flag United States americe roll Tom Collins Craig palisano here Richard Patterson here John pittz here Jim galantino here Margaret guberti Steven jaeki Andrew Campbell present Michael Richmond here absent is Michael rfu okay public notice this meeting is being held in accordance with the New Jersey statute requirements of the open meetings Sunshine Law notice of this meeting notice of this meeting has been advertised in the press and posted on the Bolton board in the municipal building all applicants are hereby advised that if you receive board approval tonight you must come forward and sign a form outlining the procedures for obtaining building permits and meran licenses at the conclusion of your case tonight please approach the board administrator to sign the provided information sheet next we're going to do approval of decisions and resolutions number 24- 2024 Keith feain and Maria lenti feain number 25 2024 Mark Rus and chrisy Reed Rus I make a motion all in favor I post okay no sorry um approval minut of June 27th 2024 all in favor opposed okay all right our first one announce two announc theend a AUST 29 ifue 16 South up now we're working really working yeah and just for the people just for the people who just came in if you're here for Pacific Avenue the W application that's going to be August 29th so assuming all right I don't want you to sit here find that out but okay we'll proceed with the first application will be Robert and Lisa Miller 16 South thorlo okay Robert and Lisa Miller 16 South Bel Avenue block 121 lot 18 located in the S40 zoning District SE variance relief from minimum side yard setback aggregate sidey yard setback and potentially others in order to increase the size of the master bedroom and cover the second floor deck carrental taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented represent by Joel M fleshman good evening Mr chair members I'm going to get Roger sworn in before I forget Mr MCC do you swear airm the testimony he'll give throughout this evening it be the truth I do okay thank you thank you Mr chairman members of the board good evening Joel fleshman attorney appearing here this evening on behalf of Robert and Lisa Miller um I'll try to be as first we like to just thank Mr Goldstein for allowing me to jump ahead of his application tonight um and I will be as brief as possible so to honor what he did for us um tonight we're here to talk about 16 South thorow I feel it's a fairly straightforward application we're looking for I think as Roger pointed out as Mr McLaren put it out in his report there's like three variances we're looking to basically cover what is an existing second floor porch we're looking for about a foot just over a foot uh to bump out a master bedroom on the Eastern side which those those two things well actually the the front porch creates the aggregate side yard setback variants we have a building coverage variants and we also have a roof pitch variant um essentially what we' like to do is modernize the look of the house by covering the front porch as I think many houses have on the Block as well um it's already actually existing non-conforming condition so that does require that um that variance for that that um for the aggregate setback building coverage is increasing from 36.2 to 36.9 I think as you'll hear from Mr Kean who's here with me tonight as our expert um that's a fairly di Minimus 27 square feet increase uh and the roof pitch is at 3.5 that we're looking for as opposed to the 512 that you require under the ordinance um I don't Mr Miller Rob Miller's with me here tonight I don't testify but if he is needed obviously he's here to answer your questions I'd like to have Mr Kean sworn uh as our expert for tonight and um and we'll proceed yeah sure one minor correction on that Mr fman is the bump out is actually causing the combined side your parents the roof over the porch is is fine that complies okay Mr cjun just give us uh your name and business address please Robert 68 Aven okay please raise your right hand you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give would be the truth yes do and as a licensed architect you've been here several times we'll we'll accept this credential yes thank you Mr Miller go ahead construction neighborhood well we like to fix up the what very bones it's a nice ni L makes for nice lay the is also I eliminate roof higher want to make Roof 2 neighor let me just ask the bump out though there's an exist existing chimney on that side of the house we're going fur than the chimney as it exists today right and do you see any impact on light air open space you see any what are the benefits of this project then are you started in Rec it's a nice you see this is a nice aesthetic improvment for that street which is already a beautiful Street I you see any negative impacts on any of the neighbors or on the neighborhood so do you feel in your professional opinion that the benefits of these Varan outweigh any detriment see any impact negativ or master plan of the city the zoning ordinance of the city and have you had a chance to review Mr McLaren's report of July 25th and do you agree with that report and do you find any reason why we can't comply with anything that's listed in chairman that would really conclude our presentation obviously here for any questions um I have a question Michel how much sare footage is the bum how much are you adding to the was about 27 square feet right 2 anybody else on the board have any questions like that's also 13 ft off the ground yes just the upper part yeah the comb your set pack was 13.7 Now it's 12 Robert you're increasing the uh third floor square footage right you uh on the third floor fo so it's only really dmer space you're adding yes Ro could have done it Sky it had skylights sky sky abity it's still 50% of the Flor below or okay so by making the uh again I know you already talked about this but by uh reducing the pitch to three and a half you're actually reducing the height of the roof by two feet Yes I could I could put the 512 but it bring it up but still comply with the but it look right I just want to match the R Great any anyone else anyone from the public like to speak okay public portion is closed I want to just read some of the record in my oh sorry not to really go too much but I just want to go with the application of Robert Lisa Miller 16 South tho Avenue block 121 lot 18 Zone s20 Mr fman has already discussed the background as is Mr kjun I just want to go to variances in fact so page two and three of my report is the zoning chart Varan is required are as follows side yard setback combined whereas the minimum required solid yard setback to be combined is 37% of the lot width or 174t 13.7 feet exists in 12 feet is proposed so that's an expansion of a nonconforming setback building coverage r a maximum building coverage is 36.2% they are at 36.2% and they're increasing it by 27 ft to about 36.9% and again the uh one identified today was a roof pitch whereas the minimum roof pitch is five on 12 five on 12 exists for the existing roof and three on 12 is proposed for the Dormers and again this in an aesthetic manner as a planner I would I would agree that it would look funny if the middle of the roof is higher than the other part and it's that would be in kind with the rest of that block on that side of the street actually on both sides no waivers have been requested however All Landscape coverage requirements has to be not coverage but the shrubs and trees they have to Bei you agree with that yeah okay and again we did discuss the size of the dorm is make sure don't exce 40% of the floor area that third floor and the did go numbers and it is in fact 50% or less of the area of the of the second floor below so I have no further com on that and again I believe they put the proofs on that would satisfy their criteria for the C1 and C2 criteria for this application includes my report okay okay no if there's no if there's no further comments or questions it's a someone needs to make a motion for C variance relief the variances are the following the combined side yard setback 17.39% building coverage 36.2% is permitted and they're at 36.9% and then the roof pitch 5 on 12 is the minimum required and for that that Dormer roof is three on 12 as far as the conditions I'll note that you know they'll comply with the the shrubs and tree requirements of of our ordinance anything else in Mr McLaren's report unless otherwise addressed subject to any outside approvals that may not that may be required if any and then any any representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing just the standard conditions that we put in every resolution but just one further comment that bump out if that didn't include floor era that would be a permitted encroachment protection right but since it includes floor it's you're moving the wall I'll make that motion second Tom Collins Robert did really nice job on this house um obviously it doesn't meet a C1 criteria there is no hardship here but I think it really does uh especially dictate by The Neighborhood that it does need a C2 criteria it is for the betterment of the property for the city in the neighborhood and it's a much better option than tearing it down and building something that would really not fit that neighbor so simple and easy did a good job I vot Richard Patterson I agree with Tom I I have nothing to add it's a pretty simple case Michael richond I agree I agree with the other two board members I think it's a fairly di Minimus case and um I don't think it has any detriment to the neighborhood no one came here to oppose it so I'm going to approve it Ste ji I agree with the other board members I feel that it's it's nice Improvement and it's better than car down a new a new house I proof Margaret go beral um yeah I think we're creating a nicer house with a minor Improvement that aesthetically looker on the street John pittz uh yeah I have nothing that all the other board members have stated the uh comments so I approve Jim gtino save another house from tearing it down and building huge one just for that alone I approved the application Andrew Campbell I like the fact that you're not going to make the roof um bigger so it's G to up as a bigger house if you did um and with that I approve the project Craig palano you're updating an existing home which is a very big good benefit to the neighborhood um you could raise the roof which we're happy you didn't and I like taking the chimy out too because uh I don't think that third car would have gotten in that driveway with that chimney back there so benefits that third driveway for the appr motion carries than Mr chairman members of the board thank you again for allowing us to move up on the agend okay our next case is Michael and Mandy Dorfman 206 North Bruns Drive block 52.4 Lo 39.1 located in the s30 zoning District seeking C variance relief from minimum lot area minimum lot width maximum floor and potentially others in order to construct a new single family home Cent on taxes wood and SE payments proof of advertising and notifications provided representa represented by Eric thank Mr chairman board members the report is based I wasn't going to do a report on this but there was another variance that was identified that I wanted to bring to the board's attention Eric and I did discuss it today so this is the application of Michael and Manny Dorfman 206 North Brunswick Bruns drive drive block 502.040 one located in s30 zoning District firm elevation eight uh hardship VAR and substantial benefit parents the applicant is seeking relief from the ordinance as the city of Margate in order to construct a new house that has to be proposed to have 2.5 stories over parking which is not permitted on Lots less than 40 feet wide and this lot is deck facing the rear yard so they are the two variances being Sal tonight and I will turn it over to the applicant at this time thank you Mr McLaren ladies and gentlemen good evening Eric col on behalf of the applicants um with me to my left is Mr Robert Lolo who'll be getting architecture testimony but I do have a fairly long disseration with regard to what we're here for tonight and why we believe that this cases is now a variance based upon the governing B change of the zoning code um could fall under either C1 or C2 criteria all of which uh is fairly important based upon what I'm about to tell you