Margate City, NJ Planning Board Meeting of June 18, 2026

All
>> good.
>> Ready. Okay.
>> Uh I hereby call to order the city of
Margate planning board meeting. Please
rise and join in the flag salute.
>> I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> Roll call.
>> Mike Richmond
>> here.
>> Rich Patterson.
>> John Pittz
>> here.
>> Dan Adams. Craig Palisano
>> here.
>> Rich Tulsen here.
>> Johanna Perski
>> here.
>> Herb Pagno. Steven Jaki
>> here.
>> Drew Campbell. Sam Freriedman
>> here.
>> Patty Rosenberg
>> here.
>> 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 PAMA to sign a form
outlining the process for obtaining any
required building permits and or
merkantail licenses.
Members of the public wishing to speak
during any case must wait for the
chairman to open the floor for public
comment. All speakers will be sworn in
by the board solicitor and must state
their name and address for the record.
Okay.
Um approval of minutes.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
>> Okay. Approval of decisions and
resolutions
24-2026
Matthew and Lauren Dorfman 252026
Shorehouse New Jersey LLC. I hear a
motion.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
>> Okay.
All right. Our first case is Wish Trust
12 and 14 South Union avenues block 122
lot 18 and 20 zone S60
request minor subdivision approval and C
variance relief for lot area and lot
frontage lot 18
sideyards and rear yard setback to
reconfigure two existing lots in order
to relocate the existing dwelling to the
interior lot and construct a new single
family home dwelling on the corner lot.
Current on taxes, water and sewer proof
of notice provided. Attorney is
Christopher Bouncy.
>> Yeah. Well, I'll get I'll leave this
morning and if he wants to do his
report, he can. Mr. the client right
hand.
>> I do.
I'll go first just to clarify. So the
report is based on the application of
wish trust at the 12 and 14 South Union
Avenue block 122 lots 18 and 20.
Currently it's actually in two zones S60
and S40.
The FEMA information is below.
Uh it's minor subdivision not by right
uh and C variances for front yard
setback actually for rear yard setback
lot width and lot size on the one lot.
So it's deemed complete. This is not a
hardship variance but it's a substantial
benefit variance. The background is as
follows. It's a little bit lengthy but
it gives you a clearer idea what they're
trying to do. The applicant is proposing
to resubdivide two existing conforming
lots at the northwesterly corner of
Union Avenue and Atlantic Avenue into
two lots. One of which will be
non-conforming and the other will be
oversized.
Uh the inland lot is within the S60 zone
which requires a minimum lot size of
6,000 square ft and is proposed to be
reduced to 4,000 ft requiring a
variance. The corner lot is currently
within the S40 zoning district and
requires a minimum lot size of 4,000
square ft.
and it's been proposed to be enlarged to
6,111.2
ft give or take. The number of lots
remains at two, but are flipping the
sizes, so the larger lot is now on the
corner. Larger lots on the corners are
actually more desirable and makes a
better planning alternative as a way to
meeting both front yard setbacks and to
stay back away from Atlantic Avenue,
which can be a hardship in some
situations on smaller lots. The planner
board has the discretion to determine
the zoning boundary. Meaning that the
the zoning line between S40 and S60 is
at the property line. That property line
is collinear with the zoning line
that'll be relocated. So in my
estimation that the zone line zoning
boundary should follow the relocation of
that line um if approved.
The only difference between the S40 and
S60 is lot size and lot width.
Everything else is the same based on lot
size. Matter if you're a S25, S30, S40,
S50, doesn't matter. Uh the zoning chart
for the subdivision is located on the
bottom of page two. And as you can see,
uh there are
two variances for the subdivision. One
is minimum lot size from the lot that's
in the S60 going into the S40 or an S40
going into S60 where 6,000 ft is
required 4,000 ft is proposed. That's a
variance. Likewise lot minimum lot width
and the S60 zone is 60 ft and 50 ft is
proposed
and below that I I contrast it what's
existing what's being moved and
according.
So the zoning chart on page three is in
the S60 zone and that's where the house
that sits on the corner now is to be
relocated at the newly created interior
lot and the only variance is the rear
set back to the building where 16 ft or
20% of lot depth is required and 13 ft
is proposed. Now again this is unique
because the house used to sit on the
corner and on corner lots there is no
rear yard setback. It's two sideyards
and two front yards. So where it
conformed before for the sideyard, that
sideyard now becomes a rear yard setback
and the dimension is required to be
expanded, but they don't meet that
because the house is already built. So
that is a variance.
The bottom of page three and section two
are the documents reviewed. Uh next page
are the drawings and plans reviewed and
supplied. And again, section three
indicates all the variances.
Two are from the subdivision, one is
from the house being moved.
And of course, with any subdivision,
minor subdivision, there's a checklist,
and that's in section four for the
subdivision review. I've attached the
subdivision also or the checklist for
the minor subdivision. And a lot of
these don't apply to this because it's
it's existing land. existing developed
land and nothing else will be changing.
So, Mr. Barnhart will probably go over
the waiver requests and the checklist
items in the report.
And that's pretty much it other than the
subdivision has to comply with the NJSA
uh 46 col 26B-1 which used to be known
as the map finding law requirements. I
believe one volume it needs to be shown
on the plan where the new lot line will
meet the right away line on Union
Avenue. All the other requirements will
be the same. I did not do a review for
the corner lot presuming that all uh
setback requirements building coverages
will be compliant and that'll be up to
the testimony to confirm that. and the
zoning requirement the FEMA requirements
will be as noted currently in the zoning
in the uh flood damage prevention
ordinance. Mr. Balson.
>> Thank you, Mr. McLaren. Members of the
board, my name is Chris Balinsson. I
represent the wishes for here. It's
respecting two properties. They own one
at 12 South Union and one at 14 South
Union. 12 South is the inside lot. 14 is
on the corner.
Here's what we're asking to do.
take this sub take this property line
and move it to here.
So the big lot that's now in the corner
will be the inside lot and this lot will
be the smaller of the two.
You can you can look at it in a couple
ways. You can look at it that well why
why aren't they all just S60 lots? Why
aren't they all bigger lots? Because on
that side of the street on Union Avenue
There's not enough room here
for another S60 lot. So, no matter what
you do
with these lot lines, no matter what the
zoning classification is, S40 or S60,
you're going to have an S40 lot on this
side of the block.
There's not enough room to make it any
bigger than it currently is.
And for the S60 zone, an S40 lot, a
smaller lot, is not alien to the
Atlantic Avenue streets.
You'll see right across the street, one
on the corner, one on the inside,
behind, one on the corner, one on the
inside. On Venome, it's the same. And
going down Atlantic Avenue, you'll find
a mix of larger lots and S and 4,000
foot lots. So, I don't want anybody to
get all excited because the word
subdivision is involved in this
application.
It's called a subdivision because the
lot line is moving and the lots are
changing. They are simply changing in
size.
Therefore, when the smaller lot goes to
the inside, the S40 lot, it gets put
into the S60 zone and it needs a
frontage width with variance and lot
size variance.
That's all it even if the S60 zone were
extended out to Atlantic Avenue, I would
still need the same variance. There's
nothing I can do to make this lot any
bigger. It's just staying the same size
and it's going inside.
Now, as Roger said, we think and you'll
find it's going to be preferable to have
the larger lot on the corner. It it
opens things up. You have an increased
front yard setback on Atlantic Avenue.
Goes from about five and change to eight
and change.
You have a much larger rear yard setback
to to the property on Venom. It goes
from about zero to 15.
You have front yard landscaping on both
frontages, both Union and Atlantic. That
is that's about 70% in excess of the 50%
that's required. And that's kind of what
you want coming down Atlantic Avenue,
especially in the parkway. You want to
see something that is
a little bit more grand
than some of the other lot. You want to
see the landscaping. You want to see a a
lush property. And that's what gives
that's that's what gives the wishes the
opportunity to do that.
The house that's currently on the corner
lot is shifted to the inside lot. Posa
isn't that old. It's really nice and it
fits on the inside lot. But to get four
spaces up front to increase the parking
from currently two to proposed four,
we're going to ask for a three-foot rear
yard setback.
16's required, 13 is proposed. And that
has that has gone from 10 to 13 at the
request of a neighbor who who was here
and we'll hear and he'll speak tonight
as well.
Other than that, as Roger pointed out,
the house on Atlantic will comply to all
zoning standards. In fact, exceed many
of them. You'll hear that as well. And
the interior lot where the house is
moved to, that will also comply all but
the three foot three foot for the radar
setback. You'll get two You'll get two
houses that comply with the current
flood elevation standards
and a bunch of zoning improvements.
