All right, all right. We're going to get the meeting started with a flag salute. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Okay, next is roll call. >> Mike Richmond. >> Here. >> Rich Patterson. >> Here. >> John Pitts. >> Here. >> Stan Adams. Craig Palamara. >> Here. >> Rich Tolson. >> Here. >> Johanna Persky.
Frank Passagno. >> Here. >> Steve Gysick. >> Here. >> Drew Campbell. Sam Friedman. Patty Rosenberg. >> Okay. All right. This meeting is being held in accordance with 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 Palamara 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 solicitor and must state their name and address for the records. All right, next is approval of minutes, April 30th, 2026. Number 19, 2026 FFL Investments LLC. Do
we want to approve the minutes first? Oh, sorry. I'll make that motion. I'll second. All right. All in favor? >> I. >> [laughter] >> Opposed? Motion passes. >> Thanks, Rich. >> You're welcome.
>> Approval of decisions and resolutions. 19-2026 FFL Investments LLC major subdivision approval C variance relief checklist waivers. Number 20-2026 Dr. Richard and Robin Goldberg C
variance relief. Number 21-2026 James and Christina McCroden C variance relief. Number 22-2026 Isadore H. May and 7803 Bay Shore LLC C variance relief.
Number 23-2026 109 South Argyle Avenue LLC C variance relief. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. All right.
Our first case is Matthew and Lauren Dorfman, 215 North Osborne Avenue, block 415 lot 4 zone S25. Request C variance relief for minimum side yard setbacks for the out construction of an addition at the
existing single family dwelling. Current on taxes, water and sewer, proof of notice provided. The attorneys are at the Colts. >> And Eric, I'm just going to make one quick announcement. I'm going to get Roger sworn in. Um it's not on our agenda, but if anyone is here for uh
the Wish Trust application, which is 12 and 14 South Union Avenue, block 122 lots 18 and 20, uh Mr. Balance isn't noticed for this evening. Uh it's not on our agenda. He's requested that the matter be carried to
next month's meeting, which is June 18th, 2026. It got changed from the 25th to the 18th. So, um you know, if anyone's here, I don't want you sitting here all night, but the the Wish Trust application which I just mentioned will be held on
June 18th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in this room. Applicant won't be required to re-notice or re-publish. So, you won't get anything else in the mail. Um this is your formal announcement for that. And with that said, I'll just get Mr.
McLaren sworn in for tonight. Mr. McLaren, please raise your right hand. You swear and affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. Sorry. Thank you. >> You can go first. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Manos, Chairman Palma, good evening. Eric Olsen on behalf of the applicants, uh Matt and Lauren
Dorfman. As um Roger's report states, which we fully agree with, this property is 215 North Osborne Avenue. Property is in the midst of a uh renovation project for
as Roger pointed out, an addition which requires uh variances for the exacerbation of existing nonconformities. Um mainly the width of the uh setback along with a uh portion of the house in the
rear that to match up to the front that needs um uh variance relief as well for porch, left side, and then combined side of the building. Uh with me this evening, uh Carolina Pena. Am I saying that correctly?
>> Yes. Okay. >> On behalf of Parallel Architecture, licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. Uh Mr. Manos, I'd like to have her uh qualified as an expert in the field of architecture, if you don't mind, and have her sworn in. >> Sure. Let's get Let's Let's get get her sworn in. Can she can give
us your name and business address, please? I know Eric said it, but I wasn't paying attention. >> Carolina Pena, 230 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. >> P E N A? >> Yes. >> Okay. Please raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you give this evening will be the truth?
>> I do. >> Okay. And uh She's a licensed architect in the state of New York. Okay. >> on I'm fairly sure you haven't testified here before, correct? >> I have not. >> It's a great board. Give us your qualifications. I'm going to ask uh Mr. Chairman and Mr. Manos,
the solicitor, to accept you as an expert in the field of architecture. So, the microphone is yours. >> Uh I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. Um also uh passive house tradesperson certified and member of the AIA.
>> You've been practicing architecture for how long? >> Uh 18 years. >> Chairman Mr. Manos, I would just ask that she be accepted as an expert in the field of architecture to give testimony this evening in support of the application. >> Yes. >> Okay.
So, uh I think Roger's first paragraph, I would have read that in, but I guess everyone can read that themselves. Kind of sums up exactly what we're trying to do here. Um we've got construction, second floor addition over the existing footprint, which of course exacerbates existing non-conformities
with the setbacks. Additionally, there's a garage that's attached that's being kind of partially demoed to make it not a um Okay. Contiguous structure, attached structure. So, uh Caroline, you're going to be able to say it better than me. If
you don't mind, I'm just going to pull this over a little bit. And um take it away and just describe the process as it is now, and then we'll go through with the variances we need for the setbacks so we can match up what's being done now to uh the proposed construction. Additionally, I had
submitted um a appraisal of the property. Mr. and Mrs. Dorfman have an appraisal so that we don't have any issues with the 50% rule. The work that's being done is fairly modest. They have a little bit of a buffer, uh more than a little bit in the work that's to be done. So, in case the board members have questions, we're
not going to be violating that. That, of course, is more for construction than for this boardwalk, so I just want to let you know they have obtained the appraisal and we can provide that if you need. But otherwise, take it away. >> Okay, so the main thing for us to remember here is that we're dealing with a existing structure.
Uh so, what we're doing is completely renovating the inside and giving the outside a facelift. Uh so, that facelift includes doing um a balcony on the front of the house where the existing roof
porch used to be. And then we're adding a little bit to the rear to make some space for extra bedrooms. So, what we're trying to do is follow the same line of the existing building and in the rear, we're only building on the second floor, not the first floor.
So, I'm going to just turn this around. >> And of utmost importance, of course, to this board is there's no addition going up over the second floor, correct? >> That's correct. >> So, we're not going to have any issues with height. We're not going higher than it needs to be. We're just taking what's there now and really sprucing it up.
>> Right. >> Okay. >> So, uh the the walls that you see in solid gray color, those are all existing walls. And the stuff that is painted um hash lines are all new. So, as you can see
we're leaving the first floor pretty much intact and then we're adding a little bit on the second floor. And then in the rear, we're detaching the garage and creating a set of steps and a way to get in from both sides. >> So, it would be fair to say there's no
expansion of the footprint on the first floor that would otherwise exacerbate the flood zone. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, we're not adding anything that can't be built under the base flood for FEMA and more dangerous zones. >> Correct. >> All of the work we're proposing is above
and also on the front left side of that. Correct. >> Well, what is What is the elevation of the first floor? >> Um right now I'm >> I I didn't see that. I can't find it. First floor elevation.
>> You know, do you have the survey handy? >> No. >> No, we we know this doesn't comply. >> Right. >> Doesn't Okay. >> What's 2 1/2 ft above grade? Grade looks like it's around 5 1/2. >> Grade is at like 4.29. It's 5.29.
