flag before we get started we're going to have a moment of silence we had a board member who was with all time and he passed away recently so M caly great board member great guy Tom Collins Craig palano Richard Patterson John pittz Jim galantino Margaret guberti here Steven ji here Michael ruffu Andrew Campbell here Michael Richmond here 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 from obtaining for obtaining building permits and mercanti licenses at the conclusion of your case tonight please approach the board administrator Pama to sign the provided information sheet so first is going to be the approval of minutes for the meeting of March 21st I make a motion 2024 all in favor I next we have approval of decisions and resolutions number 13- 2024 Daniel Doo I'll make a motion all favor your mic's not on right our first case is Charles and Eileen laar 55 seat side Court block 6104 lot 11 located in the S40 zoning District seeking SE variant Rel for the size of trell structure and potentially others in order to construct a TRS over an existing deck current on taxes wood and SE payments proof of advertis and notifications provided represented by Christopher B all right Chris just one sec couple just administrative things we're gonna take care of okay um we thought the minutes right yes yeah okay um next month we're trying to hold a special meeting want to get everyone's availability we're shooting maybe Wednesday May 15th at 6:30 I guess for the tequila bar application um does that work with everyone here so it's so we'll have two meetings next month not available who's good on the 15 who's good on the 16 Mr goldon you you're you represent them right I do so you know we have have to get a public notice in the paper tomorrow so uh Palmer was good enough to get me over uh the dates and it seemed like the 16th is also a commission meeting so I think we were trying to do it um on a date other than when the Commissioners meet just so the room would be a little bit easier to get in and out of so we're not here again I think might end up being a little bit of a long application so um it was our preference for the 15th but I don't know what the board members availability is and then of course um we want to make sure we get the notice correct because there's you she has to rec M mnal has to recuse herself anyway so from what I gathered made some calls looks like seven members are available on the 15th eight on the 15th is that is that accurate you confident that seven will come if we do the 15 I don't want to say for sure but I think either six or seven at least and Pinky was one of the ones available on the 16th so it's really the same andw can't vote either um he wasn't one of the ones and and Pinky was available on the 16th so if she has to recuse herself anyway it's actually even both dates I think right so we're even because of she can't participate so we got the cons from what she gathered SE we can get seven here on either date so it doesn't matter to me I think just because of the commission meeting on the 16th is probably better as long as the board's okay on the 15th and I know there'll be here so we don't want start late and then go late again so 15 seems like that's a better date if everybody's okay with that all right all right no no no we'll we'll call we have to put notices in the paper I'll work with Pama we'll get those to the the press and then Eric's got to send out his notices so we'll say May 15th at 6:30 for your notices for everyone I'm gonna get that in tomorrow that's a Wednesday night yes so um it's an application for the first the application Ser is aware is to legalize first level when you heard the case before it was the second level and the deck and the lounge this is for the first level site plan and um just also to put on the record which I believe is beneficial for everybody uh there is as you're aware a pending litigation a gentleman named Scott pamer had filed a prerogative RIT case against the application along with the city of Margate and the planning board um I was able to meet with Mr payer and his attorney Jeff fors yesterday made good progress and we're hoping that by the time we get back here on the 15th that all these issues are resolved and we can put a clean case on without a lot of uh issues as the board had to deal with the first time around so there's that see next point one other thing just bring this up because I do have another piece of litigation that I just wanted to bring to the board's attention which is the case that I'm requesting um to be postponed the sixth case tonight 20 South Cedar Grove uh that matter is a subject of a case management order with judge blee talked to Mr Abbott today I'm still waiting to get back from uh the Commissioners their um input on possible settlement so I would ask that case not be heard tonight but either at the special meeting or the regular May meeting as the board sees fit and the city is part of that litigation correct correct it's a case against both planning board and the City of Mor all right um You you put notices out T night correct correct do do we want to hear that on the on the 15th also or how many cases I think there's still a response required from the city on that yes correct so if that is done in a timely matter yeah I would recommend it the 15th be part of that so we could hear the tequila bar and and that I me that that to settle two pieces of litigation the same night um right you to renot this so you want to all right so we're going to call a meeting for May 15th at 6:30 that's going to be a special meeting and and the tequila bar case which is the corner of Monroe and ventner that's going to be heard and then anyone is anyone here for that 20 South Cedar Grove I don't think so but if anyone is here in the audience for 20 South Cedar Grove which is block 124 lot 218 uh that's the the application that's now going to be heard at the special meeting on May 15 6:30 p.m. in this room the applicant will not be required to republish or Ren notice so this is your official notice to come on that date as for the tequila bar notices will go out for that thank you Mr chairman one last thing all right thanks Chris get Mr McLaren a swor Mr McLaren please raise your right hand you swear fir the testimony you'll give this evening it'll be the truth I do in light of this application Chris why don't you just start off it's a pretty straightforward application congratulations everybody and your new appointments and your new positions ni to see that um my name is Chris Bal and I represent Chuck and I laar with respect to their house at 55 Seaside Court this is a VAR for a trellis in their backyard which will be over their rear deck um the variances are we're asking for the bars we asking for are for the size of the TRS um the deck that it's covering is within 10 inches of grade so all the setbacks with respect to deck find actually the deck could be all the way extended to the fence and to the sides but it's not it's confined with the rear yard and because of the of the deck the ordinance allows two 8 by8 trellises their deck is larger than that and it would look kind of funny putting the TRS in the middle of the deck and not having covering Le to the sides the the idea is trying to get try to get at least side to side for a portion of the existing deck and that's what you're doing um the reason and Chu Sor the reason for the TRS uh is twoof number one the back of their house backs the back wall the two and a half St wall the center um directly it's about three or four feet from the lot line so we're trying to get some relief from having to stare at that and TR us might at least provide a distraction but more importantly that Center Wing behind their house blocks off any South Wind in the summer predominant the summmer from the south coming across the the bay it blocks that getting into their rear yard and it's it just bakes back there so this with a collapsable roof will'll provide some relief for that so they can use the backyard um F size as proposed is 333 Square ft versus 124 which would be permitted um I provided I think pictures for everybody to see them Chuck can tell you that some of the reasons um that they're here and ask for the tell us rather than me tell you all right uh Mr labar just give us uh your name and address for the record please Charles bar 55 Seaside Court Margate New Jersey please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give this evening it will be the truth I do okay thanks uh good evening uh board members uh thanks for allowing me to be in front of you um I've been uh a resident uh since 1997 I built this house myself uh in 1998 and uh We've enjoyed living at 55 Seaside Court uh ever ever since raised our family there three three boys and um we're looking if you would you distribute if you look at the pictures this is my view of the JCC back pool wall uh I've been adjacent to this wall obviously since we built the house and um it it it lacks uh a breeze between the JCC and the homes when the sun is is beaming down on the deck area at certain angles gets very hot um we want to enjoy our outdoor living space uh in our backyard um certain times of the morning if you see the glass above the brick wall uh the sun reflects really strong off that glass at certain times of the year uh from The JCC it's actually sometimes there's been sections where it acts like a magnifying this um uh so that has been an issue uh also if you notice one of the pictures there's a door or the pictures or the door the emergency door to the pool building is in my backyard and I've lived with it I've tolerated it I've even had uh a time when they emptied the pool in my backyard so I've tried to be a good neighbor and I've tried to uh not really complain about the JCC it's kind of like buying next to the airport you know what you got when you get there but uh I'm asking for this relief so privacy issues is a big thing when you know my wife is having coffee in her pajamas and we're staring at one of the workers uh greeting us in the morning out the back door well it does angle well it will cover like on an angle of the roof where the what we want to construct will cover that that uh view but if we if we want to add a feature like screens roll down screens um for privacy we can we can add that feature later not that that's the size that's an example that's an example essentially what you're looking to do so we want it to look really nice do those do those windows look on your property or are they above no they're above they they don't yeah thank God yeah yeah it's it's they're it's kind of just lets in natural Sun for them but is it's the pool and we have to listen to a lot of chaos especially power washing on Friday nights Prof yeah I'm not buying a kit this is we we're hiring a company they're going to install it it's a professional looking um it's it's it's high grade um the smallest they make is 10 by 10 10 by 10 yeah the smallest one they make yeah and it would look kind of goofy if it didn't fit the could 8 by eight but that's small no but side to side exactly do you think from your neighbor perspective have you spoke to them oh yeah everybody is yeah they they'd be here if they had a problem look absolutely we've shown them pictures we' discussed it we're very close with our neighbors um I think one neighbor has those TR and like a 10 by 10 yeah it's like a more of a wooden structure with a TR under it yeah exactly just like what you want right so we wanted to kind of have an upgrade from even one of those so my wife and I were looking at as an inv and and you know just want to enjoy our backyard at the shore like everybody else but uh you don't think it'll have any detriment or impact on your neighbors as far as they're concerned not at all as far as I I've made it quite clear what we're doing and no one has ever you know spoke and they said good luck with your V you say the coverage increases slightly because once you put a structure on the deck that counts down to building correct points out goes up goes up a Chuck you're expanding the deck a little bit too right just a little bit I mean because I just to make it uniform I might even cut off a little section of our Landing if it if it needed what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to catch the outside uh window on the ocean side of my dining room and then catch the Bayside of my slider so when you come out of the sliders you're really underneath it and that's the view that we're trying to kind of correct you know cuz if you you see there's one picture that has a chair in it and that's our view from the the kitchen table um that deck is um ground level correct one fo the ground it's less it's less than 10 inch it's less than 10 in so you're going to walk there you're going to go out on a landing and go down steps onto a lower deck that's coming up right right now it's less 10 yes okay so that means the trellis is not that high if it starts at the bottom it just goes up 10 foot okay I think it's 12 from from and if you notice I mean that wall is not the greatest wall to look at I mean it's got mold on it it's cracked it's it's and besides a privacy issue and I've just we've lived with this for a long time and and I've been a good neighbor and we found a something that we'd like to put in our backyard to enjoy it and not have to be Des so it's effective for you guys as close to the ordin as possible correct any questions from the board I just want to get my report on the record report is based on the application of Charles and E Lavar 55 C High Court block 61 10.04 lot 11 located in S40 Zone Again by definition it's actually a perula trellis is more linear runs along a fence so this is an accessory structure meaning it be 80 square feet they can have two of them for 160 feet and it give be 9 ft High because the height of the deck and the height of the Tris is actually higher than the 9 ft I believe it's uh 10.25 ft is the calculations I came up with and the area you're allowed to be 80 square feet or if you had two 160 square feet near at 333 square feet so there's three Varian is height area and Landscape coverage the landscape coverage variance could go away there's an increase in the size of the deck or covering former Landscaping you're willing it's like 66 67 sareet you're cover is it no that's not cover the the deck is is going to remain basically the same it might pick up a couple inches on one side be covered by TRS so that would all right so in your compliance plan just indicate on the plans that your your net increase of the deck is not greater than what it is today okay that's that's pretty much it I think the is a job expressing the privacy concerns I mean I showed you a picture in my report that you can see the JCC looming in the background from the street of Seaside Court um and that's pretty much it any other questions from the board Roger question if this was aely access structure it's an accessory structure no matter what if it was over grass you wouldn't have a landscape issue if it was over an existing deck still it's still the footprint it sounds like we're not going to have a landscape issue right he's going to correct we're going to be able to mitigate some yeah okay um okay that's it on the board anyone from the public like to speak okay public portion is closed all right there's no other questions it's a c variance application looks like it's just two now two two variances for the area of the pergula it's 333 square feet you're allowed 80 for one but you're allowed two so you can have 160 square feet total then the height is 10.25 ft where nine is the permitted height and um in terms of conditions they're going to there won't be a net increase of the deck and they'll show that on the compliance plans and then we'll just say the standard conditions um anything else to Mr mcclaren's report unless otherwise addressed any representations made by the applicant subject to any outside approvals if any I make a motion Richard Patterson I think with the location of the property this is really a unique situation with that giant stain wall uh back there with u neighbors to the side but really nobody behind them that it would affect and and being the unique property or the situation of the property that is is I don't see any negative uh as aspects to it so I pute yes Michael Richmond yeah my the de on my house is oriented in the same location and I across from mini Creek so I get tons of breezes and it's still H to sell in the summer so um I know what you're talking about um so yeah I I don't see any issue with it especi I don't see any effect with the neighborhood especially when you're staring at a block wall I don't think they'll care about that so I'm going to uh approve it Stephen ji yeah I see um I this is a substantial Improvement to your backyard you have such an eyesore back there I took a walk back there today a look at that wall and that's like right on top of you so I think this is a good Improvement for what