So, John will testify with respect to
some of the specifics and some of the
zoning benefits. And we think we we
think you'll find that putting a larger
lot on the corner, it's just a better
planning alternative. It'll set off the
block. It'll be more light, more air.
It'll benefit the neighbors. Two
neighbors who are most affected right
next door. one behind us and next door
get a larger setback
with this proposal.
So we asking listen to the testimony uh
and you remember in the back of your
mind it's just it's just taking lots to
go like that.
It's that it's really that simple.
Thanks John.
>> All right, Mr. Barnhart just your name
and business address.
>> Sure.
Uh, John Barnhart, licensed professional
engineer, licensed professional planner,
certified municipal engineer in the
state of New Jersey. Uh, my new office
address, 11 South Iowa Avenue, Atlantic
City.
>> And please raise your right hand. You
swear affirm the testimony to be the
truth.
>> I do.
>> Chairman will accept his credentials.
Planner,
whatever other qualifications you just
ran through.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you. John,
>> you're a licensed special planner and
engineer.
>> That's correct. You've been in this
board before on 150,000 times.
>> Yeah. Pushing 30 years, believe it or
not. Yes.
>> In your office along with Laura Laura
Lance's office
protection plans and she's here if
anybody has any questions. John plan
some of the uh um plot plans.
>> That's correct.
>> If you want to take the board through
the current status of the property,
what's there and then talk to us about
what's proposed, what what the
improvements make.
>> Sure. So, this first exhibit, um, it's
it's just a blowup of the survey that
was submitted with the application
package. Um, and it it shows you the
exact layout of what what sits on the
site today.
>> They make that A1 and then A2 would be
the tax map.
>> A1 survey. A2 tax.
>> The exhibit behind me can be the
rendered subject.
>> A3
proposed subject plan
>> and
thank you.
>> Sure. So, um, as Chris already already
described, the property or the project
consists of two existing, uh, lots.
There is a a 50- foot lot, 50 foot lot
frontage of on Union Avenue by a depth
of 80 ft, uh, along Atlantic Avenue. And
then the second lot has a frontage of 75
ft and a depth of 80 feet with the total
tract area being um, just over 10,000
square feet in total land. Um, Situit on
the corner lot is a is a home that was
not built too long ago. I don't know the
exact year, but it's a two and a half
story home. Um, it does comply with the
current FEMA standards uh as as the
floor sits, but um with the delay in the
real rules, it still complies, but if
the real rules are are remain in place
with no modifications at the elevations
that um that are currently in place, uh
this building would no longer comply. It
would be slightly it would be slightly
below the standards.
>> And it's starting to date for those
rules sometime in July.
>> It it was moved from July of 26 to July
of 27. Um but we don't know that what
the outcome is going to be, but um based
on the way they're current currently
written, this building would not comply
in its condition. Um on on the site, uh
is also a detached garage up against
this the side property line and a couple
or four feet off the rear property line.
Um, and as Chris mentioned, um, and I'll
talk about this in detail, because this
is a corner lot, this this home when it
was constructed was able to have the
benefit of of this yard being considered
a sideyard. Um, so it doesn't have the
depth of a of a typical rear yard.
Although, if you visit this home, you
recognize that that that is the rear of
the building. It is it is the rear yard
of that building, but it got the it
because it's set on the corner, it got
the benefit of calling that a sideyard.
So, it's 10 and a half or 10.6 six uh
foot uh setback at that location. Uh the
front yard setbacks along Atlantic
Avenue, you can see it varies, but at
its shortest distance, that building is
5.2 ft and at its greatest distance,
it's 7.6 ft. I'm pointing those items
out because when we describe the
proposed condition, um you know, we
believe this is truly a uh a benefit
situation with some of the improvements
that we're proposing with the new
construction. Uh going to the interior
lot, which is the 75 ft lot. Um that is
an older home. Um it it is um it is uh
there's some open space with a with a
pool in the sideyard. Well, rear end
sideyard, but the home is extremely
non-compliant with regard to its
setbacks uh toward the toward the um
toward the north. Um the sideyard
setback here is only four feet and
actually reduces down to two and a half
or 2.9 ft. The rear yard setback is
actually also 2.9 ft. So it's it's an
extreme non-conforming condition. um as
as it sits today.
The zone boundary as was already
described follows the property line
between these two parcels. So on one
side of that lot on on one side of that
of that lot line is the S60 and on the
other side of that lot line is the S40.
Um right now both of these parcels are
are in their zones that would that would
make them complying parcels. So the
larger parcel currently sits in the S60
zone. The smaller parcel currently sits
in the S40 zone. Our proposal, as Chris
mentioned, is very simple. Um, and I'm
going to go back to the
subdivision plan for a minute.
All that we are requesting this evening
is to slide the lot line between the two
parcels
so that the corner lot as opposed to
currently being the 50ft lot becomes a
75- ft lot and then the interior lot
which is currently a 75 ft lot becomes a
50-ft lot. So what we have is we have an
S40 lot and an S60 lot. In order to have
those two lots legally exist on a piece
of land, you need 10,000 square feet of
land area. This project has that. It has
10,000 square feet of land area. In
order for an S40 and S60 lot to exist
next door to each other to have the
appropriate frontage, you actually only
need 50 and 60. You need 110 ft of
frontage. This site has 125 ft of
frontage. So, it's important. I don't
want to want want you to lose sight of
the fact that it sounds like we're
creating an undersized lot. In my
opinion, we're not. We're rearranging
lots in a location that is a transition
between two zoning districts that has as
and when I show you some other exhibits
that has a lot of different lot sizes
going on. So, if we were in a location
where we had an a very consistent S60
after S60 after S60 after S60 lot, we'd
have a hard time making an argument
about what we're going to discuss
tonight. But that's not what we have.
I'm going to show that to you on the tax
map in a moment. We have a mixture of
lot sizes in both the S60 and and the
S40 zone, which is why we believe that
our proposal creates no negatives and is
very much appropriate and does have uh
some benefits. So
>> with the land area that that is
available and the rest of the blocks,
fully filled,
there's no way to pick up an S60 block
out the side of the street.
>> No, there is not. Regardless of what
happens, there's going to be an S40 lot
on that side of the street.
>> Yeah. Especially considering the home is
that's under construction immediately
adjacent to this site. It's a it's a
it's an over 100 foot uh wide lot and
the building is occupying the majority
of the lot. I mean, it's it's it's a
very very large home.
>> John.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Um on the lot, the house you want to
move the corner house. Um right now it's
19'4 from the property line
>> in the front.
>> Yes. And you want to come to 15t. So,
yeah, we're proposing to move it forward
to
>> and towards towards Union Avenue also
>> to Yeah, we're proposing to move it
toward Union Avenue to um to come into
closer compliance with the rear yard
because of the fact that when that
building was built, as I mentioned,
>> yeah, the note
>> it was considered a sideyard when it was
up on the corner, but now that we're
going now they're proposing to move it
into the interior lot, that becomes a
rear yard
>> and and 15 foot 10 falls within line on
all the other houses on the street on
the front building.
>> Yeah. Comp. That's a compliant setback.
>> Complant. Yes,
>> that is a compliance setback.
>> Correct. Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> Now allows for four cars parked rough
street.
>> It allows for four cars. It allows for
cars underneath of the building. It
allows for additional storage. So I was
going to get into that as my kind of my
next discussion is the proposal of of uh
moving the home.
>> One is is an escorting lot I'll say
alien to the first block to to the first
block south.
>> No, not at all.
Yeah, I want to
>> let me talk first about moving the house
and then and then we'll get into that
that specific topic. So, um the home
that that was s that's sitting on the
corner that you saw on the survey is
going to be picked up, slid over and put
back down on a fully compliant uh
foundation, uh that foundation um will
be at an elevation to allow parking
underneath. And it will also bring the
finished floor to an elevation that if
if and when the real rules are final and
adopted, if they stay the way they are,
that building would then comply at at at
the elevation that is currently
required. Um that new build that new
position of the building um would sit on
the 50ft lot and the only deviation
that's necessary, the only variance is
necessary with that building is the rear
yard setback. The rear yard setback is
necessary because that is the depth of
the house which as I said sat here and
when the house sat on the corner that
was considered a sideyard. Um but when
you look at although it is a minor
deviation at 13 ft proposed versus 16 ft
required when you look at the existing
condition you've got a building in this
back corner right now that I just showed
you on the survey. So although it is a
minor deviation it is a dramatic
improvement from the existing condition.
Um, and it also the proposal is to
eliminate the detached garage which
currently goes with this house that's
that sits on the corner. Um, let me go
back to the survey real quick.