So I put that 3 ft above that. You could say it's probably >> Well, with 8.29 it'd be 8.29 >> finished first floor. >> That's pretty low. >> Yeah. >> That's like my house. >> That's why we're not expanding the
footprint. We're going up and we're not adding anything that would be exacerbating this bad condition. >> Complete renovation inside and out? >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> How many bedrooms are existing? >> Existing were at three. >> Lose one. >> One. Lose one.
>> Lose one then. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Final street >> We'll We'll get a video. >> Okay. >> Just wanted to add. Existing one. >> Okay. >> And you can see we do have three parking spaces for the cars. >> Right. >> So we have plenty of parking.
>> What is the logic in getting rid of the kitchen? >> Correct. >> Is it going all the way down? >> No, no. So we're just cutting uh the wall portion. Just putting >> Right now there's a kind of a weird connection between the house and the garage. So that um Mr. Zagnoli's going
to be severed and the garage will exist separate from the house where now there's a small area that >> And they're totally different structures, too. They're not connected. They just touch. >> It looks like an overly long garage as it as it is now, isn't it? >> Yeah, and we're not really sure how it like
kind of got like it's like a hot pot of construction how it got built, but it looks like over time there were a number of additions and kind of modifications that were done. We couldn't figure out how. Um I think Robert's report actually even says in one area that um um it was the back in the day way of
doing it that it's just you put something on and you added something else and you wound up with this. So, we think these corrections uh are significant cuz it's going to bring it more into compliance with today's uh >> So, you're cut you're cutting [clears throat] the front of the garage back. >> Yes. Yes. And so, then there's going to
be a walkway from the driveway to to walk all the way around it without having to go through the garage. >> Yeah. >> It's enough for emergency personnel, right? 3 ft. >> [clears throat] >> Anybody else on board? >> Yeah, explain the curb cut.
>> I am not following the dimensions that we're seeing here. It's showing 8 ft 6 on here, but existing is 9 ft shared. It goes to this 3 ft in my documents anyway. I'm a little bit confused on
>> Yeah, so the driveway it's uh 8 ft 6. And then it gets Not actually, so that you're talking about the curb cut here. So, yeah, that's about like 12 ft I will say existing. And it's just like a depressed curb.
>> It's saying existing is 9 ft shared. Unless these documents are inaccurate. >> So, I have a >> And I'm just looking to clarify. I'm not waiting >> Yeah, so I have a copy of the survey here. >> Okay. It's not a shared drive.
And the final curb cut's going to be 8.6. >> It's going We're not going to change it. >> Okay. All right. So, I think what you can see, they're trying to have the least amount of impact on the overall street is but this isn't one where we're overly
messing with the street. This is really just the house to make it more livable. >> Yeah. >> I I just >> The main the situation was the house next door to the ocean side is newer. And there used to be a shared drive like one big curb cut. >> Got it.
>> Okay. All right. Yeah, I they weren't changing it. >> But >> Going by what I got single driveway >> The single driveway 86 is this thing it's not 18 5 cuz it's some type of car or maybe or whatever.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> That a good clarification. That's good. So, that's basically it. I'm going to ask Carolina a couple questions here regarding the municipal land use act of the state of New Jersey. Based upon your professional testimony as an architect, would you say that the variances we're seeking create a benefit for this
project over and above what's here now? >> Yes. >> And to the extent that we could discuss whether a detriment would be associated with this project, is there any possibility that what this work consists of would be a negative towards the house or the overall zone code of the city of
Margate? >> Not in my opinion. >> And to the extent that someone could possibly say this is a negative, would the benefits of all the work that you've done on the proposal by the Dorfmans greatly outweigh any such negatives? >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, Mr. Chairman, we'll certainly answer any
other questions you like. Think that um based upon the uh testimony presented, the slight about uh amount of work that's being done along with um just kind of bringing the house up to better standards, taking a house that's been
damaged over time and making it much more modern will be a benefit, will certainly satisfy the zone code of the city of Margate, the state of New Jersey Municipal Land Use Act, and we would therefore rest, although reserving the right to recall any witnesses to the extent the board wants to hear that. Hopefully, you don't, but that's it.
>> Okay. Anyone from >> Yeah, I uh sorry, it doesn't apply to what we're going to vote on, but can you go back to the artist rendering? What are the materials? I I mean, it's a it's a quite attractive final design there. What What are the siding materials?
>> Um it's a product called Nichiha, which is a cement board, >> Mhm. Mhm. >> and GeoLam for the um materials that are >> Mhm. Thank you. >> Thanks, Mr. Peck. >> Um yeah, they're not sparing a lot of expense for that. Uh
>> [laughter] >> Anyone from the public? Go ahead. >> Just come up and state your name and give us just your city of residency and I'll swear you in. Or you can give us your address if you prefer. >> Uh 212 North Osborne Avenue.
>> Okay, and your name? >> Dina Genta. >> Dina, can you spell Genta? >> G I U N T A. >> Okay. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay, thank you. >> So,
I we were just curious to see what they were doing across the street. Um our only concern was about additional curb cuts because as new construction's going up, we lose parking on the street, and because we are so close to
um Amherst, We get a ton of cars parked on Amherst. So, that was my only concern, but I love what you have drawn. And I look forward to you being our neighbors. So, we're the rancher across the street
and, you know, beautifying the house and keeping it existing, I kind of prefer. I don't know if any of you are builders, but the new construction to me is just we're losing what Margate used to be. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> [laughter] >> All right, we're done. Unless there's anybody else. >> Anyone else from the public? Okay, public portion's closed. >> Did the owners have anything they wanted to say? >> Uh do you want to hear from the owners? >> Not particularly, but if they want to >> They're a nice couple. They're going to
end up Matt, why don't you come up just for a second? You're here, you know. Uh so, we have you in mind as well. Matthew Dorfman, I'll just talk about his goals here. >> Okay. And you're you're Matthew Dorfman, obviously. >> I am. >> And please raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth?
>> I do. >> Okay, great. >> Can I just tell background a little bit? You and Lauren want to be here. Your family's close by. You want to >> I've been >> eventually wind up here. >> Yeah, I've been coming here since I'm 13 years old. We spent a lot of summers here, actually every summer here. My parents are here. My in-laws are here.
My sister's here. Our our family's here. And the opportunity came around to you know, to purchase this property on what we thought was a great street near some friends and, you know, gave us the opportunity to try and preserve what's there within upgrade,
um you know, to the existing structure. Um we're going to be empty nesters coming up in September and hope to spend more time down here. And And the home was purchased, it was a one like a large one-bedroom home and this kind of would help accommodate,
you know, um supporting our family and spending, you know, more time in Margate. >> Good. So, you're just buying this now? >> We purchased it in October or November of 2025.
So, we did some demo work and along the way realized certain uh setbacks, variances, couple of roadblocks that uh you know, we're hoping to uh to to to overcome. >> It's always better to ask forgiveness than permission.