you're going to do and so I appreciate Margaret Gober um I certainly think that the benefits outweigh any detriment I see no negative effect on impact on the at all doesn't affect any light air open space I think it's a really attractive Pera and I VV John pittz yeah I I don't know that the request meets the requirements for C variance but senior situation and a couple blocks away I know the I know how hot it can get so I approve Jim gtino Chuck you're going to invite us over there right when you get get it up uh the wall does prevent um any air from cycling through there and the sunlight's just probably unbearable um in light of that nobody came out to contest it so I vote in favor of the application Andrew Campbell um the wall is definitely an eyesore for sure um I'd like to see more of these around town as well it's definitely going to improve your backyard improve the property value and I'm with Jim I think when you're done um you should invite all your neighbors over with their kids into your backyard I approve Craig palano yeah I understand how hot it can be back there with no no summer at all and uh those glass reflecting up top I 50 years ago I worked on putting some of those in at T 50 years ago twin glass company anyway um that's um it's a nice nice for your home and nice addition and I approve the application is approved with eight in favor and zero opposed thank you very much okay our next case is Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg 115 South Lancaster Avenue block 12 Lot 8 located in the s30 zoning District seeking sea variant relief for roof slope Eve height Dormer size and potentially others in order to construct a new single family home current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented by Christopher B I'll start off on this one real quick uh report is based on the application of Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg 115 South PL Mr Avenue block 12 Lot 8 located in s30 zoning District located in FEA Zone a elevation 11 but it's also within the Coastal Way zone so the design and construction is subject to the Coastal Way Zone requirements are the flood damage prevention ordinance uh this is a hardship variance as well as a substantial benefit variance page two is my zoning chart and there are two variances I believe the dmer variance goes away because they eliminated the dormers on the revised plans it's a roof pitch minimum roof pitch of 512 and they're proposing less than 5 on 12 eite you're allowed 18 in above the top plate of the second floor they're about 9 fet so they are the twoes and by definition a third floor is supposed to be located with the roof of the second floor obviously that that case is not being met but the the two variances are roof pitch and eite other than that it's a buite site plan provide definition is a root pitch and r f in the comments and again the the coost a section which is not really pertaining to it's a nice hearing but it is relevant to discuss the appli what they need to do further so I have no further comments thank you Mr chair members of board my name Chris B I represent Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg with respect to their application for 115 South Banker Avenue speak city Side Banker Avenue block8 Lot 13 Lot 8 and the s30 zoning District we all talk about how anymore every house start to look the same um and they they really do and that's a function of the design constraints that we have to deal with years and years ago we had a marget had Longport had a proliferation of sucko rectangular boxes houses that all had flat rooms and they were popped up all over and they had no relief in the walls in the in the roofs in anywhere on the house it was just straight up three stories straight around Square Ro it was a design that was unique at the time people liked it Margate thought it got a little too common a little too worn out and in about two 2003 or 2004 adopted the 512 Ro FL requirement so we now would have a pitch roof on every house every house that except Marvin Gardens where the ordinates change to allow two stories only with a flat roof even that that is true today what we are here for tonight is to ask for a not a change in the ordinance but a variance from the roof pitch requirement to install and build for the green BS a house that has a flat roof it has a flat roof but it is keeping with the architectural times so to speak these houses designed Choice are everywhere but here there are some beautiful beautiful postal contemporary Homes vener Long Beach Island and what's striking about him to be what I see I never get to see done here and some of them are very very very attractive architectural designs Mark's going to cover that tonight but it's designed a house for the greenbergs that aside from the roof design complies or improves in the ordinance in all respects front yard setback is is increased on average and in two locations on the front of the house the reard set back is increased over what it has to be side yard setbacks are increased over what they have to be the Landscaping in the front yard on a lot but forget this is a lot that is easily two lots being T down and it's going back up one house not two single house on a lot that is 6,000 [Music] ft that speaks to Green B's desire you know to keep the Block in check to keep the block the way it is they they came to this decision because in Sandy the curent house obviously does not comply in s they got crushed they're close they're close to the beach they first damage the the time came to e to remedy that either build a new house or raise existing house dollar C standpoint didn't make sense to raise that house build a new house and while doing that they're just going to change you they're going to change it up they're going to create something that would be unique to Margate you know unique to people's tastes you have you have to like that taste but Mark Aon designed a gorgeous house that is just a little bit different we see marate and we all talk about every else is say five bedro three and a half two and half St um what what Mark did earlier today is uh you'll see if in the plane you have I think in the front yard third floor is actually step steep back in a couple sections so you don't have that monc wall in the front aside from the stair Tower which that can't be that can't change that that runs up but everything else steps back on the third floor all the way around the perimeter of the no there's no sheer wall except for the stair and we'll show you that Pro we'll show you that um I'm gonna let Mark talk about the architecture because it's really his show it's hopefully you guys agree that it's time not change start considering some of these houses that really catch your attention and create a different more eclectic look in marget all right uh Mr Asher just give us your name and business address for the record please um do I raise my right hand U sure well give us your name and business address first and then then you can Mark Asher and it's uh5 West Avenue jenin toown Pennsylvania okay now you can raise your right hand you swear from the testimony he'll give this evening it'll be the truth I I do okay and I'm familiar with his credentials I I don't know just want to make surek if you would us the of your experience as AR um well uh gee um I've been an architect forever uh I think I've been I've been in practice for 35 years on my own um probably registered you know maybe five years before that so I'm you know 40 years into this um most of our work uh' been very fortunate I have a great story to tell about how I started in these coastal towns one house and then two and then five and then you know thousands um so I've been around long enough and maybe touched on some of this that that's to follow up what Chris has been talking about the The Arc and evolution of these houses across time stylistically sizewise the technical demands that that are put upon them yeah oh I don't I I'm sure I've have yeah yeah I have I have uh yeah I I hasitate to say that the the zoning board is not my first stop yeah sorry I went off I went off you know um so ask away Chris benefit of property uh what you had to work with and what's there now what's propos well as uh I'm sure most of you know this a beach front lot it's uh it's com complying Dimensions it's 135 foot uh uh lot um existing single family house there now as as Chris mentioned that's just below uh flood elevation and um so you you know it wasn't a difficult plan to design because it uh it comports with all the zoning uh needs and requirements and setback and so on the required elevation is 15 15 would be DFE corre you designed it at 17 correct because of the history of the property history of store correct but at 17 elevation 17 still applies with the requirement yeah of course yeah and 17 will we will is what we we can uh Park under um so if it will eliminate a an existing uh single a existing detached garage that's buried up in the upper leftand corner of the property so the green came to you well the house that the greenbergs have were in in many ways were uh mimicking the the floor plan I think it it works you know pretty well it's uh you know living dying kitchen porches pool on on the ocean side and um uh master bedroom and plus five um family room and all the normal things you would find in a beachfront home um so so the plan of the Greenberg's house that wasn't necessarily the problem um so the we so designed a new home conforming with all the zoning issues of the day of course and the flood issues and and I think I think someone mentioned this is a vzone house so of course we're well versed in all of that um but then we started to churn what this thing would look like and I think uh I had very patient clients um because we kept designing a traditional home that wasn't quite meting their expectation or perhaps even ours so I propose to the greenbergs why don't we look at this through a much more modern architecture lens knowing that we would have a flat roof um uh variance issue in front of us so we were willing to take that chance and see you know where the chips would fall what you guys so you know just quickly aesthetically it's not it's in your packet but um you know it sort of looks uh compology so this we're looking at the the uh the Lancaster Street Front approach here's the the garage setback TW over the stair Tower and then a series of kind of slab porches step back away the street so here's we we did I think you know it was a suggestion that we could step the third floor back just as we had on the back of the house so the third flooor doesn't align with the floors below and just gives it a little relief um you know that that being said the porches are you know the the screen of the house um that are uh of course on the setback envelope um this is the other another street view more looking at side here maybe it's a little more so again just a you know beach front modern house wrapped in in the porches that you would you would expect we're looking at that corre well you're going to step back of course the park in front of so it's sort of ifof facto steps back but of course also you know Rel that yeah so you're kind of breaking it up into components on top of respect to the design You' designed important every other aspect am I right corrects what's only uh it's I think it's six uh five is the frontes there correct the house is the house is where and and the the house is uh going to be uh uh 1310 that's the average along the front and you've got sub sections obviously they're further back correct correct and your your side guards again are in in excess of what they require 10 or 11 correct total correct so you know on the one side of course currently there's an existing garage that we're taking down so you effectively it's zero um and it's going to uh uh uh 113 um correct correct which is um a slight Improvement it's uh it's about 29 ft on the on the feet side where it was 275 so it pulls back that's correct ACC yes yeah yeah I'm well they're they're up against the courts they are n six well um well you know it's all subjective right um in a certain way um but I think we designed a lot of houses here you see a lot of houses here we certainly lived in the 512 pitch envelope um and that's fine um but at a certain point you ask if there's something else something better because in a lot of ways the 512 pitch forces you into a solution and as I was saying to Chris a little while ago talking informally you know what happens with with towns and their zoning codes is we all get really good at it we get so good at it we can manipulate this code down to the The Razor's Edge and to Max yeah so you'll see around town you'll see these 512 pitches all over the place that are you know in a way kind of not very U historically based architecture because they're too flat and they're not modern architecture either because they're flat so you get stuck in a kind of a an odd hybrid um world so I was hoping with this house to take a more honest approach like this is what it is you know it's um modern but I I hope it's kind of simple and understated at the same time we don't want to hit people over the head with architecture I hate to get all preachy about it but if you ever see a turret or something like that on one of our houses it's not one of our houses you know I wanted to be a little more quiet and what modern architecture good modern architecture so we you know if I talk about sort of the evolution of my own practice here across all the time I mentioned earlier you know we've seen this Evolution and you know I was doing really traditional architecture for a really long time and and I got very good at it and then we started doing trans transitional and then we got and we we finally got to this modern world but it was based on the building blocks of the traditional architecture that I learned a long time ago portions are good and it's simple and it's clean and there's a lot of care and detailing it's hard to hide anything it's hard exactly you can't hide anything and I think you know we have a good client who is pushing us to do it well you know it's it's meticulously crafted um which gives it an enduring quality and that's what we're looking for this is the Goldberg's family home it's we were talking the lobby they have a lot of family and kids and so on as we all do here so it's a destination um house that'll be here for a really long time so it's built that way one of the things one of the concerns with the flat roof house is the massive volume right of the house on the street and on the surrounding area one of the things you showed me is that house for a house like this is less volumetric or has less volume can have less volume you know I think that's you know part you know we have to be cognizant of mass and volume and we have to be able to you know think about those things and and you know to be candid if I'm asking you for something I have to give you something you know so what's shown in red is was really built on the traditional that was so I have this is the volum have to be 512 which is problem so explain you've been explain to so so what I'm looking at here of course is the exist the proposed modern flat you know all this volume carved away not all this volume is car all this volume so well you're just well because because how you're making those Gates how you're making these houses to is sort of through you're hiding the volume behind sort of false Peaks that correct corre volume well it's a lot more volume for sure it's probably you know it's kind of falling at you from the street um but again as I said to you in the lobby you know the CL off of the like this is is is a plan that we designed in a traditional house we just reworked the exterior and started carving away that that um uned um volume to have this more modern aesthetic do these houses neighor yeah I think you yeah I think you want that sort of diversity you know um of type um ding say the same yeah you don't want yeah um but I think so because it's really about the scale more than the style and I think that's what it's about here in terms of you know this traditional house it would have three levels of porches in front of it and it would have a stair Tower have all these parts so it's not you know just radically different it's except for except for the treatments the exor treatments yeah there's a section of this house that is only two stories not not two and a half that's above the garage that's correct that weight is significantly different than it is now St Straight Edge Edge well we wanted the approach to the house to be lower so that was the thought behind it variances asso appliation we talk about correct respect would you consider top of the second Flor wall and then drops back is that is that an eve or does this House have EES so to speak there's a um a kind of a Eve condition I guess or sort of a c on the house over WS around so I guess you arguably call that an yeah yeah mark would