This house currently has a detached
garage with it. We're not proposing to
put a detached garage back. So, when the
house gets relocated because we're able
to elevate it and get more parking
underneath, we've now got four parking
spaces. We don't need a detached garage.
We've got additional storage under the
building. So, again, no need for the
detached garage. So, it really does open
up the rear uh of that property even
though there is a minor setback variance
uh for that rear yard.
>> Right now, the principal building on
that lot is the office propert.
>> Right now, the principal building on
that lot, as I mentioned, 2.9 to the
back, 2.9 to the side, and it's for the
whole side. It gets a little bit better.
Gets to four feet, but it's it's it's
extremely non-compliant in its current
condition.
>> That's the side that improves to what 8
ft. That's that sideyard improves to uh
10 10 feet at its minimum and actually
get jumps to 11 feet.
>> That's up against the opposite speed.
>> That's correct. This this 2.9 and 4 foot
sideyard setback go to um go to 10 and
11. That's correct.
>> And the two in the back goes to 13.
>> The 2.9 in the back goes to 13. That's
correct.
Okay. So everything else about that lot
once the h once the home is moved would
comply. The coverage will comply. the
landscaping will comply. The front porch
setback, this the the building height,
uh the main building wall setback,
everything else will be compliant, but
>> but for that one deviation,
>> landscaping will comply. This the corner
lot, the second lot is what would now
become the 75 ft lot. And the proposal
is the building footprint that you see
here, a nice open backyard with a nice
beautiful pool in the back. Um a very
estate style house, which is what you
normally see on corner lots. It's what
you normally which what you see all
along Betner Avenue. It's what you see
along uh along much of Atlantic Avenue.
Um and that is that is basically the
purpose of this is because it's to
create the larger more estate style lot
uh on the corner on the corner parcel.
The proposal of this property is that
this lot will be 6,000 ft and it will be
completely compliant. There are no
variances, no bulk variances whatsoever
being requested for that property. So
all the setbacks will comply, all the
coverages will comply, all the
landscaping will comply, all the parking
will comply.
What this proposal does is it also
creates some benefits as compared to the
existing condition. So what do I mean by
that? Well, I mentioned to you that this
house was sitting here at 10.6 ft. That
setback with the new project actually
goes to 15 ft. So the the there's an a
light and open space corridor that is
that is increased dramatically between
this home being moved forward on this
lot when it gets repositioned on this
lot, the removal of the existing
non-conforming home on this lot, the
removal of the existing detached garage
on this lot, and the new home being
built 15 ft off the line opens up the
rear yards of all of this property
dramatically to the existing condition.
Again, we believe is a benefit to this
neighborhood uh and to the community.
Taking it a step further as proposed
with this home uh at its closest point
at the second level it's about 8 and a
half feet but it incre the majority of
the home is more like between 9 and 11
ft in front yard setback. If you look at
the ex at the existing home as it sits
on that on that corner lot right now it
varies between 5.2 and 7.6 feet. So, we
are again getting a substantially
improved upon front yard setback along
Atlantic Avenue by repositioning the
existing home and and allowing a larger
lot, which gives us some more breathing
room on the corner.
>> Well, that's a greater setback in all
respects. And although it fluctuates, no
nowhere is it equal to what's there now.
It's better in every at every location.
>> That's correct. That's correct. Charlie.
>> Yes.
>> Do you have um a drawing of um Atlantic
Avenue side of the house? Uh
>> yes.
>> Uh like a rendering of it.
>> Yeah. Something you could put up for me.
>> Yeah. So let me see what would be the
best thing for you to look at.
>> Uh you want to see Atlantic?
>> Yeah. What Atlantic?
>> This is like a massing amassing
rendering which
>> which shows uh take this out for a
second
rendering.
>> This is a massing rendering. And the
point of this was to show the openness
in the backyards because it's we're
really opening up the back there. But
that would be the elevation. Um, this
would be unions. That would be Atlantic.
>> Looks like Looks like my parents left
the two.
>> What?
>> If you look at the way, you could be it
could be in front of the center hall.
>> Yeah. But
>> John, yes. I see you have one car parked
under the garage in the new location for
the existing house.
>> That'll be
>> uh there's proposed to be one car there.
>> One car there, a car in front of it, and
then two cars on the side.
>> Two cars on the side.
>> So, okay. So, that's going to be the
garage where it's outlined. What do you
have planned for what's going to be
behind us?
>> That's all storage, right, L?
>> Storage. There's a ground level entry
>> behind that parking space directly,
>> right? But the rest of the ground floor
is store. Yeah, the the rest of the
ground floor is storage. There's a
ground level entry entry behind this ba
behind this space. Um but this whole
back area is storage
that way on the plan on the
>> I see pool lines here. Are you planning
on building a room that second?
>> No, there's not room for one.
>> What's that mean?
>> It it Well, it it runs it runs along
it's it's basically shown for both lots.
The the other the corner lot is
proposing a pool.
Asher Asher's
Laura's office is very very detailed. So
they show if you look they have every
every potential setback you might need
shown on that parcel. John John
>> want us to understand it.
>> There there's the detail on the wall of
the storage area.
>> There you go.
>> So you can come in from the garage. You
you can come into a into a you know an
entry point and go up the stairs into
the into the house and then you've got
the and then you've got the balance of
the is storage which which is what
allows us to not have to try to go back
to the uh detached garage. Um it's what
allows us to have the parking that we
need. In fact, this with the with the
relocation of this building, it doubles
the parking. Right now, they really only
have two spaces cuz we all know they're
not using the that detached garage all
the little rooms that you see.
>> Well, you know what the concern is
turning that into a living space?
>> That's why it's one room and not four.
>> Can you put the rendering back up? It
seems to be a little different than what
we have in our package. We do want to
have a look at
>> from the Atlantic Avenue side.
>> Uh you want this one?
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> What's different?
>> Uh I don't see it. That's what we have.
It's a little different.
>> That's what
>> No, I don't think so.
>> Is it? Anyway, I just wanted to have a
look at it.
>> Oh, I got it. It's the other house. I
got I got
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Anybody else from the board?
>> Okay.
>> I got a little wastes.
>> Yeah, I have a little ways to go yet.
>> Go ahead.
>> Um, so I've described the variances. um
you know it's it's lot area for
um
it's lot area and lot width for one lot
which as I said which is is just a
function of relocating the lot line and
and the zoning boundary not going with
the lot line um officially um and then
it's the set the rear yard setback of
the one home um I think this exhibit
kind of tells the story of the
appropriateness of the request this is
both the zoning map and the tax map for
the location. So, I'm going to start
with the tax map side. Our lots, lots 20
and 18, right on the corner of uh of
Union Avenue, Atlantic Avenue. Um you
see the inside being the 75 ft lot, the
corner lot being the 50ft lot. But what
you also see is that
we have a we have four in a row 50ft
lots behind us. Very much consistent
with with our 50-ft lot. Meaning that if
we flip our 50 to the interior, it it
doesn't all of a sudden put us in a
field of a bunch of oversized lots and
and we become inappropriate because
we've got 50 foot lots behind us. If you
go across Venome, they're all 47s. If
you go across Union Avenue, you see 52
47. Then there are a couple actual S60
lots and then then it goes back down
into the 47s. So the position of these
two lots while they because of the fact
and let me just jump over for a moment
to the zoning map with this red line
being the boundary difference between
the S60 and the S40 zone. You see that
the line bifurcates our two parcels and
this part of our block is S60 and it's
really just the frontage of our of our
block that's S40.
When you when you look at these two side
by side, you you you it you you start to
think wonder a little bit as to as to
what the thought process was on this
zone boundary. Um what I believe it was
was was to make certain that there was
not another subdivision done on these
parcels and to to allow for additional
S40 lots. But that's not what we're
proposing. We're we have two lots now.
We're going to have two lots at the end
of this at the end of this project. Um,
but what's also interesting is that you
see if you see how this S6 s this S X
S60 line runs, it goes around our lot,
but then it leaves these three 50-foot
lots in the S40 zone appropriately, but
then there was a subdivision here um
that shows on the zoning map, which
tells me that these lots were probably
S40 lots even though the S660 boundary
went around it. And then when you go to
either block on either side of us, the
majority of those blocks are S40 block
and they're S40 size lots.
The point of all this discussion is I
just want to make I want to make you
guys comfortable with the fact that
because we're flipping these two lots
and because now one's not in the right
zone based on it lot area, it's not
creating a condition here that's
inappropriate. It's what we're proposing
is absolutely consistent with this
neighborhood. there are some
inconsistencies with what lots are
existing non-conformities and what are
conforming based on the zone boundary.
