um all right here we go I hereby call to order the city of Margate planning board regular meeting for May 30th 2024 at 6:30 p.m. please rise and join me in the flag salute flag United States Tom Collins Craig palano Richard Patterson here John pittz here Jim galantino here Margaret guberti here Steven ji here Michael ruffu Here Andrew Campbell here Michael Richmond here okay this meeting is being held in accordance with New Jersey statute requirements of the open public meetings act Sunshine Law 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 merant licenses at the conclusion of your case tonight please approach the board administrator to sign the provided information sheet now we're going to the approval of amendments meeting of May 15 2024 I'll make that motion I'll second all in favor sure is this the minutes or the resolutions this is the resolution we on minutes sorry okay and here we go with the resolution that's all right need a new motion we're I'm going to read that okay approval of decisions and resolutions number 14 2024 Charles and Eileen laar number 15 20 24 I don't mean to interrupt you did we approve the minutes no so we need a motion in a we have a motion in a second for the minutes okay well he interrupts me all in favor no problem sorry threw me off I guess before you even make read the resolution go ahead you had an issue with something uh so 19 2024 uh the tequil bar item 10 states in reference that dumpsters rolling outside like facing if you're facing it from Monro rolling yeah right yeah it's for two dumpsters and they said it'll either be one rolling door or two doors so that's why I said door doors okay is that was that it Sean yeah that's it okay good all right number 14 2024 Charles and eileene laar number 15 2024 Gregory and Michelle Greenberg number 16 2024 Kyle Pollock number 17 2024 ronold and Sharie Raphael number 18 2024 Gregory and Rachel George number 19 2024 Sunrise wine and Tequila LLC and number 20 20 24 Esther and Mark Kaplan make a motion second all in favor okay and we'll just note that uh you're an exstension if you weren't here for for either of those two meetings where we dealt with those cases same thing with the minutes from the 15th yeah it was two it was two meetings that one yeah okay the first case is 109 South ARG LLC 109 South oral Avenue block 1.02 lot 6 located in the s30 zoning District seeking C variant relief for deck building height side yard setback rear yard setback front yard landscaping total landscaping and potentially others in order to elevate the existing single family home current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented represented by Steve H who is not here yes I'm Steve henkins associate attorney uh good evening Mr chair members of the board board professionals my name is Kevin B I'm an associate attorney with the law fir of pin s palino Bell Mr B I don't I don't mean to interrupt you I'm going to get our board engineer and planner sworn in and he usually goes through his report does a brief overview and then we'll turn it over to you apologies go ahead no that's okay Mr McLaren please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give throughout this evening will be the truth I do great thank you do you want to finish your introduction Kevin quite all right go ahead was enjoying your talk all right my report is first uh initially written in March 18 2024 and since been revised this month in relation to application of sethir 109 South Bargo Avenue block 1.02 lot six located in s30 his own Fone a elevation 10 uh to conceive erences planning zoning and Engineering report as needed been deemed complete and heavy on a substantial benefit variants the background is is as follows that applicant is seeking relief and the ordinance of the city morgate in order to elevate an existing single family dwelling on the beach on at ltic City side of waral Avenue there are existing non-conforming issues that become variances due to the proposed verical expansion of the structure because the state law hamstrings us to uh anything over base blood plus three any existing nonconformities become variances even know here in Margate we allow higher than net for garages below so my zoning chart is on page two I I would like to point out that there are some clarifications based on my conversations with the applicants engineer and planner so we did we were able to reduce some variances and by clarification of relooking at the plans the front yard setbacks to the porches and the second floor deck go away they are in compliance it was unclear initially and now that is okay so the zoning chart continues on page three along with the along with the documents reviewed and the plans reviewed on page four and I'll go over the variances as identified and again they'll be modified based on the testimony provided by the uh applicant planner so the Varan is required or side set back to the building on the right side again this is existing nonconformity because you're going higher than b three it becomes a barrance the side your setback is 10 ft 9.41 ft exists 9.41 ft is proposed for the lift it's an expansion of a non-conforming setback side door setback to the building combined again the lot this wide the maximum combined side yard is 22t they were 2133 ft and uh 33t is proposed so it's basically 8 in they off rear yard step back to the building because the lot is more narrow it's not as deep as it is wide the minimum rear setback is 20% of the lot width or lot depth rather 12.5 ft is required 5.12 feet exists and 5.12 feet is proposed again expansion the not they're not changing the location the size and shape of the house other than making it higher rear yard set back to the deck there's two of them uh whereas a minimum rear yard setback again 20 feet 20% of lot depth again our ordinance says any decks over 18 in have to meet the setback requirement of the principal structure so it's about 5.5 ft existing and proposed where 12 12.5 ft is required it's already not conforming anyway because it's less like I said it's 5.5 and over 18 re yard set back to the beach front deck again it's the landing portion so it's very very minor again anything over 18 in from grade this is much higher than 18 in from grade 12.5 ft is required 10.7 feet about exist and 10.7 ft is proposed principal building coverage actually that's really not a barrance because they aren't expanding anything so that was clarified earlier today front yard landscape coverage I believe that this will be near or fully compliant right now it's a variance because it's existing non conforming Total Landscape coverage I believe that Vance will be going away but provided the testimony it's still in listed as a variance principal building height whereas a maximum permitted principal building height is 30 ft above base flood 30.10 ft exist and 31.6 ft is proposed and again it's the anomaly behind of going higher than baseball plus three to a higher elevation and it's an existing structure beach front deck height is the final variance where uh our ordinance requires a maximum height of Base flood elevation plus 20 in which would be 11.67 ft based on BF of 10 and 16.2 feet is proposed so it's about four and a half feet higher than permitted and again the testimony will indicate and show why that is they're building a higher bulkhead than required and this house has uh received damage from Hurricane sanity based on Jimmy and I was look we were looking at the damage structures in 2012 and it was in fact listed as one of the damage structures even though the height of it is it is now I'm not going to go through all my comments leave it up to the engineer and planner to discuss and see what kind of baranes we canle down John I turn it over to you thank you Mr U once again my name is Kevin valer I have the pleasure tonight of representing the applicant LLC um from our perspective although there are a number of variances required by virtue of going vertical we're not expanding the envelope of the property we are not adding a single additional square foot of liable space we simply want to raise the house in its present configuration um our client is also proposing to build a bulkhead uh a property uh even though it's on city property he's willing to uh put that cost um it's currently 11 feet uh 13 foot is the standard he wants to go to 15 feet and we'll explain why during the testimony this evening but we do think that's a considerable benefit to to my client the applicant as well as the neighbors and the taxpayers so I'm joined this evening by Seth leer the owner of the property uh as well as my expert planner and engineer John barnhard from Arthur ponzio company and our architect John opalinus is also present in case there are any questions for him so with your permission Mr chair I'd like to begin by calling out my client uh Seth leer okay uh Mr leer you can come up and I'll get you sworn in Mr baller technically the applicants at this LLC but he's the member correct he's the managing member um and Mr Le is having some back issues he's having surgery on Wednesday with your permission I'd like to have him seated during his testimony uh yeah that's fine that that should that should work yeah great test this okay uh Mr Le just give us we know your address so just give us your name for the record and I'll swear you in SE um and Mr Le please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening it'll be the truth yes okay thank you all right Mr Le uh are you in fact the managing member of LLC yes and uh when did you first acquire this property all right um when you first acquired the property you decided to do substantial uh Renovations and restoration instead of tearing it down is that correct yes and why did you make that decision we love the house it's a unique uh 1970s designed house that we think adds to the flavor of the community in the neighborhood we think the lines are beautiful so that's why um you heard some some commentary earlier about Hurricane Sandy was your home in fact damaged in Hurricane Sandy in 2012 yes and can you please describe for the board members the extent of that damage sure and it happened uh two ways um one is we got flooding from the water coming up from the bay and we have a crawl space through our garage underneath the steps that goes down couple a few feet Maybe and um so that filled up with water and then um uh front loaders and Equipment push sand up against the bulkhead in anticipation of the storm I think it was a pretty good idea it didn't work out maybe as expected that created a ramp so when the waves came it took all that sand dumped it onto my house mixed in with the Bay water and then filled my c space with pack sand up to the floor the joist whatever that s deposit against the house leaps into the house and destroyed the flooring of the first floor so it used to be we had a five foot step down to the beach you could walk to my deck straight onto the beach with no step down again at all after the storm and in addition to the damage to the flooring and the crawl space was there any other damage to the hbac system in your house or to um the electrical system so all the duck work electric work in the CW space was destroyed the uh compressors were destroyed the flooring was destroyed I don't remember the exact number but it was close to $100,000 in damage and what about the Landscaping to your property is there was completely destroyed and not covered by insurance it was it was completely incased um Mr Le you're here today asking the board to allow you to raise your home up by about five and a half fet which is uh believe 7 ft higher than you could do by right but we'll have testimony from my planner about that if I'm wrong about that number um why do you want to raise the home well the thought of it started as I noticed a lot of sand being pushed against the bulkhead now and that's sand off the dunes and just the natural buildup and so it began to look to me like this ramp that was put before um and so and with all the forecast of the hurricanes and the I just think it's a matter of time before another storm comes so I was looking at raising it to protect uh from flooding from the bay and from the ocean and I didn't think it was going to be a particularly expensive process but my Builder told me it's a very expensive process he's an expensive Builder which means it's really expensive um and if I was going to raise it to protect it investing all that money I also said let me raise it to the point where I can at least see over the dunes to because that incremental cost wasn't so great and the height that we settled on was the one that made the house look as best as it could look in this raised version it gave us an okay view from the deck and I know the dunes will grow and we just that is what it is and it gave us with the higher bulkhead really a lot of protection in case there's a storm Mr Lear I passed out a packet of photograph to the board of members this evening um do you have a copy of that packet I do and uh I want to take you through a few of these did you take some of these photographs uh the first ones that I see yes okay I want to take you through those would you like me to mark them as I go Mr Manos sure you can mark them as you go if you want to Mark the whole packet it's up to you so we Mark the whole packet as A1 and just do by page number I think that's most convenient for that works okay so we'll call this A1 A1 packet of whatever pages of photos determine that later thank you um Mr Le the first photograph did you take that picture I did and what are we looking at in this phot so we're looking from argal Avenue looking at my house uh off seon okay and so that is the street view yes all right and the second photograph page two I'll call it of A1 that's from um I think maybe the top of the dunes walkway looking down to my house and is this a recent photograph uh it would have been from this past winter okay and that drop down is that the drop down where those stairs are that you said used to be yes and what is it now approximately couple feet okay uh the third photograph if you would P three this this Photograph and the next one are more close-up pictures because the level of the sand against the dun isn't absolutely flat it goes up and down in different areas and this is where the bulkhead for my property I think meets the bulkhead I believe from the street and you can see how high it is and you see it better in the last photo that be page four page four where you can really see the sand coming up to the top of the B and is that what you mean when you said it basically makes a ramp for the water to come up and over yes all right and it would I think it would just ultimately just breach it the sand will naturally overflow as it continues to BU Mr leer you're also proposing to build a