our bedroom and our bathroom. And we're hoping um to uh widen that and get rid of these spiral steps that are such a safety hazard and keep the integrity of the block and not knocking down. We have
neighbors that been on that block. Some of them were 91, 80. We have great neighbors and we would like to keep the integrity of the We're getting older. We're I'm going to be retiring in about 5 years. So, hopefully we can do this for the safety
of Jim and that he can enjoy his family when they are coming down and we don't have to worry. If you notice if one of the pictures you see the fish hanging there and that was my idea so he would not bump in. He's bumping in to, you
know, things a lot. So, hopefully we we can do this and um and he can have a better quality of life. Thank you. >> Dave? >> Yes. >> Put the exhibit up. Want to give your
state your name, address, and qualifications. >> Uh sure. My name is David Donakai. I'm located at 300 Mill Street, Suite 235, Morristown, New Jersey. I'm licensed for to practice architecture in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. >> Do you want to walk them through the
project a little bit of >> Uh right. Right. Oh, sure. >> Mr. Donakai, please raise your right hand. You swear and affirm the testimony you'll you'll give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes. >> You're a licensed architect in New Jersey? >> And Pennsylvania. Yep. >> Yep. >> It's it's your problem. >> Is this first time appearing before this
board? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. You want to walk them through the site and what you tried to do with the property to make it accessible for Mr. McCutcheon? >> Well, because the the circular stair is difficult to navigate
and really a a tripping hazard, we decided to do a switchback stair complying with the building code to get up to the second floor, which is really going to improve you know, their ability to navigate that in lieu of what's there right now.
And the the the uh the slope on the west side was dictated to get the uh proper uh head height and also to match the the dormer on the right side that's existing and then we're going to do a proposed new dormer for where the
storage is going to be on the on the east side as well. >> So, right now we're asking for a variance for the existing non-conformity. One side is five 2.9, and that's going to remain at 2.9. And the slope of the roof is the 1:12 instead of 5:12 for height room. >> Correct.
>> Do you see that as having any type of a negative impact on the neighborhood, blocking anyone's light, air, or open space? >> Uh no, I see similar uh homes on the on the same block that look similar to this. >> This is a one and a half story house. We're not going up any higher? >> No.
>> Zoning, single-family house, single neighbor single neighborhood? >> Yes. >> Um this will give Mr. McCrodden access downstairs with And you looked at the other alternatives of raising the house, elevators, etc., and you thought that
both you and the client thought that this was the best alternative? >> Yes. With a good a rail, it'll be a lot easier to go up the stairs because the circular stairs are, you know, so hazardous to walk up. >> To the board, I don't have any other questions. I would open up to the board.
>> [clears throat] >> Anyone from the board? You're keeping it two bedrooms, right? >> Keeping the two bedrooms. >> Right. Okay. No one from the board? >> Uh >> What's Wait a minute. Hands up. >> I'm just curious, are the utilities do
we use that storage area for the >> No, I don't think so. Just storage. >> [clears throat] >> Um John, honestly I don't remember where we're putting it. Hey Rick, do you remember where we're putting the HVAC? >> Yeah, in the
in the second floor there's finished eaves so they have space to >> That triangular space? Okay, anybody else? Go ahead. >> Can we confirm that we're not increasing the bedrooms? >> Yes.
>> All right, and just to add in there, I think is the one dormer is overlapping with the other one, you need a combined side yard setback. The way the map looks. >> Yes. >> [clears throat] >> Okay.
Anybody else from the board? Anyone from the public? Public portion is closed. >> Okay, so another C variance application there's I guess that makes it three now variances. There's the side yard setback
to the building. Existing is 10.9 but they're just after putting that 5 ft to the requirement. And then there's also the combined side yard setback requirement of deviation. Uh the requirement is
13.32 ft. Looks like they're at about they're at 12.75 ft. So about a foot deviation there. And then the roof pitch uh 5 on 12 is required and for the dormers they're 1 on 12.
And then as far as the conditions on those are the bedroom but bedroom count will not increase. You know, the testimony was that there's two bedrooms. Anything else in Mr. McLaren's report unless otherwise addressed will be conditions. Uh
Applicant will comply with any representations made during the course of the hearing subject to any outside approvals and again, just the standard conditions. >> [clears throat] >> I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> Mike Richmond.
>> Uh again, I I think this is um a de minimis request for a good up uh a good reason. I know uh the roof pitch is one, you know, 1% instead of five, but they're small
dormers and I think there's a really good reason for it and I think uh moving into the future, we're going to look more at allowing more of a flat roof style in some areas. So, anyway, I'm going to approve it. I vote
yes. >> Rich Patterson. >> Uh this is a >> [clears throat] >> small addition to a small house but rather than having them start over, uh I don't see anything negative here. Helpful for you. I approve.
I approve the application. >> Rich Tolson. >> I agree with both chair and vice chair to approve. >> Johanna Persky. >> Uh I agree with Mike. I vote to approve. >> Herb Aschkenasy. >> I agree with the movers. I approve them.
>> Drew Campbell. >> Yeah, anytime we can keep um an existing house and just make modifications to it without knocking it down and putting a whole big brand new project up. Um I see it as a
benefit to everybody. So, I do approve. >> Sam Friedman. >> I agree with the board as well. >> Patty Rosenberg. >> I agree. >> John Pitts. >> Um yeah, there are other homes on that
block that have I approve. >> Motion carries. Nine in favor and zero opposed. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Our next case is Isidore H. May and 7803 Bayshore LLC.