you mind just moving a little bit closer to the microphone oh sorry yes sorry exteror correct correct yeah well is I mean that's really the main reason here that's the reason this is to make that visual environment this we're here we're here for the Long Haul folks um so let's make it good for long um so you know it's it's a nice beautiful building um so so that's the criteria well well I think you could say it Vis the volume that we not building you know we can build a larger house the porches the roof PE Peaks the the the 412 pitches everywhere so we're demonstr building less volume so correct correct yeah I know you said it but it's from this angle it seems so you could put that red roof on this house will still be the yeah but over that third floor would be correct correct because I I don't think um you know height VAR this is not something we want to correct yeah Z Zing aess first let's talk about you see any impact in Publics that kind no no negative impact yes no no why that fall into well well is you know as we've talked about you know we we're meeting the zoning code in terms of its its setbacks it's building coverage it's loot coverage it's grass so we're we're following the code uh height and so on right down the line so so the variances we're seeking are are are pretty uh a minor in one in that sense EX for the except for the corre are nool nool corre I do whereat allow correct it's that's yeah yeah I mean I don't think the building is going to uh stand out in in a negative way um so so I'm not really sure how to answer that that question you know the code um as you say more of gardens has flat roofs we're we're meeting the code right down the line so no no but at the same time we're here for one variance for for this laot you know I'm not trying to rewrite the Mar CI hey Mark I got a question over here could you put that other um put that other one back up no not the red one that one there um on the very top third floor type of Windows are going in there are they permanent windows or they' think dis obviously I no so mark my concern would be people being able to access that that up there this we don't so the porch roof that wraps around is only on so you know Chris just asked me um something um well you I you know the I brought these as packets can can I pan these these out um and I don't know if you labeled these as exhibits but here let me come around Mark while we're sharing can you go over to a Coastal Construction of the finished this lower level well this is hous um on peers you know it's going to be on a way we dos maybe a 4x4 Pier with a cluster of piles and then a CMU Pier on top of that um and in walls all around it so you don't know they're there frankly but they're Breakaway walls okay yeah so um but I think gave them away I don't know what they are but no I have I have one um so so you know I think Chris asked me like show what other examples so these are just how projects either in our office or under construction or under under design v9 is a a three story modern house that we're uh designing and again sort of you can see it's it's not your you know it's not your uh father's old mobile um more I'm sure a lot of uh the board members have seen the ones going up in Longport yeah right down 32nd in the bay there's two brand new ones there uh the beach front from 25th Street down there's a couple new ones also uh at the point there's a beautiful one down there at the point um they're not Black and Whites that's what they're they're not Black and Whites we see a lot of yeah yeah um we don't do black windows you know no okay but I mean that's that's we're getting so many of can't I can't anymore um but you know I think um and another thing this we we we approved the 9600 condo sure looks like a flat roof um well Beach this is Beach yeah you one approved on cany Aven it's not they're not Ali I'm just saying when you ride down Atlantic I saw today and I took a picture of because it looks like a flat Le from where we are but I guess the the point of this exhibit is like yes you can make nice modern houses not St right my point is on the board I don't want to tell people what kind of design to to make what what what style they can't have as I said when I started book served purose Longo come anybody else from the board anyone from the public like to speak public portion is closed Chris ready frame a motion all right Chris is a condition you'll submit revised plan showing those third floor step backs to Rogers approvals they're not on the initial plans am I correct okay so that's one of the conditions but the the seari SE variance application for the minimum roof pitch 512 is required a flat roof and then the eve height 18 in above the top of this second floor and they're more than that because it's a flat roof um the conditions I noted the one will submit revised plans to be reviewed and approved by Roger you know consistent with the the rendering shown as third floor step backs uh subject outside approvals and what D or whatever you may or may not need um applicant will comply with any representations that may during the course of the hearing then we'll not anything else in Mr marlar's report unless otherwise uh on the record I'll make a motion Richard Patterson thinky think ser Michael Richmond yeah I don't see any detriment to the neighborhood um I thought it was uh I know what Mr Asher's talking about when you know like you know we have the pitch R and now everybody doing the I don't even know what you call it the Dutch roof or you know so now we have all these houses which is to me the most attractive style I think variet is just SP of L and I think you know it's I agree you know we're going to be changing the M we're going to be talking about the master plan in a couple years and I think we can address that further but in the meantime I think this is a good way to do it on a Case by Cas B some improve Stephen ji I'm not I'm not totally sold on the flat roof idea yet uh I think we worked really hard to try to stop the three floor look that has been coming around so we worked real hard at pitching the RO for that specific reason and to tuck the third floor decks in so they don't have a p appearance of a third floor deck I'm going to Define this Steve just just so you know you're when you have a beach property you know that that talk that does not to fact is that correct yes design standards are for everyone that is not e so you know that I do I do know that okay but it's still the same third St look I know okay Margaret [Music] guberti um well this is a deviation I think it's a unique design I think certainly creates a AE John pittz yeah I appreciate the uh the detailed explanation certainly provided some insight uh into the design of the home and things we should be considering here in Margate going forward um I think the issue if we approve this is we're going to get one or more applications at every planning board for Builders wanting to build a flat roof if I were a builder in town and one got approved I would immediately jumping all over this so I think we need to consider it going forward but I don't think now is the time so I deny Jim galantino we had a Cutting Edge um AR his name was Robert Johnson back in the 80s and 90s he designed a number of these flat roof houses there still a lot of them in town and they don't they kind of blend in with the rest of the neighborhoods um there a lot of them on the beach front um be surprised how many are out there uh the house was substantially damaged it's on record during Sandy so apparently the house when it was built in 2008 was not built to the right height um and that was the old 11 which is now 9.8 so if it's going to now be 17 I think the house is going to be that's what s feet higher than the original House 62 I think it's 11 I'm pretty sure yeah and leads buil it in 2008 I think he was at 11 um just that alone I I always I like to approve flood compliant houses because I don't want any more uh claims on houses after another maybe event would come in to town I vote Yes Andrew Campbell I agree with Jim on the flood compliant piece um I like the uniqueness of the project I don't see a detriment to anything um I vote Yes Craig poman I am I'm not I I can't say that I really like the style of the home I'm more of a traditional guy but I don't want to say that you can't build a traditional or mean a stylist home like that a mountain type home or beach front home and it is on the beach front and it's Unique and you reduce the third floor mass and um I'm tired of black and wh but uh I don't want to dictate style and um I I agree with Mr Patterson's assessment of it and uh this is one house and I'm going to vote Yes also your application is approved with six in favor and two oppos talking I know okay our next case is Kyle poock 8119 Marshall Avenue block 709 .03 lot one located in the s50 zoning District seeking SE variance relief for building coverage side yard setback and potentially others in order to elevate to an existing in order to elevate an existing single family home current all taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and edifications provided representative byic gold okay off thank you Mr chairman board members the report is based on the application of Kyle po 8119 Marshall Avenue block 70903 lot one uh located in s50 zone minimum flat elevation they're in a Zone AE elevation 8 so the bottom of the floor as a minimum has to be at 11 meaning the first few round 12 were hired you can see Rance relief to ating an existing one story structure in order to provide additional storage and to allow parking to be off the side street which is required in our ordinance so page two is the zoning chart they need a uh right side variance for Marshall Avenue calling Marshall Avenue the right side 10 ft is required 3.52 feet exist and 3.52 is proposed so that's a variance because they going higher than base plus three which is allowed by the state uh building coverage required to be 30% they're at 30% and they're going to 35% actually no it's 35% so they're 5% over but because you're going higher in P flood that triggers of errand for that the garage door setback it's not clear in a plan but you're required to have 18 ft I think they're shown at least 18 ft on the foundation plan but it's me 15 ft on the site plan so clarification on that's required again this is a a straight lift the one benefit of them putting the garage at the location where it is you're getting it off of Huntington Avenue which is not the ideal spot to back into you on the side street of Marshall Avenue Which is less trafficed and I think that's a uh clearly that's a benefit and again because they're going hir in Bas FL plus three that's why they're here if they went to Bas plus three I could Pro in the office so here we are thank you Mr mclara Mr chairman ladies and gentlemen Eric gon on behalf of the applicant uh before we get started I just wanted to say my first case tonight that uh we own Miss Mike he would be here if he could I think uh one thing he always talked about he loved being on this board he loved all of you and it took so much pride in the city so you we really lost a good one when U when he passed away so I think uh we're thinking of him all the time having said that a little bit of an easier note represent the applicant Mr poock is here to my left as architect Mr Sero is here to my right as Roger said what this really comes down to is the amount of the raise if he was Raising it to the BF minimum we wouldn't need any variances and we're only doing an existing nonconformity for the variances we need other than uh the garage door because the house exists exactly as the footprint uh now as it did when it was damaged as it will in the future it's just going up so having said that um we'll try to be brief and the board favors house raises especially getting them out of the flood plan as Mr Galo uh generally will comment that any house that gets out of the flood plane and over the existing required BFB is a good thing but as Roger report correctly points out the fact that it's going up higher than is otherwise allowed triggers Varan just for the items He's listed which we agree with so Mr Sero we're going to be very brief here for the board they have a long night if you could just uh give the board your qualifications and Mr Manos where you in as a Mr Mr Sera just give us your name and business address please uh Peter serico the firm is Sero architect uh 1201 bton Avenue BL y n t n Westfield in Jersey okay Union County if you could please ra raise your right hand you swear the testimonial give this evening it'll be the truth yes I will great thanks walk through your uh qualifications real quickly I'm not sure you testified here before so the board wants to know that you are licensed professional State and that you are preparing prep of and uh graduated uh New Jersey Institute of Technology 1986 uh became licensed in 1997 and has been I've been practicing since then licensed in the state of New Jersey Jersey uh in good standing um I have uh attended many boards uh not this one in particular I do uh a little more work up in the Toms River area for these house lifts this isn't new to me either uh and this one is a fairly simple one as uh as Eric mentioned Mr chairman I just ask to be accepted as an expert in architecture yes thank all right Mr Sero we know you prepared the plan walk us through um of course we know how high up we're going the garage door setback of course is important because we need to get a car into the driveway 18 ft minimum pretty straightforward um Kyle po uh and his wife came to me a few years back we've been churning this for a while and uh he had a little some bigger dreams he wanted some further additions over the the existing house once it's lifted but we we really dug into this and got him some upfront pricing and uh it it is where where we are now basically going to lift the house um in its in its exact uh footprint as Eric mentioned and the lower level uh as the the code does uh require simply open areas we have a double uh double Bay backto back uh a parking area garage uh yes Mr McLaren the uh garage will be set back uh the site plan is a little deceiving when I read your notes uh I got a little nervous and I went back and the site plan does show a cut off that's the edge of the building line You'll Be then when I saw the foundation plan it looks like you were trying to accomplish that yes so we will will meet the 18 ft as a minimum uh for sure and again uh nothing nothing down here that is any different uh there is a new stair that leads uh up to the front door and there will be an internal stair that drops uh from the in from the house down to this level no living space on this level uh as we discussed and uh we appreciate your help up front with a few back and forth emails very you your office was very helpful with us uh when you get to the the main floor again this is uh Mr Pollock's existing home nothing has changed whatsoever except the stair in the middle a hallway which worked out beautifully just going to drop down uh so he can't access this level without going outside of the house and and into another door um dining room kitchen living room laundry uh bedroom bath bath and bedroom uh as Eric mentioned it it was pretty simple in terms of the layout nothing not an inch of the footprint has changed the only thing we did add was a uh a deck which was on the lower level we're really just raising it same footprint and uh Kyle and his wife wanted a little connection to that deck from the master bedroom so we're adding a little a little walkway a little kind of catwalk across the side to meet the new deck and it will drop uh onto the onto the Main Street also as Eric said the garage in terms of my few visits down here and did some studies this this uh road is is is a bit more quiet uh better better access for uh for the garage better use on that on that street instead of him backing out on uh I know that name of that the busier Street um that's really it I have a few elevations which I believe you saw again pretty pretty simple we we did take this to a deeper level uh before we thought we needed the variant um we we did some structural drawings also uh layouts so he can get some some some pretty good pricing up front so we have the the pilings already set up uh we need to tweak this a little bit but uh he's pretty far into the design at this point Point um and again everything you see here uh the siding part portion is the existing home the same Dormer nothing has changed whatsoever just the lift uh and then this would be cement plaster Breakaway walls is needed I I don't think we need them that's what Mr McLaren mentioned also so no no Breakaway walls but uh a cement plaster around uh an access in the front little slider out the back that's about it just to satisfy the positive and negative criteria you find this to be a positive the design that Kyle had you put together and satisfying the purpose of the New