>> [laughter] >> It's not. >> Yeah, until you're on until you're on the other side, right? The the saying is but >> All right. >> So, um that's all? >> We're ready. >> Are you doing anything else, Mark?
>> No, when whenever you're ready, I'll sum up, but >> I think we're ready. Does anybody else have anything? Roger. >> Let me just couple comments. >> Go ahead. >> Here's to my report and uh Here we go. Here we go. Just want to highlight the variances
that are required. Front yard setback to the porch where 8.43 ft is based on the average, 6.67 [clears throat] ft exists and 6.77 6.67 ft is proposed. Uh minimum side yard setback on the left
where 5 ft is required, 3 ft existing and 3 ft is proposed. Combined side yard setback, 13.32 ft is existing where that's required. 11.5 ft is existing and proposed and that's for the front deck and the uh
the addition in the rear. So, there are the three variances. This is not a hardship variance. It is purely uh substantial benefit variance, and I think the applicant has put on her proofs and answered the questions accordingly. If there's any further questions for the
board, they should ask them now. But, that is pretty much it. Let's turn from a zoning permit application to here we are today. So, that's it. >> Just one last question. >> No expansion of the footprint.
>> Correct. >> Just the deck. The deck is going to be full length. >> But, nothing on that thing which it's saying there's nothing on the ground floor that would be exacerbating the existing nonconformity. And this is one where and Roger's right, it started out as a zoning permit for various reasons it turned into this, but we knew going
in that we couldn't touch the first floor because we'd be expanding under the flood plane which we wouldn't get, so we were pretty careful about that. >> Well, actually the building footprint is increasing by There's nothing in that back left corner, so they're covering that up now. But, they're still within the requirements of the building
coverage. About 2 and 1/2%. >> All right. If there's nothing further, it's a C variance application. Roger summarized the variances, but just real quick, there's that front yard setback to the second floor uh deck. There is 6.67
ft where the requirement's 8.43 ft. Side yard setback on the left side to the deck and the the addition at the rear. 5 ft is the requirement, they're 3 ft. And then the combined side yard setbacks uh 13.32
ft is the requirement, and they have 11.5 ft. And again, that's on both both ends of the property. In terms of conditions, uh no nothing specific, just the standard ones we put in every uh resolution subject to
anything in Mr. McLaren's report unless otherwise addressed subject to any other approvals that might be required. I I don't think there's many, but you're you know, you obviously as Eric alluded to the flood damage prevention ordinance, you'll have to satisfy the the
construction office about that. Um applicant will comply with any representations it made during the course of the hearing and that's pretty much it. It's so unless there's any further comment or questions, we'll just need a motion, a second, and a roll call vote. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second.
>> Mike Richmond >> So basically what we have is um about a 75 square foot second floor addition. Um running a couple bedrooms, but they still would see the parking
uh rear yard setback which is where most of the work is being done even though um it's still over 23 ft, that's the It's a lot of space back there. Uh and I think that the front design, I
think it's going to be a real enhancement to that part of Osborne Avenue and I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson >> I I see no negative effect here. I see a benefit to the neighborhood with the modernization of an existing house and
other than that, I agree with the chairman, so I approve it. >> Frank >> Palm Salone >> Yes, I also agree with the the other board members and um I'm sure your neighbors will be very happy with the improvements to the house. It's It the house kind of does look like it
needs a lot of improvement, uh but I'm sure you'll do a good job on it. I approve. >> Thank you. >> Rich Tolson >> It's an improvement to the home. It's an improvement to the neighborhood with no detriment to the city, so I vote in favor.
>> Herb Pizagno >> Very modest improvements and it's going to be a nice home for you moving down the road. I approve. >> Steve Tosaki >> I do see it as a substantial benefit to the community because it's a nice house. It's getting away from
what the other applicant what you said about it being a just blight twice. So, I do see it as a benefit, so I approve. >> John Tech >> Uh nothing to add. It's a great design. Look forward to seeing it in the
neighborhood. I approve. >> Motion carries seven in favor and zero >> Thank you all. And on the record, I also want to thank Roger. This is one we really, really needed to get in cuz they have some work to do. So, Roger has a pile on his desk I'm sure of this big. Got the Dorfmans on the schedule for tonight, so this is good. Now they can
get ready to design and get this thing constructed. So, thanks. We know how busy everybody is and this is the time of the year that is not easy for sure. >> Good luck. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, everybody. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Our next case is
Shore House New Jersey LLC, 105 South End of River Avenue, Block 1.01, Lot 3, Zone S-30. She variance relief for pool setback to principal structure, side yard setback >> Thank you. >> and minimum lot area to allow
construction of a new swimming pool at the existing single-family dwelling. Current on taxes, water and sewer proof notice provided. Attorney Eric Kosti. >> Nice. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McLaren. Eric Kosti here on behalf of the entity
Shore House New Jersey LLC. Representatives of the LLC are with me tonight along with their builder. Um This is a project kind of a little bit of an interesting twist on saving an existing older house, not necessarily old, but definitely not
uh a new house um to try to give the new property owners who recently purchased it some outdoor {slash} under the house space for the installation of a new pool. Uh the goal here is to have the pool
tucked underneath the house which sounds peculiar but there's a real good reason and Chris Halliday and I talking about this today and we prepared our application package think that uh we can show the placement of the pool is in a much better and
safer location based upon keeping it away from overhead electrical lines which as we know cause fairly significant issues with pools in Margate. There's a clearance requirement that probably are going to greatly exceed based on Chris's design.
Um I'm going to have him come up now and be sworn and then we can talk about why we believe these variances are justified under the city's code and the municipal land use act. So, Chris, I know you've done this many times before and we hope it's worth your while here. >> Sure. Uh Mr. Halliday, just give us your
name and business address, please. >> Sure. Uh Chris Halliday, Halliday Architects, 728 West Ave, Ocean City. >> Okay, and please raise your right hand. Do you swear to affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay, and I know Mr. Halliday's been here decent amount of times. We'll accept his credentials.