7803 Bayshore Drive, block 1004.02, lot 9, 9.01, and 9.02, zone S-60. Wooderframe requests a C variance relief for rear
deck height to allow extension of the existing deck at the rear and left side of the subject property. Corum work on taxes, water and sewer proof of notice provided. Attorney is Eric Goldstein. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. McLarnon,
ladies and gentlemen. Eric Goldstein on behalf of the applicant. With me tonight is John Barnhart. Um He's going to testify. So, I know he's been sworn already, but Mr. Manos, can we get him sworn in for this application as well? >> [clears throat] >> John Barnhart, 400 North Dover Avenue,
Atlantic City. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you'll give this evening to be the whole truth >> I do. >> Thank you. Your credentials are accepted because >> Thank you. Roger, do you want to start it off? >> Yeah, I'll do I'll bat lead off on this real quick.
The the report is basically the application that is 40 May 7803 Bayview Drive, lot 1004 and 02. Lot 9 located in the S40 WF zone. And the WF zone gives a little bit more flexibility with building coverage
and setbacks in the rear, which would be to the bulkhead. So, they're here seeking two variances. One is the rear side uh deck height in the side yard extended and the other greater than 18 in and the other one is a deck extended into the natural side yard greater than 18 in as
to the rear. has to meet the building setback requirements. And 201 do. So, there are two variances and it's supposed to be that. >> All right, thank you, Mr. McLarnon. So, by way of background, the house is fully compliant setbacks, coverage. John
has a zoning chart, which he's going to go through in a little bit. Um meets and exceeds all of City of Margate's um zoning codes and the house has been in existence for a while. >> [clears throat] >> There is in the rear yard and in the
side yard, as you can see on the plan, a raised deck which is 2 and 1/2 ft over grade and which we're extending or attempting to extend into the side yard on the left all the way to the bulkhead and towards the rear of the
property where none uh presently exists. Uh John is going to testify as to the positive and negative, but just by way of background again, we've discussed in the past side yard decks that exceed 18 in and
this one is significantly lower than some of the other cases which we've um come in for in the past and more importantly, there are corridors on this property that allow access most specifically in the right of the property to the open bay and the
left side proposed deck is low enough that if there's an emergency personnel situation, there's plenty of room to get from the front of the house towards the rear, uh especially if there's somebody in the water that needs to be rescued. But most importantly, that John's going to testify to, with the addition of this um
deck in the side yard, if this house were built new based upon requirements to bring the grade up, we would probably not need any variances because the [clears throat] grade plus the new deck would be at the same height or lower than we're proposing now. But
John can explain that better. So John, if you don't mind coming up and uh taking over testimony, please. Okay. Eric kind of already spelled out the application, but um it's nothing more than a expansion of an
of an existing deck. Um the the rear the rear deck if you look at if you look at how it's oriented and how it's how it's uh existed for a number of years and just understand, our client did not build it. Um they they purchased the property as it is. And since they've been using the home, they've they've discovered that the way that their main
living area sits, that if this the portion of the deck, um which uh which would be which would be to the west of the pool, is is kind of where you want to walk out to and and the area of deck that they really uh want to be able to utilize. They currently have a couch there, um and which is where they sit
most of the time, but it is tight very tight to their to the edge of their pool uh when they sit in that area. So what they're trying to do is to expand the deck to the side yard um and a little bit toward uh the front yard, and that's in the in the tan shaded area that you see on the exhibit here.
The variance that that creates, as Eric already pointed out, um is because of the height of the deck uh being in the side yard, um it is not permitted uh at that location. We believe um that there are a couple of unique circumstances with this application that kind of sets it apart and makes it um
uh makes it an approvable project because it really we believe it really has no negative impact to most specifically our adjacent neighbor. So, why why do I say that? So, first of all, this the deck that we're talking about you know, many of the decks that we're dealing with now especially on new construction are at or close to finish
floor. They're way up in the air. This is not that. This is a deck that's only 30 inches above grade and the grade in this area or the grade on this lot is actually relatively low as compared to if this were new construction as they are pointed out. Many of the homes that we've done in
recent times we've done some on Bayshore, some other areas of town. With these with these waterfront properties you you try to elevate the grade as much as possible in order to get out of harm's way and then you end up with a patio in the backyard that can go to the side property line and has a beautiful pool
and what have you. This is an existing condition with an elevation of of the ground at seven and lower and a deck that's only at 9.75. So, we are not talking about a deck that's looming or that's way up in the air and looming over our neighbor. So, what we're talking about is expanding
that deck which currently if you visit the site between our deck and our neighbor's fence is kind of like a stone wasteland area. Our neighbor our our our client currently just stores some things in there for the winter. Um it really has no
value to our neighbor or to us the way that it currently sits. >> John, just so we're talking about that side yard and of the utmost importance, what is the condition of the neighbor's property on their side yard which would be the right side facing this property? >> Yeah, so a couple of things that I was going to that I wanted to point out is
that although we are going to the property line and closing off that gap, we believe that there would be no change in impact to our neighbor. Our neighboring property has if you look if you visit their site, first of all, their building is does have a conforming side yard so they're
not they're not overly tight to to non-conforming and and and we're right on top of them. They are in excess of 10 ft with their side yard, but this is also there the side of their house where all their utilities are. Their pool equipment is there on an elevated platform. They've got multiple HVAC
units on a platforms. They do have large landscaping in two locations on that side. Some of it's surrounding their their HVAC platforms. So, they're the elements that this that this encroachment would be up against. The other The other idea or the other
issue here that we think is a unique condition, and I'm going to flip to a different exhibit real quick, is that, you know, generally with these decks that go into the side yards, you've got competing neighbors. The decks want to go be up against each other. This one's too high. This one's down low. I'm now looking at my neighbor. It causes friction.