Jersey indal land use law and the City of Margate zoning code yes I I do uh agree with that and to the extent that someone could possibly say there's a negative Associated here that the positives greatly outweigh any such negative yes okay and do you find any negative associated with this design uh not not at all I did I did drive through the neighborhood uh about a year ago and we we started to really work on the the final designs uh and a lot of the homes as we just heard at the the previous uh hearing uh they're a lot busier this is a simple simple home that maintains its original picture that will complement the neighborhood just one question can I get a ging detail when you submit the uh drawings ging detail how you going to raise the house oh okay yes for the future you mean right okay yes we're we're we're using CMU block with uh with piles around the the corner but yes we we will have a the whole cing cing detail on that Mr chairman we would rest we this is a typical Margate house raise out of a Sandy damage that's the substantial benefit greatly outweighs the negative but of course we'll answer any questions the board might have if the public has questions I couldn't see anybody objecting to a house ra but turn it over to the members of the public I guess actually answer whatever questions exist thank you is anybody from the board have anything I have a question for Mr Sera did you have Sandy Moore as one of your professors at NGIT yeah well she was the uh police Sandy the woman or yes yes yes uh I I didn't have her but she was I think the dean at the time she became a Dean at my last she was one of my yeah last year is she still around as far as I know wow great great school by the way it's uh I've met a lot of colleagues in my day from all these big schools and they're not doing any better than me in terms of in terms of knowledge you know I I have a good technical back I put a little of everything together and uh she always went at Afghan call her a female clinici that's right that's right I give NGIT a plus did a good job for boy we talked about it the other day it's like 3,00 a year for five years that was my tuition back and my Dad paid it so back book now okay anybody else from the board no okay anyone from the Public Public portion is closed all right uh just did two c variances for the house race the sidey yard set back on the Marshall Avenue side uh staying the same 3.52 FTS existing um and that's what's proposed and 10 ft's required and the building coverage uh 35% is proposed that's also what's existing but 30 is is the permitted the garage door setbacks actually compant and uh just the standard conditions that we put in every resolution and I'll note that Mr gtino wants to Street yeah okay and the street trees youly with the street trees yes okay two or four four two oh yeah two sides gotta all right a second Richard Patterson and I was G inst instuction before the meeting from your neighbors across the street that I had to vote Yes and this Christian ER so based on that I go yes on this appliation Michael Richmond yeah what's not to like raising a house getting down the flood zone um there reconfiguring of the parking right it's it's a win-win situation I I see no detriment in the neighborhood or the neighbors or the city of Margate so I'm going to vote Yes stepen ji um I see no detriment to this I think it's a straight lift I approve Margaret goer I see no negatives to the application it's a straight right down the street and he's done but improve that property he's owned it and fur John Pips I agree with comments from the other members I would like to see more of these home raises in Margate I approve can we see more skeletons in Halloween Jim gtino yeah I see this Project's been since 2022 so it's about time we get this thing running um I vote Yes Andrew Campbell I'm in favor as well I vote Yes Craig bman I'm also in favor and good luck Kyle the application is approved with eight in favor and none opposed all right our next case is rald and sh Raphael 948b Mammoth Avenue 328 lot 67.7 located in the multi family Zone District seeking SE variance relief along with possible amended site plan approval for overall site plan minimum front yard minimum side yard potentially others in order to install a new in grand pool current on taxes Water and Sewer payments approve advertising and notifications provided representative by Eric B all right I guess I'll laid us off thank you board members Mr chairman the application of Ronald and Sher rapael 948b Mammoth Avenue block 328 block 67.7 again I want to point out the 6 blot 6707 indicates that it was part of a division so there's a lot of history with this property so the background is as follows the app is seeking approval to construct a swimming pool in an area originally design designated as a buffer when approved in 1983 as part of a major site plan major subdivision application several conditions of approval from 1983 are in place that likely have not been met and therefore requires board action the entire site was approved as one application originally back in 1979 and reaffirmed in 1983 to bankruptcy and then it came in front of the board Gan or through via staff Committee in 1994 which even then was indicated that the site should be viewed as a one site not just one element so in essence they need an amended site plan approval and a landscape coverage uh variance where 35% is required and I believe they're at 29% 29% 2 1.4% so the documents reviewed there there's you know bers you can read my report again there was a lot of research done on this um there's three plans reviewed existing condition survey survey approv monitor subdivision from 1983 and 9408 the mammoth Avenue swimming pool plan by Jason Chulo who's here tonight to provide testimony so again I guess one thing that this was originally presented units then it went to 14 units and it was subdivided to provide fee simple ownership however the conditions of the approval back in 1983 was uh the following the Owners Association will be formed and will exist in perpetuity similar to a kind of medium Association as far as I know that was never done the public areas driveways Etc requiring emergency access shall never be improved with fences walls sheds and will not be cluttered with vehicles other temporary stored materials I'm sure that's being abided by because otherwise I'm sure we'd be getting a lot of phone calls the Owner's Association must have the power and compulsion to enforce these rules on each individual lot owner the association must have the power to make improvements and assess individual lot owners number five there must be a mandated fund to cover the association's expenses for enforcing the covenants the city must be convinced that the fund will be adequate and the owners will pay the association the city of Margate other government bodies and utility companies must have an acceptable easement and enter the public areas to make repairs and the easements do exist they are filed with the county is shown on the original subdivision plan item number seven each owner and the association must indentify the city Margate against any liability Financial or legal resulting from necessary emergency repairs in the private driveway some regarding the lack City's lack of responsibility for making repairs in private driveway areas and the association must maintain all utilities I I don't know if all these conditions were met back in 1994 that the uh all 14 owners were required to appear in front of the board because these items were not addressed as far as I can tell it died on the vine it was never approved or disapproved but it was never no action was Sol so again it's overall landscape coverage requirement and me it's like and again this is the only property on the site that can have a pool out of 14 units so I'm I'm going to rest now with the the right to comment later Mr McLaren Eric go on behalf of the applicants Mr and Mrs rapael who are to my left here um just by way of all the stuff you read into the record It's A peculiar thing that Margate did over the course of time and obviously none of you were involved in this because it goes back much much longer 10 year year but when the city through the planning board required certain things to be done the reasons unknown they didn't enforce those things to be done which raises the issue of Municipal esto the city can't now require Mr Mrs rapael to do the very thing that it waved over the course of 40 plus years so when we talk about tonight's application just like the application earlier with the flat roof it really does rest in and of itself for this one line there's no association there's no party to whom Raphael's would be responsible like a president or a um overall body that the city can can look to to enforce the rules and during the time for whatever reason we don't know the city did nothing for 40 plus years and let the property operate the way it's been operating and the really hasn't been anything done over the course of time so just as we you know talk about the application tonight and when Jay please Mo Jay puts his case on Roger went through and Association you got a second yeah um yeah let's everybody's going to get their chance to talk so let's let Eric to his presentation and we'll have comments from the board uh you know and then the public will get a chance to speak so let's not interrupt people let them do their thing I we go from there thank you Mr richond so when we talk about what did or didn't happen on numerous occasions the city had the opportunity to take action and chose not to and Roger pointed this out to me early on that there was this staff committee going back 30 plus years from 94 based upon Rel from the 83 conditions and as he put it just died on the vine so the city has had an opportunity to enforce rules and regulations that it didn't enforce you can't now look to that and say well we're going to enforce what didn't happen over the course of time that many years ago the case still rises and falls on its own merits which Jay is going to present but the history of the case is important because the city has basically waved the ability to go forward with any sort of enforcement on things that it knew could have been going on most importantly the failure of the association to properly become Incorporated that's now off the table so please consider that when Jay's presenting his case so right next to me Mr schula is gonna get sworn in going to put the case together we're seeking one variance which is the existing landscape coverage which is already under landscape and it's going to go as Roger has in his report from an overall of 23.3 to 21.4 less than 2% of the entire site will be changed because of this there is absolutely no reason to deny this application This falls into everything that the city wants to see right now Jay's going to explain why I know we have some neighbors I think they might be a little bit ill informed about what we're trying to do it's just a landcape coverage variant that's it they went with a smaller pool they went with a smaller above ground pool we're not here okay please step up get sworn and let's have your qualification put on the everybody all right Mr SCH just that give give us your name and address for the record please Jason shulo and the office is 137 South New York Avenue swe to Atlanta City and please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give tonight will be the truth yes sir thank you Mr chairman Mr Manis Jase testified here many times qualified both as an engineer on a plan we accept it thank you all right thank you this one's really interesting um as Eric pointed out and and technically the relief that we're here for to me really isn't even necessarily relief in the form of a variance from the specific bulk standard as much as it is I guess the condition being um interpreted more than anything I'll explain what I mean by that so when we first got this application or this this project um reported to us there was no deed notice on the property that said that they couldn't do certain things as he mentioned there's no association so standing on its own the lot is fully conforming with well I shouldn't say that there's existing nonconformities related to setbacks and things but from a coverage perspective a landscape perspective it's fully conforming when we added in this proposed coverage with the pool it was also conforming when the L on its own and then speaking with Roger and getting information through the process we found out about these 40y old conditions that were imposed but not necessarily enforced and one of them that's interesting is you know going through I had a lot more written up but I'm just going to hit the the brief stuff because you guys cover a lot of it with the the history but the 1983 application in the minutes that that Raj fored that in his review there were a couple things aside from those five conditions or six conditions that he read in that the the applicant and their attorneys agreed to do one of them was that they would uh read that it will and this is in right out of verbatim that it will not enlarge nor will it permit any future title holders to enlarge the existing units so the the choice awarding there is very important that condition said theit it's getting larger meaning with the buildings and the intensity of the use that's why they went from 14 to 16 and things happened back then for what we can you know recreate through the the record but there's no mention of you know no more impervious cover or no flexibility on anything else being able to be done so the the legality of how this process is supposed to be undertaken is interesting and like I mentioned the lot is on its own which is what it has to stand on it's fully conforming but the relief needed is mened is to go it's 483 Square F feet being added to the property that the relief is really just to as mentioned from that previous condition that it all be treated as one overall development much like it could be you know the entire block or whatever else but this specific site plan so I guess we're we're seeking that relief to deal with that one condition at the time of um landscape coverage so aside from what Eric mentioned I'm going to look at it from a planning principle not just you know the city doesn't have the right to enforce old stuff or what from a planning perspective we're going to look at what the real impact is and what this really means and the reason for the SL coverage requirement so to me the and and to be clear too when the owner bought this which how long was that three year four years ago21 so called three years ago um it was during Co the intention was to buy a lot to put in a pool his wife was injured in a car accident Mrs Rafael was um injured in a car accident she can't walk through the beach or in the sand she wanted to place the swim so they wanted to get pulled want to go to Margate they find this slot they think that he can do it based on research of the information they had which again Le don't know the same information that we all do uh the realtor said it should be possible take it for what it is and they wanted to put in a pool that's the reason they bought this stock so when uh when it came to us and like I mentioned we didn't see any restriction on it until history I looked at it as you know this is a challenge for sure because of this story history but it's not insurmountable from a planning perspective want you keep in mind that the reason for the minimum landscape carbage I think there's three reasons for it and uh the first is clear to make sure lots are attractive aesthetically and don't end up as like a SE a pavement so it's really about the perception of the lot what you see from the street um to soften the frontage and the edges of the properties where they interact with neighboring lots and then to minimize storm run off implications which you know from engineering persp obviously critically important so for those three things in this case what I see is um this is interesting I'm going to point to this exhibit which we created um specific for this hearing it's an aerial photo from Google with the um proposed and prvious cover um highlighted in the cartoony colors so you'll see that you know the the um P simple complex that was attached Town Homes has the driveway that comes in off of Jefferson and turns out the m and the 948b that we're talking about here is is the one that has the yard next to it it's tucked in behind this this large Condo building and this this beautiful large home that on Adams um the only thing that's visible from any surrounding prop for any surrounding robway I should say is from the driveway opening on Mammoth looking in and right now it's a fence um from the other properties the back of the condo building is more or less right on top of the fence and the sidey yard in this this house here is you relatively they don't active area but the the portion are lot visible as I mentioned