new and higher bulkhead along the property lines that correct and why are you doing that uh I don't know how high is high enough to protect but this sounded like a really good height um for protecting from the sand and that bulkhead would run across your property line yes down to the corner of our from my my property line to ours are bulkit yes if that's what you're asking perfect and that is technically city property is that right I um in speaking with your professionals were you made aware that you had other options beside this plan yes okay and one of those would be to raise the the crawl space that we're proposing up to 9 ft in par cars underneath the house yes and if you did that the house would actually be taller than we're proposing tonight yes why didn't you choose that route uh I think it would destroy the Aesthetics of the house I mean I've seen houses that have been raised and the bottom looks horrible relative to the top it just doesn't look right and again we love the house and we think our neighbors love the Everyone likes the and it it practically doesn't work because of the way our internal stairs works there's no way to connect internally what is now the first floor which would be the second floor to the new first floor so you would have very very high stairs going up to it uh and in the garage you would have to have a series of like switch back steps to get into the house and you can't get from that first floor inside up without really destroying the first floor of the house so the layout caused problems with that idea just it just and then trying to connect that height those decks to the first floor it it just it became it was just a mess it was just a mess and another option would be just to tear down the house and build a new home correct yes and if we did that we could actually go higher right yes U but again you said you love the property you want to preserve the unique distinctive 1970s architecture is that right you don't like the box houses we see enough um in designing this plan I'm almost finished by the way in designing this plan um were you cognizant were you sensitive to your neighbor's privacy your neighbors views the light air in open space very much so and did you discuss the plan with them yes I did and what was the overall reaction that you got um supportive okay yeah and yes very much so my neighbors are here all right excellent um I have no further questions well just so just because they did come Tammy Rosen who lives two three houses off the beach on my side uh the chel uh Diane and Jeffrey who live three houses ac across the street off the beach and Lloyd levenson who lives immediately next to me and it's his house which would be most impacted uh because any you know real directly next to him you say next to you you're one from the beach and two kind of behind you I'm on the beach and then he's next yes okay great um I have no further questions thank you very much thanks for the time I appreciate it if there's no questions for my client I'd like to call my professional planner and engineer John Barnhart I have a question not for your client oh when you don't have in the house right no no okay and um I have a question for um Mr ganino um so from what I understand the state is going to I don't know is the whatever the government in general or female they're going to require um right now his floor would have to be at 14 right to be legal or he's in 10 so the lowest highest elevation he would be would be 14 yes 14 so when I understand that the flood Heights are going to get raised again is that corre huh next year next year right and when are they going to get raised to so if he said 14 now what would he be at but we give that extra book to get rid of the water resistant material right so it' be about 16t right right right so if he if you went to 14 because we did you know didn't happen at 16 which is going to happen next year then when they do raise it to 16 then in a year his house would be nonconform correct yeah that's on our understanding as well that is our understanding as well yeah um my next did every does the board kind of understand that okay Mike I'm actually going to go through that specifically because I've actually I've read the rules in detail I'm going to talk about that great all right Mr you ready for Mr barnhard I I am if you are yes Mr Barnhart just uh give us your name and business address please sure John Barnhart office address 400 North do Avenue Atlantic City okay and please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give this evening it'll be the truth I do and Mr chairman I assume as a planner and engineer we accept this credentials yes okay Mr Barnhart if you would be so kind please take us through through the application your perspective and give them an overview and Analysis sure So the plan before you was the same plan uh that was submitted with the application um and I'll just talk quickly about the existing conditions and then go right into the proposal um the plan that you the the main plan that you see here in the center of the document is essentially what exists today with two minor exceptions um when when the when the propos when the everything that sits on this property gets elevated to the 16.7 finish floor elevation um there are some changes necessary to the front stair um as you can see here we are proposing to add a little bit of concrete to have a third uh exterior parking space um and we are proposing to cut back the deck structures along or Avenue that's the that's the extent of what would take place as far as changes are concerned everything else on the site just goes straight up in its existing position just briefly the the AR Avenue deck structure just so you can put it into perspective because I think it's important to show some of the benefits of what this project is proposing is that the existing um first floor deck which obviously is low is at 6.4 feet uh the average front yard setback for a pure deck there is actually 5.1 so technically um our client could take that deck in its existing position straight up and it would comply in so far as front guard setac is concerned but what he decided to do was create some additional landscape cut those decks back in the front and actually he's he's proposing 10.1 so he's actually more than double the required front yard setback for those decks uh in in the proposed condition so as I mentioned the entire this entire project is a house um it does cause a number of variances as you can see from Mr uh mcclaren's report um Mr McLaren did get into some of the variances that we were able to eliminate through discussion and some minor changes and I guess I'll just Le off with those because um it does actually take five variances off the table which is pretty um the first is what I exactly what I just discussed if you look at the front yard setback requirements uh in Mr MC's report for porches and second floor decks uh neither of those are actually variances we are the our front yard our our main front our main PT step back is 10.1 ft and the second level actually steps back about another 18 in so both of the decks on the front of this house uh on oral Avenue will comply um the other U item that Mr McLaren pointed out is Tech not of variance is that we are not adding one square foot of building the building is is going up in in its existing footprint so there would be no variance necessary for building coverage it would just be an existing non-conformity uh the fourth item is with regard to Landscaping um we have uh discussed with our client there was a there was supposed to be a concrete walk connecting the driveway to the front walk and we discussed with our client that a better off option would be to take the Landscaping out to the back of the public sidewalk and just utilize that public sidewalk for access to his front door which picks up um a considerable considerable amount of existing Landscaping that does two things one is it it gives us a net difference of of zero change from the existing condition so we're not reducing the landscape coverage so that would be an existing nonconformity with no change um where we're picking up where we're adding Landscaping in the front getting that little bit of additional concrete on the side for that parking space it's a net zero change so like I said it would not be a variance but then also I I would say more important is it takes our front landscaping and makes it compliant we are now at 60% so on a beach Frum property like this ocean front property the meaning for landscaping is in the front yard nobody sees the other Landscaping that that is what allows this property or will allow this property to be maintained as a beautiful property so we think that those that change um while it might seem minor we think it's a dramatic Improvement and and as I said as I just went through them eliminated five of the variances that are in in the um in the zoning chart so what does that leave us with it leaves us with a bunch of again existing non-conformities that because we're taking the building up they then become variances because we are higher than we would be otherwise permitted based on the way the ordinance is written so as as was already pointed out the the because we are not proposing to park under the building we do not have we're not taking the building up the 9 fet like most folks do or even a new construction what most folks do is they take advantage of your section of the ordinance that says you take your house up 9 ft above grade and use it for parking and storage you can start measuring your height from there and your finished floor can be 9 ft above the ground uh our client is choosing not to do that because he wants to preserve the layout and the Integrity of the house so he is bringing it up to comply but he is now he is then hamstrung with the lower of the two options which means he is allowed to go three feet above base blood to the bottom of his joist which essentially is four feet above base flood uh for his finished Flor that means maimum finished floor elevation he can have here based on that standard is elevation 14 he's proposing to be at what your ordinance does permit by way of a building that technically could be if you if you utilize the if you utilize the a parking underneath standard could be 1.29 feet higher than what we actually propose um but I think also very important and Mr Richman uh started or was talking about it Mr gtino weighed in on it and you're going to hear a lot more about this as time goes on the D has issued I published new proposed rules um they are intended to be adopted next summer whether that'll happen or or not nobody really knows and the language in the rules right now is are potentially something to change but the current rules the way that they read is that they they've instituted a definition something called climate adjusted flood elevation and what that means is that in every Community you take your flood maps that you guys are used to seeing you take the base flood elevation that's on the map for that location in this case our Basel elevation is 10 and you add five feet to it that then becomes your flood elevation so in this location would' be at 10 plus 5 would' be at 15 with our climate adjusted flood elevation the state then as per their proposed rules requires another 12 Ines of freeboard on top of that now whether communities will change will have more freeboard in that will I guess eventually be their decision if these rules if when these rules are published but based on the way the rules are currently written this building would be required to have a finished floor of elevation 16 on this site it wouldn't be so the way your ordinance is written now wonderfully the decision to put in your ordinance about allowing buildings to go to 9 ft above grade to get parking underneath was it turned out to be a tremendous thing because those buildings that have been built that way they're all going to be compliant with the new regulations because of the of the where those floor elevations came out but buildings that have chosen to not go as high as they are able to by utilizing that standard and just go to the Finish floor three to the unders side of the jewi those buildings will all become non-compliant when this when this when this regulation is passed so just put into perspective for Mr Le situation it if he builds if he did not ask for this variance and he buildt a 14 because he doesn't want the building to be Skyhigh um he builds at 14 eliminates the variant the rules pay and he finishes this winter and the rules pass next summer if he wants to renovate his house 10 years from now and substantial renovation he'd have to raise it again because he's non-compliant because of the fact that that the rules have now put him into non-compliance it's a real thing it's really coming down the pike and it's something that does is going to need to be dealt with in the future in my opinion um but fortunately when we actually analyzed this project after the fact as compared to those rules because they weren't they were only published actually they've been talking about them for what two years three years but they only actually finally released something we can read what what Roger a month ago now yeah so you know obviously it's become a major Topic in our in our industry uh to study these and make sure we understand them for our clients fortunately what Mr we developed as a proposed plan fits right into it because it puts him at 16.71% is we don't believe that it causes a negative impact to any of our surrounding properties um so why do I how can I say that well um first of all you have brand new construction immediately next to us that that that person chose to push their building back they do have high deck but they're set back because they're proposing what appears to be a pool in the yard uh between the bulkhead and the um I'm gonna stop for just one second John if everyone can turn to the next page on the photographs you'll actually see a photograph of the next door new construction project that way they can just put eyes on it as you're discussing it please so they propos to putol there are setback so far that that that honestly even though Our Deck is going to the bulkhead at a higher elevation that's permitted new blockages because of where their deckor Z back are essentially our house I mean that's that's the way that that property has been developed um going across I'll say across or Avenue if you visited that it's an older home I assume it will be reconstructed at some point in the future but right now if you visit that property there's here for evergreen trees that are 20 plus feet high blocking any views right along this area um and The Proposal of having this house at this elevation and these decks at these elevations is not