so right now we've got a lot that the city of Margate created by way of a subdivision in 2007 back in 2007 the subject lot and two others were two lots that were both oversized but not enough to make three conforming Lots Mr barard was here in the back and has nothing to do with this application actually created these Lots Mr ponzio September of 2007 so what the city approved in 2007 are three 39.7642 but it directed the applicant at the time who is the client and applicant tonight um the developer to split all three of these Lots equal so when we talk about hardships and self-created hardships this is a hardship that was put on three lots by the city of margay plane once these Lots were created all of them were deficient by 2.8 Ines including the applicants lot that we're here for tonight so to begin with we've got lots were created by way of Prior application to this board the Lots could have been set up any number of ways but the city in the minutes of the meeting directed them to be equal all three of them so the applicants have and have had since they bought the house that is built on the lot 2.8 Ines shy of what would be a 40 foot wide lot the difference on a percentage basis is6 of 1% so we talk about what constitutes a hardship this lot is undersized literally by the length of a finger and is not able based on the recent change of the city's code to have a 2.5 story house built on it if it's over parking they could build a 2.5 story house if it's over a crossb which would be six feet high off the ground they could build a 30 foot high house over parking if there wasn't a third story but in order to get the third story they need a Vance okay Mr Manis I think I'm saying all this correctly but I'm G to double check with you because this is fairly important as to how the case goes in so yeah everything you're saying I I don't know the history with the subdivision I'll I'll take your word for that as far as as far as the law you're correct okay so this is the first case that the board is hearing after passage of the law back in uh 2023 and oftentimes we hear the board members say well if we give them this then someone's going to want more and someone's going to want more and it's going to set a precent it doesn't with respect to all of you at some point each of you have said well we don't want to open the floodgates and set a precedent it does not set a precedent okay and I'm going to read to you from the state of New Jersey municipal landu law okay the granting of a variant to one property owner does not not create a precedent for the granting of a variance to another property each variance must stand or fall on its own peculiar factual circumstances Leo the case is Cole be mayor and councel of fairon 50 NJ 268 it's New Jersey Supreme Court case Cox book goes on to say cases involving different factual situations are not at all similar and are distinguishable so whatever the board chooses to do tonight don't say please that this creates a precedent or it opens The Floodgate for other cases legally it does not that's a reason that you get sometimes concerned that other applicants will bring a case the New Jersey municipal land use law and all the cases that follow it clearly State there are no precedents set by what you're doing and in fact this board just a few months ago granted a flat roof house on the beach several the board members said what we're doing tonight does not create a precedent so please recall those words because this is the first case that you're hearing after the new law passed and I would venture to say that based upon the neighborhood development patterns of this street which is 80 feet wide Brunswick is the widest Street in Margate from one side of the property line where the um applicant's property is to the other side where the other uh property is it's that's on the subdivision plan filed back in 2007 okay if this lot were 2.8 in wide if the Margate planning board back in 2007 made them do 4040 and 39.4 we wouldn't be here for varies because they would own one of the lots that would be 40 feet wide but it was the action of your predecessors that created this situation additionally a lot of times we talk about partes and what constitutes a hardship there are a lot of types of hardships what we get a lot before this board are self-created hardship people do something wrong then they come in and beg for forgiveness and this board says all the time well you created this problem I can't have you coming back now and asking for a variance on something you've created in this instance the applicants tonight did not create this hardship it wasn't even the people they bought the house from it was their parenesis so these lots have existed 2007 developer went in got the subdivision flipped it to a builder who built the current house that's on the lot the three lots that were created presently all have two and a half story homes they're just not built over parking so at some point those homes were they came in at for variances or for Buro construction and each of the homes that exist now are two and a half stories again if the applicants wanted to build two and a half stories over a foundation same number of bedrooms that are being proposed now they could do that without a variance likewise if they wanted to build 30 feet with two very Grand floors a big first floor and a big second floor they could do that without a variance triggering of the variance is that it's not height but it's rather the number of stories that go into the house that was done back in was ordinance 10 of 2023 which passed back in July 2023 so what we have is in this instance I'm put Bob on talk about the house for a an ordinance that was created by the governing body applying to a lot that was created by the planning board and now the governing body's action of changing its requirement for two and a half stories and plan's action of directing these lots to be created 2.8 in short puts the applicants in the situation they're in now okay we talk a lot about this issue of the neighborhood development P if you go down Brunswick which is the widest Street in town there isn't a parking problem so this problem of having 2.8 Ines less than is required doesn't trigger an issue where all of a sudden we're losing parking think the exact amount of parking that exists for the houses today with a two and a half story house will exist if the board grants is varians the lots are generally pretty big and the homes are generally pretty big it's a street where there isn't a lot of crammed in development this is neighborhood in town that's been developed with a lot of thought the way the lots have been laid out maybe with the exception of what the board did 17 years ago a lot of but the neighborhood development pattern is such that the homes aren't right on top of each other and again the three homes that are on these three lots or each two and a half stories what the applicant is proposing is for another two and a half story lot house on the lot to replace what there now it's just going to be over parking having said that Bob I do want to walk through arure and what you designed rer pointed out that everything you've done needs or exceeds with the exception of the rearward facing de and the fact that we're kind of by something we can't control which is that the lot is 28 in short now also just to let everybody know there's no way to get additional land for these Lots the lot directly next door to the left is exactly 40 feet wide and these three lots are all the same size so there are situations when we have an undersized lot and we talk about how we can get those lots to comply in this case we can't even get those lots to comply so with all due respect again your predecessor from 07 we're not quite sure why they would want this configuration but this is what they gave us and what we're working applicants are not responsible for what's there now additionally Bob walks us through we do believe this can satisfy both the C1 and the C2 criteria the C1 criteria it's a hardship it's an irregular sized lot one would venture to guess there's probably no more irregular siiz Lots than lots that are they need all the other requirements except for some reason prior board wanted it to be 2.8 in short we don't know why but that is the true definition of a hardship additionally we talk about what Eric yeah wouldn't that apply to any lot that's left less than 40 feet so that would basically make our new rules meaningless with regard to what every lot less than 40 feet every you're saying every what your arguing for this lot seems to me would apply to any lot less than 30 feet 40 feet which would make our rules move no this is unique because if you had a 30 foot wide lot and 40 is required right it's not a dominous hard here what we're talking about is a distance where every case stands on its own yeah any any lot less than 40 in and of itself creates a hardship but does it create a hardship that allows a because the hardship is basically a dominous change to the zoning so you're you're distinguishing this L for its two in corre not just the fact right there are a number of lots in town that are 25 ft lde right so you couldn't take a 25 foot wide line and say well this is a hardship under this ordinance because it's such a it's 15t difference so your hardship is the two in 2.8 in over 480 in of width we don't know how it happened we couldn't control that we bought the house it's been there and by the way had the governing body not made this change we're not even here we're building this exact same house because it was a buildable lot of record it remains a buildable lot of record and a hardship would be more along the lines of you're this close to having it be 40 but on such a dominous change 6 of 1% that is a very very unique situation with regard to this line if it were 10 it you couldn't get the benefit of building a two and a half story house because also in the legislative history and your discussion of why you're doing this this board said we want to stop the homes that look like they're squeezed into the lot back when you were discussing this when it was a review of the governing body's ordinance at the meeting you said we're trying to stop Lots from having too much house on them so in that scenario if the lot had 2.8 in more this isn't an issue so I will put it all is the lack of 2.8 in going to be noticeable difference if you build a two and a half story house on a lot which is on the widest Street in Margate with maybe some of the least development for so the hardship is all those factors Tak together satisfies and I do want to read into the record a little bit about the hardship because it sounds like that perhaps may or may not be an issue here but here's the burden of proof for the hardship okay is there a showing of peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties and undue hardship upon an applicant arising out of a the exceptional narrowness shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property again I would say this is exactly the type of case that the law was written for it's 2.8 inches short of a um lot that we wouldn't have to be here for the Cox case goes on the Cox book goes on to say under the municipal land use law applications for a dominous hardship under a which is the um C1 standard involve properties which are too n too narrow in the setback cannot be met so this is just barely too narrow for the setback to be met so I'm going to turn it over to Bob unless the board has any questions about the the legal aspect and I'm going to get into this a little bit more as we go on because again based upon the neighborhood development pattern the definition of a hardship and the fact that this is6 of it's not even 1% it's 6 of 1% it's 2.8 in where 480 in are necessary um and it's not a self-created hardship so with that you know I did I did want to say something um because first of all a lot of the lots that are under sized now I've been under sized for 100 years you you go to Jefferson Avenue or you know there's a couple areas in Marg but you know that sit for a long time this was created by the city in 2007 correct yeah so it's it's I I I think it's not apples you know that I think that was a mistake by the city it might have been Mr I don't think this board would do that no but this is what we're dealing with you know so I I gu but um if if the city had done 