from surrounding properties you know it's a large walls around it and then this little bit of driveway opening so from a attractive aesthetic perspective from the street it's event it's a landscape yard it's not going to look any different than than really what it does now won't detract from the Aesthetics of the property or the neighborhood um and the applicant will landscape the yard beautifully to enhance that aesthetic appeal um there's no front yard land visible from Neighbors that would change everything that's around the frontages will will stay the this applicant has no bearing on anyone else in the development does or any of their landscaping or any of the potential um call violations not the right word but um work that may have taken place without proper approvals that Roger mentioned of course it didn't happen on this slot we have no control over what may have happened other places um the two large structures I mentioned they don't have Landscaping buffer on their side towards this lot we will add some in really no usable yard areas for sure not against the conduit building and then the larger house has the small one Dimensions so for the softening the edges of the property where they interact we will have landscape buffer that doesn't exist without this project and then for the third one for storm water runoff implications this one's always interesting with pools you can imagine when rain falls on a pool goes in the pool doesn't leave the freeboard the only part that's going to have any potential run up is a small area sidewalk that wraps around the pool which is about 250 it's so to me we can certainly make sure that implications from insallation of this additional coverage certainly won't be directed towards neighboring properties so for the the reasoning behind the landscape coverage limits I think we have no issue with this application as proposed aside from the technicality we wouldn't really be here because we are conforming and this is an open yard area that's going to remain in open yard area just have okay just this is important the distance Water's Edge of the pool to the area surrounding it how far is um on the plan I think was 9 ft I guess that right this were a single family house which had other requirements of zoning that were being met the distance requirements from any structure being the pool to the property line is six feet so we're three feet more than is otherwise required on a fe simple owned property correct and also put in perspective the minimum side yard for a building is 8T so we're at 9 ft with the pool the building remains at almost 30t away it's more three times that's required by ordinance so again you know the yard are is preserved just going to be utilized to full potential by the land this is fairly important we just stop Jay for a second under the of Municipal estop if we're looking at this solely as one laot the distances on the pools plock so we're not seeking a variance for that the only reason we're pulled into coming here at all is whether or not we have to be a part of the overall site plan which wasn't enforced by the city and I'm going to defer to Leo on this but if the city had this 40 plus year period from 80 I'm sorry more than that from 79 on to do something with regard to this development and didn't really we should be here on the theory of this lot standing in and of itself on its own it's not part of an association and it should be but the fact that the city of Margate and the planning board didn't enforce its own rules prevents all of you from looking at it as part of the bigger hole it has to be seen as one lot as one lot we good so the question becomes whether you're going and I think Leo we need a threshold determination here whether the board's going to vote on this based upon it being a fee simple subdivided parcel which doesn't have any connection other than that it's attached to the neighbor next door to this overall hole this is a legal question not a factual question so but if that's the case then we don't have to vote on it is that we say well that is correct we didn't want to argue with the city longer but I think we need that determination we didn't want to go to court we're here because Rafael's are desires to put their pool in but they're putting a pool into a what we would call defunct never set up correctly Association they bought in 21 the association should have been set up in 79 or 83 or 94 and it was never done so the question then becomes under under the municipal stopple argument are the purchasers good faith purchases or did they have something to do with the problem that exists based on the dates clearly they had nothing to do with the association or the the developments failure to properly comply everybody else who owned in the property potentially going back to 94 or earlier should have been complying with the mandates of the city they didn't do so but the city asked them to come in and for some reason this whole thing as Roger said died on the vond so as between the city the existing non-compliant property owners and the raphaels who are the newest ones they're the only ones who had nothing to do with this issue they bought a property with a large lot next to it for the purpose of putting in a pool fee simple noo they bought the property with Title Insurance yes CH and 9420 built a deck out nuro side yard on Jefferson Avenue in fact the two n units have decks didn't they change that all back then in 2010 I don't know history of this lot so we don't know but that but they have the same situation on their Lots they have that big side yard yeah I mean that's again expansion of their residential unit so they would have done the very thing that some people are trying to prevent the Raphael's from doing but this isn't touching the actual physical unit this is taking a dirt lot and putting a pool in it right want to make it clear too that Roger take the position he did and put in the S we don't want to put it on R to make the decision say this doesn't have to come in so we understand why the comments came up we don't disagree with the Approach at all we yeah we're here because we want to clarify this not because we want to argue but we can't see any basis for the denial and if it's amended sight plan or whatever we're technically seeking but this concept that this property owner is somehow not allowed to do what it wants on its own property that no one else has an ownership interest in is fairly significant had the assoc had the owners of the other units if they did what they were supposed to do 40 or 79 so that would be 45 he's the account no you guys don't get 45 years ago they could have done the right thing in 83 it was 40 years ago 41 years ago they could have done the right thing also in 94 and curiously not only didn't the other property owners do anything the city do anything so it's kind of like don't ask theel but that can't adversely affect the Raphael what's like the city or another one of the owners supposed to do with the condition that says talks about something in the future the SES to be viewed as an entire site for any improvements I I can understand that with the homeowners association they never formed that and all that other stuff but there's a condition that says the sites to be viewed as an entirety that may or may not be a valid condition um but is our board in a position to to just declare that condition null and void and and it's like if you have an ordinance that says something clearly unconstitutional ordinance our board has to apply it and if you don't agree we might not we might agree this this this ordinance is unconstitutional but that's what it says like it's not it's not our job to to invalidate it a court could and not suggesting I'm not suggesting that but I and I'm not suggesting that the application's necessarily bad or good what I'm trying to determine is how should we view this um should should should they need that variance just curiously Mr Manos I think you're referring to number B where it said the attorney represented the following statement I don't know I'm looking at Roger yeah that's in the um paragraph 4 sub paragraph B is that correct no no no oh you're talking about we're looking at Roger report yeah I'm looking at number six um that came back in I guess 1994 five number five number six yeah that was mentioned in the 1994 staff committee application that the site you know even after 15 years still got to look at the entire site as a whole otherwise that's a problem with these Fe simple projects you know you have an area that's designed to be a buffer area now you're putting a pool in it that's was clear that was a buffer area but it's also clear that there appear to be you know 20 or more conditions that were placed in and around this development respectfully to the city it can't cherry pick what it wants to enforce and not I'm sorry can you repeat that there was what there were all these conditions that were placed like back to the 1983 subdivision but for example if an Owner's Association was formed we wouldn't be here because the owners would have the ability to take some action so that wasn't done okay the association doesn't exist which gets rid of a number of these other conditions there wasn't a mandated fund for expenses and there wasn't other than Roger correctly pointing out that some easements were filed as part of the subdivision plan most of what should have been done was never done and the city had a chance over time to enforce its own requirements and didn't do so so everybody who but they never had a chance to enforce this one because nothing was there hasn't been any improvements made we know the decks okay there was decks you know I I so on the um J just show where the decks are put in on Jefferson there are some fairly large decks and that area also has a couple of yards so parking Ian looks look great it's just know the history is interesting I couldn't find permits for a lot of that stuff the on no no this is fee simple ownership nothing interfering with and I know where you're going Mr Patterson there's nothing to stop this from being constructed well you just mentioned eement that are on the property does it affect this particular lot or is it the driveway got it all right so the Raphael do they pay more for taxes for that lot than the other the Improvement value is the same but the lot are is larger So in theory they would pay a little bit more so that's yes there's more taxes being paid right because and they're they're responsible for maintaining that area with the Landscaping correct or is that the whole association there is no there is no association right they only they they're paying more taxes they're responsible for the maintenance but if they want to do something like put a p on not talking about building a shed doing whatever or building more decks right into the property and you know as far as a buffer zone goes what what's a buffer zone why isn't a pool buffer zone you're not you're not building a structure there you still have the same airspace it's a new ground pool and you know what are you buffering against a solid block for a hotel that's been there for like probably 70 years with air conditioning units scking out the back Stu what's the put on that L you could put a structure there I guess if it was a shed correct can't put an addition can't put an addition because it wouldn't make sense Mr pan either but you could do something other than a pool it's just it's it's one lot it's not an adjacent lot to the development excuse me J this in yellow they share that right of way driveway for them to access theirs you don't think that the right of interf that not really any the yard area is so again respectfully to all of you and the members of the public most everyone other than you know what we're talking about now have been grossly misinformed for 40 plus years as to this property it's a fees simple owned property for the Raphael the other people who are in this development are no different than if you live in a culdesac or on a city street or Beach block or anywhere else and you have a neighbor they don't own your property and you don't own theirs so if the history was different the city did some enforcement there was an association set up and there's also a question I don't know much about this but the prior developer going bankrupt potentially if he filed a proof of Cl I mean if he U whatever was the seven or an 11 these conditions could have possibly gone away even though they run with the land if the bankrupt entity didn't exist after all this work was supposed to have been done so it's a giant mess but that giant mess shouldn't have a negative on the Raphael shouldn't really have a negative on anybody because all they're trying to do as Mr Richmond said is put in a pool so another question and is it more advantageous to have a peace simple unit than like a cond you know I think it's way more advantageous to have a condo because you have an association with rules and regulations and you can't put grills and there's so many things that the condo association does better and a lot of times you'll see this that to set up a condo association means you have to have a you know an insurance policy to cover all of your roots and you have to have access and egress and you have to have regulations About Pets what you can have what you can't have this is almost like a freefor all this is different what's that every roof color is different to yeah mean there's no uniformity here other than the structures themselves but if one of the units in the middle Were Somehow to be damaged or you know there's no association to pay for it there's no special assessments everyone's on their own which you know for the some of the people who have been here a long time that's kind of how Margate was developed it was either as Mr pal s said an old hotel or an old building that gets converted or even if it's from the ground up it's just let's build this and eventually things will get worked out and in this case could have been worked out many times over but it wasn't so just want to make sure that we're very clear on that that Jay was in the middle of testifying before I cut him off just about the Varian proofs if we need them that's why for so I can continue the I'd like to put the proofs on just as like a Bel and suspenders and I guess we can discuss with Leo the legal arguments yeah I would go through your testimony we let the public speak and then try and revisit this but the question is whether we view this as its own lot or we look to some of the prior approvals which suggest that anytime you make an improvement you have to do the lot in enti which case that's what triggers the variance is a standalone lot so we if we were just looking at the applicant's V simple lot he is that pool meets all requirements and they really would need any VAR based on Rogers research and all these documents there's some suggestion in there that there's been various conditions many of which have not been clear clearly haven't been followed over the year but there's a something in is it a staff committee meeting that says the site should must is to be viewed as as an entire site with amended appr site plan approvals for any improvements which the suggestion isn't happen right impr correct well yeah and we don't know how those decks got there um yeah and again Mr Manos not the respectfully again a staff committee is not a d restriction or a you know if we were if condo docs were filed they would have a survey attached there' be all the restrictions you know an attorney or an applicant submitting a staff Committee in you know 1994 or 1983 that wasn't ever enforced I again respectfully say I'm not sure it can be enforced and if it could be enforced I think that has to go to the governing body not to the planning board but what we'll put our remaining proofs on so that and then these other these other homes they're all paved in the rear yard they they can dig them up put grass and all yeah most of them are fully impervious now along the back yeah there's no turn it around again they can grasp those and Perms each owner could do absolutely anything they want with regard to their that's your that's your position and and if you view it as a whole one person's Improvement affects everyone else's I mean I know there's not much room to do anything but really I think Leo the only places you could do any improvements one has been donea for that was that there was a permit for that fence so even so each person backyard guess right so you have per without coming to theard which is in contravention of um I mean look a fence is an improvement so that number six says site was to be viewed as an entire site with amended site approvals for any Improvement so no one came back and got additional site plan this all of that was done in contravention of what was supposed to have been done none of the relief was sought people just did what they wanted so to now say the Raphael's can't do what they want