Um but what's really important is that
it works within the community and it
matches what's going on in this
neighborhood. And we think that what we
propose absolutely uh does that
>> John adjusting the lot doesn't allow for
a future subdivision.
>> It does not allow for anything to be
created that's not there now.
>> That's correct. If
>> sorry just just a quick question. So,
we've been talking about, and Roger had
it in his report, moving the zone
boundary lot. Are we suggesting to move
it to make both these lots in the S40?
Is that the question?
>> No.
>> Both the S60.
>> That wasn't something we said at the
beginning is that that wouldn't even
matter because you could increase the
size of one of these lots or make it.
>> But I guess my point is if we make them
both in the S40, then they're both
complying. If you were to move it, if
you remove the zone boundary so that
they were both in the S40, they would
both comply and you still would not run
a risk of of like let's say an
additional subdivision because you only
have enough land whether you call them
S40s, S60s, there's only enough land for
two lots,
>> right?
>> You need S460.
>> Correct. Correct. Correct. Correct.
>> So, and couldn't go to the three could
go to three lots of if you wish to
combine them, we couldn't go to three
lot.
>> That's correct. That's correct. So
again, I I don't want to just real
quick, I have to get the technical
proofs on the record. Um, you know, we
think the positive criteria are clearly
established here for three reasons.
First, we think that this application
promotes the general welfare um for all
the testimony that I've put on. The site
is particularly well suited for this
proposal because of the consistency and
the layout of the lots in this area. Um,
we believe that putting the the the
larger lot on the corner is from a
planning perspective is the more
appropriate plan of action. Typically,
the corner lots are the larger lots
regardless of the zoning district
because of the fact that they are um
they are dealing with two front yard
setbacks and you want to try to want to
try to increase the front yard setback
whenever or the setback from the street
whenever you can and this proposal with
the new home is proposing to increase
that front yard setback. So you are
seeing that benefit by allowing uh the
corner lot to become the larger lot.
>> And John, in this instance, sorry, in
this instance, we've increased the fun
set back on the land to get more
landscaping. 70% landscaping for 50 is
required.
>> That's correct.
>> We have 70% landscaping
lot.
>> Yes, that's correct. Yes. Um the um the
interior lot becoming the smaller lot in
the S60 zone. Obviously, it will
completely comply because um be as as
we've already described it um and the
and as I've already described the
adjacent blocks are all S40 with a
mixture of with a mixture of lot sizes.
So, consistency here um shows that this
what we're proposing is very well suited
for this location which promotes the
general welfare. Um the other two
purposes of zoning that are exam that
are uh enhanced which um which support
the positive criteria is um preservation
or increase airline and open space. I
already described how we are proposing
to increase the front yard setback on
Atlantic. I already described all the
openness that we are creating in the
rear yards of these properties. So for
all those reasons we believe um that
that purpose of zoning is advanced. And
lastly we believe that this application
creates a more desirable visual
environment. Um the home that's there
that's proposed to be relocated and
saved and relocated is a beautiful home.
Um I think that home will sit more
appropriately on a 50-ft lot as an
interior lot. Uh the new home
>> side facade facade basically at land
which in this instance of the existing
house looks a little bit more like a
side of the house interior where it will
be sideways.
>> Correct. And then and and as I mentioned
a more estate style looking home on the
corner um again we believe uh creates a
very visual. put the rendering back up
for us.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Absolutely.
>> Thank you.
>> Um I have already discussed the
community benefits by increased a light
and open space, removal of all the
existing non-conformities that we
already described, and the fact that
that both of these homes will meet the
future real rules, or I should say
current real rules, but um uh assuming
that they're adopted as is. The second
the second uh discussion we need to have
or I need to have is with regard to the
negative criteria. Is there a
substantial detriment to the zone plan
or zoning ordinance? I think I've
already gone through that in a with
regard to why we think that this is
appropriate even though it is a
deviation from your zoning ordinance. Um
we believe that this is a a very
appropriate request and when you look at
the negative criteria the question is is
there a substantial detriment? I would
argue from a planning perspective in
this specific case that there is no
detriment. there are there are only
benefits in this application by swapping
these lots. Um is there an impact to the
neighbors behind us? Yeah, there is
because they're going to see their
houses in slightly different positions.
But because of the non-conformities
we're getting rid of because of the way
that we've improved upon it. Um and
we've worked I I know our our team has
worked with one of the neighboring
properties to make sure they were
comfortable with. I think you'll hear
from them as well. Um we believe that
there is certainly no substantial
detriment. Um my opinion as a planner is
that there is no detriment because we
believe this is just a beneficial
project. The second prong of the
negative criteria is whether there is a
substantial detriment to the public
good. Um as I just mentioned, you'll
hear from the public, but we we're
improving upon parking by giving the
interior the building that we're
relocating more parking spaces. Um we
we've provided public benefit with
additional open space. Um, and we've
dramatically improved the rear yard
setback all the way across this this
site from Atlantic Avenue uh all the way
to the adjacent parcels. So, for all
those reasons, we believe that we are
actually providing benefits to the
public and not not any detriment.
>> One of one of the primary purposes of
Zoe planning is to eliminate
non-conformities or to bring
non-conformities into compliance.
>> That's correct.
>> In this instance, on both lots, we've
accomplished that task.
>> We have with with the one exception of
the rear yard setback. And again, it's
it's a function of the house um that
that setback now becoming a rear yard
where it currently is considered a
sideyard.
>> And the final thing is important to know
that
this exact house is also at the corner
of Bend.
The house is there now on the corner of
Union.
>> Yeah. You turn down the wrong road
sometimes.
>> The exact house is on the exact corner.
One vendor.
>> Same architect, same builder. Same
architect, same builder.
>> This a very short period of time. I know
we all complain about seeing houses that
look like you're lining up house about
look like. This gives you an opportunity
to move a house away from this one that
looks just like
>> what Chris is talking about is this
house on the corner of Endome and this
existing house on our parcel are the
same house. So by moving it in and
putting a brand new custom home on the
corner, um you you won't have the visual
of looking at the same house twice on
those two streets when you're driving
down Atlantic Avenue. So that certainly
does go to a more desirable visual
environment of course.
>> Thank you. That's what we have.
>> Anybody else from the ward?
>> Uh yeah, Roger. The moving the zoning
boundary.
Can you do that this evening?
>> No. No, that's not part of the
application. What I'm saying is
you can treat that one lot as S60 and
the other lot as S40 for when you do the
zoning comparison, but we can't
physically move that lot that the line
>> that has to be done under master plan
and
>> Right. Right.
>> I'm just applying the zoning standards.
Make sure that
the interior lot is all S60. the corner
lot should be applied all as S40
>> or potentially make them both S40
>> possibly. That's something to look at.
>> John, I just have a curious question. Um
>> the house that you're going to move into
the interior lot. Yes. Um how are you
going to get the entrance stairs in
there? What's
>> So
>> because right now I noticed that
>> they come straight out right now.
>> Yeah. proposal. Uh the actual plan does
show it.
>> Um yeah, this rendering actually this
this other perspective does show it. The
the stairs will be turned sideways.
>> That's okay.
>> We ought to get some landscaping in
front of them. Then you can see the
garage door. Um
>> that makes sense.
>> Below the porch. Yeah.
>> Right.
>> Because again, we were trying to respect
the rear yard the best we could. So, we
moved the house forward, modifi they're
they're modifying the porch and the
stairs to get that additional uh
dimension to that's how we got that rear
yard to 13 where right now at the corner
it's sitting at 10 and a half.
>> Plus, it would have to go higher because
you lift
>> correct. Yeah. Fortunately, not a lot.
But yeah,
>> what how much how much higher are you
lifting it?
>> So, uh I think it's too much
>> just a foot.
>> It's 14 and 12 now. I think it's going
to 16 and 12.
>> Yeah, it's going up 24 in. So, going
back to the front steps on the plan, it
shows the front steps stopping at grass.
You're going to
>> Yeah, you're obviously that can't
happen.
>> Well, that's that's going you're already
at the minimum for front yard landscape
coverage.
>> Yeah. What we're saying is we we'll
utilize another grass strip in the
driveway to to
>> Wait, bear with me one second. Let me
get to that site plan.
>> Right now, the stairs land on grass.
So you have to walk across the grass to
get to the steps
>> and they're right at the landscape.
>> Change something up.
>> Yeah, Roger. What what Laura is
suggesting is that we break these two
up. So this is not a solid piece to get
enough back to have the walk a walkway
coming out.