inconsistent with this with this neighborhood either if you go down just one property across and over Avenue you have a very similar scenar area where you have in their case second level decks to go out to the B and John I'm going to stop you one more time so just to confirm if you could look at Pages five six and seven in the package y those show the new constructed next door to the residence that's correct yes and it looks like kind of towers over is that fair yeah the does look considerably higher us okay and then if you look at pages eight and nine can you tell the board what we're looking at there that's the streetcape I me it just shows it shows some of the mass of the houses that are on on this block and that's one of the things you know some of the homes that are constructed that's one of the things that Mr Le trying to avoid uh with this with this house phas by keeping the the architecture of this property as it is okay I'm going to bring you back to Pages 10 and 11 of the photographs what are we looking at here uh that's the home I was just discing adjacent to us on and over Avenue so that's the next door neighbor where they're building that pool and it's kind of set back that's correct okay uh and I boss count on 11 uh 12 13 and 14 I believe what are we looking at in this Photograph uh 12 13 and 14 are the home that I just mentioned um on the uh other side of Andover Avenue as you would be heading toward the north um of the home that has Decks that are similar in nature to what is being proposed here and this is the over from the property that's correct and it kind of shows I think there's first and second floor decks on a lot of these properties that go right to the bulkhead is that fair to say yeah so what what is being proposed here is not inconsistent thank you and just another just another quick discussion topic we did look at potential options on different deck elevations and the issue is you know if you were building new construction in all likelihood you wouldn't set your house wall 9.4 ft from your property line you move the house back like the neighbor is to have more yard space because the beauty of these Ocean Front properties is The Outdoor Living because he's proposing to preserve the property or the building his decks are relatively narrow in depth so if you if you look at okay maybe we put a landing in to try to get down to lower the deck anywhere you put a landing really does have a pretty dramatic impact to the usability of that deck um so that's why we are requesting to have it uh maintain at basically at the Finish L height it's one step down from the Finish L onto that deck structure you mentioned two things earlier that I want to Circle back to the first is parking we initially proposed two spaces and now we're proposing a third is that right there are three spaces proposed which complies with the standards okay great um and the crawl space how tall is that going to be so yeah so the crawl space you know and this is another important part of the raise process because obviously there's a substantial benefit here by eliminating a building that did have loss um and making it fully compliant with regard to current FEA standards and hopefully future standards um the current crwl space is actually a below grade crawl space so right now actually if you do get flood waters in there the flood waters are held in the crawl space that will be filled up a slab will be constructed typic you know typical accurate slab will be constructed to comply with FEA standards um and then the the crawl space area is proposed to be I believe 5 10 in clear the elevation and you know it all ties back to um all the reasons for why they chose the dimension that they did the 5 10 um is certainly never going to be a usable space you don't have to worry about it being finished but a nice step to be able to actually get in there and and have some space for storage so there was a lot of thought given into what looks like a random number of 1671 but there was a lot of thought put into it it was to have that 5 pen elevation and and all the other things you heard Mr uh Mr Le already discussed and Mr barnhard is there anything else you want to tell the board before we get to the criteria for the grant of C variants so the only other technical topic that I want to discuss is with regard to the bulkhead um the Le are proposing elevation 15 which I don't te think is a variance the way the ordinance is written I believe that the that um Roger Roger has the ability to make that decision on a Case by case basis is that right just adhere it to the minimum requirement okay so just to understand it the the reason for the 15 if you look at the photos in the one package that you have there that show the beach what has taken place here Mr Le described to us and and it is what the city did for many years is the city um typically or for many years would go along and take the BU stand away from the bul and area in this area they have not been doing that and with the Dune that's there in front of it what has started to occur which which this is this does happen um behind the uh larger Dunes is what they call a secondary or tertiary dun you can see this you can see the grasses there in front of uh Mr be's property which photos are you referring to is it Pages three and four of the packet A1 two it's in two it's in two and three and four yeah thank you so that tertiary is going to and if you visited the site you'll see that in some areas the sand not right up against the bad but this area is actually the sand is actually already higher than the bhead and then in other areas it's lower but because of the way that's the El that's going to continue to BU because those grasses are what capture the sand so the concern that Mr leer has about sand washing over and or blowing over on those property is going to become more and more real as time goes on so from my perspective at this specific location the elevation does make a lot of sense obviously for future future storm protection but also protection from what's taking place in front of his site you're talking about in front of his house or the street end I'm talking about on the beach in front of his house if you look at those couple pictures Rich you see how they starting to develop like it's what they call a secondary or tertiary d right here no I understand I thought you were talking about the street would you address the street address it in what regard why you're going two feet above the medic re where the bulk at here when the street at um well I mean that can still be open to discussion I whether well he said you were going to talk about it so talk about so question is are you going just across his property to the street or are you going across the complete street because the street end to us means you're going across the entire Street going to the curve line it looks like it's the curve line here okay so I just want to make sure that I would hear what my client was was proposing here what he would what he would like to what he's proposing is Assuming he's fortunate enough to receive an approval and not that these two are tied together if assuming he is fortunate enough to receive a and approv when moves forward this project he would like to build a bulit along his front B property line to property line at 15 um he is also proposing to build the ARG Avenue street andv rebuild it both from for fun protection and and beautification um if if if you don't want that raised to 15 and you want a 13 we're per he's perfectly happy with that as well so we're going to replace the street end and you can do 15 or 13 so let's put it into perspective so we know what we're talking about the existing vad there is about 11 11t it's it's 11t above but from the street it's only about up to my thought it's not it's not tall oh no it's not it's very low right and because the ground because the are you talking about if you're standing on the sand or you talking about froming about standing in the black top on the street on the street yeah yeah okay yeah fire yeah I agree with that when you say 15 we're all right away saying oh my God you're gonna have a wall of B but we're not it's going to be probably not more than as tall as I am the existing the existing bad we shot the elevation of the existing top of the bad that's out there now is like 11.1 so if if you if you only want the street end bulkhead to go to 13 it's only going up 24 Ines from where it is right now and that's what your standard is is 13 right but in another year it's going to be 15 and then the city's going to be on the hook to redo the B and our client's willing to do 15 for the whole thing if that's and then we're done and the 15 is not going to be overbearing because right because it's going to be because the ground's High the grounds are what's the height going to be at 15 feet from this from the black do probably what is the now let me grab my gles street I have have uh on the asph on my PL I just can't so at the street end Center Line of the street right near the street end is like eight and a half so if you go to 15 you're looking at six and a half fet High new one will be if you go to 15 it be six and a half feet high so then hopefully under public content we can ask the neighbors besides well it affects everybody I know it just I'm just raising a point here it doesn't there's no more storm protection for the city since every other bulkhead being raised is going to 13 ft so it's not providing any more you know the bulkhead next to it it's going to be 13 so now you're having a that that you can't see over you're talking about the street end I'm talking the street end not in front of his house yeah Mr and I just discussed if if if if you would you think the right number for the street end that's he's perfectly happy to do it that way might go up in the future but all the bulk Peds now are being built at 13 ft and they're going to last a 100 years so it's going to be 13 a and you're going to have Fus now you can't see over like Rumson low so it looks like it's I understand and it's not going to be that high but it's still going to be higher than the so rich are you saying that it would be better at I'm saying City for the street end for the stre right right just the street end not front of Rich if it was left at 13 for the street end and we were talking about flood water I would agree with you but we're talking about sand and then that sand is going to have to be cleaned up by the city if he's willing to pay to get it to 15 for two feet it's not doing anything you can't even see the beach from the with the Dune in the way any and I can hear the public comments now about this giant bulkhead again I I I think the new bulkhead IND Street end is up to the city's governing body yes Mr MC that's exactly what I was about to say my understanding is that's within the perview of the governing body Street and then putting a bulk it there they have to agree with I think it's something to consider is you know you raise this bul at four more feet you're adding like eight more sets steps you you get over it you still have to have ADA compliance this location has an ADA access now on the other sidewalk right correct so I would say you know if he wants to go to the curb line I don't see the city walkling at that but there's also electric at tied to the Vette and some other items but I think the jurisdiction of this board is for this property only right I I I wouldn't even tie a condition of approval of this based on the Bulet installation we we raised the issue because it's part of our overall plan to to raise and increase the height of the bulad and my clients's willing to do the Street end which he doesn't have to do it's basically the city's responsibility but he's willing to put that that expense and it would have to be built in accordance with the city engineer specifications the governing body would have input I'm sure they would turn to this board for for input as well and members of the public um so you know we're not trying to say it has to be 15 or has to be 13 on the street end right we just want you to know that something that we're proposing to do as part of this overall package and I've seen a logic behind that because yeah the velocity zones not too far away 13 so waves 20 away yeah the only question is if if approved do we even make it a condition or we just tell the oppent look you can approach the city and say well we want to put a ballhead in and the condition is that you have to approach the city just approach the city and wherever it takes it takes it the governing body might want right I would do that because then it's done we're going to going to protect your property the whole block absolutely so again like I said at the outside it benefits my client it benefits the neighbors it benefits the taxpayers and that's why we raise it but if you don't want to make it a condition of approval you know I understand that and we'll have to go to the governing I would say we make it a condition of approval at the 13t and if the commission wants to make it 15 that's up to them it's going to benefit Mr tremendously if it goes to 15 no matter what so he's not going to OB to that is that good guys I think the condition should I mean they have to go to 13 anyway the city would have to go to 13 anyway the condition I say is they approach the city that's the condition and we'd be fine with that as well okay if we tell them they're going to 15 does the city want to go to 13 or 15 it really is up to them I think because it's not our property he's just willing to do that because it's kind of but you're you're you're tying the city's bu which we have no jurisdiction over to the project the exis everything's attached and the last it doesn't make sense I understand giving them approval for right he doesn't own he doesn't own it the city owns it's on the property so it's a joint I would say the city would say he owns it it's kind like the city's not going to replace it doesn't Own It City would have we don't know who who owns his bul that's in front of his proper might have misspoken earlier when I was saying that's owned by the city I meant the street end I thought that his was owned by okay I want make sure I didn't conf the B straddles the property it's partially on the private property and partially on the public property which is but there's a difference between I it's that way on a lot of properties clear well the city's not going to go in there and replace the buade in front of his house that's that's not going to happen that's not what I'm saying we can make it and put it in there and then if they want to take it out but for are y Avenue but you can't tie it to this project can't I don't see do all because person because it's not enforce if the city says we don't want to do it then you