40 40 and that mistake is unfortunately right Bing the current owners who bought the lot from the developer so this isn't problem that the clients created they you know were buying at that time a lot that you could do this with and then of course be an issue now unless the um governing body Chang the rule less than a year almost EXA year so yeah there are lots that and no one knows how they were 100 years ago this someone felt it was appropriate in September of 2007 the case was actually before the board in August of 2007 to direct all three of these to be equal with um and I think if we brought this case into this board you'd either deny it wholeheartedly or say only create one undersiz lot not three but this is what we got I have another question for Robert um what is the I don't see the height of the uh first floor I mean I see it's like 9 feet you know over Bob let me just get you sworn just give us your name and business address for the record and please raise your right hand you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes and you've been before our board numerous times as an architect will accept his credentials yes okay sorry hey Bob real quick can you go around the plan because we don't have a mic tonight so the grades uh I have the grade information now our first floor will be set at elevation 16 minimum 16 or 15 16t above sea level the the minimum Flor height is elevation 12 so it's a four foot difference between parking underneath the house and right and like we said in a couple cases previously that um from what I understand Roger that states or is it the state or the whole government state state is thinking of raising the actual flood height to 16 right it's always going to go up it's insane but they're talking about doing it so I think the uh point of the ordinance was to make the houses only smaller LS smaller but once everything's raised right it's going to be at the same elevation right this it may ultimately another ultimately need another change by the governing body because what happens is the city and the planning board are trying to limit the volume of a house but if the D njd forces you to go higher then what you're doing is trying to stop the D from making the even bigger if we have to go up one or two more feet the homes that are being approved now are non-compliant and then ultimately if you have to go up further you're going to have more volume of the house on a lot that you're trying to stop and there's nothing we can do about that that that's this one's we're lucky to get in when we are because no one wants to have 20 steps going but that's where we're head goad the other thing I wanted to point out is that their base flood is elevation 8 which is one of the lowest was 10 or 11 we wouldn't even be here because we' automatically have park underneath and their ground level is at elevation seven sometimes you're at 54 right you could almost you could fit a garage without it all depends on the slight conditions and the base right how you set so that is high for for Margate right yeah yeah like some points of mar at5 2 and A2 ft underneath the house already and then with the lower base flood elevation it really was restricting us but it s know what we walk us through the house itself especially all the other conforming aspects not that we would even if you the percentages for house width the width would be based on 4 39 b i Bas set back off9 so everything's conforming it's a proposed two and half story house over parking the overall square footage is only 2384 ft um third floor as I have it drawn is 454 sare feet which is 49.4% of the floor below so we're under % the differ is between one and two is we have two bedrooms on the third floor you make it a two story house we're down to three bedrooms and if you did a two and half story house over many not parking they would be the same house just Dro three three and a half have to have a have to have a detached garage which would cover more of the lot which would cause more of drain which it would be an issue because of the narrowness of the lot and getting enough parking down the sideway have like n 10 on the side you door that drive put fence the standard with parking really helps parking it's a benefit to all the home owners and the houses there now the house sides all two over correct and they're probably at a lower elevation than's requ away proba lower the third floor deck variant the clients wanted to do a deck in the rear because of views um but I tried to meet the standard with tucking it under a p roof so looking at it from a neighbor you really wouldn't even notice it it just looks like a roof line and a lowall so the deck is kind of a well deck which meets all the requ of just happens to be in the rear guard and the difference in a lot with like Eric mentioned is only 2 28 in which is uh less than three in and the total lot area under is 18 I almost mess that one up in your professional opinion do you think the wide number basally consider un it would be unnoticeable I wouldn't even able to tell the difference in like if we par under the house and built the same house without the second without the third floor it would be the same volume size just wouldn't have a couple ders out height of EX correct don't get height is we two and a half over that's why the ordinance is okay but it's not great it doesn't make doesn't found two and a stories over found and then you bued so you cover more of the lot kind of is counter to what would get built have less home to less not to it down and add to be ites City want and might have to be changed anyway that this was our the first thing we discussed when they came in they came in a lot that was just under I'm like only build two stories over park or you can do two and a half stories over across Bas and my recommendation to all my clients is to build it up it a shot to get FL up as high as possible based upon your profession find this to be call minim ex to City zon rules yes and I have questions Mr so there's uh four bedrooms is that correct four bedrooms and a right but but there's three parking spots correct right so theoretically um if it was five bedrooms you only need three parking spots correct it could be a five bedom right we're over park that's the we're over park right anyone else on the board excuse what was that okay um anyone from the public like to speak just give us a name and address and I'll swear you in yeah sure my name is Jack bro I live at 209 South clar which is the house that backs off to the two of their house their lot overlaps with the back of my lot two and I North 209th okay just please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth I do um I I just want to say um first off that I I um we've lived in Margate now since 2010 we also bought new construct on that lot um we've gotten to know the D over the years very good neighbors I really appreciate what this board has done with respect to the smaller Lots limiting the volume of houses I think that's the right for Margate for what it's worth um so thanks thanks for that um in this situation I we came my wife and I to express our support for what's being requested um I think uh the attorney um Eric Goldstein um made a pretty compelling case this goes back to a unique thing that happened with a PR board in 2007 we're talking about of an in um on top of that the fact that um the footprint of the home is not going to be um materially different in any way as as a neighbor therefore I I have no concern whatsoever and uh the other factor that that I think um supports this I I'm not sure if you're familiar with that specific Street 20 to 200 North block but it is really unque for Margate it's it's really wide there's plenty of parking it's probably the least dense street that could exist throughout all of Margate except perhaps you know some that are back by the day so I think all the fact those factors and the case that Eric Goldy made out I I think um aligns with what um alleviates any concern that we could possibly have as a neighbor full support so appreciate the consideration thank you hi my name is Dr how bashy 206a North perun Drive I live you swear to tell the truth do you yes I do you always so I facing the houses I'm just to the right I'm part of the the construction where there were two homes or two lots made into three we're talking 2.8 Ines not talking practice 2.8 in not going to affect me I'm in full support I've been their neighbors since 2010 uh um they're great neighbors um I also support them having a much bigger higher house God forbid the bay meets the ocean I have a place to go and also with the garage I have a kayak and a bike that they are they don't know it yet but I'm going to use the garage but either way I do totally support that I support the house it's not going to affect my life anyone thank you thank you hello how are you hi name and address uh Michael Starker 208 North Brunswick drive so uh my wife and anarie we are one of the original owners of the stre on the street swear to tell the truth S I do thank you um we're one of the original owners we've been here 19 years we were here through through the development of the uh of when the houses got torn down and they put the three houses up our house still an original 1940 Cape Cod we love it we love what all the neighbors have done here um we're just here in support of the dfin they're fantastic neighbors and we love the development that's been going on in Margate I know some of it's a little bit overblown but like we support them totally and what they want to do with their house um it's a couple inches um it's a great Street as we talked about and um you know whatever they want to do and whatever you agree upon we we be really thrill for them so I just want to say thank you for all you do and we're just here in support for our neighbors and um we appreciate you thank you anyone anyone else from the public okay public portions closed any other board members I have a a few comments so Mr Goldstein you are really really a good you've got everybody here convinced on board that I was on that we caused the variance because the Builder came in and said I want two 40 foot lots and 13 some foot lot that's not true Bo granted a variance to a builder who recently came in tried to improve a property okay and had a plan and what we try not to do back then and it a lot of it got away from us in the middle and now we're going back is we don't to fool with a builder's plan it was reasonable okay number two I'm not against you but number two you're arguing about elevating a house the reason we Elevate houses can we pass his ordinance was what to create parking underneath and your whole case say well we don't need parking underneath plenty of parking on the street wide Street it does not make sense okay you're putting it back on us which is wrong you're asking for parking you're not even mentioned in the third floor deck which shouldn't be there and should be removed okay and then you have a whole enclosed first floor we're moving towards getting rid of enclosed first floors and only have half enclosed which maybe you should consider doing it but do a on the merits and on the inches and not try to blame you you see attorneys and courts the defendant come on that that's insulting I'm sorry you feel that way Mr cols but the the lot was not created by the applicants and whatever happened in 2000 but the Border let it happen it wasn't created by us you know you could say someone had to Grant this approval so basically if we Grant this Pro it we're affirming a non-conforming lot and we're making it worse non-conforming so we should turn it down because that's not good at all you're saying you're not confirming a non-conforming lot the lot exists we're not asking for anything to expanding you're not expanding on the lot you're allow you're not expanding on the lot at all the lot will be the same size unless the neighbors buy a portion of it or they sell a portion of it forever what what you're doing is you're allowing the owners of the property who didn't create this whether it was the board but the board did allow this to happen back in 07 whether it was the board or the developer however you set it up back then in ' 07 this lot was created what you're doing now is you're acknowledging that the lot is too small which it is by 2.8 Ines which again we believe to be a DI Minimus change and you're