>> Thank you, Mr. Uh panel, Mr. Chairman. All right, Chris, I'll give it to you to take it away and then we'll go over the positive and negative criteria and Mr. and Mrs. Friedman are here and they want to speak a little bit about what they're trying to do. So, Chris, describe what we designed here. >> The Friedmans uh reached out to us uh
in August last year. They purchased the house last fall in 2025. Um learned a lot about their family and how they're hoping to use the house in the future. So, they're the uh the nuclear core of the family. They have uh their parents uh their children all use this house or planning on using this house
for this first season uh this season. And um they have a children in their 20s uh and are hoping to grow as a family. So, they came to me and said, "You know, we have we we love the house. It's great house. We love the block. We love the area. We're just
hoping for additional options for outdoor living space." And we went through the the home as it is designed. Um and currently it's a it's a 3,125 sq ft lot, whereas uh 4,000 is required. So,
it's slightly deficient in the lot depth. And it it meets all the bulk criteria's of the zone, but it it is maxed out currently. So, we've gone back and forth and back and forth uh trying to figure out ways to provide them with outdoor living space and
different options uh for their family. Um and I've I've told them no a lot. Um and finally after uh we we we pulled a permit to allow for a small uh lanai in the backyard uh like a a after patio space that is within the
footprint of the house. Uh so, they're working on that currently. And uh Mr. Friedman said, "You know, Chris, you've you've told me we can't fit a pool in the backyard, you know, we have this area under the house. It is there any way we could fit a a pool there?" And I said it would be very
difficult, but we can see if it at least is a better alternative than uh no area for you to uh uh gather with your family in the backyard. So, currently uh along this black property line is the main utility run for all the homes uh
on Andover. Um Um, we did survey the line. The line is code compliant. It's above the 22 and 1/2 ft required for clearance from any pool height locations. >> You're talking about the electrical? >> Electrical lines. Sorry, electrical lines. Um, the main electrical line for the neighbor
runs across this back corner of the property. The current setback to the house is conforming at 12 and 1/2 ft. The zoning requirements are 3 ft from the house, 6 ft from the building, which leaves 5 and 1/2 ft of pool space. And there's just not enough space back
there to to fit any uh, pool or patio. Uh, that's with with that the with the electrical lines, sorry, getting into the technicals. You also are required to have a tangent from the water's edge to the the lines of 26 ft. So, that kind of reduces
that pool size even further. Um, so we there's just no room for any kind of pool or patio in the backyard. So, we felt that the better alternative that would not impact the neighbors would to be locating the pool within the footprint of the building. It meets the setbacks.
Uh, it doesn't cause a hardship to the neighbors. Um, and uh, it is code compliant with in regards to the electrical lines in the backyard and uh, and it doesn't increase any of the coverages on the lot. So, we felt like it was the best option
uh, for a tight lot in the backyard uh, with the utility lines on a undersized lot. Uh, if we had the additional uh, uh, 18 and 1/2 ft of depth, obviously there would be more room for additional outdoor living space.
And it's just an option that they're trying to to improve the building uh, and maximize the usability. Often times, if if you have a place and we say pool, that the the water is 12 ft by 7 ft. So, it's it's a small outdoor
plunge area lounge [clears throat] the size of some hot tubs. >> Is the entire pool under the house or just part of it? >> The entire pool is under the house. Yeah. >> So, it's up against the wall, also. >> Correct. And that wall is non-load bearing. That's just a partition wall. >> it's still up against the wall, which you can't get around the pool.
We like to have space around 2 ft around the pool or at all of sides. >> Got you. >> Yeah. So, so you need a variance for the pool equipment location, too, right? >> The pool equipment location, yeah. So, is there >> 10 ft required? >> 10 ft required. That's the same as any
pool setback requirement. So, we located the pool equipment adjacent to the AC condensers at the first floor level, uh so that it wouldn't encroach into the side yard any further than any existing mechanical equipment.
>> Um Chris, like is there a reason that you could I mean, I know that the pool is small already. It's only 7 ft wide. But why can't we you push push it out from the house 3 ft? I mean, you're you're going to be
into that What do you have for the like to the edge of the house now? >> Yeah, but >> You you know what I'm saying? >> Just go in half in half out? >> In other words, the pool right now is budding, like Craig was saying, is budding right on the to the back of the house.
So, why can't that just be pushed out like 3 ft? >> We I was concerned about affecting the existing structure of the house. The grade beam that runs around the back portion of the house, that's under >> Yeah. >> the existing home. Uh so, right now they're piling for the
grade beam along the back portion of the house. So, we couldn't float the pool in and out. Also, when the owners purchased the house, the the lot coverage is maxed out. So, uh in order to fit the pool equipment, we were able to carve a little space out of lot coverage, but
pools do count towards coverage, so we didn't want to locate it in yard area that would add to the lot coverage. Um but if like if 2 ft is an issue, I'm sure the Friedmans would be willing to pull that
1-ft coping away from that wall to provide a walking area around the side of the >> 3 ft is what's required. >> 3 ft, okay. >> It looks like a very new house. Do you Do you know the age of the house? >> It's brand new. >> Brand new, 2 years? >> It's 2 Oh, I'm sorry, 20 2019. I'm sorry, 2019.
>> 2019? >> 2019. The first floor is >> So, >> located at 18, so it's about flat. >> It's actually four story. It's pretty much maxed out for Isn't it maxed out for space? >> I didn't design the original house. >> I know, but okay. >> It
>> So, getting back to what we just talked about, um So, your main concern with that was the grade beam? >> My main concern with that was grade beam and lot coverage. >> Well, So, the lot coverage would would uh you'd have You'd basically basically be
adding 1 ft in the back to lot coverage, correct? Probably around 2. Add 2. So, it'd be 2 ft. >> Um >> And the right side, too. >> As far as the
path around the pool, we I could certainly talk to the Friedmans and see Friedmans and see if they would They're We talked about hot tubs and saunas and spas and different elements. Um it's all difficult because it is a maxed out property. So, any kind of pad
in the backyard that we would have to accommodate elsewhere. Uh we felt that this would would not impact the neighbors as much as that. >> what I think is important if there's a possibility to modify cuz I know the board always gets very concerned, of course, to have a
walkway around the pool. If there's some way to switch a different uh distance from what's there now, which might require a variance. And we did apply for any and all other variances that we'd be willing to talk to the creative about moving it out to give them I mean, they want the pool. So,
it's going to be a reasonable ask by the board if they can find a way to make it work. We're going to We're going to make it work. >> If the 3-ft surround walkway around with is the sticking issue, we could figure out a way to provide them with 3 ft. Um
cuz as far as the other distances go, we meet you know, we're not close to the We're not close to a property line. It's just a unique design and >> Right. Right. Yeah, and I think the board's concern is the 3 ft from the house to the pool. >> Okay. >> You know, like because that's a safety
issue for us. >> You know, and um I I I'm not speaking for the board, but to be able to accomplish that and maybe have a little bit of um you know coming out another foot or two. By how I
How long is the pool? >> The uh 12 ft. >> 12 ft. So, that's 24 So, you'd have a 24 something like that. >> And we're we're 2 8 to the edge of the perimeter of the building already. If we move that out >> Right. >> the
2 ft, it would be very minimal. Um as far as it would be 8 in encroaching into that. >> Yeah, rear yard. >> And we could we could accommodate that coverage somewhere else. We'd just have to carve it out. >> Are they going to be able to do that one? >> So, would that be under the house?