have a condition that says put a ballhead in on the street end the city PID for it not him is that what we're saying my client intends to do that fully if the city uh recommendation approach the city and I'm sure that the governing body will participate I I don't see why they wouldn't frankly it's a considerable expense we've gotten some estimates I think 350 for this I just don't want it to say it's a condition of approval and I say no then you can't get a building permit because it's a condition of approval yeah right I understand the concern we also don't want to make it look like a quick Pro quoe because that's not the intent we're just telling you what we plan to do and what we're willing to do so uh we're fine with that whatever you recommend certainly okay Mr barnhard is there any other technical information you want to convey to the board before we get to the the C1 and C2 criteria I think we I think we fully describe the project okay uh in your professional opinion uh does this proposed project SA the criteria for either a C1 and or C2 variants yes I I think um to an extent I think you can justify this under the C1 hardship criteria um clearly this is not an exceptionally narrow or shallow lot but um if you read all all the way through the standards in the C1 um it talks about um uh unique circumstances so we have a set of circumstances where we want to preserve the existing architecture of the building we want to bring it up exactly where it sits because the way the law was written you can only go to a maximum of fre feet before all those things become variances um that puts us into this situation but I think the more appropriate standard here is the C2 is the C2 standard where benefits of the deviation outweigh uh the potential detriments um obviously we are taking a building that is currently not flood compliant we are making it fully flood compliant uh we are preserving the Aesthetics of a building that's been in existence for a number of years uh and provide some real character uh to this neighborhood um we are uh proposing new flood protection for our own property as we just discussed at length um and we are doing all that in a matter that we don't believe u creates a negative uh to any of the surrounding properties um obviously from the negative perspective is there is there a substantial detction with the Zone plan our zoning ordinance I described in detail what our what our finished floor height is versus what it is permitted to be if we were to be parking underneath of it it's actually uh 1.3 ft lower than it would be permed to be that we were parking underneath of the building I also describ the standards that are coming down the road from the d uh and that thankfully puts this proposal right in line or in compliance with those standards um and all the setbacks that we're asking for if you look at them U many of them are very near compliance even though they are existing nonconformities uh I think the only real U real non compliance is along the ocean FR which we discussed at Ln yes sir I want to if you're just raising the house and the height is measured from the finished first floor why is that getting bigger it's not you're going from 30 to 31 so the the dimension based on Mr O's plans the dimension between the finished floor and the roof Peak is 28.94 Ft so the house is not says the building Height's going to go from existing 30 to 31.659760 first floor which is being lifted up why would that be increased by yeah Rog those numbers there was some confusion on that also so what is the distance from the first floor elevation to the roof Peak distance from the finished floor to the roof Peak based on Mr O's numbers on his plans is 28.94 Ft that's not changing that is not changing that's not Aaron okay it says it's 30.1 is that on the schedule on Mr McLaren's report yeah I'm doing the math from if you look at the Finish elevation versus the roof peak elevation it comes out to 28.9 it's not changing it is not changing okay it shows it's changing on here so evance was requested so I put it in the in the chart and I was trying to look at that also if you're going the extra height for the floor that's not a Vance yeah the house is just in its position it's just going up that's not what it says that's my question Y no a good question and Mr barard I think you covered this but just to be a stickler for the exact language and purposes of any you know the record or any potential appeal is it your professional opinion that this variance could be granted without causing substantial substantial detriment to the public goods yes um I described the surrounding properties um and the consistency with the with the development pattern of those properties so for those reasons we believe there is no substantial detriment to the public good and I also believe that by cutting back the front deck on or Avenue there's actually a benefit to this neighborhood and is it also your professional opinion that the granting of this variance would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the municipal Zone plan and ordinance yes for all the reasons I've already stated that thank you just to tie in that comment real quick is one of the new mandates from the state in recent year or two is the new ma any new master plan not a re-exam but any new master plan has to have a resiliency component as part of it this is a perfect example of a resiliency project would you agree to that John if that was part of our master plan you're meeting that and I think as I said to call you're done that concludes our presentation unless there's any more questions anything from the board yeah I I have a couple of questions um so front yard landscape coverage now is no longer a variant you're comp total coverage you know what the the number is now for to landscape coverage we are right now exist 20% yeah if you look at our plan we were actually dropping 18 but we increased some of the Landscaping it's a no difference no keeping now it's but the front yard it's increasing to 60 which is what you see ex else yeah I have to follow it up there's there's still a lot of concrete there on was there any consideration to do anything to reduce the the concrete to have additional permeable surface Maybe you know so you know as as I don't disagree with you we've got I mean this is all parking obviously I mean you the only area you could pick it up would be like I guess maybe you could take some of this walk no permeable P consideration or anything like that we certainly what is recharge allowing penetration of water into the soil okay so is that uh for a little bit when it rains right then it runs right off right so what do you do to recharge you can put a recharge system in where you have like a stone bed that's deep water penetrate so it basically gives you a vertical distance where you don't have the horizont okay it's another way to reduce run right I give you one benefit our currently on top of sand so I don't have the exact number but that will go way to help help provide additional in the back so we have L and we would make that a condition of approval as well okay anybody else on the board we're good okay anyone from the public like to speak just give us uh your name and address address please and I'll swear you in yes my name is Jeffrey shalel I live at 104 South ARG Mr shalela please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes I do okay thank you yes um many of us have grown up in morgate I was fortunate to grow up on the uh on Andrew renue on the beach front and I remember I was either in my teens or early 20s when this house was first built and I thought it was beautiful back then really spectacular it was an unusual house and I live on oral now it's still this beautiful when I heard that uh Seth Lair was willing to raise the house that was his proposal as opposed to tearing it down to building a much larger Toller structure I was uh I I felt glad and I think that morate will benefit from his his desire to raise his house and tear it down and I think it adds to the beauty of War so I support the proposal thank you Lloyd levenson 107 South ARG since I am the really the one most impacted Mr levenson you're not speak you're not representing a client right no SAR to tell the truth no no yes thanks uh so uh I've spoken to Seth he's shown me the plans uh it is just going up and as I understand it it's not going to affect my house whatsoever are you directly next to him directly next to yeah I'm one the second house from the beach he's on the beach uh so it just goes up if it went out I'd be here objective so but knowing that it's just going up has really no effect so I certainly my supports thank you I am Tammy Rosen I live at 103 South Mar m uh Miss Rosen do you swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes absolutely okay thanks um I just want to say I grew up on the street I also loved looking at that house was delighted that not being torn down and that it adds to the character and charm of Margate and I think more people should be preserving the history and beauty of houses and not tearing them down so I completely support this thank you than you anyone else public portion Clos all right there's no other questions it's a uh C Varian application and connect with the house lift the variances are as follows there's a sidey yard setback on the right side to the house uh 9.41 ft was proposed 10 FTS required the combined side yard set back to the house is at 2133 ft where 22 ft's required rear yard set back to the house is at 5.12 5.12 feet where 12.5 ft is required rear yard uh deck setb uh 12.5 ft required at five and a half 5.5 ft plus or minus um rear yard setback to the deck on the the beach side 12.5 ft required they're at 10.7 feet plus or minus and the deck height of the beach front deck is at uh 16.2 feet where 11.67 ft is required in terms of the conditions um we'll note with respect to that street end certainly not uh some sort of a quid pro Crow quo as Mr baller said but the um the applicant is the one who raised it so we'll just say they'll they'll they'll go to the city and say we're we're willing to raise the street on bulkhead and see where that takes you um um and then I'll note also the uh towards the end of the presentations there said there's some Pap stones on sand Ong the the rear property line You'll there that you'll leave is that instead of concrete instead of concrete okay yes those conditions are acceptable to and then we'll just note the other standard conditions that we pretty much put in every resolution subject to any outside approvals that might be required subject to any representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing um and anything else in Mr mcclaren's report unless otherwise addressed and if I did not miss anything we'll need a motion second roll call okay I'll make that motion Tom Collins actually John you really did a nice job explaining the C1 and C2 criteria and you did a nice nice presentation between both uh I admire what you're doing I think it's uh admirable uh I agree with what John said that C1 is marginal but it is there and it does have a hardship to a degree especially when you're getting all the sand and the C2 is uh I think the heavier variance and it does really is a benefit to the city uh anytime we improve our beach front our bulkheads you know we should have more bulkheads and artificial reefs and we have Dunes but they're giving us dunes and dunes just blow into our houses I think this is a great project and I vote in favor Richard Patterson I also commend Mr Barnhart I don't think I need to go through all the C1 and C2 I just agree with uh with his presentation I think he covered it very well and I approve the project Michael Richmond yeah I think think especially um with the new rules that I'm about 100% certain are going to go into effect that this house would hardly be would almost be variance free except for a couple things um you know we're taking a classic house and we're raising it if you if you look at the property your next door I'm sure it'll be a beautiful property but it's like so you know big and just overbearing you know I I can't not approve this I approve it stepen ji yeah I'm going to agree with uh rest of the board members I think it's a beautiful house I think it's a you present your arguments really well and I'm in favor of it Michael Ru you I just I want to kind of echo what the other board members said and commend the owner for for doing you know putting in the effort to to keep the house the way it is I I think it's you know it's obviously R in and I think we should should um again everybody it's everyone agrees that it's it's important for us to keep these these old houses and Margie but other than that I really don't have anything to add um it's a great project and I vote Yes on it Margaret Gober um yes I want to commend presenters I want to thank the app preserving the aesthetic of the house um certainly was the best option for alternative were not as favorable I see no negative impact on the neighborhood I don't think it compromises John pitz I appreciate the effort to uh reduce the number of variances required well done and I approve Jim I approve the project anytime somebody wants to elevate their structure I'm all for it I think it's the best way to go moving forward with the uh state regulations never move it's always a moving bar it seems like so hopefully it stops at some point I approve the project Craig PA M yes most of the variances are all nonexisting non-conformities for the raise and um I'm glad you cut the front de back some and Landscaping in the front of the house it's nice a nice job John on YouTube and um it's more flood proof for the next storm if it comes and um you're saving an older home and and that's that's really what we try to do on this board a lot we try to save those older homes sometimes we succeed sometimes we don't um I approve this project and I'm happy for you the application is approved with nine in favor and zero opposed thank thank you all very much thank you all right AR okay our next case is Michael and Stephanie scalini 8 South Gilmore Circle flock 69.3 lot 61 located in the S40 zoning District seeking SE variance relief for front yard setback side yard setback and potentially other others in order to raise the existing home and construct the second floor carent on taxes W and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided representative by Christopher M B yep thank you Mr chairman board members the report is based on the application of Michael and Stephanie scalini 8 South Gilmore Circle block 69.3 lot 61 located in the S40 zoning District in Fone elevation 8 so in essence the required first Flor is 11 elevation 11 to the bottom of the floor this is another house lift and due to the state limiting house raises