>> Right. And we do have a design standard
for the ribbon driveways.
I think uh
I think if you comply with the
standards, you'd still be okay.
>> Okay.
>> It's not 4 foot between the two.
>> It's like three.
>> Okay.
>> So, you'll still comply with the minimum
requirement?
>> Yes.
>> For Okay.
>> So, we're going to make that a
condition.
>> Yes. Yeah, they'll you'll you'll work
out the issue with the right
>> stairs on the relocation
satisfaction. Yes. And comply with
whatever needs to be.
>> Um,
anyone from the public like to speak?
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Eric Goldie. I represent the
rear yard neighbor, Mr. Hoffman, who is
here to my left. Going to have him sworn
in. We're going to talk about this
project, but based upon fair number of
discussions I had with Mr. Balancen, Mr.
Barnhard, and Mr. Asher's office uh over
time, uh they've agreed to make some
modifications to the plan which are
presented tonight to the board. So, we
are going to be supporting the
application as submitted. Mr. Hoffen
just has a couple things he wants to put
on the record regarding the future uh of
the project and the fact that uh while
in favor just wants to make sure that
there are no changes to the plan. He's
in favor of this plan has modified and
Chris was great about getting these
stuff and so was John, but we just want
to make sure that there aren't going to
be any. We've got our variances now.
We're going to add stuff to the plan.
That's really all we're here for, but we
are in favor. So, Mr. Hoffman, I'm sure
Mr. Matt is going to swear you in for a
second there.
>> I'll get you swearing.
>> Nathan Hoffman, 17 South Vendome.
>> Of course, I missed your first name.
>> Nathan Hoffman.
>> All right, Mr. Hoffman, please raise
your right hand. You swear affirm the
testimony you're about to give will be
truth.
>> Yes.
>> Okay, go ahead. Thank you.
>> Nathan, we've been through this for a
little more than a month. We've gone
through various iterations of the plans.
describe to the board where you live,
what you're looking at out the back, and
how this project affects you, and the
fact that uh you would like this exact
project to get built.
>> So, my property will sit, it will share
the uh property line of the new house
here and the property line of the house
that they're moving. So, I will share
both of them. Um I I I like the idea of
the uh subdivision. think it improves
the neighborhood. I think the plan for
the house on the corner, I I love that
plan, not just for the neighborhood, but
it preserves my light space. Um, with
that pool back there,
>> the house that they're moving was my
only concern when they asked for a 10-ft
variance, but
>> 10 foot setback, excuse me, 10 10ft
setback
>> that would have been a six foot,
>> but I think they um they accommodated us
with a 13t setback. So, my only concern
is that the plant stays as is. I just
wanted to make sure that there there
there's not going to appear uh something
uh a garage or a shed or anything else
because that even though it it currently
is 2.9 ft and it's growing to 13 ft,
it's the elevation that um really
impedes my light air in space.
>> So, it be fair to say we're not taking a
negative approach to the application. We
like the application. I like the
application. I like the subdivision. I
like the houses. I like the homes. And I
very much appreciate
um the neighbors working with me. I'm
not trying to be unreasonable by any
means. And I don't think they're
unreasonable as well. So, I appreciate
all of the effort they put in to
accommodating me and I'm very happy with
the plan the way it is. I just want to
make sure there's no deviation.
>> I think we're obligated. This board has
gone over that. We're obligated to build
what we present. I think that's um it's
good
>> right because it's a variance.
>> Yeah.
>> And if it's granted you're going to get
a 13 foot rear yard setback and
>> not 12.
>> I'm supportive of the plan as shown
here.
>> Great.
>> There's not going to be there'll be no
shed or
>> John. Can you put the um zoning map?
Just curious to know what what lot
specifically
Nathan is on.
>> Uh so
here you go.
>> He would be the one.
>> I believe that is lot nine.
>> Okay. Three.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks. That's it.
>> Good.
>> Anyone else from the public?
>> Okay. Public portion is closed.
Uh, Roger, the the waiverss, your report
pretty much goes through those just as
far as the minor subdivision.
>> Are you John, are you all right with the
report?
>> Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't touch on that.
We we did review the desired report. Um,
the waiver suggestions that are in
there, we would like to ask for um
without any without any exceptions to
the way the report is written.
Um, all right. So, if there's no further
discussion, need to bring this to a
vote. Um,
is everyone ready?
>> No, I do I do have one question. This
isn't working. Um,
it's not working. The is the existing
porch on the existing house, is it being
reduced in depth because you're moving
the house forward?
>> Yeah. Yes, the porch is being
reconstructed and it is being reduced in
depth a little bit. Again, that was all
an effort to work with the neighbors and
get that that yard set back larger.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Okay. So, the relief, I'll summarize it.
We'll need a motion, a second, a roll
call vote, but it's a minor subdivision
approval to not create a new lot, just
to readjust the uh the lot line, which
will make the interior lot, which is in
the S60 zone, smaller, and then the
corner lot larger. And because that
interior lot's in the S60 zone, it needs
the following variances. The lot area
for the S60 zone 6,000 ft. That lot's
going to become 4,000 square ft. 4,000
ft. Then a lot with the S60 requirement
60 ft and it's going to become 50 ft.
And then the house that's going to be
relocated from the corner onto the
interior lot is going to have a rear
yard setback of 13 ft where 16 ft's
required. Uh in terms of the waiverss,
we'll just defer and incorporate
everything in Mr. McConnell's report, he
uh he itemizes those nicely. In terms of
conditions, um to the extent you haven't
confirmed the tax assessor, he'll he'll
ultimately assign the new lot numbers
and the addresses for the two propert.
the addresses won't change, but the lot
numbers maybe they won't change either.
But in any event, whatever the tax
assessor says, um you'll work out the
issue with the stairs on the relocated
house to Roger satisfaction
and uh
per Mr. Hoffman's comments in terms of
that interior lot, you know, what's not
shown on the plans is what's going to
get built. Um the other conditions just
a standard condition subject to any
outside approvals that may be required
after comply with any uh representations
that made during the course of the
hearing. I'll say anything else in Mr.
McLaren's report unless otherwise
addressed. So it's minor subdivision
those variances the waiverss need a
motion a second and a roll call vote
>> and full compliance with the uh non-con
conversion agreement on both homes. I
can add that.
>> I'll make that motion. Second,
>> Mike Richmond.
>> Uh, I think it's a much better situation
than what's existing. I I like the uh
setbacks
uh on the corner. They're another what 3
ft minimum and maybe more when you get
to the angle. Um
really besides switching the lots and
the variance for the you know the how
big the houses are going to be the only
other variance is the rear yard setback
and the homeowner is on board with that.
So um I think it's a good plan and I'm
going to vote yes.
>> Craig Palmisano.
>> Yes. Um it's a it's a it's a good
project. I I I have nothing um bad to
say about the switching of the the lots.
Uh that moving the house and raising it,
adding parking spaces, and you're the
you're eliminating a very close house
now, less than 3 ft from the rear
property line. And um
I I uh it's easier for a corner lot to
be built, a house to be built on a
corner lot when you have more room
because of the two fronts. It's very
important. So, I think it's a good
project. I vote yes.
>> Johanna Perski,
>> um I it was an easy yes once Chris
explained that there's going to be an
S40 lot on this block no matter what.
And it does preserve it really enhances
the aesthetics of the block altogether.
So, that's why I approve.
>> Steve Joki.
>> Yeah, I was I think Mr. Bonhart did a
really good job explaining log benefits
uh for the purpose of this application.
So I uh I think it's a good one. I think
I vote yes.
>> Sam Freriedman.
Uh I agree with the rest of the board
members and uh the benefits that this
will add to the the block and the
neighborhood to include uh the changing
of the two identical houses uh that are
on Atlantic um and changing it up. Uh it
will be uh sad to see the old uh the old
house go, but you know, we're we're uh
you know, I guess moving in the in the
direction of of progress and compliance.
So So yeah, absolutely. It's yes for me.
>> Patty Rosenberg.
>> Um I I um approve and vote yes. I agree
with everything else that's been said.
>> John Pittz.
>> Uh lots of construction activity on this
block. Um it's bit crazy at the moment.
Uh demonstrates the popularity and
attractiveness I think of the S60
Parkwayway zone. People that want to
come into Margate want to be in the
parkway. They want large lots. Uh I'm
not crazy about the idea of putting an
undersized lot in the S60 zone. However,
I think we can address that with the
master plan review. Um and ultimately
maybe make that lot compliant by moving
it into the S40. So I approve.
>> Motion carries. Seven in favor and zero
post.
>> Thank you very much speaker. Thank you.