letting someone who's owned the lot through a number of zoning changes use the lot as it existed back in 2023 if we were here a year ago well we wouldn't have been here a year ago um because it wouldn't have been a variance so since the dwarf men owned the property they bought it following the subdivision they were then told you can't do with your lot what you could have done for the past 17 years because the governing body made a change based on the board's recommendation so they're faultless in all of this if if you have to assign of blame to someone whether it's the old board whether it's the governing body whether it's uh the developer the people who have had zero uh hard contributing towards this hardship are the dworin they're just trying to use their lot as they could have done for 17 years up until last July additionally with regard to what the board might be pushing by way of a direction of new development it's not the law today so they Bob can only design what is legal today if the board's moving towards opening an area up or doing something else with a design you know that's legitimate but as we stand here today we do need two Varian as you're right with the variance for and I would like just to take a second and discuss that with the clients uh with regard to both um if you don't mind Mr Collins the rear third floor deck um because that is something which we know is is is a bit of issue so um we take a minute on that sure Mr chairman absolutely all right we're going to take a five minute break sorry about that so just by way of listening to Mr Collins's comments and Bob um we talked about this we're GNA take the third floor rear deck off what happened was when Bob was designing it um when the third floor deck became a by right he didn't know if it could go on either the front or the back and put it on the back so it's not going to be on the plan so that's going to be um a revision so the only vs we're looking for the rear third floor deck but just the the the 2.8 in correct whatever we're calling that whether it's height and the lot can't get any bigger so we're looking for Relief based upon it being 2.8 in which again going through the neighborhood development pattern the fact that Brunswick is 80t wide from the neighbors the hardship being 6% of 1% it's not a self-created hardship the um this is not a precedent creating issue so with regard to the board granting this variance I would say respectfully because you all have your own opinion there really isn't a reason to deny it other than you may not want a grant a variant but it's but that's why you're here that's the only reason you're here so you removing the third floor deck yes it's not a precedent setting it's just not adhering to the ordinance and when we have other applicants come forward with a 39.25 or you know a 38.9 you gave it to them for that's incorrect Mr pom that 100% Happ okay it does you yourself said with the flat roof case we are not setting a precedent and Mr patteron said the same two months ago you had a flat roof case on the beach and you said this does not set a precedent so how does that case not and this one do I didn't say I wasn't set a prec you did it's exactly what you said you said we are not setting a precedent I said we don't we shouldn't be in the design phase I'm going to respectfully disagree but this is each case Rises and falls on its own and if you're saying you're not going to Grant variances because you don't like them then you shouldn't be on the board the only reason you're all here is to Grant land use applications we not interrupt you we were we were almost going to go F on the ordinance to not let houses go for the third floor 50 ft and we decided as a board to make it 40t 40t was the number we came to but that's irrelevant where we you could have gone to 30 but for you saying could go under 30 no 40t you couldn't for a massive house on a 40 foot line respectful okay it's 2.8 in your what you're and it affects no one the people that it would affect the most are here I understand that and if it was a twostory it would be the same height exact same height exact same he the volume of the house it'll look exactly the same nothing changes other than there's fewer bedrooms but we have enough parking anyway so parking's not an issue this is one of those quirks it's a true hardship because it falls into the category of a minous change it's a couple of inches off of 40t and regardless of whether you like granting variances or not that's what you were appointed to do to administer the land use law and you have a case before you that says we have a real hardship not created by the homeowners I I don't see what your reasons for denying this under you don't want other people to do it no no but I'm saying your questions seem to indicate that no bring an application how dare you ask for something well it does happen but that's why you're here that that's the reason this board exists to hear cases that come before it based upon changes that may or may not be reasonable and Roger weeds out a lot of the cases and a lot of cases that come in we say we're not going to bring it to the board because we know it's going to get denied but if you're saying we're not going to give you any relief ever because the rule is the rule that's kind of everyone own Mar okay well the merits of this case you've got the Neighbors in support you've got a non neighbor created issue you've got no self-created hardship you've got testimony the only testimony from the architect saying this is a benefit there's no detriment nobody's against it I would again venture to say that you must Grant this obligation because there's no reason not to Grant it every Factor under the land use law was met not granting it standing on principle of something is just it's just Incorrect and that's not what we're we're supposed to be doing we're supposed to administer the law as each case comes in again it's not a precedent it's not a precedent at all for future cases so I don't want to keep going back and forth but this is a very clear case it's two inches 2.8 Ines off of 40 feet and I don't I don't think there will ever be a case that's fitting into these exact same categ to meet the land but they're not the same because they are you don't know what the house design is going to look like you don't know at that time what FEMA's rules are going to be so this is a unique case taken literally in a snapshot so you forgot to mention that you also deleted the other variants for the third floor rear deck correct so we're talking about 2.8 in correct and every case stands on its own mark and all the neighbors are here in support of it well not all the neighbors but there's three sets of neighbors that are here and support of it and the we yeah that's correct Mr chairman I I don't know you put on the record right and you know what it's really it's not a big house it's just how many square feet is the house like 2300 right and I I think Mr I haven't really designed any right you want to hear me talk more I'm rested so I want to put on a record that by right they can put a third floor deck in the front of the house so if they come in with plans that and they meet the criteria I would approve it okay I just wanted I don't want people driving by I had de we get that okay anyone else yeah okay it's a c variance application it's just the one variance now they they're requesting two and a half stories over parking on this lot that's 2.8 Ines short that would permit that uh they're eliminating that third floor deck in the rear the conditions will just be the standard conditions anything in Mr mcclaren's report unless otherwise addressed subject to any outside approvals that may be necessary any representations will be followed and uh you'll give Jimmy his uh his non-conversion agreement yes and that's that's it I'll make that motion second Tom Collins so even though I didn't agree with your presentation the basic bottom line here is this does it meet the C1 parts of VAR and the answer is yes is undersized doesn't matter how it God undersized it's undersized okay the other criteria C2 is there a substantial benefit and the answer to that is yes it's going to make a major Improvement to the neighborhood the neighbors are all in favor of it and I think they're going to do a nice job they seem like nice people that'll make a a nice place and keep the neighborhood nice and Qui so it's real simple and easy I vote thank you Richard Patterson I really don't like cases with it's close but no cigar I mean we have six foot set back for pools it's not close to six foot but this case how can you turn it down when if we turn it down I mean if we turn it down and it's build at it's the not raised level then it's non-compliant next year so I I say with it as small as it is and to make it compliant in the future and not just for a year I approved the application Michael Richmond yeah I'm going to approve the application um again I appreciate the homeowners um getting rid of the third floor rear deck um I didn't have a problem with it but you know I just think it helped the situation and I'm going to approve it St too late I think CRA if I'm reading Craig Craig I think if I'm reading you correctly that you know we're having these houses set so to to keep them Limited in size and not go up you have me convinced that there's not going to be any real change whether it would be to or two and a half um well at this point for this time I will approve the application Margaret goer Noti um I don't believe this sets a precedent um I understand our new a lot um but each case stands on its own Merit the home owners came here for a variant and that's what we are here for um it's 2.8 in it's a beautiful design the neighbors are happy with it it is a very wide Street and during the storm today it there wasn't an inch of water on the street and I think there was what to do about nothing William shakespare but I approve the application and good luck to John pits yeah I think this is clearly a hardship um considering what is coming down the road for building elevations I think you know getting this property and getting it as high as we can as soon as we can as helpful I approve Jim galantino where else is the doc going to keep this kayak I mean can't put it in a tree just for that just for that alone I mean I should pass the application I approve Andrew Campbell um Eric I think you're a great lawyer yeah um you did a really nice job and researched this and um my hats off to you on that and I also appreciate having Neighbors come in and your support um it's really nice to see see I approve Craig palano yeah the Neighbors coming in approving it uh that's that's big being there in the neighborhood for a long time all those houses are one size and now they're changing they're all changing I saw two one I think it's barklay that are raised but not on not on Brunswick yet right no you're don't have one here though but um I agree with Mr Patterson I also approve this motion carries nine in the affirmative zero in the um do we want to take a break yeah we're gonna take a five minute break bye um oh oh yeah why say that okay um okay we're going to go back in session and uh Mike ruw is here so he's going to join us okay our next case is Daniel berig 213 North thlo Avenue block 420 Lot 4 located in the s25 dis zoning District seeking SE variance relief for combine yard combine yard side yard setback and potentially others in order to construct a second floor Edition on the existing single family Rancher current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented by Christopher balson I'll lead off on this thank you Mr chairman board members the application is the Daniel B 213 North Avenue clock 420 Lot 4 located in s25 Z District elevation n eff firm background is as follows the app seeking Rel order for addition it meets the existing setbacks and adds to building coverage but does not exceed allowable building coverage an elevation Flo certificate will be required prior to permit issued actually they they need a side setback guance the one side and a combined side setback guance as shown on chart on page two document review the varen is as follows minimum side yard setback on the right side whereas a minimum side yard setback is eight feet based on lot 7.6 feet exists and 7.6 feet is proposed again they're going up so they're expanding a non-conforming setback