because they potential Improvement is different from a fence or a deck what's the difference fence deck pool all the other neighbors all other neighbors but many of the other neighbors have done it historically without coming here but here we're doing the very thing we should be doing which is why we think we can make a good case for approvals so with that and if it is viewed as a variant feel like you have the proofs to yeah I think J's gonna put those on think we should have them on the record yes we should Leo can I ask if it's by itself it meets the it meets the conditions I could approve this Frank I could approve it in the office exactly you're saying the other thing is we look at it as a whole so then we do have a landscape so are you saying also if we look at it as a whole that they need other property owners approval no if we look at as as a whole we just have then in theory whoever built whatever they built on those end units if they didn't get approvals they're valid anyone who wants to put a shed or anything they have to come back before our board but if it affects anything no but you're saying we would still just vote on we would still just vote just on Landscaping on landscap I have a question um when this was originally built those areas were to satisfy the Landscaping requirement correct correct now if this is the case and we do away with that land that Landscaping then everybody else is way under no 2% less than 2% but the other units they they don't have any landscape so they're the other UNS are at it as a whole like you're saying that it's less fine but if it's not if it's if it's all fee ownership then everybody else is out of compliance with landscape and we are way shorter I'm G to disagree with Mr J I'm GNA tell you why if you look at it as a whole it's a 2% difference if you don't look at it as a whole then each individual property was approved as part of the whole every single unit owner would have to come back and get a variance for what's been done after the fact which of course they're not going to do but that's what the city didn't do by enforcing this over the course of time Mr Patterson's correct said not by not enforcing it so the Total Landscape coverage presently if you look at the entire site and how how this happened we don't know we weren't a part of it is 23.3 okay where 35 would be required proposed is going to be 21.4 so it's a reduction in landscaping of 1.9 if you look at it as a whole but we're going to make the argument first and we're going to ask for a split vote on this that you shouldn't look at it as a whole because the lack of enforcement does create a municipal stoppable argument however if you do use it um look at it as a whole and use the pool as the change in the landscape coverage Jay's going to put on the testimony that in his professional opinion still satisfies the variant requirements just for you're gonna ask for a split vote on what first would be whether or not this stands on its own if it stands on its own we don't need a variance and we leave if it doesn't stand on its own we need a variance which Jay then we believe he can satisfy the criter do we have the ability to decide if we're not I mean that that's my concern I mean I mean I I what I was going to suggest is vote in Reverse vote on the variant first and uh maybe it convince the board that you you satisfied it we still have to hear from the neighbors and because the other alternative Mr Manos would be to have Roger issue a formal zoning denial appeal that denial to this board because we have to exhaust our administrative remedies if the board doesn't agree with us and agrees with Roger then we would have to file a complaint prerogative writ to overturn the board's denial the board's affirmation of Rogers Deni no I understand it so you know the board has interpretation powers and I guess it could come to us on through through the the method Eric's suggesting um where it's before us now we have the prior history the the property and and and our board obviously not the same members but you know our board in the past has set forth some of these things and one of our tasks is to interpret how we how how we do this thing why don't why don't you go through your testimony so we can hear from the neighbors and and Leo I think I I do agree that I I had it backward you're correct the better way to do it would be to vote on the variant first and then if you know depending on the the board's vote we can make the argument that it shouldn't apply but I think that's the safer way to go because it also allows the board to retain jurisdiction I think of the first vote the way around would be it stands on its own the board at that point loses jurisdiction because we're not here on an application for we'll let Jay right put his case why don't we talk about the positive and negative criteria Mr schul and why we believe not withstanding everything else we've just been discussing that this case satisfies the standards that set forth in the municipal andu law in the city of Margate zoning code I'll try to keep it brief for the be too let's put a lot of testimony in um so this will be a pursu tosa 4 55 d7c and you recall that in that section of thecan two ways that get see1 criteria call hard characters a lot in this case history whatever and then C two variants we we ter flexible C but generally theit so um that's the positive criteria for the negative criteria we also have to show that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good will not substantially the SP purpose or intend z z a negative criteria both so for the positive criteria it's interesting we talked about you know a little bit of hardship not knowing history but we beat that pretty good so that this could be treated as a C2 flexible where the benefits will poal DET couple benefits to gr relief first there's obviously benefit to the the applicant for being utilize the that's value in property cves them create a benefit to the neighbors by enhancing the landscape offer PL against those neighbor pars which is the publicit um the pool's proposed location that's farther from lot lines and requir ordinance which we talked about it's modest in size it's only 10 by 20 one the smaller pools you can get and um between the size of the pool location of the pool it won't overwhelm the space um and it gives them the ability again to create buffer planings for that public benefit and again to put in the record total increase in AIA surface is 484 squet and Jay this is important because if we're going to look at it as part of the overall hole 48 I'm sorry 484 square feet what is that compared to to the overall project I had to put you on the spot with math we have it so overall lot is well no that's just our lot yeah um well ends up being 2% of the of the allowable car so 2% of the lot 1.9% so the calculation of what we're seeking here is 1.9% of the overall no it's less I'm sorry it's 1.9% over what's permitted but it's much less than that the over okay so would it be fair to say that that would be a significant di Minimus impact on everything so from those you know practical so we can call that I would say you testify and I'll ask the question a DI Minimus deviation from what else is going on at this law yeah the reality is have we not say it's going to sound rough when I say but have we just built a PO um I feel the multiple purposes of Z enumerated at njsa 4552 which is the purposes of the law Advance the first purpose a to provot to General Welfare use is permitted the inclusion of Swing pool and additional bu clings enhances both of property and less visual impact in neighboring properties so that purpose is Advanced purpose C to provide adequate light air in open space as mentioned I think in some of the conversation it's not a building the Y stays the same it's look the same a little bit of coverage that's there a minimal amount of impact and of course we can design make sure and again the building itself remains more than triple the distance required byin so I think this purpose is Advan purpose I Prov environment again the additional landscape offering will advance that purpose now for the negative criteria there are two prongs as I mentioned the first is demonstrate the bar can be gred without to the by immed talked about already no negative impact due to the um additional landscape buffer there's none on the neighbor to the um to the west and there's small yard neighbor to the north and of course we'll be able to buffer plant buffer plantings within those areas to shield from view anything that's on our property versus there so this is pretty important too because the board of course C board members are always concerned about Landscaping as we all right now theot there's a a couple pine trees that are up against the back of the as so even though you're giving up ladies and gentlemen portions of the lot for the pool you're gaining new plantings that aren't just low dirt type you know small scrubs inside of a fence the plantings will be higher than the fence I want to put it in perspective too and this is a good image for it you can see the pools that are up behind the building up here they're probably compliant you're allowed to be six feet away from the proper line with the pool and then the walkway patio around it between four and six feet so they pretty much pay you right to the lot we're not proposing that we could put the pool Closer by ordinance but the intention was to pull it away from the lot line be able to put that Landscaping in so it's it's doly designed for that purpose and we did that thinking we needed the variant and knowing that the board considers the plantings to be such an important aspect of development Market absolutely we don't don't have a whole lot so it's it's helpful to take what's now just open La make it valuable um the second prod of negative criteria to demonstrate granting of relief will not substantially in the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and Zoning this one's really interesting because technically this doesn't violate the ordinance the ordinance says what it says for this lot we comping we're technically again asking for Relief to the standard when it's applied to the entire lot which is really a condition of the previous approval that wasn't enforced properly and it was created through staff meetings that weren't formal action it's it's money but in the end I feel that when the lot obviously is evaluated on its own is for comp so it complies with intend ordinance and then I mention the intent of the conditions of Prior approval one of which is you know very import to the words is the specific statement that the units will not be increased in size again we're not increasing the size of the unit and you know the position Roger mentioned you know that that that landscape area there was created for buffer against the neighboring uses well it's effective buffer the way we're going to do it now it's going to be planted it's going to function in that capacity the way it sits today it's just open lawn and there was no requirement during that formal s plan back in 1979 1983 to have more planning for this so I feel it it's completely meeting the spirit purpose and attend of the master plan zoning ordinance because it is fully comping um so again it's it's my professional opinion that this this board has I think what it needs to be able to approve this based on the planning merits um you know and but for that odd situation 40 years ago really and and what I'd like to do um Mr chairman if I could is pass around to the board members the actual deed that the Rafel was obtained when they bought the property the reason this is important is if a deed references prior approvals or prior recordings of any type it shows up in the recital language in the deed the deed itself which is from August 24th of 21 contains no reference at all to any prior development any prior subdivision anything having to do with a restriction on the property period the title nothing the deed itself and I have the title report as well says I'm just going to read it into the record um it's got the seller John delardi and Colette delardi and the price of the property at the time and then it says being the same land in premises granted and conveyed to John R delaguardia and M Colette a delard a husband and wife by deed from Bernard Lipton and Shirley Lipton married to each other dated October 21st 1994 recorded October 25th 1994 in the Atlanta County clerk's office there is no reference to anything else this to we have see that this isn't a situation that the raphaels could have even been aware of but for submitting a pool application the Roger because nothing is on record period Jay's put on proofs as the positive and negative if it's its own lot we don't need to be here if it's part of an overall bigger lot we satisfy the proofs for the variant we're gonna press pause and take who maintains that driveway anybody own the driveway rightn sink couldn't because happs entering into it they'd all have to get together to for of that driveway I'm not sure they would which which is why I look at it as a whole okay and that's okay but let's for for excuse me J what happens if this unit roofe and two units are on both sides of it two units on the other sides have their own insurance their own repair cost it's not it's no one's fault the developer made giant errors and didn't do what the developer was supposed to do right well they made it simple because then they wouldn't have to go to the expense creating a condominium which as we know is not that easy that was kind of the point I was trying to make you know I mean like like you said a condom would be way better but financially it's probably better have was I correct yeah I think Mr Richmond at the time it's probably they it was more expensive to file the condo documents to set up the association to manage the association the association then needs Insurance it needs errors and omissions for the directors and the owners it's it's a much more difficult way to run it but it's way better because now you have respons landons want to do the same they want to make a we don't do it used to be done but we don't do it and you could have fee simple with a homeowners association you're still governed I I mean personally speaking I've put in many pools I never saw a PO that sunk s Mr chairman we're going to we have reserve the right to put Mr schula back on or the property owners I'll call the D exibit um anybody from the board anything else okay public portions open come give us your name and address and I have to swear in then Andrea St 9410 M right next door Miss saff please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you're about to give be the truth yes you're right next right next door yes and I like them a lot this is nothing personal um so I live at 9410 B Mammoth right next door we've own there for 10 years we're in a row of tow houses so my house is attached directly to their house I have two concerns about the installation of the pool flooding and drainage is one during rainstorms we already have a flooding and drainage problem during any Heavy Rain there's a lot of ponding and flooding in the common driveway and back of my house the Raphael's house and the houses on the opposite side of my driveway often but not always it's flooding that's backed up the driveway from Mammoth Avenue in the intersections of Mammoth Adams and Mammoth and Jefferson I have a dog when I need to walk my dog in a rainstorm I already need to wear my high rain boots carry my little dog through the driveway to get past the flooding to get the unflooded part of the sidewalk on Mammoth so I'm worried if there's a pool and grassy surface to absorb rain water where will all the excess rain water go also when it rains I don't know will the pool overflow with the rain water or even when it's covered once there'll be excess rain water that runs off in addition when a pool needs to be drained where will it go the prior owners of the Raphael's house told us when we bought our house they had water and drainage issues without rain in the yard where their pool where the pool would go and in their garage I don't don't know if they resolve these issues or not they just frequently asked us if we had water in our garage we did it so the bottom line is my first concern is whether this pool will cause an already existing water and drainage problem in the driveway and make it even worse my second concern is construction and installation this the disruption that will occur during construction and installation of the pool our row of tow houses including the Raphael's is not on Mammoth or any Street the only access for vehicles to the yard where the pool will be built is the common driveway in the back of both rows of our houses that driveway has two entrances one from Mammoth and one from Jefferson there is a common walkway in the front of our row of houses but that's only for pedestrian access so where will the