You could have a pool in the backyard 12 ft long by 5.5 ft. >> Uh no, because of the electrical lines. >> Cuz the electrical lines? >> Yeah, the utility lines. >> Is that 240? >> That stops you from Yeah, it would probably be a >> They can't be moved? >> They're running down for to a cup They
service all the houses on both sides. All right. So, the utility pole is uh >> [clears throat] >> I'm going to right there on that location and from the survey here. So, it's on their property line and it kind of runs straight down the backyard. >> I know there was one on Rumson Avenue recently that was moved. I know the
individual who had the pole moved on the south side there. >> Got you. I know we can move I thought a lot of money. Well, we can move poles, it's more of the lines. >> Oh, because we're in >> Have to Right. Well, you you can move the pole one way or another for a curb cut or
whatnot to accommodate that cut, but you would have to go underground and then the underground lines require a certain setback as well. Uh, that's a 5-ft setback, so Yeah. >> Yeah, you know, Roger just pointed out something else, too. So,
you have on the on the corner there, you have that structure that whatever you call a column. You know what I'm saying? On the right top corner. So, we come out further than that's going to be a variance because you're into that
No, I mean, yeah. >> Right. We would have to relocate the pole to center it in that opening to provide 3 ft and >> Right. Right. Okay. >> But, I think that >> Yeah. I get Yeah, because you have plenty of room on the left-hand side. Not plenty, but you got enough. Okay. >> So, if if that was a condition of
approval, um I'm sure the Freightways would be thrilled to accept that. Like I said, we've been working on this since about August and I've been providing them with a lot of no's and this would seem like a uh an alternative that didn't affect the
area, didn't go against the zoning, and and obviously whatever we design we want to be safe. So, if if that were the case, we would bring in we I've I've reached out to Ted Wallover. He's a a pool architect in Philadelphia. He does this type of work and structural engineer.
Um and he would have he would have to restructure the back of the house. >> Right. >> For the pool. >> Okay. How much head room is in there? >> It's 8 ft. Um we would have obviously like electrical no outlets within 5 ft of of the pool as code.
>> that's all building >> Yeah, all the building code elements would have to be complied with. And um we're just friends are excited to use the house. They're again, they're just looking for an alternative area to kind of cool off while >> Right. >> Mom and dad are cooking dinner, like the
kids can go down with grandma and and uh and take a dip while everybody's gathering upstairs. Just like a regular pool in a backyard for a conforming lot. This is just a smaller lot and they're just looking for that use. >> Looks cool. Okay. Uh I have a comment.
>> Okay. >> Um I don't see any um storage areas that are listed on the blueprint. There's garage, there's a walkway and the entry. And that's where we we raised our houses to where and we put parking underneath.
And we have parking underneath and we have foyer entry and we also have storage areas and nothing else. Like that's what the permissible uses are below the base flood elevation. And the enclosed areas are really just
storage, parking and entries. >> This isn't an enclosed area. It's patio. It's it's outside. >> an enclosed area, but it could be enclosed area and used for storage, couldn't it? >> Well, it could be, but it's not. >> Well, there's no storage. There's no storage listed anywhere. I mean >> But why does storage have to be listed?
I mean you you don't have to have storage. >> Well, I don't see any. Well, what happens is when you don't have storage they go in the garage space. >> Well, they do have a four They have four parking spaces. Three Three are required, so half of that garage can be used for storage. >> You know. >> It's a two-car garage currently. It's
two-car parking in the front, so four cars are >> We see it all the time where you know, people fill their garages up and cuz they have no storage. Cuz they Cuz they fill the garages up. >> I see you have enough parking for four spots. And you only need three.
>> Correct. >> Right. >> And we would we, you know, obviously, we're not going to take away a parking spot. We We understand how hard it is to park down here. >> You said you have five bedrooms? [clears throat] >> I'm I >> Do you have five bedrooms? >> Five bedrooms, yes. >> Is that Those five bedrooms I I didn't
see a plan that showed that but >> It's five bedrooms and four parking. >> We're over parked. >> I understand. If you had six bedrooms, you wouldn't be able to >> Oh, you don't know >> I I didn't see that. >> Five bedrooms and four parking. >> I I said I didn't see a plan that showed
the five bedrooms. >> Yeah. >> What about the new addition? Respectfully, I don't think we have to submit that because >> Okay. >> we're not doing anything with the bedrooms. That None of that's changing. The only thing that's changing is putting the pool underneath. >> Okay. >> And currently, it's outdoor patio.
So, there is a use out there. >> Indoor outdoor, correct? >> Outdoor. It's outside. There's no enclosed areas. There's no doors. It's It's under cover. It's under cover. >> Ground level. >> It's under cover. >> Yeah, but it's open. >> Wait. >> Oh, yeah, I know that. The walls are open but it's under cover.
>> Correct. >> The house structure is open. >> Which >> Yeah. >> Which occurs, you know, especially on these small lots that have these patios because there's no room in the backyard. >> I understand. >> But that also, Greg, feeds into Marty's requirement and then the FEMA's requirement to not convert
the first level to have a little space. They can't convert it. I mean, I know the concern is always with the non-conversion agreements that people are going to convert the first floor. What's happened here prevents the first floor from being used for habitable space. It's passive recreational space. This actually benefits the
>> [laughter] >> because we've all seen it, people show storage on plan, and then a month later after the house is done, it's a full habitable floor. This prevents that from happening altogether, which is a benefit, not a detriment.
>> Do you get to understand that, Craig? >> I disagree. >> Okay. What do you disagree with? >> With that it's a benefit, not a detriment. >> But if it were enclosed and it's storage >> and the Fraynes decide they want to have a bedroom down there, they could easily they could convert to a bedroom. >> They can't allow that.
>> I know they're not allowed, but they could Roger, does everyone stick to what they're allowed to do in town? There's half the town of houses that are built are first floor habitable. >> No comment. >> [laughter] >> The point is this
what the Fraynes are doing is the model for making sure you can't convert the first level. It's actually directly in line with what FEMA wants at these houses, open space so it can't be used for anything else, and if there is a
torrential flood, the free flow of water would be able to flow through there and, you know, flood the pool, but there wouldn't be any walls to get in the way to cause damage. This is actually a better design. >> Okay. >> And the Fraynes, you know, they're
this is more expensive, more work, harder than a regular pool. Um if there was if the board said you know 5-ft by 12-ft in the backyard for a pool that's not under the house, I'm sure they'd be happy with that. They'd be thrilled. I've been advising them that
there's so many difficult elements with that, with the coverage, with the electrical lines, with the setbacks that being an educated board, I it would be a difficult application. I thought this was a better alternative because it is not it doesn't it doesn't
have those setback issues, the coverage issues, and the electrical line issues. But if the board said, you know, if we think a better design alternative would be to put whatever you can fit in the backyard, I think they'd be thrilled um >> Well, if they could do that, would that variances be our guess? You don't have
to be >> [laughter] >> We wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be here. So, that's why we're here with this alternative because we wanted to eliminate as many variances possible and still provide them with an option uh for the grandkids to go in the water. >> So, if you look at Ryder's chart, all
the stuff we're planning on doing it triggers just two variances. The house uh the pool below the house and the distances below uh being 3 ft to the structural members. >> And and the pool equipment. >> And the pool equipment. But everything else is conforming and
won't change at all. So, this is the result of making sure that this plan had the least amount of impact on the house and the neighbors. There's There's literally no impact on the neighbors cuz everything's tucked underneath. Uh but if the board felt that the design
of this plan should yield to the design of a plan with a pool in the backyard, then I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Friedman would think that would be just as great a way to have an outdoor living space recreational with the pool as this. This is just what Chris came up with, which
would be the minimum. >> But and we we could eliminate that 3-ft variance by pulling the pool out to the edge of the structure. We would have to cut out the grade beam and that would be difficult structural structurally for the rest of the house, but that would
eliminate one of those variances. Which we would we could do. >> [snorts] >> All right. So, you're saying that you would be willing to move the pool out from the house 3 ft. >> Move from the wall. So, that you would a 3-ft walkway around the pool. >> Right. Yes.