likewise with the minimum sidey setback for the combined side yard whereas the minimum combined sidey setback is 19.98 Ft I would round up to 20 7.7 feet exists and 7.7 feet is proposed again that's a because of the upward expansion it's an expansion of non-conforming setback again the sidey set is measured to the attached garage once the garage is attached at a principal structure it becomes subject to all the requirements of setbacks in building colage uh I'm not going to go through all the other comments at this time I'll give the applicant a chance to respond to the comments rly thank you Mr mlar members board hi my name is Chris B I represent D be with respect to his property 213 North thurow Avenue blot four and block 420 and the s25 zoning District as relatively straightforward case Mr be seeks to build a traditional second floor versus a kind of En capap style second floor where currently there are two bedrooms in that up there um so it's a four bedroom house now it's going to build a second floor in the existing footprint and convert to a three bedroom house going from four bedrooms to three bedom no further encroachments anywhere um the the hard shift I'll say the problem the problem is of FX doesn't conform it's 7.6 versus 8 I can't go any Eric's whole feel about it's relatively minor deviation but it's relatively minor deviation that he can't do anything about I I think we all recognize that it's it's a better construction product if he goes off in the same footprint and the same foundation and the same walls rather than trying to step it in um and that's really that's really the case coverage coverage does increase but still it's coverage is in the 20 22 23 24% 30 that that's allow coverage is still low it's a nicely it's it's a well located situated house because there are two brand new three story homes on each side of it and they fortunately they have the 8 foot side yard on each side of those so you have nice separation um Tom did all right Mr H bag Lea just give us your name and address for the record please Tom Bago s 472 nstown Road blue pa42 and please raise your right hand do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth I do and I assume Mr chairman Mr Bag Leo Tom beg accept his credentials yeah Tom that's the running joke Tom if you would through the existing conditions of property what it is that you were asked to do and what you yes I will I don't dra of the existing conditions however it's a four bedroom home actually on my block so I support can we we all do that my block my beach to my beach so it's a cape on the 200 block of thur there's two bedrooms on the first floor there are two bedrooms inside the roof of the Cape Cod and what we want to do is take off the roof go up a four floor and just move up an attic and just maintain the same structure for the most part four bedom the three bedrooms yes four bedrooms to three bedrooms we're not changing the parking scenario at all some leaving the parking on the side um and aesthetically the right side we just didn't want to bring in the wall well we didn't want to bring it in six inches we wanted all the bearing points to be the same and atically better not Jing in on the right side hey Chris I don't want to interrupt you I think we said it but prior to your application starting mikew is here he's present I don't know if we said that we did say that okay I'm sorry as a result of the existing footprint that you're going to use um a variance is implicated because the existing setb correct you walk us through that please yeah the existing set on the right hand side this wall is currently there we'd like to set the second floor of it when you say there what does that mean that does get picked up on I'm sorry the right hand wall each side is at approximately s and a half ft off the property line we'd like to keep that wall exactly where it is we'd like to maintain the front roof the way it is if we were to conform our second floor would J in here and be asymmetrical and it just makes the most sense to go straight up and again this St a new Ro will be insted and bedrooms will go under on the second floor and again there were two bedrooms and two bedrooms above we're going to have three bedrooms total and on the site we're leaving two parking spots right they are on the left hand side that that deficient effect as well as the one on the left side results in a combined side Yar set back variance of again 7.7 versus about 20 ft that's requir that's a function I think we'll say of the garage being just about on the property line yeah the garage just about on the property line and the garage is attached so what is what is the distance to the principal structure the act the seable the actual setb on that side absence of Gage 12 one and a quarter so you're 19 and change almost yes what's required yes 19.98 versus correct 19.5 19 yeah but for the garage not right if we ignore the garage we're within inches of the required seg for Combined side yes the front yard is not changing the rear yard's not changing front yard is not changing the rear yard is changing slightly but it's not going over the 20% of of the lot depth which is 80 feet and 16 we're maintaining 16 ft and that's that's why coverage increases like 4% yes 26% vers correct and and height two St height as well within 30 I think it's from 28 28 change from first FL elevation and you comfortable you can get all this done within the substantial Improvement guidelines and the haard regulations yes now with respect to the variance justification we find the positive criteria Advanced as a result of maintaining two stories and the preservation light a open space in that um explain that a little bit the um the the biggest emphasis on this design if that's going to answer your question is the living space is small so he wants to improve more living space on the first floor just open up a little bit open open up the first floor as well as there's 30 House on the Left 30 on the right kind of shadowed by those houses so it's a benefit then that this house stays two stories and maintains just helping out further in any yes and he has no desire for a 3,000 square foot house he just wants sleeping upstairs conventional living space you think then VAR without subst yes I do and without suban purp Z yes agre that's all have I do want to point out that the bulk of that affected sidey combined sidey setback is where it is 19 ft not the 7.1 7.7 I'm sorry the combined side yard setback even though the garage is attached the bulk of it is where it's wider that's kind of what I was trying to say yeah and that's the part we're not actually touch it but I almost it's like 1% you are right so you g you had appraisal done already for what's the um it's just what's the first floor first floor elevation first floor currently or the first floor the elevation seven and a half Oh I thought we were six grade is seven and a half yeah I'm so this is seven I could find out but I would say it's about seven okay it's seven and there's three steps there St yeah on how many square feet is is the with the addition first and second floor the current attic is about 100 sare ft how's it going to be and the addition is going to be 30 by 30 so it's 900 okay and the current bedrooms take up about 40% of the top floor so it's we're going from like 450 sare feet to maybe right so what's it with the with the addition What's the total square foot 1800 1800 approximately what is it now it's 14400 course we're adding about 400t to the second floor so it's basically real Cap Cod where you go up and you just have the two bedrooms under the roof okay it's not like the the Gamel roof or anything it's bedrooms tucked under the roof okay so we're literally not the box is the same except for this one one jog right here just to get a little bit larger bedroom in the back okay and the front porch is untouched right where it is is where it's standing so your lock coverage your building coverage whatever um 26% yeah 26 and what what what would be um you would be allowed to have like 33 is that correct 35 35 can I get that it's a 53 it's a 53 lot it's a 54 lot well it says right here building coverage 33.4 required and you're going to be at um 26.12 so you're under yes correct right okay oh I'm sorry you're right 33.4 it's right there read right sorry good and your f is under five five which isow you arrested okay I anybody from the board yeah Tom I'm looking at 2117 North ear's elevation sht and it dips sound a little bit the street he's at 6.8 on his average grade highest average grade okay and I was thinking about 6.5 right you're right there maybe I'm 6.8 and that's 88 by the way three in short well they took it from the last meeting 28 okay anybody else from the anyone from the Public Public portion is closed anything else CH no okay all right board has nothing else it's two c variances the side yard setback on the right side 8 ft the requirement and they're going up at the 7.6 setback and then the L side set back 9 19.98 is the requirement and again they're at about 7.7 is the combined those are the two variances uh the conditions Roger asked a couple things about Street trees Governor strip to be maintained um all that other stuff anything in Mr mcclaren's report and then just the standard condition subject outside approvals if any any representations made by the applicant will they'll comply with those that's it second Tom Collins talking inches again no this is a uh pretty uh di Minimus small modest project well laid out did a very nice job I agree with the lines that you're talking about and keeping the house symmetrical makes a big difference I think the first case Chris Bon won I was on he I had him move line out you remember on the beach block so was symmetrical and um that goes what's it right goes way back uh I think the garage skewed the because it's attached and it's on the property line that it just sked all the numbers so it's really the Minimus and I think it's a um a great benefit when we're going to keep a nice house in the neighbor yes Richard Patterson I also vote Yes I I think think it's the Minimus um the size of the house I mean it's small by today's standards I just see no negative so I could yes Michael Richmond yeah they're actually getting rid of the bedroom um they're pretty well under their coverage um it's a small house like rich said and I'm going to approve it Stephen jaeki I agree with the fellow board members I think it's a good project I approve Michael refu I I also vote Yes on this um I don't see any negatives it's seem like a good project to me so Again ibody Margaret gu Bernal I agree with the other board members I think modest house and certainly an improvement what could be built there I mean that's a big lot 54 by8 this is a really good project and I approve it John Pitts yeah nothing to add I I approve Jim gtino you know sitting in the Atlantic City trauma unit I missed all you guys so much I just had to come back the board really makes my heart full so just because of that alone I got to prove the case Craig palano yes um it's between two 40 foot homes so we're bringing it up to a twostory home with bedrooms upstairs and iove motion carries nine in the affirmative Z and thega okay right does he know that we'll put it on we'll put it on the record once you okay see you Jimmy all right see you Jim okay our final case Janna McCarron 215 North dear Avenue block 425 lot 140 located in the wsd zoning District seeking preliminary and final site plan approval along with devarian relief for use density and potentially other variances in order to construct a new residential structure current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented represented by Christopher Balan all right and given that there's a d variance two a couple de variances involved in this application by law Mr galantino is a city official and Mr pittz as the mayor's designate cannot participate um and everyone else can participate but the vote count will be seven and only five out of seven affirmative votes see D I'm going do okay just want to do a brief introductory of this application describe the bar is being identified and Sol the original report is dated June 24th 2024 in regard to application of J McCaron 2115 North Gator Avenue block 425 lot 140 located in the wsd OR Waterfront special district uh seeking C and D variances major preliminary final plan so seem