to BF plus three varen is required for existing noning standards as the board is well ver after for a prior application we need to go in that any further te complete and this could be somewhat of a hardship issue in there is a curvature in the front of the front of the uh property and your front yard set backs are stagger because because that line moves but it's essentially a sub potential benefit variance the zoning schedule is on page two and three highlighting the variances again some of these have been uh I just want to go to the the fence location across the driveway as long as the parking is being met that would not be a variance but it also means that the garage is not being used for parking which leads to another variance so documents reviewed on the bottom of page three page four are the plans reviewed and let's go over the Varan is required front yard setback to the de Res minimum front yard setback based on the average within 200 feet is 1858 22.65% fet exists and 5T is proposed probably when the house was developed and and constructed 5 foot was the norm so I your a setback to the first Flo deck again similarly to the building 8 FTS required and five fets proposed second thing for the second floor deck on the left eight fets required five fets existing and proposed actually the second floor deck is just proposed Fence location again if parking being met that's really not a variance but it leads to the other variants where accessory structured detach garage we allow 9 ft extra to allow parking underneath and the ordinance says you can't have both if you already meet the parking you can't LIF the house at have parking so the detach garage would have to be demolished or they can seek a variance for the oversized accessory structure which I believe they're going to request that tonight and the driveway curb cut with they're allowed 18 ft they're proposing 24 ft it's my understanding that that barrance may be going away also so basically they're they're adding a second floor they're lifting it up and because they're H they're raising the house that kind of drives these vences I'm not going to go through all the comments I'll leave it up to the applicant to address the comments and the U parents is thank you Mr mlar members of the board my name is can I can I ask a question real quick sorry if if they wanted if they were did would they be allowed to do a shed like like an 8 by1 shed they could they could okay sure two you could do two even though you have parking underneath okay only one go ahead thank you members of Bo my name's Chris pal and I represent Stephanie and Michael scalini who currently live at at a South Gilmore um Circle Lot 61 block 6905 this is what Roger explained it's a it's a house LIF that the existing Rancher um at that location for primarily to give the scates more room um to accommodate their family and I'm not going to tell the story as to why they're expanding the house um circumstances are unfortunate and I'll let I'll let Stephanie explain it if you don't mind uh yeah Mr scan just give us your name and address for the record uh Stephanie okay scan please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes okay great thank you um so we're moving down here to help with my niece who seven and my nephew who's nine um my sister passed away in 2020 suddenly from a heart issue um my their father's not really involved so my mom has residential custody and she lives on her love um so for the past few years we've been H down Thursday through Monday to help my parents raise the children and then I we husband and I have a three-year-old and a little boy coming 2ish um so we'll then have two or four kids whatever you see it so it's a three bedroom Rancher and we have a dog and two of us it's a little tight um we both work in I work at chop King ofia my husband works in bin wood so we're moving down here and when it's done we'll sell our Cherry Hill home um be down here full time my parents are around here 68 and 72 um I grew up in Margie so want to be here to as their only surviving child to take care of them as they get old and the kids as well um and nephew Go to Raw school I went to Union Ross and Tha my daughter class with Janet um and we just love the circle like the we all walk each other's dogs they the neighbors help with our kids so you want to stay on the circle first somewhere else yeah they they were in Mar school before they passed and then before she pass and my mom the number of children yeah the four children and my husband and I so we'll all be upstairs and then um my parents yeah yeah bik strollers yeah lawn mow yeah yeah so they yeah yeah are are you eliminating the driveway behind the fence yes that'll be all landscape yes you know that's not fair how do we V that it's not fa I don't tell the story um mean the lift the Varian is because the existing non-conforming setbacks are a result of getting the building high enough to park underneath and the parking will be underne underneath in the garage and will'll be three outside one in the access to the garage and then two in the existing driveway the curb cut will be eliminated at 21 ft and brought down to 18 ft as conforming um we would ask that the application be amended to allow the oversized garage and all provide Dimensions as a condition to act as a shed but not as a garage and and Chris can tell you that it is weird the way it's built is it undersiz garage door to the one side it makes access to the garage in in and out very difficult it normal chryst show you picture it's just filled with kid stuff and you say well they also have storage underneath the house but remember it's a 1,200 it's about th000 Square per footprint you're going to have a car in there and then and an foyer and then you have some small storage area and when you have four kids and the beach and surfboards and bikes and boing boards and whatnot um that storage space get used up pretty quick we we would ask the application be amended who allows them to keep the garage as structure shed in light of taking it down and putting up two sheds I calculated 338 Square ft okay thank you um what for the existing garage size of the garage 338 with that being said I'll I'll let um Chris run through the house he designed it and take you through it as the architect okay Mr Halliday just uh give us your name and business address for the record and I'll swear you in uh Chris AR 7 okay and please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you're about to give you the truth okay and I know you've been before this board several times or at least somewhat recently except your credentials an architect I've known him when he was like this big neighbors i' Le like to get their name into the record if that permissible well is yeah I I don't have an objection to that um the Philpot in South Gilmore has submitted a letter of in support the Loretta Marin at 21 West Gilmore has submitted a letter in support bur that pickle at 6 South right next door has submitted a letter in support as has the pites at 14 West Gilmore a letter in support thanks this obviously would be consider subal renovation that in for them up obviously would really correct starting their Journey so we're build what we currently accomodating theirs trying to give them as much usability as possible and they want take TR make it more atic that's the only set that's created as a this renovation rights AR just that's correct and that that set is to be that 18.5 versus I'm sorry it's going to be 18.5 versus 16 that's required correct 161 18 187 is required that addition two feet of that porch or that front deck whatever it may be that um you think that'll impact anybody on E either side I don't I think especially because it's a circle it's an odd block so you're not looking straight down the block and seeing one home outbound of everyone else it is on radius so H Hil is right at the top of the radius that's correct so everybody cures back from there that's correct go ahead I'm sorry Mr mentioned that uh there is a variance the documents for curve cut that was not my intention so we will the curve cut will go down to 18 per minute so that continu access exting driveway as well as the newage access You' be taking the ribbon out and you have 20 feet on the side of the house if the ribbon was moved over it' be easier to get in out the driveway a double driveway because there's 20 ft on that side of the house modifying yeah the idea after report because you are shrinking the curb cut correct okay the only thing I was saying was moving mov together so it's easier to get in and out yes the curve go yes yeah I understand however functions best yes yeah I agree with you so we can we can modify those strip that go straight now plenty of room to go closer to the house and the four parking spaces conform to what the ordinance requires I just want to know how many square feet do you have now and how many square feet will the house be 1200 2400 just it's 1200 now but you need it yeah telling two stories right same two stories our make our we need more spaceace need more stage so so building coverage remains at 25% for instance 30 that would be required Chris what we've come down to is a variance for an oversized accessory structure which would be the garage correct and the uh setback to the new porch right front in front which you got a twoof foot setback and the existing nonconformities where there's five on the side versus eight required that is correct and we are removing a raised Landing that there is a little bit you think then under a C2 criteria and a C1 criteria for the front y um that the project as a whole enhances the the municipal the positive criteria we're preserving um an existing structure raising nebor and the athetic enhancement obviously goes a long way do you think that variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good itial impact on Zone plan and Zoning that's the board have any questions anybody from the public like to speak portion okay the board has nothing further it's a c variance application for the house lip the variances are front yard setback to the deck of 16.15 Ft or 18.58% side five five ft proposed 8 ft required um then the other variant is for the size of the accessory structure that detached garage is now going to become an accessory structure in the area behind the fence is going to become a yard and we'll just say for the size Chris it's oversized but it'll stay for the as is size yes um and then spaces in the driveway in front of perfect okay perfect two legal spaces in front and I'll note that as a condition two legal spaces in front of uh the fence in the driveway uh the curb cut will conform and then behind the fence obviously the the I think I noted that the driveway gets eliminated because it's behind the fence and that gets rid of that fence location variance and then the standard conditions um anything else to Mr mcclaren's report subject to any outside approvals and uh any representations made during the course of the hearing on be behalf the applicant I'll make that motion a second Tom Collins um Chris you did a nice job tonight both Chris's um this is a something that I've been preaching for for a lot of years is how do we get families back in the market and this is a perfect example and to do anything you are coming in on a modest request uh the hardship of that circle is this fact that you have a lot and in the middle and CS around so you lose a lot of ground I live in a circle there too one away and it can be a benefit or it can be a detri um what you're doing is very commendable uh taking care of the children it's it's a nice thing so I'm vote in the C1 and C typ two criteria that it needs to justify Richard Patterson I've been pretty adamant about getting rid of garages when you uh put the parking underneath but I think this is a unique situation especially with the minimal size of the house and the fact that it could be so much bigger um I think that compensates for it the fact that the house is is so much smaller I don't know how you're going to fit in a house at 2400t um so for those reasons I don't and and the support of the neighbors uh I see no negatives here I V to approve Michael Richmond I liveed on gilmar Circle it's a great neighborhood um yeah we're raising a house we're getting another flood elevation um we're bringing a family into morgate which is to me one of the like Tom said in my mind is one of the biggest things coming up in marget is just trying to get more families to move in and support the schools so uh I think it's a great project and I approve it stepen ji yes I'm going to have to agree once again U we do have a families uh coming in and remaining in morgate and I think it's a good I think that I think the benefits after every Michael rck I agree with the other board members about bringing U good families um into Margate again and um I wish you and your family the best of luck I approve it Margaret Gober I see this as AI we got a nice new um I actually live in one of the ranchers as well um yeah you we get moreen get a fly house in terms of the accessory structure I the lot size is 50 by 96 foot lot so I don't's netive imp John pets uh yeah nothing more to be said really I think the board members have said it all I'm a neighbor around the corner Avenue best of luck and welcome Craig palan more room for four little kids to run around the house and um bring them to Margate we like that and I approve Jim gtin yeah I think the detriment would have been if I they did a subanal Improvement and I told you you couldn't do it because you you had to elevate your house so you just approved your point approved the application the application is approved with nine in favor and zero appr two minutes yeah we're gonna take a a five minute break ready okay here we go last case Mory Burger LLC 7903 ventor Avenue block 20 7.03 Lot 4 located in the CBD zoning District seeking site plan approval along with C variance relief for parking and potentially other variances in order to construct a new building consisting of commercial on the first floor and residential above terminal taxes water and silver payments proof of advertising and notifications provided representative represented by Christopher M B thanks for me start please um members of the board my name is Chris Bal and I represent margan fer LLC and principal dror is here with us this evening to work on the infamous property where the uh food truck Burger Bus exists between front neck Frank and Franklin on Venter Avenue it's 7902 Venter Avenue um it's in the CBD Zone uh a mixed use building with residential and Commercial is permitted so long as commercial is on the first floor residential is on the second floor and above I had um submitted a letter to Leo Mr Manos taking the position that Margate Berger should be entitled to