>> Look at all those on the other side.
Five minute break. Sure.
>> We're going to take a fivem minute
break.
>> Okay. Um,
our second case is Tideline 9317 Amherst
Avenue, block 527, lot 1 Z WSD. requests
C variance relief for sign style and
number of signs in order to allow one
directional sign, two business
identification signs on the front facade
and a second business identification
sign on the east facing facade of the
building.
>> Thank you.
>> Status Colonel Taxes, water and sewer
proof of notice provided. Attorney
Christopher Balons
I'll do a brief intro on this. This is a
force based on the application of
tideline 9317 Amherst Avenue block 527
lot one located in the WSD or waterfront
special district. Uh when this property
was first developed it was a Vzone
because we were based on two different
maps actually three maps but a high most
restrictive map put this in a V zone. So
that's why the whole property is
elevated above and there's a small
entryway area to get into the building.
So we're here because they want to add a
sign identification sign on the wall
facing Atlantic City. You're allowed a
sign that faces your parking area. This
is not a parking area. So the size comp
complies but the location does not. The
other issue is the arrow sign on Ammerst
Avenue. It's could be called a blade
sign because it projects out of the
building and it's two-sided facing both
ways and it's not an identification
sign. It's actually a directional sign
which are permitted. You're allowed two
of them but not at that size. I believe
it's uh four square feet
is permitted and 10 square feet is but
if you think about an idental sign is
you pull into the uh parking lot at
Wells Fargo and the entrance sign is is
a directional sign. So this is a
different application but I think the
the application based on the testimony
that's on coming I think it's I think
it's needed. The other issue is our
ordinance says you can't have any bare
bulbs. It says incandescent as you can
tell the sign of the times it's LEDs. So
I'm look u it's still a bear bulb and
they're not shielded. So
unshielded lights or signs need a
variance.
And uh I believe that's it. So there are
five variances identified.
Two of them are kind of the same,
but Mr. Balson, go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mr. McCclair. Members of the
board for Chris Balinsson for Tidlock.
Um, 937 Amherst Avenue, block 527, lot
one in the WSD district. I'm I'm here
before you to tell you that if you
didn't know where Tideline is coming
from somewhere else, you wouldn't know
where it is. Um, we should have when we
came in initially, we should have asked
for a sign facing Atlantic City. That's
the natural location for that sign.
Traffic is one way heading towards the
building and I know based upon living in
that neighborhood that traffic seems to
stop at the corner of Adams Avenue. Um,
people looking for that building. So,
the the arrow sign uh which is a
permitted directional sign, but the sign
style is not permitted. uh in hindsight
that was should have been a different
style sign that directs you to the front
door. The smaller tideline sign on the
side of the building direct you to the
building to to the use. Um the the
overall square footage of the signs if
you if it was a corner property would be
okay except for the arrow sign. I I
think including the if you include the
arrow sign it's only about two square
feet over totally
what you would be permitted to have
because if it was a corner property that
sign on the tideline sign on that side
is designed to comply with the ordinance
in terms of it's half the sign size of
the front side that was done
intentionally it's much smaller but it's
it's significant enough to be seen
coming down Ammerst the directional sign
just brings you to the front door John's
professional planner he can talk to you
about why we believe from a traffic
safety standpoint It's a um necessary
plan.
>> All right, John. Uh new application, so
I'll just get you sworn in again real
quick.
>> Uh John Barnhart, engineering planner,
please raise your right hand. You swear
from the testimony to this evening will
be the truth.
>> I do.
>> We'll accept his credentials as planner
and engineer.
>> Thank you. I I'll be very brief. Um this
this as Chris already mentioned, um this
proposal of adding two signs to this
building um is is is the way we look at
it. We've been involved in this project
from the beginning. Um it's a it's
addressing something that probably
should have been dealt with when they
originally when they originally
constructed the building. Um two things
are going on. Um it is because of the
elevation of the building and the and
the construction of the building. Um the
pedestrian entry, the main entry into
the into the facility is not easily
discernible um by motorists that are
going by it or pedestrians that happen
to be coming off the boardwalk. Um we
all know uh that this location not just
this restaurant but Amherst Avenue has
become wildly popular. Um and so having
proper identification and proper
direction becomes extremely important
from a from a safety perspective. So by
adding that directional arrow it it
first of all it identifies the entry um
for pedestrians that might be walking
across the crosswalk or coming down the
boardwalk. Um it's tastefully done. It
matches the the character of the
building. Um, it's not overly sized.
It's bigger than your ordinance permits.
Um, because your ordinance really
doesn't permit this type of sign. Um,
but it fits in very well. It's not
oversized. It's not obnoxious. Um, it
doesn't even have words on it. It's just
an arrow. But it
>> scaled and appropriate for location.
>> The scale of it is 100% appropriate, but
it actually it actually it serves two
functions. It lets the pedestrians know,
oh, you know, this is where I should be
going. But it also alerts motorists that
are coming one one way down Amherst
Avenue. they see that arrow and they're
like, "Okay, that's where people are
coming in and out and it makes them more
aware. We know how congested this area
can get." Um, so I think that that
tasteful piece of signage will work very
very well to help uh create a safer
condition which which obviously promotes
the general welfare
>> and you can couple that with the
proposed sign on the east face of the
sideline
sign which get gets you to the building
and the arguation to the building.
>> That's correct. the the tideline sign on
the face of the of the wall I think is
also very important because right now as
you drive down the street down Hammerst
Avenue if you're looking for tideline um
you might see that arrow but you still
you still don't know it's tidine um so
it's a small sign it's down low it's not
up on the roof um you know you know
shining for miles um it is again very
tastefully done everything that they've
done at this property has been extremely
tasteful and absolutely beautiful uh
this will just enhance that and it goes
to the exact same justification We
believe that it that it improves safety
because because it improves
identification of the building uh which
promotes the general welfare.
>> If this were a corner property that use
that additional side was implied based
upon property.
>> Yeah. If that sign were facing the
parking which there's no way for it to
do in this case it would actually be
permitted. Yes.
>> That's all I have.
>> So that that also helps the emergency
people identify where to go in there if
it's out of space because they can't see
>> these sides. You have no idea where
where you go to have none. And when you
guys got approval for this application
back in way when Ammerst Avenue was
two-way.
>> That's correct.
>> Right. There was no prominade.
>> And uh
>> I can tell you Jimmy Lee owns the
building next door.
>> Yeah.
>> Was encouraging.
>> Yeah.
>> He's encouraging this because he gets
people in his stairway and in his
elevator on a daily basis.
>> Yeah. I spoke with Jim today, in fact,
and he he was thrilled that they're
moving forward with this because he's he
said literally almost every day since
he's moved in his building, he's had to
walk people back down the stairs because
they don't believe him that it's not the
entry. And
>> yeah, thank you guys.
>> Anybody else? Anyone from the board?
>> Yeah, I have a couple of questions. Um
would sandwich boards or some sort of
temporary signs
uh at ground level pointing to the
entrance would they be allowed?
>> So we thought thought about that. Our
concern is they would just get knocked
over by traffic and the bikes they would
and they'd be two loads would be
discernible when it's crowded
>> and there's not much room there.
>> You wouldn't even see it be hidden.
Uh just speaking personally, uh somebody
coming in from out of town that maybe
that lives in a big city, they're going
to see that arrow and think it's
parking. Um
>> it is
>> and two spots and it's not really
parking. Um that that causes me a little
bit of concern.
>> Yeah. The the big arrow
>> the big arrow. The big arrow. The big
arrow. Um, in the original variance,
there was variances for signage.
>> There was when there was a use proposed
at grade a um a bait shop.
>> Yes, there was additional signage
proposed which was never
>> I got it.
>> And there was also a big sign facing the
water that was never
>> Right. Right.
>> So, I have a question. What is the arrow
sign made of? I mean, are there blinking
lights on it or
>> No blinking lights? No moving lights.
Um, just blue bulbs.
>> Blue bulbs.
>> Blue background.
I'm sorry. White bulb,
blue background.
>> Mhm.
>> And they won't be flashing at all.
>> They do not flash. Now,
>> how how bright are they? I mean, are
they like LED lights and
>> LEDs?
>> Well, that can be very bright or very
nuts.
>> Keep in mind that's that 10 square foot
that I have in my report includes the
projection away from the wall. So the
actual sign area is less than that.
>> I I it's not terribly right.
>> No, but would it I mean would you want
to say entry on it somewhere?
>> Well, you think coupled with the sign on
the side of the building now and figure
that out.
I think that's much cuter than something
that's a short.
You got to come up and just
>> Oh,
we just need just need your name for the
record.