complete and the beanes are C1 C2 the D3 which is a conditional use variance the condition is commercial has to be on the ground floor residential use is not permitted so that is condition not being met and a density variance where they're required to have 19.8 dwelling units per acre which comes out to 2.97 units which is3 magic number three uh shy to meet the 19.8 so they are 19.98 dwelling units per acre triggering the deance I mean I you can't get much closer than that than what's required and again the app did agree to tone it down from four units to three and uh again the conditional use of the commercial residential use on the ground floor is not permitted and they're proposing it and the front yard set back to the building this is a unique property which is the C1 criteria where there's two front yards and they're not next to each other they're opposite each other so it's F at IND deor Avenue where on one side it's uh 43.1 three feet is the average setback and they're asking for 15 feet which is probably more reasonable for this type of application and again you have to apply to D the MF standards based on the what the ordinance requires to this type of application so even SD District it's the use that they're applying fors the mul family use so I'll let the applicant continue with that thank you Mr MERS my name's Chris B and I represent Janet and Karen and Michael mcar with Janet tonight for the property that they own on wsd District it's 6540 foot lot it's identified as lot 140 in Block the special district it is currently improved with a concrete building that houses FL where my kids wents went a lot of our children went for preschool um Rising outline of Varan I'll touch on those but it's unfortunate it's a function of the way the town and Society is going but from 50 kids 55 kids there five years ago um with the dwindling family population and the implementation it's a good thing the implementation of preschool programs in our Public Schools um the building building's too big for the 30 kids they have now versus the 55 they had several years ago and that seems to be the trend that is going her her student body her student F her preschool kids she's down about 40% and it seems to be going that way that doesn't make sense to continue to have it where it is it's a property that these guys own and they like to down develop it with three residential units um and as you heard the deficiency is 2.98 units versus three units you're asking so it's two1 you know what I was just going to say absorb whatever you heard earlier earlier in the evening call me a great lawyer and then I'll take you um the rec in recognition it was pointed out this project started out as four units because it was two you know two frontages that I I became involved I thought I I J I talked I thought that was a lot it's reduced to three and in recognition of still there's deficiency with respect to density one of the units is two veterans and one of the units is three veterans so one unit is five so you have a total of 10 bedrooms where traditionally you I think you find here is three units four four bedrooms each at least or 12 bedrooms and we're asking for 10 um the project is split so there's a two two bedom and a three bedroom on one side and a five bedroom on the other um the variances are for the conditional use which for mixed use building in the wsd zone or the CBD Zone required to have commercial grade it just doesn't make sense in this environment and that location to have commercial age you would have a storefront between two municipal buildings and a boat yard and there would be nothing that that would attract anybody any foot traffic to that location at all so rather than try to do that we're going to ask for the three units not have the commercial at grade um it just it doesn't work it generally doesn't the only place we work in town is a couple locations on Washington Avenue right off vener Avenue and a couple locations on um Essex Avenue of course and and Granville Avenue up you know up Street Doos it really hasn't worked on the what what the long-term planning committee did years ago was developed that coridor from the beach to the B on watch s that just hasn't planned out and there's really no commercial at all coming up the streets off of off of the bay off ammer avue loation not we recognized this on dou Avenue where it hadn't worked uh and under those circumstances the board found within their perview to Grant the variance would like that that the same tonight um there's a c c variance for front yard set back 15 ft versus half the depth of the lot we don't think that is unreasonable um the property is over will be overp parked with eight parking spaces versus I think six that are required for units all the bul criteria otherwise apply and we think for that location with municipal buildings located on each side and Boatyard this will be a real nice aesthetic addition to the Bayfront area um eliminating the building that's there and substituting it with what what's proposed and it's not as if this is going to start any kind of a a um Catalyst on that block for residentials because it's all the remainder of the of the property is either municipal or Scott stalker the7 so it's not not going to be a trend falling down they're going to see people asking for for additional density on this SP um Janet John Jan the owner same sure all right uh Miss McCaron and Mr Barnhart you can just state your name and address for the records I'll swear the two of you in Janet McCaron 881 amen Mar all right great if you can please raise your right hand each toir the testimony you're about to give me the truth I okay Mr Barnhart liced and planner in the state of New Jersey will obviously accept his credentials yes okay and before Janet starts I do have two neighbor letters one from uh chist and Joe Nichols across the street another from Scott and Peggy Brown across the street both fully in support and I'll suggest that the Browns talk about the nice to have three residential units and get rid of the commercial and be relieved of the um morning morning drop off pick of kids in that area and they both got in with the same comments um Jan I'm not going to ask you a million questions but give the board development and progression of play groups now what's happening along with why you think it's appropriate in this location to do all right um so the building where I have 215 North deor was built prior 1960 um I bought it 27 years ago originally it was a garage for the city that the city had the the whole block was city property and this must have been one of the mechanical garages so um I bought it 27 years ago I put a second floor on 20 years ago just to enhance the building it was just a square so make it look better that's what I did um over the years the preschool has uh grown and like Chris said um I was at Max I'm licensed 52 I was at Max for years and years and then with all the other school districts bringing free pre for three and four down to uh down a good 30 40% um the building has come to the part where it just needs new work all the time and every time I turn around something else is breaking something else needs to be fixed so in the last three years I've put in place the driveway and sidewalks um heating and air conditioning units and hot water heater if I was to continue there I would have to do new electrical for the lighting the upstairs deck the upstairs railing and new windows okay so it's at the point that more money is going out this business than it's coming in due to State and a lot of other factors um the only way I could make it up is if I was to put in a suppression system which you guys know what would cost more than I do and I take infants but I could never recover the cost of putting that suppression system in you know on this old building so um that would be the only way to work it out um so I've decided to let's take it down let's put up something that's conducive to the neighborhood and I'll retire which won't be a problem um so yeah had a great yes right okay I will so um drop off and pickup has grown immensely over the years and in the summer I do double in numbers what I do in the winter now I'll do the preschool thing and a lot of Marie people drive nicely and a lot don't so um should I pass pass that one out so this is uh this morning with um some of the families walk there okay but you have one car in the lot behind mine another come across traffic to drop their child off don't look to it's a local F and then other people walking their kids in between the cars to get into the building okay so now the rest of it is this is a classic and this was this morning two cars across the street where I have asked the city to put up signs saying don't park this side and the city was great about doing it but they still parked against the traffic on the other side and then this car trying to back out and it's the same in the back with Leslie's dance studio same thing because she has drop off and pick up so the everybody backing out they park over in the city electrical lot and stuff so the traffic has really increased and the catar has a lot of streets of morgate coming off Amherst and turning down the cater is a tight turn as it is and now there's a lot of trucks always parked there or cars for the houses so it's just a tight street that you know that's really the bottom line on it doesn't really work well with little kids no no not at all because they have to be escorted to them from the building but you know you open the door they go running out there and the next thing you know the mom are screaming yelling down the street for them nobody's been hurt though I can't say that um okay so that's that's the traffic end of it um right in terms of your your belief on that location oh okay then we'll move moving right along so the building is sandwiched between two public Lots one is a garage a working garage and the other empty lot um that's utilized by the boat yard this is what the lot looks like all right I don't feel that that's really aesthetically pleasing all right um I can't imagine a commercial business coming in there I don't care how beautiful the storefront would be if you go and look at that empty lot on the side it it it kills anything I mean I feel it'll even affect the sale this somewhat as I think it's going to the corner property but that's that's a city situation um but you caters in off the road Street you don't have foot traffic going by a new store new commercial business would be great on better Avenue because you walk by and you see it you don't you don't see this place at all no they're all going not at mine they go you're going down amers to tomatoes Steven cookus and all those other places not turning down the cers at all um and then when the letters went out for uh letting people know about this I had two Neighbors come over and asked me about what I was going to do and the first thing out of both of their mouth was we will not miss the traffic that you create you know and I wasn't I wasn't that aware of it because I'm always inside you know so I guess I owe the neighbors an apology but it it is really congested drop off and pick up and again in the back with dance this picture just to show aesthetically what you'd like to do yeah so so this is what's across the street for me now okay we used to have Mojo's restaurant when that closed it became U multi multi-use residential use thing so this is what's across now um what I was adamant about in talking to the architect was I didn't want anything that needed variances that didn't work out but I didn't want to go oversized I didn't density problems I wanted to build something that would be consistent with the neighborhood and the whole neighborhood especially on Decor is multiuse properties I don't think there multif family okay multif family multif family homes um that's true all behind me I don't think there's any single family home on the street at all matter of fact I don't think so so um and most of them are year round people which looks nice all right um you know so I was just trying to say consistent with what's there which I think this kind of does it pretty well with what's being planned in terms of size the size of coup small yes yes is that is that done intentionally yes so I would yes tell the board a little bit about why I said three four boms right right you thought that in