rely on the ordinance that was in effect at the time their application was submitted in 20 December 2022 the reason being is as follows the or the application was submitted in late December uh 2022 ultimately scheduled to be heard in April of 23 there was no Quorum that evening so the matter went off a month two months later in July first reading August second reading ordinance 10 of 2023 was adopted which introduced wholesale changes to the CBD Zone which included primarily a six foot front yard setback on every front yard on any of these On Any Given block uh needless to say and the the density requirements for the residential were changed also needless to say that ined of itself with those setbacks required a complete redesign of the project which which Dr Pastor authorized and Peter did ultimately refiling this application refiling the revised plans just recently the law provides Le help the law provides that when an ordinance is adopted during the pendency of an application that serves to kill that application for lack of a better term uh the law in effect at the time that the application was filed is what controls now the only thing really that makes a difference for that application tonight is the setbacks it's the only difference really the six six foot setbacks because on this property with three Street fronts there would be three six foot setbacks that that however you look at it is good or bad I look at it I'm a personal problem with it it's I think it's terrible so with that brief introduction I would give it to you guys to to take a straw vote or Le however any want to handle it U and I'm going to proceed either way I'll ask for the variances if you guys say no all the new ordinance fine with that we just want that to be in the record because technically that's how this should be yeah uh put on your case you got to put it on anyway same way and then we can I mean the the law is clear the the the law in effect when you file your application is the law that applies what's a little unclear to me just as a outside some of the history I mean I remember the history it is this a filed was this application filed prior was it fil or refile if I remember correctly this was pulled because we're waiting for the outcome of the Chinese restaurant which you have either way on the I your better bet would be to present your case seek your Varian either way yeah my recommendation at least initially put on your case the board should possibly the application shouldn't hinge on whether it's a zero foot setback or a six foot setback um I we and have good justification for the setback variances and and I understand that that's you know the request is is a little bit unusual I'm I think I'm okay either way it goes I just want to be complete um so Burger Bus will be demolished and what is proposed is exactly what Margate has on the next block over the next block over across the street and down on this end so to speak what is proposed is single building with inline stores on the sidewalk line on vener Avenue 3300 sare ft of commercial space with three units above three bedrooms each now why is that important that's important because in those who count bedrooms why for whatever reason understand that the density criteria that is in the old ordinance so to speak the the density units per acre that that still is in effect and on this property there's there's more than four units that this property can accommodate okay we're not doing that we're not trying to squeeze four units in it's and the bedroom count regardless of what it can or can't be is only three which is what ended up at at Billy hose the Chinese restaurant ended up today so where four units could be jammed on there they are not being jammed on there Dr Pastor has said three units are fine and reduce them to three bedrooms now those three units will be parked on site parking will conform 22 and two3 unit with five spaces left for the commercial let me suggest this the commercial requires 17 spaces residential requ six 23 spaces that's that's under our current or I'm going to suggest to you that you have a hard time building a building in that lot perform Park Park turn Park Lot you would lose commercial with that having been said the the the significant variance tonight I think as like parking significant but that in terms of History I think that's going to be okay are the setbacks we are not going to perform for the new six foot setbacks on the street three Street FES why because if on 125 foot lot across the front of ventor Avenue and 65 ft deep you do the math you've just lost 1300 feet of retail space and you've pushed the building back to the houses to me in my formal language that just doesn't make sense doesn't make sense to lose that commercial space at all the idea behind and it's right the idea is right the idea behind that the new front yard setback is to allow space in case you want to elevate your building for front steps or for for a ramp whatnot John and pH design it doesn't doesn't require that there is an internal in the middle of the building there's a an opening a a corridor so to speak vestibule that ramps up so we are going to raise the building consistent with the recommendations the new ordinance to help with flood building is going to be 12 Ines off the ground and it's going to ramp up inside so we don't put the ramps inside instead of outside that's right so we don't we don't the reason for the setback is we don't need it right the reason that was introduced is to use it for a ramp and we're put the ramp inside so we don't need it and we would like to be consistent with everybody else we don't want to be um be nonconforming like every other building now is in maret because of the setback requir so so that's what the proposal is it's an internal access to 3300 ft of retail space with three units above three bedrooms each they are all parked there's a variance for 12 parking spaces for the commercial which is consistent with what this board has acted on in the past um I'm I was going to go into the whole history of the new ordinance I'm not going to do that I'll save that for another day because I just don't like it but I think what we've come up with tonight is a great blend of the old ordinance and new ordinance by bringing this building up to the sidewalk line like like is a consistent pattern and the pattern still recommended by the master still day through four Master plans and reexaminations back in 2006 every single one says buildings should be on the sidewalk line at grade or within 12 inches of grade that hasn't been changed yet so anybody that looks for guidance in the master plan that's what it says we're asking for a height variance less than 10% but I I'll tell you that really is to give us a small slope on the roof to give the abil some character and again the master plan says that in the CBD Zone residential above should be fulls siiz residential units and consider giving a little additional height so it sets the area off for the rest of the city that is the area uh that people want will want to go to because of the size shape scope of the development we're we're trying to obviously use the additional height for the ceiling height inside but also follow the master plan in dictates um let have John and Pete sworn in and okay uh Mr barnhard and Mr wise just give us your name and business address for the record I'll swear the two in together John Barnhart 400 North over Avenue Atlantic City okay if you need you please raise your right hand each affirm the testimony you're about to give will be be the truth and Mr barnhard is a planner and engineer Mr Weiss is an architect yes John you want through the uh waivers checklist waivers from the yeah so just real quick um we've G through the uhy on Mr McLaren's report page 11 of 13 under the engineering review We would like to request a waiver from item nine um frankly I don't that items really aren't applicable to this project item 13 which is Storm waterer management because um there this does not me the threshold of a major development item 15 the circulation plan um our plan does show the the traffic circulation already but um we're requesting a waiver from actually providing a specific circulation plan and then item 26 a traffic impact statement um I would suggest that if I would the this ordinance your ordinance permits commercial on the ground floor and permits up to four actually 4.29 units is the density requirement we three units and commercial on the ground floor which which are all permitted uses and um the way Transportation plan work in the master plan if you have permitted use in the zone you mean the density um it's it's understood that your adjacent streets should have the capacity to be able to support those uses so for that reason we don't believe that a a traffic impact statement should be necessary anticipated use permitted it's anticipated that planning has planned for that tended that's correct yes so we we are respectfully requesting a waiver from that any of the other items that are that came out of the engineers report that are have been brought into Mr Mr McLaren's report uh we will accommodate as a condition of approval if we're fortun enough to receive them that's fine got it um John thank you through the existing at the site the zoning and what is proposed sure um this is the existing survey that was submitted with the application I think everybody's familiar with it um love it or hate it it's probably become a visual icon in the community at this point just like Lucy yeah exactly um so the building sits as it does the great shaded area here there is an existing 10 space parking lot off of Franklin Avenue um the build of this project and there's also a residential unit above um the project been sub multiple applications over the years um and miss and our client is here to do tonight what this property what what is really warranted on this property to make it a very very VI viable mixed use development which I think based on other applications we have done and based on the changes the order changes that this board has has moved forward I think this my opinion is this is the model version of what what we would be looking for on the site um site plan so The Proposal as Chris already described is ground floor commercial with residential units above um but what the ordinance changes have done is they've created a level of further control over this type of project um beyond what some of the prior projects that have been approved have done and what I mean by that is we've tried to create the appropriate balance of commercial on the ground floor while still Pro providing appropriate parking both for the commercial and the residential but obviously we don't want to lose the residential component the the item the the the one item that was put into the new ordinance is with regard to the square footage you you have for every square foot of commercial space you can only have two s feet of residential space what that did in an application like this is it let the design team recognize that you know what four units which is permitted by density they really don't work units get too small they're not they're something that people AR going to want so those new standards just by virtue of the dimensions reduce the density down to un so that change made made a meaningful difference in in in the way this application is being presented because we are at three units where four units is is what would be permitted per your density ordinance of 2200 sare feet per unit so in laying out the site it's you know it's pretty simple we've got commercial on the ground floor at its maximum extent what do I what do I mean by that well if we were going to get parking in work from the back forward we want to have some little green space to buffer the residential behind us so we can get a landscape hedge in there we've got the ordinance requirement for our parking depth we've minimized we're all one way so we've minimized the width of our parking AIS to the greatest extent that we can but it still has to work that established the back wall of our commercial space it is what it is there's not much more we can do about that we then move forward toward the streets in three directions Chris pointed out the discussion of you know although you you put a six foot dimension in your in your new ordinance for mixed use projects like this we don't believe it is necessary on this project or appropriate on this project because of the fact that we have land and parking behind us that we can then um address the potential issues uh that result um from having a building this size that is not set back so we go forward to basically to the front property line we've left a little relief so we can get foundations in that aren't encroaching on the public right of way uh in the front and the side and we've pull and Peter very wisely pulled back the Franklin Avenue side even a little bit more to make certain that the electric meters and gas meter are on the property and not encroaching upon the sidewalk so that maxed out our commercial building footprint that's the most commercial space you can feasibly get on this property at almost just about 3200 sareet above that is three units three units that are each um each three bedroom um and they meet all of I'm sorry 33 33 sorry about that um three units that um each have three bedrooms in them um the way the site circulation works is you're one way in on front Neck Avenue you're one way out on Franklin Avenue we have 11 parking spaces that line up along the back of the building um access for the residential units there's a rear access into from the residential units into a little vestibule area that vestibule has individual storage and trash rooms for each one of the residential units so they have a spot to store their trash that's enclosed John inclosed trash in Clos is enclosed that's correct um and then the commercial the the commercial units each have their own trash exterior so they are kept separate they are they are not being mixed um and we'll show the appropriate screening on the trash that is correct yes um the operationally deliveries um in in all likelihood for the two commercial units will happen in the drive VI in the back of the building truck will pull in sit in that drive VI early in the morning or or what have you to they'll be able to load into the building access for the commercial space is right off the sidewalk I as as the master plan um is is looking for it to be and as Chris was mentioning we've designed Peter has designed the building such that we are proposing to elevate the floor uh over a foot above the sidewalk we're get taking it to uh elevation 6.5 and 6.8 um which what that does is it may not sound like a big diff elevation difference as the sidewalks are are in the five and a