Margate City, NJ Planning Board Meeting of April 30, 2026

[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.
>> 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 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
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
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.
>> 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, 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
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.
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.