construction trucks and the equipment park if they have to dig where will all the dirt be piled up I'm concerned that the entrance near our end will need to be totally blocked the truck equipment dirt Etc it would be a mess and a major disruption to our use of our driveway in our garage so these are my two concerns with the installation of the pool again I want to say I like them a lot they're really good neighbors this is nothing personal this is just some concern on how it affects my house um I have a couple questions uh is your backyard paved I don't really have a backyard the driveway I have no backyard you don't have a backyard it's the garage in the driveway I don't have a backyard I have no grass nobody has grass except the end the P pavers in the front of your property pavers in the front right so you know if you wanted to do something about W percolation you take out the the other thing is but the did the papers are in the front that's not where water pulls oh okay it pulls in the driveway in the back I don't have pavers in the driveway it doesn't have pavers in the front you brought your property did you do any investigating because that's a historically flooding area I lived on uh Adams and right near V I mean just from floods my wife lost her car you know you know what I'm saying like yeah well I'm not concerned about the street I'm just saying that floods right in back of our driveway the whole area floods maybe the driveways aren't pitch dra to drain to the streets I just know what happens when I it rains and when I need to walk my dog and if there's less grass to absorb rain it's going to be more flooding in the driveway thank you one question for you before you go yeah are you there in the winter if there's snow who plows and we each TR do our own your own okay thank you you guys stay awake I'm sorry it's rough uh my name is Mark Cohen I reside at 119 North Jefferson Unit D with my wife Karen I just wanted to show you Mr Cen you swear you swear to firm the testimony you'll give will be the truth I do great thank you feel like I'm getting married again ourty on the map right here in this corner the Raphael are about 30 yard away to where the pool construction is going to be can you hear me I have a pretty loud voice uh our experience yeah my experience with pools has been extremely negative our neighbors at 117 North Jefferson which is here behind us they constructed a pool seven years ago without prior knowledge either I didn't get the certified letter they probably sent out the letter when we weren't there or not in the country but I never protested this excuse me we arrived one weekend and found tons of dirt literally piled against our building I called the police department they had to come and tell the people that were Excavating to move the dirt which they did within a couple weeks and after that we had drainage issues which took years to resolve but worse than that was the continual noise that was generated by these neighbors not these all through the day and night they would have pool parties and they would have kids literally in the pool at 2 in the morning no matter what we did so it sort of soured me on the pool experience again Ron and CH have been good neighbors but the noise on their property resonates through this whole area it's almost like an echo chamber Ron has an outdoor TV he likes to play his music loudly he tells me he's hard of hearing I agree with him and and anytime I ask him to turn it down he does uh our neighbors at the C Unit the mag would have been here today but they have a lot of health issues now Ron likes his music he likes his TV he's been responsive but our main concern is when he puts it a pool the noise that will be generated from family guests children music TV it's just going to be magnified tremendously then we'd be surrounded by a pool here which keeps us up at night a pool here which will probably keep us up during the day and this has really impacted our quality of life this was supposed to be our retirement Haven but our quality of life has been negatively impacted by the noise pollution generated by swimming pools in addition on Adams Avenue on the 100 block there are two other pools we can't hear them luckily acoustically for these grounds we personally oppose the construction thank you I give the rest of my time to my other neighbor thank you can I make a comment about that and and I absolutely understand what you're saying and this board has a lot of powers and we don't have a lot of powers and one of the problems is we have no power over rudess of neighbors yeah so it's not like well we we can consider that they're rude so we can turn this up or down and that's really ties our hands but I I understand what you're saying but just appreciate the issue it is 3 270 degrees of noise sometimes continually thank you my name is Fred marelo I live in 942b mon Avenue the same row as Ron Jo Mar it's marel tell that's correct okay please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give will be the truth I okay thank you uh the issue is that yes I think they are individual properties I mean we all pay different taxes we all have to get insurance for what they said we don't have insurance for so every property has Insurance secondly even though it is individual properties it was built as a single unit and because of that there are certain commonalities and that one commonality is a sword line that runs right down under crwl space so anything generated up bronze property Clos down under my right through my house you can actually see he of concerned about that if anything goes wrong with that all of us are on the hook for a out of money and pools generally they back flush them what I understand every couple of weeks whatever so a lot more Waters coming down that plate no okay I don't know no I do I know they back was no that's not true okay not what that used to be the case but okay no I had pool it was a saltwater pool there was no chlorine there was no never any flushing of of anything outside of within the the pool itself and that's pretty much the same poin through the common s line that runs in the house the pool doesn't drain anywhere they if they wanted to drain the pool they have to suck the water out of the pool pump it out yes and then it's pump down the street into the sewer I don't know if they empty the pool usually empty Reas no you don't empty an in pool especially especially on the will make the hydrostatic pressure that's the other issue with that pool as they mentioned that that property had flooding had drainage problems they actually had a sum pump there the other owner which I don't know apparently that don't happen anymore they must have fixed it but that had property used to have it some so the hydrostatic pressure probably is pretty quite a bit on that pool right so I would question that secondly I saw they said there's some grading that needs to be done between the one property and the other because it's so much lower now if it's so much lower going to grade which way we got enough water running down our uh driveway bus our walkway I mean you can't walk on our walkway so much water flowing so the issues are you on the end unit you're the end unit I'm sorry are you the end unit you're the end unit on Jefferson so you have the deck yes I do anything else no I think that that's it thank you very much and I believe to apologize to you for a minute for because I did say something being part of hearing I didn't realize pleas excuse thank you it was my honor anyone else from the public public portions closed other comments fromard one just one uh they they said there's a fence already there well the fence is only four feet there would have to be a five foot fence if the pool is approved or not five five or six five or six five or six it's a four on the property now correct we have to get into it somehow I assume be fully compliant yeah it would be as Roger said whatever was approved would be fully compliant with your pool ordinance I just want to address some of the comments by some of the neighbors I'm going to try to be the concept of a future prospective Noisy Neighbor is not something that this board can consider the idea that because is building a pool they're going to have parties they're going to have people over we're not seeking a pool variance if the pool were small enough I suppose they could put it in they could put in a abovegr pool every week and flop around in it and couldn't do anything about it the idea that this is going to be some noisy poorly managed property because someone in town has a property near another neighbor and loud is completely irrelevant and it's hearsay because if that were the case we wouldn't have Amherst Avenue and we wouldn't have Bo we wouldn't have anything that makes any noise we wouldn't allow new businesses to come in and you wouldn't have a pool ordinance allowing pools and in the master plan it would say we don't like pools because they're noisy and they annoy the neighbors the governing body has passed ordinances allowing for pools the concept that they're going to be obnoxiously loud isn't something respectfully to the neighbors that you're even permitted to consider so what do we have now we've got the pro and the con that Jay put on for the municipal land use law the variants proofs that are necessary we' heard nothing to contravene any of that we've got some neighbors who are concerned about flooding but the pool itself not cause more flooding the sewer Line's not going to have the pool draining into it respect to the neighbors they are 100% wrong their reasons for objecting have zero basis in fact and I think what happens is you get a lot of these neighbors that come together and it's like a conspiracy theory that we're GNA say this or we're going to say that none of it is relevant to the proofs that have been put on so think the case has been put on correctly don't think we need a variance because we think we satisfy the fee simple ownership but we're going to submit to the board that we can prove the variance and there's been no proofs to the contrary that the variant shouldn't be granted and with that we arrest subject of course if the board has any further questions so Jason if if you guys are approved you'll have a grading plan submitted being frank if we didn't want to go through the expense in the event that this wasn't received so yeah we will as a condition of approval as a condition ofal we provide a gring and I assume there's going to be a grading plan review as part of the pool per process anyway so right also for the Neighbors construction isn't beginning this year if this is granted they don't want to start this until probably in the fall so presumably it'll be easier to get you know it'll be less annoying to the neighbors and more importantly in the fall it'll be easier to get you know construction equipment back there I've never seen a city that enforces its ordinances more than Marg Mr Vada is going to be over here on day one paying attention of this no one gets away with anything if the construction's not clean they're going to be sighted if something breaks rapel are going to have to clean it up so again this idea that we don't want to pull because it will damage our property or because it will be noisy those are just not reasons to consider so having said all of that again we're going to comply with the ordinance comply with the pool ordinance comply with construction it's not being built this year grading plan we've given you everything you want we don't think we need to be here but we're here so we'll rest the one variance is landscape at 1.9% is that correct yes Mr that's it 1.9% so so the issue is and frankly I I don't think a judge could decide some of these things on the spot but in any event I I read everything but this was initially approved when it was approved as the simple ownership the idea back then was there was some would be some type of homeowners association and then if you want to put an addition or you want to do anything you get whatever percentage of the owners and you come before if it's compliant or not comp compliant you go forward that was never D so that that's pretty clear and everyone's kind of you know there seems to be some evidence that there was some deck buil homes whether there was permits for those or not we don't know um um so that wasn't done and now the applicant has a standalone lot and the question becomes you know whether we still look at this as an overall site in which a variance is required where we look at as a standalone lot my inclination and I'm open for some disc discussion is for for argument sake purposes only we'll assume it's a variance and we'll look at it as an overall site we'll take a vote on it the board approves it um then it's approved and and we might have to look at what we can do as a board of anything that or even homeowners can do amongst themselves to some it doesn't S this proper suggest something that this is going to be a re reoccurring thing I I don't think unless someone buys three of the properties and wants to build a elevated home with the second store you know or something like that um you rais an interesting question Mr Manos and I know the city's dealt with this on coolage Avenue in the beach you know without an association if someone bought three or four of these and wanted to tear them down they could so it's the developer who did this should put the association together that we all agree yeah should really it wasn't done um and if you look at that property as a stand 11 property that they wouldn't even need to be here just the original minor subdivision that these the entire site was approved as one building 14 Apartments minor subdivision that's included is for a little strip of land to add area to a lot to make it fully compliant with 25,000 sare ft 1983 when the bank took over the bankruptcy that's when they did the major subdivision to make them all fee simple town homes so they could sell it off and recoup the money as a condition of approval of that the homeowners association was supposed to be created to prevent in my opinion because we SE in other locations bastardization of the of the site simple as that that's right I don't disagree with that the question is but it's not just the developer problem they Property Owners IGN the demands of the city for 40 years so there has to Beil but if it was in bankruptcy I don't know nothing was the letter in 1994 from Andrew Miller who represented the home ownership said when the bank sold all these Lots or home owners had no idea so I mean there's a lot of finger point to go around but here we are Leah let's let's talk about you know you said a judge couldn't decide this let's look at a case that went to the Appel division which is coolage in the beach you know that was an attached unit that's now a standalone and was built and it was an end unit very similar to this so we're almost in the same situation where once you have your property and it's fee simple there's a certain very American process of property ownership that cannot be messed with and they did have an association I thought that was elevated that they were denied to build it tear it down and build a single family home because which is contrary to what you're saying no no but they were able to raise it and they were want them to raise it right the court in that case said yeah well there was a homeowners association there and they said under these homeowners sort of a different issue in that case that was the home owners the court said you can correct me if you think I'm wrong that the homeowners association can absolutely prohibit them sub them building a single family home this was meant to be a row home type of development however under the Sandy law they can take that n unit and raise it and you can't stop them under right the homeowners association existed they yeah and that's that's ass right here we don't have one so think vot better okay the property I so I guess there's one the ways we can do this we can look at it and and and vote as a c variance see what happens might make other issues moot um or if the board wants to try and interpret this and and and say you know that ship is sailed and we think we should view this as one property we can go that angle and take a vote on that um I think we should I I think we should look at it as a variance initially we'll take a vote reserving your argument and then depending on how that happens you know I might I'm what's your timeline you trying to get this thing built I mean I might need to say I got to do a little research that other issue if if we get to that issue why don't we try this and then this is kind of a little bit of an offshoot there we're here so we've submitted to the board jurisdiction the board has jurisdiction to vote regardless if the board votes in the affirmative we would still want Mr Mrs Raphael to retain the ability to challenge the zoning officer's decision not to come back here but to go to