half range um but that's the range that that you see a lot of nuisance flooding so that's the range where if you can get that FL uh to 6.8 um in that range that that takes care of the majority of our storm events does it take care of a hurricane no and that's why you still have to drrive flood prooof to building to meet the standards but we're proposing some steps up some some interior um some interior ramps so we are accommodating the needs of access and getting the and and getting the building up without having to give up the six foot uh front yard step back what we're also doing which I the six setback around the building or in front of a building it it makes sense when you have a very tight lot and what I mean by that is if you have a lot a commercial lot in town and they want to rebuild it and there's no parking there's nothing it's just the lot is the building you know you don't really have and you've dealt with this on other applications we don't really have the space to properly address trash and loing and things that go along with a commercial project we have the benefit of all of that to the rear so by requiring a six foot set back on three sides out you eliminate almost 1300 Square ft Believe It or Not of commercial space but it's at what value because we can meet all the needs of this project on the site because we have the parking area and the way the site lays out so there is really we believe no benefit for this project um having that six fo set back and and it's obviously it's consistent with what the man plan has it consistent with the development pattern throughout the rest of the city it is 100% yes um so as far as the balance of the site layout is concerned of the axis there's an interior Corridor that is for the elevator and stairs up to the residential units again um right in the middle of the site this area that you see here is that that's a that's an overbuilt um you're driving under that to go to get to any of these any of these parking spaces the site will obviously be landscaped in all the green areas that you see the back area will have appropriate sight lighting that we will shield so that it's not a nuisance to either of the adjacent residences you want to for before do the variances which just show the front elevation and kind of describe how the building operates I think it looks nice pretty well cover plan aspect so the elevations basically the materials be ground is the you have that that dip in the middle or the void in the middle how how does that explain oh well this basic just just doing the do the entrance to the building commercial with me look that with respect to the height in this Zone we could do 34 feet from Curb right with with no pitch on the roof and where are we at to the height because you know we could actually Lop three foot off the top this is all attic space but at that point you see the roof so you want to be able it's really want to be a to see the build so the additional 3et is for the aesthetic for the slope Ro just way the plan worked out basically um this is just roof over this area so the two units are s of like separate where's volume for substantial portion of the building you have at least a 25 foot setback at least half the building well this area here it's over 20 feet up in here it's okay thanks Pete Pete on the on the trash say again for the the residence is that on the first floor so there's a core yeah there's kind of Corea there's three storage rooms there for trash for the yeah we have the storage areas that are required necessary that kind of stuff this is accessible this area is accessible both from from the rear from the parking area and from the street and this gets you into the elevator and the stair and and the other the other trash is solely for the commercial area here yes okay is that going to be en closed at all or yes screen screen screen like a door closed in front of the trash pin like an enclosure yeah I was showing basically a wall around three sides I'm need I guess they're about 8 foot size dumps six or8 foot we don't know what kind of commercials going in there we don't know what kind of trash they will generate correct correct no idea don't know we just don't know okay all right thanks good thank you John want to run through this John what I do want to say was under the new ordinance we we're not required to raise the building is that right that's we're doing out out of caution and to at least try to address the flood issue no yeah we are not we are not required to uh both under the ordinance or under under the building code um because the commercial space of the ground floor we could drive flood prooof uh and just keep maintain the floor at at the existing rate but frankly it's not the prudent thing to do in new construction when you have a method in which to to improve upon your Flor Elation you want to try to do it and also it seems to be recommended with the new ordinance that's correct um from a Varan perspective see two variance perspective we're doing it a global for the whole project you think the the project as shown advances the municipal land LA on deposit criteria yeah 100% so I just want to touch on these VAR variances specifically I think is important I have already talked about the setback issue the the six foot setbacks on the three three frontages and why we believe that with with this specific design um it's something that is really not necessary and provides no value um I do want to talk Peter me just mentioned the height issue um the height is 100% an aesthetic topic Peter gave me a dimension of about 31 feet for the Eve so in theory the building could be three foot higher at the sidewalk line and a flat roof which would not be the better plan dropping the eite down and having a sloping roof that you can see certainly is the better plane from an aesthetic perspective um and then I think also importantly and Chris pointed out with regard to the parking while we are we are fully compliant each each unit will have two two spaces assigned to it we will have spes for the commercial and that is a deviation from the but again you have to put into perspective we talk about commercial parking all the time to meet the needs of just the commercial piece of it forget about the residential piece of it to meet the needs of the commercial piece of it we would need 17 spaces so all of those spaces this drive vial and another two-thirds of those spaces on the other side of that drive VI would have to be constructed in order to have commercial space so your ordinance currently doesn't work if you want commercial space on these properties it just doesn't I mean we have John we have the same word standard as like H Township for H Mall yeah one for 200 sare feet is is a Suburban standard for for for for um for commercial 100% that is that is true so with all these projects that we've done and many of the ones that have been approved you make certain that you have the residential parking because you know those residents are going to have cars they're going to need somewhere and if they don't have parking on site they've now cluttered the neighborhood and we will we will identify on site the spaces that are uh dedicated to the residential yes um we do have the benefit of still parading someone inside commercial space which some many of the paries don't have the space or the benefit of doing that um so we think that we've gone this project goes goes very far to um to to assisting in making sure that that it meets the parking standards the best it possibly can but we believe that providing real meaningful 3200 sare F feet of of of commercial space is a is a much greater benefit um than then trying to provide the balance of parking that would allow if I had to guess you probably would be down to I don't know 1500 square fet of of uh commercial space what's that evue so that so that's you know that's something the board has to weigh I know they have on many applications um but you know it's it's a it's a it's a Barrier Island issue it's not just morgate it's every community that we work within um and so the board's comfortable I've given Leo a exibit list which includes about 10 years worth of resolutions about 10 resolutions showing that the board has granted that variance in the past I'm not going to go through them I've done before just put them in evidence that's all John I mean it's a sad State of Affairs I have to say this but uh it needs to be a condition that parking is free and clearly marked for the residential units and it's not a joke I I I understand where you're I understand where you're coming from so so there are the variances um there every all the variances that we're requesting are C variances um I believe that they can all be justified under the C2 criteria where the benefits of the deviation outweigh anyal detriments um while while the de while there are deviations so they have purpose I think we've described them in detail uh we don't think that they create any negative impact to the surrounding land use or or the surrounding neighbors uh we believe that with the changes that this that this board and Commissioners have made to your ordinance with regards to mix project we believe this this project meets the the overall intent of what you were trying to accomplish um and we believe that there's an aesthetic argument to be made we certainly believe that there is a general welfare argument to be made on this application because of how much commercial we're giving you and the fact that we are in mixed Zone and providing a mixed use type of building that we think is very aesthetically pleasing so for all those reasons we believe that the positive criteria is established with regard to negative criteria with respect to FL prevention of flood and damage flood obviously raising the building for commercial building is helpful as well correct the building will be fully flight complying obviously it's required to be it will be me it will have to meet the dry flood proof standards um but it all but as I already discussed we are also elevating the floor uh to help eliminate any potential uh Lo think the Vari be gr without attention detri to public I do I think that this is a this is just a benefit to the commercial cor V Vue I think uh this is a long time coming for this site you know Dr pestor has tried a number of things on the property to make it a successful property for for the town um and you know that hasn't worked out to in to his favor so far I think this is the right this is the right application for this you think the Vari can be granted without substantial impact of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance I do although the although the ordinance on this for this type of building is is recent and new I think we've discussed the deviations that we're asking for and that they have purpose without creating any negative impact um every one of these cases will stay on its own you may have a different opinion on a site that comes in with just one street Frontage and can't meet some of their standards with regard to trash and parking or I'm sorry trash and and ramps and stairs and things we don't have that issue here because we're able to service this building from the back um and we're trying to max out the commercial space which is we think is the intent of of the or as well you argument earlier that the consistency with the master plan and consistency with the development pattern and the commercial zone of Margate stands true for the Imp any impact in the zone p on or yes yes that is correct and and what I what I also said earlier is the new organs essentially dictated that this ended up being a three project to be a an appropriately sized and successful project and that's exactly where it is although your density actually would perm and the knows environmental standpoint some may ask property was cleaned by the bank to I find 20 years ago I find that's all I have John I have a question you mentioned storage for bicycles surfboards and things like that where will that be how much room does each unit going to have and will it be adequate like each room has three bedrooms bices so we get is that for all three of them or is that um this be this going to be each un um like condo condo association anything else so they're going to be individually owned and we don't have stores for say anybody else from the a little bit of a technical question that third unit that's exposed underneath um the utilities the plumbing I mean we have problems in the winter with pipes freezing here Mar that'll somehow be managed yeah no worries said it's covered by the building code um they fairly large retail units for for Margate any fair enough for this overhang this is going to be a drive through and drive underneath what's the height going to be we get a box you get your truck in there there won't be trash trucks going through underneath there will there they' be in the street picking up do we now what they probably be on the street you don't expect deliveries any different than any other retail store we don't expect tractor trailers um maybe vxr I don't know how high they are but they'll know after the first time they go there that they're either going to stay outside or they're not gonna not going to go through if it doesn't fit they're going to stay on the street anybody else from the board okay anyone from the public like to speak name and address please Howard siden 808 Venter Avenue um well first of all it looked like a great plan Mr side you swear to tell the truth I do uh looks like a great plan I just saw it tonight but as as we all know anything will look better than what's there now so so so I have two questions one to ask is I don't understand and I'm not complaining just so I I learned you're going a foot for you said about the floor for the flood you know like but but the door is at street level entrance so you walk up a ramp into the thing because somebody could trip you know like it's not a stair is it to go into the into the into the building okay that's cool and another thing so for 42 years I've wondered why is the lake at Franklin and vetner there you know like right in front of it with the the traffic light right but there you go into Essex and you come around you go in to Franklin you go into that light but you come down front neack from Winchester and you go to Essex to cross the street you know like you don't have a light there why didn't they ever turn it to where you go to the light do you understand what I'm asking you're coming down front neck from Winchester right right and then you turn to uh go to Taylor's xon you know up that street go to the Post Office why don't there's no light there's no light right but why is the light at nit with on that side like what does it do what does that light do yeah what does that light do I just