>> Uh Cameron Fickling Ran
>> and you're a part owner of
>> coowner.
>> Please raise your hand. You swear affirm
the testimony you're about to give to be
the truth.
>> I swear.
>> Thanks. Um, to answer your question
before about stationary signs on the
ground level, we actually have three
already and they weren't helping at all.
We have an octopus that points
>> if you're going to the parking
>> and then we had
>> a sign on the door that says, "Yep,
right here." And we keep it open and
people still walk around looking and I
stand right there and go, "Yep, right
here." Um, we also have a TL when you
walk around the octopus that has an
arrow that goes pointing towards the
door. And I work there every day and
there's people coming up there every day
just going circles back and forth trying
the other emergency exit. They still
don't know. Second we put the arrow up,
they just come through. They find at
least the area where that is and they
get they get in. Um, it does help a
decent amount. Um, what was your
question
>> about the lighting?
Yeah, it's not super bright. Um, I have
it dimmed cuz at first it was very
bright, but I have it dimmed and then it
only comes on when we're open. So, 11:30
a.m. to around like 10.
>> Okay. I don't think there was anything
else.
>> And there's no residential that would
that song would affect in that area,
right?
>> I mean, there is
>> where where where
>> across the street?
>> Huh?
>> Across the street across from
>> We have Mr. Burner would like to speak
to that.
All right,
Mr. Burger. Uh, I guess Ed
9402.
>> Um, all right.
>> Give me a second. Is anybody else from
the Well, we can come back later and
reconvene. All right. So, we're going to
open it up to the public now.
>> 9402 Amherst.
>> Okay. We're open to the public now. Mr.
Burgerer, do you swear affirm the
testimony you're about to give to be
truth?
>> I do.
>> Thanks. Just a first of all, the lights
that were there are not offensive. I'm
at 9402. I'm diagonally across the
street. I am I don't have any problem
with the lighting on the signage at all.
Secondly, I can support Mr. Mart said
earlier about people wandering around
Jimmy Weed's building trying to find
their way in. It's it's it's actually a
couch sitting comedy. It's we kind of
enjoy it a little bit. The fact that
it's not going to be there anymore, it
affects my comedy, but you know, people
will be able to find the entrance to the
building. Uh I don't find it as a
neighbor. I don't find it offensive at
all. I can't see any problem with it.
>> Okay.
>> Anyone else from the public?
>> You know, the first time I came down
>> name and address
108 North Adams Avenue.
>> Where? North Adams.
>> North Adams Avenue.
>> 108.
All right. Please raise your right
hand. You swear to tell the truth.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Got it.
First time I came down Amherst Avenue, I
saw this sign and I thought of the new
saying that everyone's calling Amherst
Avenue with the Barbar Coast.
>> It's not a new saying.
>> It's not the Barbar Coast. It's Amherst
Avenue and everything else is busy down
there. And we hear terms about they're
doing great business. They're doing
great business. Now we need a sign
that's tasty. I don't know if the word
is tastably done. It's not done.
basically looks like it looks like Las
Vegas out there with that sign. Big
deal. It's not flashing. It is exposed
bulbs. And then they say they toned it
toned it down a little bit. What are the
looms on that sign? How much does it
give off? How much light does it give
off in requirements?
It looks bad on that building. It's the
only sign on the street that's extended
out in the building. The building was
just approved. If they were concerned,
so much concerned about the entrance,
they should have known as retailers how
to get people in there. Everyone else on
the street has signs placed on the wall.
This is the only extended sign. And when
you come down and you're an outsider
coming down Ammeris Avenue, where that
sign come from compared to everywhere
else, it looks like the beginning of Las
Vegas. Prove it. Now you're going to
have more requests for more extended
signs.
Is there specifics offered in this
approval?
>> Thank you,
>> Eric Goldstein, two exit or court. I
wasn't intending on speaking tonight,
but looking at this application to tell
the truth.
>> I do, Mr. Manos. This is so dimminimous
based upon the size of the building.
It's very subtle. When you're coming
down Amherst, which is now one way,
potentially you're going to have a
backup of cars not knowing where to go.
The sign on the side, it's it's probably
too small as it's submitted now. And the
arrow sign is very tasteful. I've been
by on foot and in the car. It's
I would say this is the definition of a
dimminimous deviation from your zoning
ordinance. And I would say as a Margate
resident, it's something that directs
you where to go into the establishment,
which is very wellrun. And I would say
this is an application that should
absolutely be approved.
>> Anyone else from the public?
The public portion is closed. Any other
questions from the board?
Okay.
>> All right. This is a C variance
application for the the two signs. the
one on the
Atlantic City side of the building I
guess and then the the arrow sign and
the variances required are for the arrow
sign uh
signs are required to be wall fascia
mounted this is a type of a blade sign
that projects greater than 10 in from in
the wall so that's a variance um the
arrow signs a directional sign they're
permitted in parking areas and this
isn't a parking area. That's a variance.
The size of the the arrow sign uh is
about 10 square ft on each side where we
our ordinance says four square ft. So
that's a variance. And then the sign the
tide line sign at a secondary location.
It can face the parking area, but this
is on the side of the building. And then
for that sign lighting, uh they're
unshielded signs uh for lack of a better
uh term. And so it's a variant of the
sign lighting. Um the conditions are
pretty much the standard ones we put in
every resolution. You have any res uh
representations made during the course
of the hearing. Any car unless otherwise
addressed subject to any outside
approval.
>> Can we add that the the light the sign
will not flash?
>> Yeah. the signs the signs won't flash. I
can add that
>> pretty much.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Second,
>> Mike Richmond.
>> So, I know from personal experience from
going to Tidelines just about not every
time I go there, but a lot people are
wandering around trying to find the
place, trying to find how to get in
there. Um, I do think that putting the
sign on the side, the tie line side is
really a safety issue because,
you know, people are going to stop
looking for it. They're going to stop in
the middle of Amherst Avenue. Amherst
Avenue already is congested enough
without people stopping in the middle
searching for the sign. Um, as far as
I've been to Las Vegas.
um you know this is not Las Vegas and
every um case has taken on its own
merit. So just because this we approve
this and I think in my mind there was
compelling reasons to approve this
doesn't mean that um another restaurant
Lamberties or whatever is you know is
going to be approved. They have to come
up with good reasoning and I think in
this case it's a good reason. So, I'm
going to vote yes.
>> Craig Basana.
>> Yes. I I think the signs are much
needed. Uh the arrow sign is very good.
Uh directs people right to it. Um Mr.
Burgerer lives across the street. He
doesn't bo doesn't bother him much at
all. I walk by it every day and uh I I
the sign driving down there on Ammerst
Avenue, that's much needed. People could
see it from a block away. Here, here it
comes. Let's find a parking space. So, I
approve.
Johanna Perski.
>> Um I I think to suggest that this
does anything but enhance further
enhance Amherst Avenue is I I I have a
major problem with. I think Amherst
Avenue has been improved so much over
the last 20 years. Um in part to because
of this restaurant and other restaurants
um going the extra mile as far as
aesthetics go. Um, so for that reason I
approve without question.
>> Steve Joki,
>> I think it just makes sense. You need
signage people know where to go. It's a
safety issue. Um, I don't think it's
obtrusive. I don't think it's going to
turn to Vegas. I think it's um
telling everybody just where they need
to go and alleviate traffic. So I
approve
>> Sam Freriedman
>> uh in the uh spirit of of public safety
uh traffic flow dark uh you know which
is the operating hours uh kind of you
know the prime operating hours of this
of tidelines
I believe it's a safety uh safety thing
public safety um you know traffic uh you
know pedestrian traffic management Um, I
approve
>> Patty Rosenberg.
>> Um, along with the safety issues, I
think the signs are well done and
nicely proportioned to the building and
I and I approve.
>> John Pittz.
>> Uh, yeah, I can't approve the blade
sign. It's just too contrary to what we
have for our sign ordinances down. So, I
vote no.
>> Motion carries. Six in favor and one
approved. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Okay.
Our last case,
Hal and Helen Cohen, 45 Casside Court,
block 610.04,
lot 7, S40 zone. Request C variance
relief for fence height in order to
allow installation of a 6 foot high
privacy fence along the rear property
line.
Status current on taxes, water, and
sewer. Proof of notice provided.
>> All right. Uh, dear, Mr. Mrs. Cohen, the
applicants.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> And you have 45 Casside Court.
>> We do.
>> Just going to swear the the two of you.
Can you please raise your right hand
each of testimonial gift?
>> Yes.
>> We have your uh nice package here. Yeah,
good.