>> Roger, is that I'm confused. That's not considered under the house where it has to be parking access or storage where the pool is? >> enclosed. >> Because it's not enclosed. >> And if that was a concern pointing the pool out to have a waterline, then there would be no
option to ever put a wall up or a door up because it would be there would be no area for sale. >> It's an open space. There should be >> Okay. Okay. We We >> It's an open space. >> Right. We do this over decks all the time. You know, these ground floor
patios. We do this under the house. >> But I'm confused. You're saying it's an open space. >> I'm saying it's under the house. >> That's correct, but it's >> Open Yeah, it's an open space. Yeah. >> It's not enclosed. >> Air's coming in and no wall. >> Right. I understand. >> Observation anyway on the as I'm looking
down on it on the right side it's showing a 2-ft 8, I think. >> Correct. >> That's with coping and paving. >> Correct. >> Is there any way if this is going to be relocated out away from the house
that the 3-ft could be accommodated for? >> Yeah, we're going to slide it out. We would say that we would accommodate all the way around the pool. No, away from the column, away from It's 4 in. >> All right. Just wanted to >> I understand that.
>> And I I didn't see that. Um 3 ft It's in It's obviously in the report. Saw that when we got the report. >> Right. >> Um so, it wasn't part of me advising >> Mr. Richmond is discussing here, we would be eliminating a variance
for the distance between the pool and the structural member, and we'd only be talking about the location below the house. Which again, technically because the area is open, there's an argument to be made that it doesn't need a variance at all, but we're still going to apply.
>> Well, it needs a variance because if you take the wall of the house down, you're completely behind it. It's supposed to be 3-ft on the other side. >> Right. >> It's not It's not walls that touch the floor. It's anything vertical. So, you still have that variance even if you move the poles.
>> Right. And that that setback is varies based on municipality. Uh some municipalities have it, some municipalities don't have it. We're unique here. It's it It with a building code um typically the pool setback from the structure is required
to not undermine the foundation. Because we have pilings and they are driven down deep, we don't have to worry about that undermining of the foundation, but that's why that setback from the structure is really good. >> But your pool My point is you're not getting rid of a variance. >> We're getting rid of the 3-ft the 3-ft
surrounding. The 3-ft is actually a pathway around. >> The 3-ft goes from the outside of the house, not the inside of the house. It goes from the the furthest wall out. >> The 3-ft is between the house and a vertical member. >> Yes, which is which is
3-ft outside of what the pool is. >> But that would be two variances for the same Below the house is a variance. And then 3-ft is I I just a >> Below the house is a variance. >> It's listed as a variance. >> Cuz >> Yeah, I I I I think to Rich's point and
I and maybe I'm wrong, but whether it's technically two variances or or one, it's really semantics, but the 3-ft separation didn't we then Don't you then draw a line straight up where where you're going to hit the roof? So, that's still technically a
variance, but they're going going to maintain the 3-ft separation around which was possibly what the ordinance was really designed to accomplish. >> Leo, if you go to that point, the 3 ft cuz it used to be able to build right up
to foundation. This board, some of the members are here. The reason the 3 ft was put in place is so people wouldn't jump off a deck or above. >> No, but it was also to get around the pool that there was access around the pool. >> it. >> So, you'll have access around the pool. And you can't get around the pool. I understand that and you still have a
variance. You're saying you got rid of the variance. You didn't. You still have a variance because you're not out in the yard 3 ft from the house. >> Technically, that's correct. >> Thank you. >> [laughter] >> We applied >> Well, you were saying you were getting rid of variances. So, I was just >> apologize. There's There's two variances
under in the report. One saying it's under the house and one saying it's 3 ft setback to the house. They're the same variance. I guess is what I was trying to say. I apologize for saying that we got rid of a variance. But they're the same variance. We We want to provide 3 ft around say that we got rid of a variance. But they're the same variance. We We want to provide 3 ft around the pool for safety. Uh obviously, that's a concern.
>> Yeah, I mean. >> Anybody else from the board? Anyone from the public? Okay. Public portion's closed. Uh you have anything, Roger, to add? >> No, I think this was other than there's a free saltwater pool
that's under review right now. >> I was going to ask that. Thank you for clarifying. >> Um No, I have nothing further. >> All right. >> Mine. >> But my understanding is you're going to bump this pool back and slightly to the left center, not center.
>> If as a condition as a condition of approval >> It'll mean the 3 ft setback. >> We're happy to provide to to move the pool to give it 3 ft all the way around. 3 ft all the way around, but not increase the coverage. >> So, that'll be the That'll be the question then, Leo. Just talk about >> It would slightly increase the coverage.
>> We're not going to We We would reduce the water space, not reduce the coverage. We don't We We're >> Well, we should reapply for the variance for the additional coverage. >> For you. >> Oh okay. Christ. I mean if you're over 12 24 square feet of coverage >> I think we can comply with coverage. We have So a landing at at the base of the
stair. >> You can take it out somewhere else or or shrink the size. >> I don't I don't think that's a Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right, good. >> So the So the testimony is they don't they don't need a coverage variance. But what they will need is it's the pool clearing clearance to the
building. They're going to maintain the 3 ft of separation to the house, but it's not out in the yard. So if you draw a line up from the water's edge, you're going to hit a vertical membrane. So that's technically a variance and then it's pretty much related to pool location
needs to be in a rear yard or side yard and it's under the house. So that those are the two variances and then the third um the pool equipment on that right side of the property is a 10 ft setback requirement for pool equipment. >> Variance seven.
>> Variance seven, which is where the HVA stuff is. Um so that those are the three um you know, the the only main condition will be that you'll move the pool like you said you would, but that that that sort of follows the variances that you're asking for.
>> And may I just to be clear here because I think you know, I'm also taking the board's temperature here. I want to make it perfectly clear this pool being placed where it is does not create a safety hazard. There's going to be 3 ft around. There's no possibility of jumping into
the pool from the house. So the clearance is going to be maintained. And the fact that the pool's underneath will prevent someone falling in from a deck or an upper level structure at all. So we're really just talking about the placement underneath. >> Right.