wonder I just want you know like why isn't it coming down front neck and going to that way and then you wouldn't have people yeah no yeah but no I I I think it's a great plan you know I think like that's a City question that's not we don't know either do believe that rer can confir the city did come up with a traffic FL right traff I'm not it doesn't affect me either way they were talking about Street they we have streets at dead end at V Avenue yeah yeah yeah so I think that's somewhere hidden in the works okay no problem but I I think it's a great plan thanks Howard sure anyone else kth Robinson Mr Robinson do you swe swear to tell the truth absolutely no problem I live on front now but that's got that's not the reason I'm here because ier I think it's a great idea I think it's beautiful I'd like to sell them as a retail as a as a as a realtor but that's well that's the I'd like to sell them for you they're beautiful I think they'll be great but here my questions the drivein number one is it going and have signs that it's only one way because that's an issue people coming in on front neck and out on the other Street okay that's like kind of important that it only goes one way which is's a problem with that I have a little bit of a problem with the trash pickup by looking at the plans where's the trash going to be picked up because while I'm looking at it right now if you're going to take the trash cans out they're going to sit on the sidewalk so that I don't understand can you explain that else okay so they're going to S so all the trash from all this is going to be sitting on the sidewalk is that correct is every house in town every house in town has trash residential you're talk the residential you're talking about stores too no you're not not the stores are dumpsters okay they will be rolled out when the truck is there there are dumpsters on site not on the sidewalk okay that will be rolled out when the trash gets picked up okay there residential trash which is enclosed on site okay until the night before trash question okay okay fine um question about parking question about Park which is a very important thing if you're going to sell these units which I would love to do of course is that how are you going to distinguish between residential spots and Commercial spots they just made it a condition that it's marked what they just made it a condition that it's is designated by unit okay that's a condition of approval yeah because people are going to go in okay great I'm meing um I guess that's the only the pro the only problem I do have a question I do have and I think someone brought it up already was the fact of the height of the underpass with trucks going in underneath there I think that has to be really marked very strongly that trucks so and so should not be adding under there that's all huh I WR right around the corner we we need Mr Robinson we need we need it she's asking me to we we we need it for the record we're not trying to North there you go I'm right behind thank you and like I said I'm right behind and I'm happy with this being done because what's there now is an ey store and I think this will be I think this will improve the whole area and the neighborhood I mean that you're gonna get some some trees some no no I agree I'm guy okay anything else ask thanks thanks Harry thanks Harry I got a question for Dr P Stewart you're not GNA charge xra for the parking spaces for the residential area uh yeah never mind it was a joke all right um anybody else from the okay all right my name is van carluchi I live at 221 North Lancaster I think it's a great idea to get rid of an I swear to tell the truth swear to tell the truth whole TR thank you uh I think it's a great idea getting rid of an i sewer I thought the Burger Bus was cool but it's had its time and that going to make the street look a lot better I think the putting it back putting the street uh Frontage not pushing it back is a good idea to I don't think I think You' be wasting space and I think he's going build a beautiful building okay anybody else Jeff sarian 9612 urst um yes Mr I'm sorry your last name again sarian sarian Mr sarian uh do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth I do thanks yes um longtime resident owns for years permanent resident though for the last two years here in Margate um Family originated in Longport still a family home in the 50s so I've been here a long time um I think the advancement of families coming down we heard a couple periods ago of family moving down I moved myself down there are others I remember what it was 50 years ago weren a lot of people around but now there are and I think um margate's doing a great job I think we need more commercial space because of that um more businesses here in town I'll be honest with you I go to Summers Point quite often to do my shopping and to buy things that I need that I can't find here in Margate so I think the commercial space is a great idea and it's a mixed use with the residential um I think conforming from four down to three makes a lot of sense as well so um I think it's a great idea and I think it's a great project good luck thank you okay anybody close public one comment all right public portion is closed we just John's discussing having the option for the dumpster possibly to be here we're going to look at it here or here if that's okay with the board are reasons for that that John explain to me number one the residentials unit sticks sticks out over here and and for pick up life easier here we got to look at it see if see if it works okay just have that option I agree you're doing it or you want the option that's a good option not all okay is that it yeah all right Public's closed Chris I'm just Chris and John Advanced some arguments as to if we look at it from a six foot setback perspective why they're really maybe not applicable to an application like this and why the deviations would be justified given the somewhat strange history they filed before that was like a year ago um I don't know what happened with application fees escrt fees whether they were refiled repaid I think out of an abundance of cautious caution we should call them six foot setbacks just for purposes of when we frame the variance motions um sounds like you you offered some good justification so so um in terms of the conditions maybe I I'll go through those first you're going to label the parking for the residential you're going to label them per unit or just say residential and deal with that like in the master deed then the M the master deed will specify unit one gets will okay okay so note that um at no charge you seriously at no charge that's got to be in um I'll put I'll note that they have the option to to to take a look at it potentially relocate that dumpster to the other side of the property um John you you think you're going to put that clearance sign if I put it in a resolution that okay the clearance for the entrance um and then the relief that the applicant needs and then the other standard conditions we put in any uh any resolution subject to any outside approvals is this the county V Road yes um um applicant will apply with any representations it made during the course of the hearing and subject to any conditions in Mr McLaren's report unless otherwise addressed so those are the conditions but the relief they need are preliminary and final major site plan approval and the following C variances a front yard setback along front NE Avenue six feet required 67 feet front yard setback along ventner Avenue six feets required they have 67 feet front yard set back along Franklin Avenue 6 ft required they're at 2.16 FT there Building height uh 30 ft 34 FTS required for the commercial uh from the curb and they're at 37 feet but that's still C variance and then the the parking 17 spaces are required and uh for the for the commercial residential is going to comply and they have five commercial spaces again I I said what the conditions are the checklist waivers we went over um the items that John went through will be waved and they'll uh comply or and or address the other items as conditions of approval one additional waiver recommendation is the waiver to require them to abide by the streetcape standards we've been having issues with the county right and and and my thought is any Street skate projects should be a city project now so we have consistency it's hard doing right so I saw that the corner had just been redone the U both Corners at for handicap accessibility it's just recently we done with last year right they as part of the traffic signal they should remain un don't touch me don't touch me it's all right I'll make that motion second all wish Toms well John and crew you guys did another really good job uh however Mr Balon I do not agree with your assessment on the setbacks and I think that the ordinance the way it's written right now is really really good for the City Market uh in this case here uh it's a typical example of you have super wide sidewalks you have a lot of open space and we can afford to give that variance if we made everything zero setbacks like they were and Roger really worked hard on this it just opens a door for a lot of problems at least here we can see what it is we can work with you and we can get a good project which we end up doing and having the two to one ratio for the residential really really helps so the hardship here to me is the location of the propert the Cor the streets uh Winchester Road is like a pool or a swimming pool when it rains so things have to be done uh as far as the C2 uh Criterion um I think we're making a major Improvement we're improving the business district we're trying to bring things up and hopefully we'll have businesses coming in that'll complement how is business and um it it'll just make the city a better place so I know favor Richard Patterson you said there'll be two real estate offices and a rooftop bar um a big part of the six foot setback was to have the ramps up uh to meet before being raised you put that inside the building so I think it it really makes sense uh the fact that you have three frontages with six fo setbacks is really a hardship uh I'm really impressed with this I mean you you go from Chris does to say boms matter I say it does I have a problem with density even though it it's allowed for units but you're right in the middle of the central business district putting all these residential units that creates more parking problems than than commercial spaces do so you're going from your original plan I think had 16 bedrooms you're going down to nine bedrooms you got three families instead of four families uh I I applaud everybody involved with this project I think you did a great job I don't see any negatives and I really think it'll be a boon for where I approve Michael Richmond yeah I think um pointing out the um how much smaller the commercial would be if the uh setbacks were in forced was a pretty compelling argument um you know I I I have a couple issues with the new orance too but um the two for one thing worked out good in this case um and uh like rich said uh putting the uh making a a vegetable inside as a way of raising a a floor elevation is a good idea again I don't want to keep repeating myself but you know commercial parking in morgate is T um so I think it's a good project I think it's going to be better than definitely better than what's there now a lot better and I'm going to approve it stepen ji to reiterate I was saying because I do think that that SEC uh setback is very important because we don't know what's going to be in these stores and um you know there's a coffee shop and vetner and people were this weekend people were just lined up down the block people wanted to sit out there we don't know if people going to bring tables and chairs out there that kind of really narrows it down just to have a sidewalk plus we're trying to make this a walkable bikable Community where we're trying to add bike racks and I don't see any bike racks over here but it would be nice if we start adding these on the storage I think it's really important um and what Rich was saying about the density I think you know especially in the business district T um that all being said I have to um that you started this project before I I don't know where we are with that but um I'm going to prove this project um under these circumstances but okay so I Michael Ru you I really don't have anything to to add to what the other board members have already said um I think it's a great project and I on it Margaret Gober um this has always been a controversial piece of real estate there on that corner yeah I do think um I was around on the board when they fought for the mini golf course which was a debacle and so we were excited to get anything but that so we got the burger and people went crazy about that as well um I mean I would love to see gas because I but I think we finally got it right um I think it's a great blend into the neighborhood um it's a permitted use the project meets the intent of our ordinance positive criteria certainly out with the negative and yeah we we finally got it right I approve John pittz uh yeah I approve I think uh between this site and the uh Billy host site at least this end of town will be uh exactly what we were looking for forg going forward I approve Jim galantino don't forget the Vault still there from the bank the collective Federal Bank vault is still in that building so Pinky's right this is the third application for this property um I thought the golf course was a great idea but it got shot down it's it's now here you did and now the Burger Bus I thought was going to be a big hit and I didn't turn out so well but I think this I think the uh I think the doc hit this home run here and I U I hope this does work and I approve the application Craig pal I I like the um the look of the whole building um the metal roof is going to make really jump at it you that AV there it's going to be very nice and uh bringing it up to the curb or to the zero setback is what all the other buildings in the next two blocks are like now and um and the two to one commercial and residential is perfect it's what we're looking what we've been looking for um consistency backs like I said on the two on the two blocks there it's going to fit in very nicely I sure wish the um it's going to well it's going to clean up that street there I wish we could clean the gas station up too that's next to it but we can't do anything about that at this time but I approve and I wish you good luck the application is approved with nine in favor and zero opposed motion to close the meeting public motion to close the meeting uh yeah anybody oh anybody else have anything from the public to say no public portions Clos all right do I get a second Steve all in favor