terms of density in terms of congestion that the small two I did and I also thought it could enhance more affordable living for people in Market than rather than anything being over millions and millions of dollars so you have one beautiful unit up front that the rich guy can buy you know two small on yeah the oh my gosh put the minutes that I said welcome back I so happy to see him I'm so happy he's doing well that was a scare okay all right thank you John you're a license special planner and engineering state of New Jersey yes and work front of this board and this municipality and surrounding municipality years and have years and years of experience in this area and this in front of this board and others in the area yes um would you kind of have to take the board through the existing conditions at the site in the zoning sure and then talk about the project and why we believe it's appropriate sure okay um most you're probably more familiar with this block than I am in fact but um the the subject site is it's an interesting location in within morgie within the Bay Area District because of the uses that that are in this block and the surrounding blocks and it's a location that it's hard to Zone because it's it's there's so much going on between the municipal lots and then some higher density residential and then some intermediate res density residential that it it makes it difficult to appropriately zone so you it's it's a it's a block you're going to looking at projects well you're really not because most of them are are City owned but any privately owned properties which is just this one and the one next to us or one two removed you're going to you have to look at them on a caseby Case basis because because of the fact that the zoning is is is tough to address but just to get lay out our block our block and the adjacent blocks to understand how we arrived at our proposal um the yellow outline here is our is our site you heard um our client describe the property um as you're going toward First Avenue we have City own paral immedately next to us with the well uh we then have the Scott dock property that was just discussed and then the two unit multif family uh residential structure up on Amhurst Avenue that's currently under construction uh going in the other direction toward Mammoth Avenue you have the city parcel immediately next to us the city garage and then you have City Parcels going all the way to Mammoth which uh gets utilized uh as a parking area across Benson Avenue you have high dens high density apartment building um right at the corner of and person Benson and then you have public works again C owned Parcels so a real mix of of uh uses uh on Benson Avenue on theater Avenue however um you have across the cater from one end of the block to the other both all the way from Amherst to Mammoth Avenue you have multif family residential you have and just starting at Amherst Avenue a project we did a number of years ago which is an 8un project um then you go to a sixun project and then um we Al links a four unit there a number of years ago and then on the corner momth indicator is a sixun project so every one of the parcels on indicator that that uh face the pro the property that's before you this evening are multif family uh residential projects this area as as was discussed um by by Chris is required to have commercial at the ground floor um I'm I'll get into the to the site layout and then we'll discuss I'll discuss a little further as to why we believe our proposal is C more appropriate proposal so the layout of the site um is basically create because we have two frontages is to create a building that that has two frontages so there does not appear to be a rear of a building so there's an aesthetic Improvement on both Benson and the cater Avenue so U the way the build the way that the site is laid out is that you have two units that have Frontage and both garage and parking off of Benson Avenue there the two smaller units the two-bedroom and the three-bedroom and then the five-bedroom unit is intended uh to face the cater Avenue uh with two garages for that unit for a total of four cars so the entire uh site will actually have eight off street parking spaces uh upon its completion be six I believe would be required that's correct uh all of the bulk standards with regard to coverage height setback are all met with one minor deviation and that is with regard to the Benson Avenue front yard set um it was as it was already discussed if you and if you looked at the arrow that had shown you there's really no buildings to to bring into the average front yard setback calculation that you normally hear about so when you do the math based on the on the definition of the of the average required as it's required to be calculated you end up with a front yard St back uh requirement on Benson Avenue of 43 ft as Chris mentioned it's literally half the depth of the lot it's not appropriate it's a FR yard set back never be utilized under any circumstance so what we have done Mr what Mr Zaki has done is he's he's he's selected a front yard set back that is very much appropriate for uh for residential uh development that is 15 feet for the building itself um but 10 feet to to front porches it still allows some nice openness in the front of the site um it is consistent with the majority of your residential setbacks throughout the community uh the averages tend to range uh in that 15ot so it's a he he chose a number that that works well we think within the city of Margate and within this block and five is the minimum that's correct yeah if you had nothing to compare to it would to the minimum that's correct um but FR step back on theator complies sidey setbacks comply landscape coverage complies height complies all your bulk standards comply uh with with exception of that one which we believe it's an anomaly in that it's applying the requ is is not appropriate what we plan what we have planned here is the more appropriate setback the other two deviations that are that are required or requested this evening U one is with regard to density and then the other is with regard to the fact that we are not proposing commercial space on the ground floor the density uh discussion is interesting all of your applications tonight have been games of inches we are in the we're in the same scenario in that this property is 109 ft deep and it's 60t wide it calculates out to 2.97 units based on your minimum requirement of 2200 fet per unit so just to just to put it in into into figures the site is 20 square 20 square feet of land short for each one of the units in order to be fully compliant uh for the three for for for three units to be developed on the property percent but as a percentage basis it is 1% so it's a it's an immeasurable amount uh of of reduction with regard to the density uh request that's being made um and interestingly enough and I don't I don't have any proof of this but this is an interesting area of marget if you look at some of the street Dimensions um they're odd dimensions and which I believe there was some kind of a bust or something that took place back many years ago when the streets were laid out and this block actually lays out also at an odd number of 109 I don't know why but it lays out at 109 but I was just looking I was looking at this today if that was a more normal number if you're laying these blocks out at this becomes a 110x 60 lot it's 6600 F feet and it's complying for three units that's just some narrative for you but um the point being it's the the the the deviation is so small it's not something that you would ever um that you would ever be able to perceive as though we built too much density on this specific piece of property and I think if this lot was one foot deeper or one foot if this block was one foot deeper F the lot would be 6600t and yeah you would normally lay out blocks at 19 um the other thing to keep in mind is that because the majority of these Parcels are City owned on either side of us you're not looking at a block that's potentially going to you know uh I'm G to have another building next to me another building next to that and all of a sudden the density of that block is gotten to a point that's inappropriate you're kind of locked in here you might have one other property on this entire block that gets developed um so if you look at on a block basis the residential density is way lower than the block immediately cross um Decor Avenue which I just described to you uh which every one of those properties is either above the density or at the density if you look and I'll just go back to that real quick because I think it's important because it goes to our compatibility um when you look at the six units the four units the six units and the eight units um a number of these are right at the 2200 square ft and and the one the corner for example is down at600 ft per individual unit SO2 versus the 2200 that's required so so the point being that our density while it is a very very di Minimus deviation it is right in keeping with all of the other residential that is on uh catar Avenue so for all those reasons we think the request for for the the dens of deviation is clearly warranted here and then and then the other the other uh discussion this evening is with regard to commercial on the ground floor M McCarron's discussion of the property location um and her operation um one of the things that Miss McCaron described with regard to her building is is it's it's getting to a point of obsolescence and all the things that she needs to do to it but what she didn't mention is that what whaty wasn't thinking about this is when you start to aggregate all the things that she does need to do it it's going to become a substantial Improvement which requires the building to either be flood proof or raised or demolished so um it's time for something to be reconstructed on this propert that is um that is compliant with flood and is compatible with the neighborhood the reason that we believe that going to residential on the site is appropriate is because of its location it's mid block um between two of your Carters which are really not commercial Carters it's between uh at least at this end anyway Amhurst doesn't really turn commercial until you get another block or so down and um and mmth is certainly not a commercial corer these streets are are narrower than your standard streets the Maj of your of your standard streets are 50 feet wide in dimension but then your commercial carers get 80 80 and 100 feet wide Dimension V Avenue Atlantic Avenue so these are narrow streets They Don't Really warrant the traffic that's that's that that you need to have a successful commercial operation on those streets they create they create an issue with regard to visibility of a commercial uh a commercial property because of the narrowness of the streets um commercial yeah and and and and let's be honest with the type of commercial in this board as you know and I've been involved lot of the applications this board done a great job in protecting your commercial in the locations where your commercial has an opportunity to be successful at this location there's no other critical massive commercial there so so uh forcing M mcaren to build some commercial on this site um it's it it it's a situation where it's in all likelihood it is not going to be a to be successful um because just because of it location you're not going to have stores or other commercial operations on either side of it you're not going to bring whether it be foot traffic or bike traffic or vehicle traffic U you're not going to be able to bring that to this location to make the commercial operation correct whether it's a storefront or office or whatever it's going to be an isolated uh user um you know if it were built and then to be be potentially red I think it would be very to um it's it's worked for M for all these years because 30 years ago she developed she developed a specialized use for it that has become that became a destination for the families in the community so it worked for her in fact it was a municipal building wasn't personal building before that right right so it worked for her specifically the likelihood of that again is pretty is pretty so with all that said we have to justify um because we are dear we have to justify the positive negative criteria and put purposes zing on the record