This is not that condition because we have a very unique situation here along Bayshore Avenue. If you drive along Bayshore, this this setback of the bulkhead to the property line is pretty much consistent from here all the way to the bridge. But, when you get to our client's
property right here, you see that the property's set back. So, the deck that we're talking about expanding is not adjacent to our neighbor's deck. It's actually It's actually It's actually in our neighbor's side yard, and you can see, like I said, he's got a little walkway there, but then you can see all of his HVAC equipment and his pool
equipment in that same side yard, which I'll call kind of like his back of house area. Um so, we believe that if I'm sitting on that couch as it is this right now versus if I slide that couch back to the property line and sit on it again, it has no change in impact to our
neighbor. And we believe that it has no real negative impact to our neighbor by making that change. The positive obviously to our client is a more usable space in an area that is more appropriate because that's where he exits or they exit the rear of their property from their living area.
So, we believe it's obviously it's very important to our client, but we but this is the case where we don't see uh, the negatives associated with it. We we have a unique condition here, um, because of because of the orientation and the and the and the depths of of this lot versus
our neighboring lot. Um, interestingly enough, if you look at some of the properties, some of the more narrower properties, you'll see that a number of those properties actually are at grade patios that do generally go to the property line. Um, so it's just that that's not how this house was originally constructed. Um, so from a positive
negative criteria standpoint, either positive impacts or can working within the confines of what they have, uh, this is not an overly high building. The finished floor is not is not, you know, not extremely high. They don't want to modify their their, uh, the elevation of their deck. You know,
they tear the deck out, bring it in, build it up higher, relocate the pool to get that living space on the exterior where they want it. That would be a project that they could go forward with, but frankly, I would say if they were to do that, it would be more impactful to the neighbors than if they keep it at that low elevation and just expand it,
uh, into the side yard. >> And Jeff, one of the things that's important, of course, is and you showed [clears throat] on your chart and it's in Roger's chart, that the house really does exceed all of the requirements in Margate's zone code regarding [snorts] coverages, landscaping, height. This is not a house
that's already maxed out. It's far from being maxed out, correct? >> That's correct. In fact, even with this expansion, the lot cover or the I'm sorry, the landscape coverage still still does comply. Um, and then also very importantly is is this understanding this site is not overbuilt with regard to the building itself. Um,
the building coverage is only at 33% where 40 would be permitted. So it's 7% under the building coverage. So, you know, it's the type of application you have to look at look at it as a whole. Um, this is not an overly developed property. We don't have a bunch of existing nonconformities. And even with
what we're proposing with this side yard deck, we do not trigger any type of coverage-related variances. So, for those reasons, we believe the application can be granted. >> You You any negatives, you only see positives. Is there anything else that uh, we could add to the board by way of [clears throat] explaining that this is
different than the cases you talked about earlier when the decks were 6 ft up and the neighbors are competing here. Here you've got the deck in the side yard right next to the mechanicals of the neighboring house. So it would appear to have an impact on nobody, but it would be a great benefit to the property. >> Correct. And you keep in mind when you
look at the when you look at the negative criteria and what the actual test is, it says is there a substantial negative impact to the to the zone plan and is there a substantial negative impact to the public to the public. I said it once, I'll just say it again.
My opinion is that that the impact is negligible because if I'm sitting on that couch what here versus 30 in away or or 4 ft away moving moving toward the property, it's not going to change the noise related issues, it's not going to change the sight line related issues.
Because it is tucked back in, it does not create a view issue with regard to our neighbors. So we believe that there really just is no substantial negative impact uh in any fashion. >> And one thing that's important of course we always talk about the board is concerned. This is not the kind of case
nor is there any zoning case that creates a precedent for others to do this. This application is specific towards the lot in question and nothing else. >> That's correct. And and as I've already pointed out, there is there is a this is definitely a unique circumstance because of the configuration of these parcels.
>> Mr. Chairman, we would rest subject of course to being able to provide more testimony if necessary to have established the positive and negatives so we would put in the hands of the board. >> I [clears throat] have a question. >> Yes. >> So is there anything happening in the front of the house?
>> As part of No, not that I'm aware of. >> so why um the landscape coverage um it's 67.9 and now it's gone to 58.8. What's what the the front yard landscape?
>> Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure where Roger, do you know where those numbers came from? >> No, they don't go by their zoning track. >> Mhm. >> Their zoning track. >> Okay. Okay, yeah, I just don't understand.
>> coverage complies in the front yard and there's no change to the plan. >> Okay, good. Great. All right, anybody else from the board? Okay, anyone from the public? Public portion is closed. >> Anything else, Eric? >> No, I think, you know, standard conditions if the board sees fit to uh
grant. I think John put on the case. Nobody from the public is objecting. Um we would rest now and ask for a vote. >> All right. So, there's going to be three steps on the left side of the house? >> No, just So, there won't be any extra steps. It'll be uh the same steps that will just carry
over to the won't be I don't have to ask John. >> So, they're going to carry over across the alley way? >> The steps are going to be moved over and then the area that's the steps now will just be deck. >> Is that what you asked him? >> Yeah, no, that I understood.
Sure. >> Um the fence Who owns the fence? >> The existing fence? >> Yeah. >> The one that's at the property line? >> Yeah. >> Um I believe it is >> Is it It goes all the way out to the neighbor's? >> That's the neighbor's >> Yeah, I believe it's just cleared the
line and it's on the excavation >> It's It's the neighbor's side. >> So, there's There's still going to be a railing on the deck? >> Yeah, yeah, there has to be. Yeah. For safety purposes, it has to be a >> Okay, anybody else? Okay. >> All right, there's
two C variances that are somewhat related, right Roger? It's >> Yes, one's technically in the side yard, the other one's in the side yard extended, but in the rear yard. >> Got you. Um
So, those those those are the two variances then. That That deck's over 8 in from grade in the side yards must meet the the ample side yard setback requirements or going to zero. It's already non-conforming through They're going to zero and then
the rear yard extended How am I saying that? The The rear yard occupies the whole side to side. >> Okay. >> The way the ordinance reads that side yard setback extended through the rear yard has to be clear. >> Got you. >> That's it.
That's the other variance. All right. And Um terms of conditions I guess just the standard ones we put in [clears throat] every resolution. Anything in Roger's report must otherwise address any representations made by the applicant
uh subject outside approvals. Any other agencies to approve this. And uh Any representation made by the applicant to provide that. That's pretty much it. So, those variances Uh >> [clears throat]
>> motion second and roll call vote. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> Mike Richmond. >> Yeah, I I don't have a problem with it. Uh I looked at the property today. The uh space on the left really is dead
space. Uh there's a lot of um the neighbor to the left there's a lot of space in between that property and um where the deck is. Plus, there's a fence there. So, really uh the fence in the front doesn't um
in other words, you don't have a a quarter there because there's a fence. So, you can't see down there because there's already a fence there because of the pool or whatever. So, I really don't think it has a negative impact
on the neighborhood or the neighbors or the city of Margate and Ungaro property. Thank you. >> Rich Patterson. >> No. I wouldn't consider it as space. I consider it a violation. We changed this rule specifically to
prevent this in 2016. And I would recommend [clears throat] that we change one line. Uh you say there's no negative impact. If I was the neighbor, I would think it was a negative impact. So, I don't see a benefit here and I see
a negative. So, I vote no. >> Rich Tolson. >> I I tend to agree with Mr. Patterson. I think it's an overreach. There's a beautiful deck there. Existing pool next to the bay. Um seems to be plenty of space to enjoy
life comfortably. Um valid approach on that portion of the zoning. So, uh I vote no as well. >> Johanna Persky. >> You know, both of them said that I think um more than anything the neighbor
is not his house is perfectly situated for the lot that it's on. And uh I actually think that tidying up this space >> [clears throat] >> on the side uh on the side and keeping everything level
from a safety perspective as a mom I I like having everything level. I like you know, if there's guests or children, they're going to be able to see everything out and not wonder what's going on on this side that's lower and
it's a different >> Thank you. >> Herb Pisagna >> Um I'm going to vote no. I don't see any positive impact to the to me that would be I would appreciate the chance to write a letter of opposition to my neighbors. So, no.
>> Drew Campbell >> Yeah, um I get that there's no substantial impact to the neighbors. And uh their pool equipment is on that same side. Um but you're asking to make a
non-conforming deck um still non-conforming. I'm going to vote no. >> Sam Friedman >> Looking at this piece of property and natural
uh the natural way it is set back uh if there is if there is a property where building out to the lot line would be acceptable in my opinion it would be this one. I would vote yes
for it. >> Thank you. >> Patty Rosenberg >> If it's the main argument safety around the pool where is the sofa? If you take the sofa, you're just going to give them sofa and give them a different wall.
don't understand what you mean by the main argument about the pool this So you mean the main argument was the safety going in, you know, in front of the seating area and the pool. I'm not sure that's correct, but okay. That's not a part of our application,
however. Said I'm implying to say no So is that enough? John Pets. Yeah, I don't see any benefit to the community for this appliance Motion fails three in favor and six opposed.
Okay. Our last case is 109 South Argyle LLC. 109 South Argyle Avenue block 1.02 lot six zone S30 C variance relief for walls within the front yard setback to allow construction
of a tiered landscape including plantings and masonry retaining walls. >> [clears throat] >> Current on taxes, water and sewer proof of notice provided. Attorney is Kevin Balestrieri. Yes, good evening, Mr. Chair, board of
professionals, board members. My name is Kevin Balestrieri. I'm an attorney with the law firm Panken Paladino Weinstrub Bell and Lebov. I'm joined this evening by my client Seth Lear, who is the owner of the applicant LLC, John Barnhart, our professional planner and engineer,
to my right, Connor McInerney, who's our landscape architect, who came up with the plan that was submitted with the application, and Mr. Ted Leeds, our builder. The subject property is 109 South Argyle, which is block 1.02 lot 6 on the beachfront of South Argyle.
By way of brief background, we were here before this board in May of 2024, at which time we obtained variance approval to raise the house to make it flood compliant while also preserving the architecture and the character of the home and community, as well as doing several other things,
making the parking compliant, uh proposing a code-compliant bulkhead, landscaping compliance. So, that application was approved unanimously. We're here this evening seeking a C2 flex variance
to construct a tiered garden landscape with retaining walls in the front yard setback. Essentially, along with the application materials, I submitted a a number of photographs that were taken both before the house was lifted and currently. Look at this first
photograph, you'll see that as a result of the house being lifted pursuant to the prior approval, we now have this big, you know, concrete wall in the front. And so, came up with this we think is a beautiful and creative design solution to kind of soften that look. And so, I
know it's been a long night and we're the last one on the agenda. My client, builder, our landscape architect are all available in case the board has specific questions for them, but I'd like to start off with our professional planner and engineer, John Barnhart. >> Okay, John. Mr. Barnhart, just state
your name and address real quick. >> John Barnhart, 400 Northover Avenue, Atlantic City. >> I do. Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, before we begin, does Mr. McLaren have anything to add or >> Yeah, I'll let you uh >> Okay.
>> I defer to you. >> Thank you very much. Mr. Barnhart, can you please give us a an overview of the plan being proposed tonight? >> Sure. So, um I'm going to jump over to the site plan that's on the on the screens right now as well, but um as uh Mr. Barnhart has pointed out, this
was a this application was a subject uh of a of a uh couple of variances that were granted prior to this home being built. Um and one of the things at that time that the board approved um was the height of the finished floor uh going to a higher elevation and and
the deck in the back going to a higher elevation than was permitted by ordinance at that time. Um if you recall, um and this was actually you've done a few of those on the ocean front in the last few months, years. Um this was one of the first that that came in at this elevation. And if you
recall, the discussion at that time was the looming NJDEP standards, um and there was talk back then as to whether or not they would actually ever even be adopted and whether it was appropriate to go that high. Fortunately, we were granted that that that approval that evening, um and
the board did exactly what the board needed to do to make certain that Mr. Lair wasn't under construction with a house right now that was going to be non-compliant with regard to its elevation in a few months. So, having the the floor elevation where it was approved has allowed Mr. Lair's
construction to take place in the fashion that when the new NJDEP rules are Well, they actually are adopted, but when the legacy period runs out in July, um this building will still be compliant with those standards. So, we're extremely thankful that it took place in the fashion that we thought it would and
that it ended up happening. What what has gone on since that time is the house is elevated, the house is under construction if you visit the site, um and Mr. Lair has recognized that while he had a small tiered landscaping plan in the front of his home, it just wasn't enough to beautify
the home. So, he brought in a landscape architect to develop, we think, a spectacular plan, which is a multi-tiered type of landscape, which really creates a solution that gives the Although the building floor is high, it
creates a solution that gives a a terraced or tiered effect as you're coming up to the home. So, you don't have that stark wall or the need to hot or the need to try to hide that wall with landscaping that is oversized, you know, high trees, things that might end up being overgrown over time. He
they've developed this this tiered method. That tier essentially follows the stairs that come out. So, on both sides of the stair, you've got these terraced walls that bring you up to the deck elevation that is that is currently in place.
The reason that a variance is is is required is because these wall elements, because of their height, end up being higher than what would be permitted in the front yard setback. That's the reason that we're here. Are they Are they going to be perceived as as six or seven-foot walls? No,
you're going to see small pieces of the walls as they terrace up and have landscape among them. So, when we look at this application, we said, and one of the things that was was brought up earlier is, you know, I don't see or, you know, are there any community benefits here? This is a case where Mr. Layer has the
opportunity to finish his property exactly the way he got it approved, put some lawn and landscaping in that area, have a stark vertical wall there that he would try to mask cuz he's got a beautiful home, but he's going to an even greater extent or an even greater level. The this these are structural walls,
they're going to be supported by piling. These are This is a This is a major endeavor just for the purpose of beautification. So, when we look at this application, we say, this is clearly a C2 type of application where the benefits of the deviation outweigh any the detriment.
Um, I think obviously the benefits here are beautification. Um, this takes this property to, you know, to the next level. These type of projects, they all struggle with how do you appropriately treat these your building when it's that high out of the ground. This, my opinion
as a planner, should be a model for how you want to treat these these types of buildings when they're this far out of the ground. Unfortunately, this comes with a very, very large expense. So, it's not everybody that's willing to do something like this in order to create such a beautiful effect uh for the front of their property. So,
but Mr. Mr. Ware has a major investment going on here. He wants it to be uh actually spectacular. It is right on the oceanfront. Um, and we believe that this will do nothing but beautify this block, which is obviously a benefit to the community. So, when we when we when we
balance the positive and negative criteria, the positives being uh a tremendous aesthetic enhancement from what was already approved. Uh, the negative criteria here being is there a substantial detriment to the zone plan or your zoning ordinance. Um, I would argue that frankly I don't believe that the zoning ordinance really contemplates
something like this. So, there's not really a standard to apply to it. You know, we're talking about a wall in the front yard not being permitted, but this isn't a wall. This is a this is a bunch of of segments to create this terrace effect, which has no difference in any type of view blockage or or than
than are the permitted stairs if you're looking down the street uh or walking toward uh the oceanfront. >> [clears throat] >> So, we believe there is no substantial detriment to the zone plan or your zoning ordinance. And with regard to any substantial detriment to the public good, again, I would argue that this is a benefit to to this neighborhood,
specifically to this block uh from an aesthetic perspective. So, um we have uh looked at all the conditions in the report. We've we've gone over them with our client. Um, we don't have any objection to any of those conditions. Um, Roger brought up a couple technical items with regards to
flood vents, um which obviously we have to comply with the flood venting requirement. and Roger, the the ports behind this wall is actually you can walk under that. So, that the area is still able to be able to be fully vented. Um and then I think I already addressed your comments with regard to how these
walls are going to be constructed cuz you were concerned about scour. These walls are going to be on piles with a grade beam and wall built basically like a foundation wall. Um so, we again, we can address all technical comments and we believe that this is truly just a benefit to this block. Um and I just reiterate, this is
not something that is required of Mr. Larry. This is something he wants to do to make the property more beautiful. >> So, vertically you're you're adding landscaping, but question would be since you're adding walls, does that reduces landscape coverage? You're
adding impervious coverage. So, where do we stand with that? >> So, we had one wall on the plan as part of the original approval. >> Right. What was your total map on the >> Bear with me one second, Roger. >> [clears throat] >> I'm working on it, yeah.