>> And look yes, there is an area that could be used for storage. It's not. It's open space. We don't want to take our open space away this close to the beach or anywhere in town. Open space is so important. So, um with regard to some of the board
members' comments, I just want to make sure that when we talk about, you know, why we're voting a certain way, this is a design that's safer and more open with less potential problems for converting the
first level than if we had the pool in the yard and the bottom level was enclosed cuz you could always convert that space to any number of things, which happens all the time. So, >> Was this enclosed before this space? It looked like when I looked at it, it looked like it was just cut open. It was
Did it used to be enclosed? >> This is a garage. >> There's a garage. >> There's a There's a current um permit by right for patio back there. So, they're working on that area now. >> So, that that that heavy wall was just was moved in about 12 ft. >> Yeah. >> That's what I'm saying. This used to be
an enclosed area and now you've opened it up. >> Correct. >> Yeah, that was my question. But you did that by right. Yeah, and you could have a patio there. Okay. >> And again, that's a good thing. It makes the ground floor less convertible. >> And it it's just it's providing alternatives for for a large family to
use the front deck, to use the back patio. Um So, >> Now instead of having a patio back there, you want a pool that needs needs a couple there. >> How much patio space left? >> These It's It's not a 7-ft deep pool, too. These These are 40 in deep. It's an
outdoor living space with water. Yeah, these aren't You're not playing water polo down there. >> I would say any condition would be that they cannot enclose the space later on. They cannot >> Yeah, yeah, that's that's absolutely.
>> Right. That would defeat the whole purpose of this thing. >> What if they want to enclose it for >> What if they want to use it winter use, right? >> No, they want to use it They want to use it They'll throw a heater in there. And >> you got over here. >> Well, that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen. That's not going to happen. I don't know why we're talking about the storage
thing. This does not apply to this case. They actually took out space from underneath the house to facilitate a patio. So, I don't get the whole storage thing. I get our concern in general with the board about that happening, but in this situation they're doing something
that's that's better. Okay? They had a wall there, they ripped it out, they put a patio there. Most of the houses I build now are the same configuration. The pools aren't under the house, but they have, you know, a shorter first ground floor and then
there's a big area in the back for a patio and then they have the pool. They can't do that here. This pool If they did have a pool there, which they wouldn't get the variance for, but if that they had a pool outside, that would be taking up a lot more a lot coverage. Impervious
you know, impervious coverage. So, they're going to they're going to mitigate the bump out for the so there won't be any type of coverage. Basically, they're going to have the 3-ft all the way around. All they're doing is putting a pool under a house.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyway, anybody else? >> Just one thing, Mr. Chairman, a small thing again with 4 in. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> The backside is 2-ft 8 as well. >> Correct. >> And I know you've already identified
it's going to be 3-ft all the way around. I just want to >> Absolutely. >> clarify. >> Yes, that's correct. >> No additional variances for coverage or setbacks to in order to accommodate that 3-ft around. We know it's a difficult application. It's why it took 11 months to get here. Um we felt like this was a better
alternative than trying to squeeze something in the backyard. Uh we appreciate your time. >> Yeah, and then maybe Chris, thank you, but we also think it's very important that the board, when it votes, understands I think Mr. Richmond summed it up well. No one builds more homes than him. This is the
design. This is the better design. Leaving it the way it was is worse for everyone. >> That's right. We probably couldn't have put a pool in the back. But doing this to change the structure of the house to get the pool in there does two things. It creates a lot of open space, and it prevents the
conversion of the ground level while maintaining four off-street parking spaces. This is the model design that we should be approving, not looking at it in a negative way. >> There there would be no way to enclose this space and use it as living space after a pool is installed down there.
>> Currently, it is an open space though, right? >> Correct. Yeah. >> And we're not creating more. Just >> Just giving more recreational area. >> It It Yeah, it it was. We got Yeah. >> Yeah. The The outdoor space was created by the in order to create additional patio space, but now they're asking to
put the a pool in at that patio space. >> Yep. You're right. Yeah. Everybody's on the same page. >> Okay. Anybody else? Okay. >> Yeah, I think I pretty much already summed it up. The variances um
There's the pool equipment on the right side. It's 7 ft, but it's even with the HVAC equipment, where 10 ft is the requirement. And then um where this patio is, there's going to be a pool, which will maintain the 3-ft clearance, but it's under the house, so that's what triggers the
the the variances for the pool. And it's not in a position where, you know, anyone could jump out a window and jump under a house. So that that the conditions obviously they're going to make the modifications as represented. You know, subject to any outside
approvals that may be required. They can't enclose it. Which I don't think is an issue and any other anything else in Mr. McCarron's report unless otherwise addressed is pretty much the standard conditions subject to the modifications that they uh
that they've uh put forth tonight. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Mike Richmond. >> Uh sorry to be so emphatic. Um but honestly
I don't see any detriment to the community. Um the pool is underneath the house. They're going to have the 3-ft around. They've already taken out space that could have been enclosed and converted it to an outdoor patio.
Um the pool equipment setback is in line with the HVAC equipment. So I I'm not quite Maybe that's something we have to discuss in the future. I don't know why pool equipment's 10 and HVAC equipment is what? Five? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So
um again I really don't see any detriment to you know to this project at all. So I'm going to vote yes. >> I certainly don't see this as a model project. I see that >> Rich Traddleson.
>> Here. >> [laughter] [clears throat] >> I mean the house is the house >> say it I didn't say it was a minor project. It's not a minor project. >> Not you Eric said it was a model project. >> A model. A model. Sorry. >> I would hate to hate for this to be a model project.
There's no room for a pool so you're jamming it under the house. There's no room for the pool equipment, so you need a variance for that. I see no benefit here. I would say you're taking away storage, but that's not a variance. I was I misunderstood that, but I can't vote yes
on this project. I see it bad all the way around. I vote no. >> Craig Palmisano. >> Permissible uses on the ground floor are storage, parking, and entry. We've been using that for quite a long time. And we've been adhering to that. And um
I agree with Mr. Patterson on this. And um I I I don't want to see pools under the house at all. So, I vote no. >> Rich Coulson. >> Yeah, I think I share the same opinion as what was just um enunciated there. Um
I just think it's overreach [clears throat] trying to put too much in one place. Um especially in regards to the water use being steps from the Atlantic Ocean. Um you know, our zoning laws are what they are, and put one under the house um like
this. Um I just struggle approving that. So, I vote no. >> Herb Pisagna. >> I also agree with um the fellow board members that trying to cram too much stuff in there and and safety issues. Um
that'll be modified. Still have a pool under under the roof. I'm going to vote no. >> Steve Gieseke. >> Yeah. The building's mixed down. There's too much going on. >> [clears throat]
>> Um I don't see this as meeting the C2 benefit. It's a variance. I see this only as a benefit for the homeowner. I don't see this as a benefit for the community, for the city, for the neighbors. I vote no. >> John Pitts
>> Uh yeah, there was some discussion about this being the the model design, and while I agree with that, the open uh rear area is not with a pool. Um there's no benefit to the municipality. It benefits only the owner. Granting the variance uh
some lots and some homes just aren't meant to have a pool. I vote no. >> Motion fails. One in favor and six opposed. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Yeah, I do. topography It's something I want to address, and
it's probably not going to go over well, >> [clears throat] >> but it's about the pools. And I think >> Yeah, Steve, just >> And if you guys are still talking, um make sure you use your mics. >> So, Steve was talking about pools in general instead of just
saying like project specific specific specific >> about that >> Yeah, okay. That's good. Fair enough. >> And as I see all these houses popping up and a lot of pools getting put in places that are too tight,
you know, I think I think it's causing a detriment to Margate, especially since yesterday Was it yesterday we had that flooding? And we our streets are flooding really badly. And at low tide and at rain and they
never used to flood this bad and I think having these pools put in place is um taking up a a lot of permeable water where the rain water would be seeping into the ground and it's not doing that. >> I disagree.