John um I want to talk about the um landscaping for a minute there is none there now correct not there's not a speck of grass there I don't think what is your what is your um estimate on the landscape you're putting in yeah we we are comping oh I I know you're comping you're adding a heck of a lot we're adding well we're at I think we're at the 35% it's really going to make the project we adding 35% Green Space in that doesn't exist it's going to be beautiful you're also adding also adding two sparking spaces yes you get to my justification okay so the purposes of Zo that we that we believe are Advanced are um um I think that there are are three first uh we believe that this uh provides a desirable visual environment through Creative Design techniques um we think that Mr Zaki has developed an aesthetically pleasing building he has created a building that has two fronts because it's on two Street frontages there's not a rear to The Bu building that that would that would not be appropriate up on a street um because of the openness that he is all he is allowed by complying uh with all the with all the front side Mard setbacks um and meeting the landscape it actually creates as Mr P just pointed out it opens up this site by 35% of Green Space which really has had none for many many years um so from an aesthetic enhancement perspective which let's be honest this block could use some aesthetic Improvement which recently just came onard there's no landcap en anywhere no correct so this is a this is a nice a nice relief uh to this property and it's also a tremendous benefit to the neighbors across theator Avenue because they have you know some of these properties are pretty tough to look out for them and this will beautify uh or help help to beautify the area so we believe that that purpose of zoning is Advanced um I believe also that the purpose of zoning ADV is Advanced is um promotion of free flow of traffic uh you heard the ex the existing use and the congestion that has created over the years um a a three-unit residential building like this versus maxing this out on a commercial operation um from a traffic or trips perspective the commercial operation is going to have many more trips um than these three units would this this property yes with the current oper um this property is propos this project is proposing eight off street parking spaces which is greater than what is required um so for those those reasons we believe uh that free flow uh that this application promotes the free flow of traffic um and we believe that we also believe that although we're asking for a minor density variance I believe the purpose of zoning that's Advanced here is the establishment of appropriate population densities while it's a minor deviation from your ordinance we believe it's very much appropriate for this location given the surrounding developments the surrounding densities um so we believe that that the positive criteria are established by those three purpose of purposes of the mpal land CR with regard to negative criteria is there substantial detriment to the Zone planner zoning ordinance residential permitted at the location um it's it's the dev variances are by virtue of the fact that we that we are not proposing commercial at the ground floor which we don't believe is appropriate here and then the 1% deviation in the um in the density or or lot area we believe that the requests are so are so minor um and the fact that we have met nearly all of your bul stand is that there is no substantial detriment to the Zone planner zoning ordinance and the second PR of the negative criteria is there a substantial detriment to the public good um I would argue this is only benefit to the public um you heard some of the comments about the traffic that's there right now as a result or has been for years as a result of the existing operation um I think I think that um by redeveloping this property beautifying the site it's only going to enhance the surrounding properties um especially those residential Parcels on you think sit particular suited I think it is particularly well suited because first of all residential is permitted at this location only Reas if this if Janet came in today and wanted to open up a play groups there she couldn't that's a non-permitted use right in that area is that correct right right all right anybody from the board yeah anyone from the public no I have a question oh sorry um when you talk about commercial properties you're always talking about stores and storefronts and bringing people like that well there's more to commercial properties than that just that I mean there was office there are other kinds of um activities like construction sites May um may need a storage space uh you may have an office for your architectural you may have an office for for your Law Firm um I hate to see Mary give up commercial property for this um but there are other things that that we can do our experience has been the promotion of commercial properties in Mar has always been to generate commercial that is available to the such as ret such as personal service uses rather than construction facil that nature real estate office we could always use more real estate office exactly so I even if it were an office kind of office anybody who want to open up an office Market would want to be on V I don't think anybody's going to Mone to invest a real estate office or a doctor's office or a Law's office at that location because I mean somebody wants a foot trap that's why they they come to they don't come they get something if they don't want foot trap we go to Township withfield and have a location that doesn't get fo traffic and they'll be fine somebody comes to Marg for office I think wants put traffic it's just not a site they're going to get it anybody else okay one comment we're going to make sure that Mr Zaki designs us to meet the f one okay have open public I think they already tried that we yeah we opened it and closed it and uh and Roger just the some of the design waivers I guess that you highlighted in your report mostly apply to commercial or larger scale correct so where applicable I guess will be waved we'll not yes all right so if there's no further questions we need a motion in a second it's a preliminary and final major site plan approval the three Varian is there's the conditional use we call the D3 variants residential is allowed conditioned on it being above commercial um since there's no commercial that requires the d33 variance the density variance what we call the D5 density variance uh you can't exceed 19.8 dwelling units per acre and they have a 19.98 BL unit breaker or 2.97 units would would be allowed and they're proposing three and then the front yard setback is along the Benson Avenue side 4313 is required and 15 feet proposed as far as the the waivers on note that you know to the extent as as outlined in Mr mcclaren's report and highlighted as they apply to mostly commercial or more than three unit developments they can be waved and conditions will not anything Mr peron's report unless otherwise addressed they'll meet that F1 um will submit compliance plans consistent with the approval granted and subject to any outside approvals that may be required just the the normal standard conditions we put in in any approval or any resolution I'll make that motion I'll second Tom Collins as everybody knows I am a big supporter of commercial on the first floor under residential this case here you have a Waterfront District multif family residential district um some of the r or CBD it's a very very confusing area um and it's basically a utility utility area for the city um I think in this case here that the hardship is the location and the streets um and the age of the building from the city uh so I really do think that it does qualify under the C1 and as far as the better of the the C2 I think it's going to improve the neighborhood it's going to make the city yard L easier but uh and I think you're really getting the highest and best use that you can in that neighborhood you can't put commercial there it's just not the right place to do it and I think the way you designed it Janet I gave you a lot of Kudos and John you did a really nice job Chris I'm not so sure but yeah I I vote in fav Richard Patterson Chris you're a great attorney Tom said it all to me I'm also always pushing for non-real estate office commercial development in town but it it's just the narrow streets it just doesn't fit there um I I really think you did a good thing there with the two-bedroom and three bedroomroom and you know have the one EXP two others U I can almost guarantee that somebody's going to buy and complain about the boat y than me it's music but um I I see no detriments and I I see it as a positive to clean up that neighborhood and just the Landscaping alone one with the one on am have is going to really improve it I improve Michael Richmond yeah I understand what Steve's saying about commercial sh it could have been an office whatever but I know from personal experience um if you're familiar with Douglas Avenue if you go around the corner there from uh I don't what is the maintenance place now it used to be the dress store we we you know where that little store is the gift store so we had an office there before that it was an Italian Market before that it was a dog place and you know everything lasted about a year we moved our office around Atlantic AV it was late night and day so um that being said I don't think that that's the greatest spot for commercial I think that doing the um building is a uh the homes is a much better way to develop that area and I also agree that you know having a two-bedroom and even a three-bedroom might make it more affordable for possibly somebody that wants to live your year round to you know be able to afford something like that so I'm going to proove it Steven Jai I still I still think that there's something that we could do with that commercial Le and I don't want to lose up any more commercial space Marg I'm going to vote now Michael ruu um I think this the case is a is a a prime example of why why the board exists um I think it's a perfectly reasonable application given the location of the applicant's property um and also the difficulty in putting any commercial space on that first floor um you know due to the location and the the surrounding properties um I don't I really don't see any negatives uh nothing but benefits and uh I vote Yes Margaret Gober I see only positives to this application um I mean the conditions we're getting we're getting parking we're relieving traffic we're getting more green space um I think it beautifies the areas to what exists there now the buildings uated um I don't think the street lends itself to putting commercial on the first floor at all not even another real estate office um I just think the positives outweigh the negatives the only negative here is we're losing playgroups plus that's the only negative you know near and dear to our my heart anyway but and losing Miss Janet but I think it's it's a great project and I approve it Craig thomaso yes I I wish you wish you luck on everything there and retirement and uh sale of the properties and I think it's a big Improvement in the in the way that it's going to bring Greenery to that area a lot of greenery to that area that has none it's um Barron it's very Barren on that street you're going to have um people living there and having housing dope there it's going to be a good thing I think for them for that block uh I don't think um commercial works at all on small streets like that there's only a few side streets in morgate where the commercial does work6 Avenue is one and there's only a couple other streets but um I I I wish you luck and I approve motion carries uh six in the affirmative and one opposed anything else are we good um no I think we're good all in favor nearly ran me over didn't stop um yeah what it's fine okay yes I couldn't yeah he gr up sit next to me goes down right what after you get married Mike I got married then I got sick married life hasn't been it's all good yeah congratulations thank you I got him yes yes I you don't even get Hazard I'm G shoot what was the name of that l l l l w [Music] [Music] yeah today how' you do that really off morate I'll tell you that I was in my office raining I [Music] started how he makeing out I for e e e for