>> This is the plan from the last application. >> But this was all concrete before, right? >> Yeah. I think it was. >> Okay. Roger, too, if you look at the originally approved plan, um in this area, there the walkway there
was a walkway that from the stairs that led actually along the back of the um of the sidewalk that it was on the property. Here you can see you can see it here. This whole area right here was all impervious surface. So, that is actually gone that is actually going to
landscaping. So, the landscape architect has essentially balanced that out so that it has not changed the landscape coverage. >> All right. We can get [clears throat] compliance plans that reflect that. >> Yeah, we'll we'll we'll provide a calculation to show that. >> I do agree. I I I like this look. Um
I think it does so that house does not look like it's an elevated house. Uh up in the air. I think it really softens it. Um again, when Ted brought it in the the showing, I said, "I can't I love it, but I can't approve it. It's got to come here."
Um it's something to consider. I mean, we're we're going to not have a choice with these higher homes everywhere. Especially on the beach blocks where they're, you know, the BFE's higher than the than the back bay. There's wave action, but uh
Ocean City started incorporating and allowing the terraced uh walls and garden terraced walls back in like 2014. And I think it really helps alleviate the sheer height of the building.
>> And and that was the exact intention. Like you said, Roger, to to soften it, to to beautify the the environment. Um if you remember back in the last application, in addition to addressing parking and landscaping and and a new code compliant building my client also volunteered to to do the the street end bulkhead voluntarily. That was not a
condition of approval. He's really going above and beyond to try to make not just his property, but the whole end of the the beach block there look as nice as possible. And I want to give kudos to Mr. McInerney, our landscape architect, who not just came up with this plan that was submitted with the application, but
on very short notice was able to turn this around this rendering to give you a more of an illustration of what it's going to look like. So, with that I have nothing else to add, um, but we're available for any questions the board may have, Mr. Chair. >> I have a question, um, for the landscape
architect, actually. So, it's beautiful, um, and I agree that it definitely softens the look. I don't see any native species on this plan, and being up against the beach, I'm wondering,
why you didn't incorporate any native species at all? >> Mr. Manos, do you want to swear him in? >> Yeah. Okay, Mr. Mr. Just give us your name, please. >> Conor MacAnearney. >> And your office address? >> Uh,
it's P.O. Box 8, Spring House, PA. >> Please raise your right hand and swear and affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. >> I do. >> Okay. Not really testifying as an expert, as well. We don't need to swear him. >> So, this this plant list,
really the focus was kind of getting these walls in place, like the elevations, the layout, just really the the layouts of the the hardscape was our our primary focus. The clients are not We're still going to develop this plant list. We
we kind of had these as as placeholders. Um, you know, we have the mugo pine, the switch grass, the the juniper, which is a little more native leaning, but I agree this is a little bit of a more of an ornamental that I'd like to see, especially on the dune.
>> Just so it's successful, you know. >> Low maintenance, successful, doesn't need a ton of irrigation, right? You want it to to be natural. So, Seth, the client [snorts] and I were we are going to take another pass at this. This isn't like the final list or anything. His wife is really the plant
guru. >> Yeah, and I encourage to explore more native species. >> Absolutely. >> Just so it's low maintenance. >> plant. >> Right. >> Because of the environment. >> Um yes, excuse me. You you have to come up and
>> Just [clears throat] give us your name and address, please. >> Setler, 109 Setler Argyle Avenue. >> All right, Mr. Setler, please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm that the testimony you give will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. >> It's a struggle maintaining any plant because it's so harsh there. We think the height of the bulkhead will protect
most of the beds and we might be a little bit more flexible. But over the 20 years we've been there, we probably replanted at least three times everything cuz they just don't survive. So we two are looking for what works best, what gives some color
variation, what makes it appealing and we'll work with Connor to try to and my wife obviously to get that done. >> Would you would you consider kind of like a hybrid or do you want to see all specific natives? I mean, we thought native plants that can give us that pop
[clears throat] of color that we need. >> Right. I'm not saying it has to be 100% but I know that like milkweed does thrive right up against the beach there and you get beautiful monarchs that are migrating through here and it's worth it. The golden rod.
>> Beach rose. >> has to be a lot but it will succeed on the that like top beachfront lot. So if you could incorporate something like >> That's it. >> I don't know what those specific plants are so you'll have to work >> I think Mr. Setler is certainly
open-minded to that. Obviously, he wants to consult with his wife and take a look and see what it looks like. We would agree to keep an open mind certainly with respect to incorporating some native planting but it's hard to say right now what we're going to plant without like having the information in front of us. So we're not opposed to that idea.
>> I have a question. >> Yes. >> [clears throat] >> Um just taking into consideration heavy downpour rains, is what's going to keep the soils from floating up and over and onto
the pavement and other areas. >> Connor, John, do you want to go that one? >> [clears throat] >> Like when it rains here, people's mulch like suddenly is in the middle [clears throat] of the street. >> I think the retaining walls should help with that, but I'm not the expert. >> So, I mean, the uh
>> So, this is Ted Leeds, our builder. Can you swear him in, too? >> Mr. >> Uh, Mr. Leeds, Ted Leeds is your name? >> Yes. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. >> I think we got to everybody. Look at that. >> Yes. >> [laughter] >> Thanks. >> So, um,
how we would handle that in a in a normal situation, we would do it here was just have, you know, drainage each one of those tiered planters will actually have drains at the bottom, rocks, drains for draining normal water, but also overflow
would be piped out to the to the curb. Like all, you know, like gutters and, you know, basically we do it all over town for whenever we've, you know, it's no different from heavy downpours coming off a roof down a downspout that we collect and run
underground and shoot out on the uh you know, house side of the curb. So, we would do the same thing with that, too. >> Practically what we do every year, because we deal with that every year from the like Practically the way we deal with it every year is for the spring cleanup, I
have the crew come in and dig out all the old mulch and take it down to the soil. Otherwise, you're mulching and mulching and mulching and everything flows over. So, we've always been able to take it down to the point where the retaining wall where the stones keep everything in place, and that's an annual maintenance
kind of process. >> Plus, if you have the raised beds, like if you if we if we weren't going to do this scenario, then you know, you'd have a basically a level area to the wall and if you get any type of flooding or you know, from
the ocean or whatever, it's going to it's going to wash it out anyway, right? And I'm sure does the water run from Atlantic Avenue toward down toward your street, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah, right. And then it goes into the uh >> Into the drains. >> underneath the bulkhead. >> Okay.