>> Okay, it's because I said I also I watch the wet rain water coming down the streets and going into the streets and over running the storm drains. >> Pools actually act as a retaining pond. They don't allow recharge, I agree with that and that's why in my opinion they will never be considered impervious.
Some towns consider them impervious. But when it rains hard those pools don't create any runoff. It holds the water. >> What about the pa- what about the patio around it, the hardscaping? >> Well, that's permitted.
It's permitted coverage. It's built in. Well, you get more you get more flooding from a >> changing the rules. I mean, the pools that are going in now the you know, they they don't need variances. So, you don't think pools should be
allowed? Well, I think that we have to think this thing over. I mean, three foot around the pool is is really tight. I think what we do need is some buffer spaces between the neighbors uh in the backyard >> We have six foot We have six foot.
>> No, no, no, no, no. I'm talking about having some vegetation out there to start um softening up the city. I mean, it's >> They have 35% >> This weekend on the weekend, you have a lot of uh when all the neighbors come down and
all the and all the activities come in and their friends and their families come in it gets very noisy between the houses when it starts accumulating. So, if you start to have vegetation between like the way it used to be, it will um I think that's something that
needs to be addressed. It's something that we we ought to consider. >> So, when you're talking about vegetation, what do you mean? Like trees? >> Ar- Ar- trees, arbo- arbo- trees. >> Right. >> Like when they when when the house went down behind me, I mean,
it's unbelievable how much louder I could start hearing from the uh a block behind me. And then a block over here. >> It's up to the homeowner to put shrubberies in. >> It is, but then when >> side or on the other side. >> But then when you put a pool that's 3 ft from the property line, >> No, it's 6 ft.
>> 6 ft. >> From the property line. >> 6 ft. >> can't >> No, then you can't because >> you're you know, we're looking as you know, looking at a piece of property and you can't even put deck chairs around the pool. I mean, it's just looking to me it's looking ridiculous.
>> How ridiculous do you think it should be? >> Well, every pool that comes in and they put it in the middle of the lawn, I I call them up or I send them an email. I said, "You sure you want this pool in the middle of the lawn?" You know, meaning that they're going to put a patio around there at some point.
And they oh, no, no, we're happy with it. And then you go back out there and there's a patio in there. We had to we got to flag it. So, Do I think it's ridiculous? I do. But it meets the code. >> Yep. >> So, we are, you know, going to be involved
in the whole master plan though. So, I I mean, I it it I don't know. You tell me or you tell me um if would it be if we said something about putting some type of Listen, personally, I could give a [ __ ]
about a pool. I think pools are nuts. I grew up here. We have the ocean. Why do you need a pool? But every No, and then not and not everybody thinks like that. So, we you know, I I mean I don't I don't live >> I don't know if it's Cape May or Stone
Harbor. They have 10-ft and they require, I think it's 2-ft or 4-ft vegetation barrier. >> They do. >> Within that 10-ft. >> That'd be great. I I I don't see us going back to 10-ft. I I We are We were
there, you know. We'll stay at six, but if we want to have a vegetation barrier, I I from so you know, that's great idea. >> That >> You know what I mean? >> You know, we had backyards so that you know, the kids and the dogs and stuff would go in the backyard. And something I watched last summer it
is a woman had a party for her children and she couldn't put anybody in the backyard. So, what they did was they put a tent out. They they blocked off their driveway. >> Right. >> Which prevented cars from parking in the driveway because they had no backyard
>> Yeah, but that's that's a one-day event. >> So, what? >> Well, >> They do that in neighborhoods up near me. >> Yeah. >> Right. Well, I'm just thinking of the future of Margie here because as these things start to accumulate, they would get >> Well, again, you you talk about sustainability and we're making them put all these
shrubs and plants and grass in like, you know, now you have to get a mower, you have to get a landscaper and to me and water usage that that's a bigger issue in my book is the water usage we're making people use. >> The amount of water >> that we're using.
To maintain the landscape and that we make them >> All right. Right. >> Yeah, and um I was watching I was reading up on the new near laws that are going to be coming through and they mentioned about fences that they don't want to put the solid fences
for the near new laws have to have 6-ft spaces between them. >> 6 in spaces? >> 6 in spaces. Yes, so water can drainage flow through. And when you have the 6-ft solid fences,
you know, you going to pond up there. I'm just I'm just >> Well, that's something that could could be addressed, too. You know, we could have we could have like a half-inch gap. I I don't know, you know, but this is all we're going to have a we're going to be involved in the master plan. So, like
I said before, if people have ideas about things, you know, then we'll we'll get stuff together. But, we're not going to like tomorrow say, you know, put these things into effect. >> Okay. I got you. >> I'd rather see side yards more narrow
than like 6 ft be stone. 4 in thick, you you actually have storage capacity in 4 in of stone versus grass. Grass, it takes 10 minutes for the grass to create runoff. >> Right. Problem with stone is weeds grow through them, and then people
use chemicals to kill the weeds. >> And they can put a weed barrier that's that's that's permanent. >> Yeah, I'm not big on chemicals. >> you they're doing it anyway cuz they get rid of the grass cuz they it won't grow cuz of the 6-ft fence that's 5 ft away. >> I mean, how often do you
how often do you have dogs? You walk around the block every other house or every house has a freaking pesticide thing. Half of them is probably [ __ ] just so your dog >> Is what being recorded, Paula? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> [laughter]
>> Yeah, this we're always on the record right now. Anytime we're talking as a board of all >> All right, anyway, um Yeah. Anybody else? >> The master plan review, we going to have a meeting there? >> Yeah, Jim Matarazzo reached out to me uh about 2 weeks ago. He says
he's accumulating some data now. He wants to set up a meeting sometime in June. >> Okay. >> With the subcommittee. And we can have two separate subcommittees if we have to for other purposes. >> Okay. >> Motion to adjourn.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye.