Margate City, NJ Planning Board Meeting of May 28, 2026

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