>> So, um I think that really alleviates a lot of of the problem that um Joe was talking about with the wall. >> Again, typically in a retaining wall design, you'll you'll have subdrainage and you've got some storage capacity at the bottom to relieve the hydrostatic pressure
against the back of the wall. Part of the corporation. And you had really good sandy soils there. >> I've got a couple of questions that are just more curiosities for me that don't reflect the rest of the drainage side of it. >> Right. >> Uh the street end bulkhead is lower than
the property which one bulkhead. Is there a specific reason for that or is it not the same height as the property front bulkhead? >> From our perspective, it was respecting our neighbor's desire to be able to see over the bulkhead. >> Mhm.
>> So, 15 ft was very very high. 3 ft was 2 ft higher than what was there and everyone thought that was a really good height. So, it was to accommodate really the neighbor's views. >> Thank you. And when you get too much into the weeds, can you just talk to me a little bit about the construction? Are they going to be piling the main full pilings
under the big uh a home? 10 ft >> Yes, full length. Yeah, they'll be full full pilings under the home. >> Um actually, the pilings in the footing are already installed. >> Okay. >> And were inspected and and uh but um
when we brought in the full plan before moving forward with it, we you know, that's when I spoke with Roger and we realized we were going to need to come in for a variance for the height. >> Go ahead. >> Question just before I What's underneath the deck that you said you walk on?
>> So >> Permeable surface. >> Under here? >> Did you pour a slab under that? >> No, so that is pervious. Anyone else from the board? Anyone from the public? Go ahead. >> Lucas Levenson, Esquire. How are you?
I'm here on behalf of the Do you want my my home address or my my office address? >> as like a property owner or as a lawyer? >> Yeah, I a lawyer for the property owners next door, 107 South Argyle. >> Go ahead. You don't have to say where. >> Okay. Um
So, I'm I'm here definitely to support this on behalf of the uh um owners of 107 South Argyle, who are also um my parents. Uh I also have a 1/3 interest potentially in that home, so I like seeing things like this.
Um you know, the Layers have been neighbors of ours for over 20 years and and great friends. Um I believe over a year ago my father was here to support them raising it and uh if he said okay to that, I know we would say
okay to this. Um but when this came in came in the mail, I said, you know, not again. Uh but I did not think it was something looking like this, which um you know, the 100 the uh 100 South block of Argyle
has a certain aesthetic to it, I feel like, and uh one thing I love about Margate is no beach block parking. You get a lot of people walking to the beach and that's really the point of things like this to preserve an
aesthetic and and colorful and looking nice that not just giant fortress walls. So we we definitely support it and um That's all that's all I really have. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much.
Anyone else from the public? Public portion's closed. >> Mr. Chair, I would just be repeating myself at this point. So at this point we're just going to ask for a vote. >> Okay. Uh I'll summarize the unless there's any other questions I'll summarize the two
variances. The two variances are tiered wall systems in a front yard where walls aren't permitted and the wall height I guess is maximum is 6 ft where 4 ft is the permitted maximum wall height. So those are the
two variances. Um The applicant turned in the conditions as making the client's plan show in the landscaping calculation and you're comfortable that that will be complied. John? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And uh we want to make it a condition but just
you'll keep in over mind about uh uh Joanna's comments. >> Absolutely. >> And um the other conditions will be uh anything else in Mr. McCormick's report that otherwise address up in any outside approvals and needs of any
representation made going forward with your just your typical standard conditions. So it's those two variances and a motion second and a roll call vote. >> I'll make a motion. >> Second. >> Who gave the motion? John.
>> Who Who made the motion? >> Approved. >> Mike Richmond. >> Uh yeah. You know, you I was down at the property today and the bare masonry wall I just it's almost overpowering And I don't care if you put
stone nice stone on it or thin brick or Azek or whatever, there's nothing that's going to compare to that look. Um I think it makes all the sense in the world. Uh especially being on the right on the beach and you know, the
the flooding and whatever. If you even if you did something nice there with a bunch of trees in the top, you know, they're going to suffer. At to some extent. Um I like Johanna's um comments also. You know, I I like getting back to more
of a a natural landscaping that's going to attract the the monarchs and the caterpillars and you know, I think that's important for the ecosystem for the island. Um So, I
I love this idea and I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson. >> Sometimes listening to testimony is like listening to Charlie Brown's parents talk. But tonight >> [laughter] >> that certainly wasn't the case tonight
with this case. John, I commend you on your presentation. I I really think this is would be a model and a unique solution to a not unique problem. With all these houses going up. I mean, that Nassau Avenue lot, walking
children make a lot of noise, but you've got this giant 10-ft wall staring at you. And to look at that drawing, you wouldn't know the house was raised. So, I think this is an absolute benefit. I think it's a model for the future and
I absolutely approve. >> Rich Tolson. >> I agree that it could become a model, certainly an improvement to all neighborhoods and something that we should aspire to. Beautiful incorporation of
natural flora is appropriate. The fact that you're using hand-laid real masonry always appeals to me. So, I vote in favor. >> Johanna Perski
>> Um it's beautiful. I think it should be peaceful and should how we address differences raised and so I vote >> Herpus Agna >> It's very nice improvement to look at the grade aspect.