Superior Court because technically when Roger denied the application for the pool it was you know something we're appealing by way of the variance so if the board doesn't vote Yes then we have the right to challenge but I would just say we shouldn't have to come back and challenge because we just did this for the past hour and a half or so we'd probably go right to Superior Court so we would look at this either as the variance application or a challenge to the zoning officer's administrative decision but we still reserve the right to to to say that this is one lot we're not giving up that right I think I understood what you're saying so if you're not if you're not approv if you're not approved you don't want to have to submit an application it's just going to get denied appeal it here because we've kind of gone through that exercise that's fair so basically this would be the process of exhausting our administrative remedies under the municipal land use law and but if it's approved then presumably we'd be able to build but in the meantime if we didn't want to I don't know why we do this but if we didn't want to use the variance but rather wanted to use it as the Standalone lot we'd have the right still to go to court and have that adjudication by the judge but I don't think the Rafael's want to do that because they'd already have the approval in hand right okay AB so so we'll vote on it as a variance and I guess it technically amends the overall site plan to um if approved the little submited grading plan re approved by Roger so the variance is looking at the site overall 35% lock coverage is required they have 23.3% the pool takes it down to 21.4% which is 2% 1.9% so that's the only variant are asking for the the side yard the pool as far as setbacks and stuff is compliant so need a motion in a second and a roll second Richard Patterson well I'm glaad we didn't have to decide whether it needs a variance or not I just don't feel capable of making that decision so I'll look at it as if they they do need the variance um but I I have to look at it as a pool it is much more compliant or or overly compliant than 90% of the polls that we get um they will have Landscaping which will probably be Arbor vities or whatever along both sides of the thing which will completely block out any sights and some of the sound from the pool um I have to vote Yes on this application Michael Richmond yeah I agree with P it's their property 1.9 Landscaping variance is very dominous um it's going to I mean you see what the property looks like now with the landscaping and everything I think it'll be Improvement to the are stepen ji take that pool pools you can use a small smaller pool in there my bigest my concern is that we are at sea level and flooding is a serious issue and I think we need to get as much land keep as much land in maret as we can by putting a 10 by 20 foot pool in that's 200 square feet we're looking probably like about really th cubic feet when you when you include the hardscaping and the depth of the pool this it's like putting a brick in the bucket you're raising the SE you're raising the level I think it's something that we seriously need to look at in more about this ount pool that we're putting into this town um we have all kinds of ordinances that are coming through um got tree ordinance coming through we have storm enhanced storm wood ordinance that has to be addressed come down from the state to alleviate these problems I will know Margaret Gober um I realize the landscape coverage is dious is a Vari the fact that it's simple which means that you own the land without any limitations and can do what you want with your land although in they're sharing common rights of a public and I I know you don't want me to go back3 I see it as as not a public benefit don't do this often you made a statement of fact that it's 100% incorrect that they share anything common the road is the only thing that's common and you heard the neighbors say they each shovel their own so if that's what you're basing your decision on I'm going to respectfully say that is an incorrect incorrect statement of fact and law but you're entitled to your opinion well then I am denying it based upon the landscape to be John pits um in Margate we need to do everything we can to uh keep and even expand on permeable surface we heard testimony from some of the Neighbors about flooding in the area and flooding with specifically on that property um it's not at 2% currently the site is already at 12% under landscape coverage it'll be going 14% iy Jim galantino so when the two Neighbors on each end of Jefferson Avenue built their Decks that they come to the board for variance I don't they changed if anything they change the land use of the the build of that site then because it should have come from to us to Grant the variance for those decks hopefully their uh Property Owners aren't accessive with those decks uh the corner property is fenced off and it's separated from the rest of the properties there's no way from any other property owner to access that property so to me the property owner has identified that property as their own the lot as it stands right now is not very good it's just weeds and um it's not a nice lot for them to improve the lot you're going to do improvements to the lot to benefit hopefully the neighborhood in that case I am yes Andrew Campbell I struggle with this um these pools and things um but I also understand that it is a standalone property and you can do what you want with that um you don't need rain in this town um you only need a high tide and a Northeast wind to flood so um my feeling is is that it's going to improve the property um the landscape is going to help uh buffer some of that noise and I'm going to vote Yes Craig I agree with Mr gtino here about the Improvement of the property and it is a fee simple and you own both you own both pieces of property there um I look at the picture of the buffer zone up against an old Motel unit that doesn't mean anything to me this buffer looks like crap it really does I think a pool is really going to improve the property it's your property and um it's beneficial to you and the community and um I'm I'm going to say uh the pool fits unlike a lot of other pools here it fits and you've done a nice job with that an extra landscaping around would be more of a buffer and I'm going to say yes to it the application is approved with five in favor and three opposed sure all right okay uh we're gonna take a quick five minute break all right our last case is Gregory and Rachel George's 206 North Decor Avenue block 426 lot 11.03 located in the wsd zoning District seeking SE Rel for minimum lot area minimum lot width minimum side yards north and south minimum rear yard minimum side yards north and south that minimum Total Landscape coverage and potentially others in order to renovate and existing single family home current on taxes water and silver payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented by Eric gold want to yeah let me clear up a couple things uh my report is based on the application of Gregory and Rachel George's 206 North theer Avenue block 426 11.03 located in wst zoning district and elevation 9 is the FEMA current FEMA Zone the background is as follow as the applicant is seeking relief so that a rear yard deck can be enlarged and replaced in the property that has been subdivided for PE simple keyw another which 200 size line again so the purpose of my statement of that is even though the baranes are being soft for uh residential ground floor use lot withd they were already approved so they're existing nonconforming there's uh essentially four Varan is in my zoning T of page two is the deck minimum side yards for the elevated deck because it's higher than 18 in has to meet the building setbacks of 5T for the side 3.7 on the one 4.8 on the other uh so there are two variances the RAR yard setback again because you're you're subject to a principal setback principal building setback requirements over 18 in which is 20 feet existing is 21 fet basically for the landing and the expansion will be 12 ft that's a erance and Landscape area total requirement is 35% they at 33.7% 29.7% % it's a variance it's an expansion of a nonconforming landscape coverage and again the applicant and I and is as engineer we went back and forth trying to trying to create this and not be you know if this deck was 10 inches above grade they wouldn't be here and we we couldn't mitigate any landscape coverage issues so that's another reason why they're here but essentially elevated deck in the rear yard on an approved fee simple subdivision that was done years ago and here we are so Mr Goldstein thank you Mr McClaren uh we of course concur with your report property owner to my left Mr georgees shu is to my right um interestingly Mr George has told me he also does not have an association so I don't know how some of these buildings operate but this one hopefully will be a little bit easier not appear to be anybody from the public here which is good to some extent I suppose so we agree with your of the report Mr CH has prepared a going turn it over to him real quick the elevated deck is going to be open slotted boards is that yes it is and what will be below that deck open virgin soil so okay uh basically all right I'll let's just get you sworn in real quick yeah so you don't lie I'll try not uh just give us your name and address for the record uh my name is Arthur Chu professional engineer address 130 West CW Avenue in lwood if you could please raise your right hand you swear if from the testimony you'll give this evening it'll be the truth I do Mr Chu was here just a couple months ago engineer and planner I accept all right Arthur you the plan you I think Mr um mclen had a question first basically open lands on go it and below it it will be open ground reming so basically approve it we went back and for with many different options they basically want some outdoor private uh like living space ding space you okay what about the you move the fence all the way back correct they took the fence out so it goes back to the neighbor's fence and there's a big Ravine there there's a big deep Channel there behind that they looking to move it back that fence back yeah they they removed that fence because I went back there and there there a deep hole two foot by two foot the whole length of the property is that right why don't we have Mr georgees sworn in Mr George is just uh Gregory georgees I assume yes 206 North deor Avenue that's correct please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give will be the truth I do okay great thank you so ditch in between the two the property line so we had removed the fence just to clean up the back area just we overgrown so I mean our our plan is just to put the fence back to the original place where it was so oh so you you you're going to leave that space between the two fences then yeah we don't have any plans to fill that in okay all right that's a great question he just bought the place yeah October I didn't know if it was a drainage or it it probably has something to do with drainage you look back the behinds and thenat but it's on your property right want to discussed over the course of time your design of the deck You Bic designed this with the understanding that it did require variance in your professional opinion you think this satisfies Margate zoning code along with the state of New Jersey unal land use law that the positives outweigh any negatives I I do the Lots exceptionally narrow so you have a string shape there much smaller than any other lot market so it limits with things some of the variances that we need going the only real VAR that's cre is to give some space we could have put the deck down lower but then it becomes a lot of steps and not as much usual space we thought this was a more efficient use of a deck could you see any negatives possibly associated with this if the board order to Grant this application I I do not if you look at the properties the adjacent property to the left has a much bigger Deck with a sh and if you look at the property to the right they also have a bigger deck to what the neighborhood has this is a matching side side and similar matching simple property next door so his neighbors on either side are basically bigger than he is and he's inance with the neighbor we can put on more proofs the board has seen what we're doing here the deck it's not any bigger than perhaps uh could have gone a little bit we didn't we'll answer any questions the board might have we know it's been a long night so we'll defer to the board tell us what to do next question you said that you're going to you're taking some concrete out actually adding more land so taking this there's a concrete pad in the backyard I guess it was for a shed or for future shed or something along those lines uh part of the reason one of the initial approaches was to do a lower deck and then to do a shed we're just doing the upper deck he's going to put uh little doors underneath so you can put his surfboards or kayaks whatever stuff that can get wet can go underneath but it's still going to be on natural ground he's not pouring a concrete pad underneath so any rain water that goes through there can out underneath there but just beach toys or whatever yeah they're trying to mitigate some of that loss of landscaping no swimming pool not yet right on top of the the ditch could fill up with water I guess this is a 4unit subdivision that was approved many years ago anybody else from the though the deck is slatted it still counts against lands Margate has a unique right we don't have a lot coverage right ordinance it implies that 65% is the a lot coverage the remainder has to be 35% this supposed to be vegetative surface so many many towns including our neighbors and Venter open slotted deck they gave you 50% credit of lck 50% that's not the case here so they need a landscape coverage R yeah Roger in your report did I hear you mention if the the debt was lower they wouldn't be here be here for right they wouldn't be here for the setbacks all right I got it thank you because it's higher than 18 y yeah y an authorized discussion of the evolvement of the project I said look you can put that at grade and not be here if you can mitigate the landscape so if they're coming in might as well ask for you I understand the reason why they want it elevated so they could walk right out it and also by being elev anybody else you still have the ground absorption too even though it's not considered Landscaping it's it's ground that absorbs the rain water right preserves you're not creating runoff loal just turn them upside in yeah we're We R them in anybody in the public like to speak no Public's closed and uh there's no other questions it's another C variance application uh four C variances sard setback for the deck on the right side in the rear 4. five's required they're at 4.8 same thing on the left side for side guard setback five is required three they're proposing 3.7 the rear yard set back to the deck uh 20 FS required 12's proposed and then landscape coverage 35% required and they're going to be at 29.7% we'll just say as conditions anything Mr MC's report any representations made will be followed subject to any outside approvals just the typical standard conditions motion second second Richard Patterson well I think this is a classic case of it's it's uh conforming to the neighborhood um it's it's actually less than what the neighbors have um even though it is in lessening the landscape coverage it's not lessening the uh permeability of the of the L surface so I don't see any detriment and I see it fitting in the neighborhood so in that situation with no detriment i v yes Michael Richmond yeah I uh really don't see any uh ill effect on the neighborhood in fact I was saying that I know I know it's been built for a long time but actually the uh re yard setback they're allow uh what 25 no no they're allowed 20 and they're 25 right so yeah to the house right so that's that's a good thing right yeah anyway I I approve it Sten J I see this is an improvement and I see no detriments to this I proove Margaret goober N I agree with the other board members I see notive imp and I vote in favor John pittz uh yeah nothing more to say I think all the other board members have said it so I approve Jim galantino Al Alex Lynx built those back in the day back in 2000 Alex Lynx yes yeah I remember that I approve the application Andrew Campbell um removing the concrete will definitely improve the um absorption of the water which is a good thing which will offset anybody putting a pool in down the street um also if um if my neighbor had a bigger deck than I did I'd be jealous and I'd want a deck enlargement too I approve Craig palan yeah I also agree with the other board members and I approve the application is approved with eight in favor and none we're good make motion to close all in favor all right