>> I'll I'll lead them off.
>> All right.
>> I'll give an intro.
>> It was It was something.
>> So, they came in for a zoning permit to
approve a 6ft fence along the back line,
which uh is the back of JCC. Obviously,
it's on their property. Without a
swimming pool or spa, I can't approve
it. Um
so, they after I explained it to them,
they were fine. And I think they did an
impressive job with their application.
Yeah.
>> Wow. For a fence.
>> And it's not in the front yard. So, this
is a
this is if something I could approve
this, I would have approved it. But here
we are today. Again, it's back at the
JCC. And I think your explanation is
warranted to provide the the planning
board why you want to do this.
>> Okay. Yeah. This is primarily for
privacy reasons. Uh, our backyard abuts
the JCC walkway and storage area and
it's only a few feet from the building.
So, anybody that's back there and
employees, workers, pedestrians, they
have a clear line of sight into my
backyard, my porch, my den, and my
kitchen.
So
instead of really going through the
narrative that's in that report, I'd
like you to point out a few pictures
that are behind tab 14.
So exhibit
>> exhibit B1 shows how close and narrow
the JCC walkway area is behind the
fence.
Exhibits B4 and B5 show the view from
the JCC side looking into my property.
Am I moving too fast? Okay.
And exhibit B6 shows the service area.
Now I exhibit B7 I think is the most
important
and not only because it features my
beautiful wife
but because it really shows why that one
foot is so important.
The average pedestrian walking by with a
5ft fence could see direct line of
sight. Six foot provides a much more
effective privacy buffer.
So it also would be consistent with the
fencing used by nearby neighbors that
also face the JCC.
So basically for these reasons I
respectfully ask the board to approve
this variance.
Thank you. And I can answer any
questions.
>> You don't see any substantial detriment
for doing this. I mean, there's
>> you're not affecting any other
>> residential neighborhoods, right?
>> No, it doesn't affect the air, light, or
view of any neighbors. It's really only
my backyard. And in fact, I think it's
it's a positive really for the few
neighbors that could see through my
backyard into the JCC.
This would really, you know, block
>> block that wall.
>> Are they going to chip in for defense?
What's that?
That would be nice.
>> That would be I mean and it really just
maintains the the privacy we had before.
My my trees blew down in the storm
>> in February and to replace all those
trees. Who knows if they're going to
blow down again? How long do I
>> What sort of trees were they? I'm just
curious.
>> They're arborites.
>> Arbites.
>> Yeah. and just and I don't know how fast
they're going to grow or but this 6ft
fence would just do a world of good for
for me, my family, few neighbors and
whoever moves in there.
>> Well, maybe with the fence, maybe a
raised planter with reestablishing
taller shrubs in there, maybe that will
really help you out.
>> What's that?
>> If you had like a raised planter along
the fence with additional shrubs later
on,
>> that would additional.
>> Yeah, we're going to make it look really
nice. I'm sure you will. Are you ready?
>> I already
>> like 20 designs.
>> The picket fence is remaining. Is that
your fence or is that the JCC fence?
>> That was No, it's our fence. It was
there when we moved in, but it's our
fence.
>> It's on your property.
>> It's on our property. Yeah, it's on my
property. So, it's basically just taking
the fence that's there, removing it,
>> putting in a taller fence. It's pretty
>> It's pretty simple.
>> But they're the world. The JCC, which
I'm very active in, is thrilled that
we're doing this.
>> It gives them some privacy, too.
>> Security.
>> Yeah. So,
>> how did you choose uh six feet versus
eight or five? What's the Would you have
gone taller or
go?
>> Thanks for saying that.
>> I can I might go
>> I think six foot. I think six six is
good because
>> if you put in there, you'd be allowed to
see.
>> You have to be 6'5 really to see over a
six. There not many 6'5
>> taller fences that are solid. They they
can blow over easy.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm happy with the 6ft
fence, but I got to tell you, five that
one foot makes such a huge difference.
>> Well, this only looks like four that's
in there now.
>> What's that?
>> This only looks like a 4ft high.
>> Yeah, it was a it's a 3 and 1/2t fence,
I think. But we had like I said there
were arbor vites that lined the whole
thing completely you know private and
then those in February that storm just
>> it just blew down a whole bunch of trees
and then it completely and then all the
other were lopsided. I had to cut them
all down. It was sad.
>> Talk about the ice storm.
>> Yeah
>> I lost my trees too.
>> Yeah.
Uh, if they had a pool, Roger, if they
had a pool in the backyard, they would
be allowed a 6ft thing. Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Um, have a kitty pool.
>> My grandkid.
>> Anybody else from the board?
Uh, you want from the public?
Portion is closed.
All right. It's just the one C variance.
Our ordinance says the maximum fence you
could have without a pool is 5 ft.
They're proposing a six fence for the
reason state
specific conditions just to stand on
every resolution.
Shouldn't have any
pretty straightforward.
Just need a motion, a second or call
vote.
>> Motion.
>> Second.
>> Mike Richmond.
>> I don't have a problem with it. I think
uh like we said it there was a poll
there
fence. I think it's uh definitely a
benefit to the neighborhood. I'm a vote.
Yes.
>> Craig Palmisano.
>> You look like you're 6 foot tall,
>> right?
>> Used to be 510 now.
>> But yeah, I it's well needed and uh and
I like your presentation too very much.
Thank you.
>> Good job on it. Thank you
>> and I approve.
Johanna Perski.
>> Um, I think it benefits uh the
neighborhood certainly. I agree.
>> Steve Joki.
>> Yeah, I agree. There's a benefit to both
parties there. You and the JCC. So, I um
I approve.
>> Sam Freriedman.
>> I agree. And it's an easy yes. I
approve.
>> Patty Rosenberg.
>> I'll ditto that. I approve.
>> I didn't hear you, Patty. I said I did
owe that those comments. I approve.
>> John Pitz,
>> I approve.
>> Motion carries. Seven in favor and zero
opposed.
>> You'll just need to come.
>> You just need to sign.
>> Just reapply for your zoning permit with
passing.
>> We split it between me and the students.
Yes.
>> Oh. Uh, do I have
>> We got a couple little bit of extra
business.
>> All right. So, I got to show you that.
>> Yeah, you don't have to wait for this
thing. You just have to copies
just one piece of paperwork
and
at the same time
>> and then we'll get you everything else.
Okay.
>> What?
>> What about it?
>> Oh, yeah. I remember
few towns still do it right here.
>> I KNOW
>> that I remember.
>> Oh my god.
>> All right.
>> Are we done?
>> No.
We got a couple.
>> Good night.
>> Sit down, Craig.
I want to join our citizen support
group. Whatever it is that you like to
>> That's not my wife.
>> We can open it up for public comment.
>> Byebye.
>> Just two things. I'm going to set up a
subcommittee meeting with Jim Mutala
hopefully next week. He's been tied up
with other stuff. So, we'll get that
master plan going. Uh the other thing is
we got notice from the DP and Remington
and Vernick, our city engineer,
uh as part of the municipal language
law. We're supposed to introduce as a
courtesy
review to the planning board, courtesy
notice to the planning board of
extensive capital projects. One is a
pump station at Washington Avenue in
Ammerst Avenue where uh we have a grant
and we're applying for uh diversion with
the green acres and their requirement is
to notify the planning board. I forgot
the letter, but I'm just telling you
we're putting in a pump station at
Ammerst Avenue, which will help reduce
the amount of flooding in that area all
the way up to Ventner Avenue. It won't
stop flooding, it'll reduce the duration
of the flooding. So, I just want
>> Where's that going to go?
>> Under the parking lot at Washington
Avenue in Ammerst.
>> Okay.
>> There's a vault under there already,
right?
>> No, that was at that was at Adams Avenue
and it was a term that we can't use at
that. It's not structurally stable. Got
it. That should help.
>> It'll help CRS also.
>> Yes.
>> Winchester.
>> Washington and Ammerst.
>> Right where the fishing pier is. There's
a little parking area right there.
>> Right. Right.
>> And because that's Green Acres, we had
to get approval for them. It's called a
diversion because we're changing it.
Even though when you drive by you won't
see any any difference when it's over
other than maybe the electrical control
panels above ground.
>> Um I'm thinking the old school pump
station where you have this little
cement box.
>> It's going to be underground.
>> Underground.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And usually these pump motors are pulled
and lubricated with vegetable oil in
case they leak.
Nice.
>> Yeah.
>> At the through the bulkhead
right
>> assist the sewer system.
>> Right.
>> Is that it?
>> That's it.
>> All right. Motion to adjurnn.
>> Motion.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I. All right.