>> Drew Campbell >> Yeah, I really like it. Um I think it's very um aesthetically pleasing and looks beautiful. Hopefully, this will be a model for future homes. Um I know that I have to redo my
landscaping in my house. So, I might talk to my contractor about doing the same thing. Um So, yeah, I approve. >> Sam Freedman >> The pride consideration and preparation
for the presentation was echoes [clears throat] the the amount of amount of thought that was put into this uh and solving this this wider uh problem. I think it's great um and it also echoes the community engagement of
the of the approval. Um that is that is that is supportive of this. So, yeah, absolutely great job. I approve. >> Patty Rosenberg >> I think it's a a beautiful presentation as well. I really like the Joey comments
about having the native planning native plants included. As we everything has to be that way, but you know that's good. The percentage of good percentage in there and I am really like great also that we are great at just showing
it looks like a house of yellow and it makes better than being erased house. It will be a lot of substance there and I would certainly like to walk by it. >> John Pitts >> Yeah, in addition to the native plants
that Johanna mentioned, take a look at the palm and bayberry survival blooms. I spent the better part of a week walking around town trying to find homes that had similar heights and similar designs. There's one in specific on the parkway that doesn't have walls and
I walk by it daily and it's rained and it's got lots of mulch which is in the street. This design will resolve that so that's great. I'm looking forward to seeing it walking in the street on South Arden Ave and I >> Motion carries nine in favor and zero
opposed. >> Thank you all very much for your approval and wonderful comments. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Do we have any other questions? >> A couple of comments. You guys have got a couple of issues. I'd like to see something like this and
emphasizing more native species in our master plan and our ordinances. You know, the the city the state of New Jersey [clears throat] is already on their drought warning and water usage is is as an engineer I I I just think that's a
natural resource that we really start thinking about a little bit more. Um water reuse but then it's a different story there. I think native species and they reduce I mean, you're going to lose use a lot less water on that plan and fertilizers
and pesticides than you would on a on a lawn. Uh and you know, you don't have to cut this every every week. You don't have to mow it. It's something I would throw out there as a consideration. I think it's pretty good to incorporate it and think about it now while we're
doing the master plan. Um I'll be setting up a master plan meeting probably within a week or two to get the ball rolling on that. We have Jimmy McDonald on their contract now. We've been meeting him in the other towns and he's really moving us along.
I think he's a lot of good things and I know we have a subcommittee and we're going to keep that going and also we have an ordinance subcommittee too, don't we? I'd like to get a meeting with that together. It's It's the first ideas that we want
to possibly look at the master plan so we can do it and maybe address some items now. I don't think it's a bad idea. >> It's good. >> Other than that, update on Bag Needle. As you're aware, that he was found
unsuccessful in his attempt to hide six of the 12 units. Um he's appealing it on not appealing it but he's his attorney and he are claiming that there is a the judge has a
conflict. I don't I don't see the conflict at all and >> The judge would rule? >> Yeah, but yeah. They do what the attorney is saying that the judge has a conflict. If you want to use their logic, we're in conflict because we're related to Adam and Eve.
Well, that's that's the thing that we were going to argue against them and we're going to present to the court also is that he's been found guilty, let's say, and he's still renting the apartment or whatever you want to call them. That should not be allowed and that he's using that saying, "Well, I'm going to
put this person out on the street." You put them in there knowing that you can't have them in there. So. We'll succeed, but it's just it's it's time consuming and it's aggravating. Um basically, he admitted that there's 12 units, so we will prevail.
>> Will he have to take the kitchens out? >> He's going to have to do a little bit more than that if I have my way. >> Yeah, it's crazy. I don't know how he ever thought in a million years he would get away with that. All right. >> There's 12 units. Technically,
operating illegally. >> No. >> I don't know. >> He They don't have a CEO. >> Well, they don't have >> We're going to try to We're not here to hurt businesses. >> Yeah. >> And be punitive to his businesses, so
there's a way we can find out that a way we can get a TCO on a rotating basis, you know, we're doing three months, six months, whatever it takes to Yeah, with the understanding that you have to comply with the residential units and >> [clears throat] >> all of everything else and the site plan, the parking lot, the landscaping,
everything else that he changed on his own. But we don't want to be punitive to the business and and then but on the flip side, the rent he's collecting from that business is he's using it to keep his status quo against the city. So
>> So, the reason he doesn't have a CO is because of the situation or for other reasons? >> The situation. He doesn't have a CO because he was never permitted to have 12 units. >> Right. >> We look at it as the whole site. >> Okay. Okay.
Okay. So, there's nothing the liquor store is doing on its own that's in violation. >> She's renting one of the units. >> Huh? >> She's renting one of the residential >> [laughter] >> Yeah, but she didn't know. >> She did know. >> Oh, she did know? Okay.
>> Renting one of the section one of the She can cook two packs giving dinners. >> [laughter] >> Okay. No, they're uh >> Originally they were set up for two-year leases. >> So they're It's my understanding that the one-year leases I I I don't know. >> I don't know. We don't know who's in
there. That's the other issue. >> And then that one title >> Because every time you have a new tenant in there, you're supposed to have a rental license and get your CO, continuing use of occupancy. He hasn't done that. So
Just everything is wrong with him. >> But how many people are in there? >> We're not sure. We know there's 12 units. That means 30 people in there. >> Did you evict everybody? >> No, this is still on court. We should
>> Right. Okay. So, all right. But thanks for the update. All right. Motion to adjourn. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor. >> Mhm.