Margate vs Developer Baglivo update. June 25, 2026. See full PDF below.
Margate taxpayers continue to fund litigation. How much is this costing taxpayers so far?
Judge denies recent ‘stay’ request.
Roger McLarnon, et al v. Steven B. Baglivo
Docket: ATL-C-89-24
Dear Judge Gibson: Please accept this letter brief on behalf of Plaintiff, Roger McLarnon, in his capacity as Zoning Officer for the City of Margate, in opposition to Defendant/Counterclaimant Steven B. Baglivo’s motion for a stay pending appeal pursuant to R. 2:9-5.
The Court ordered Defendant to reduce the unlawful residential density to no more than six dwelling units unless and until he obtains the required “d” variance relief and all other approvals, and to restore compliance with the dedicated-parking and site-plan conditions.
Defendant (Steven Baglivo) chose to construct and operate the property (Margate Gardens) in the manner this Court has found unlawful.
Defendant chose to lease the subdivided spaces. Defendant chose to continue that operation despite the absence of final zoning approval and despite this litigation.
The public interest is especially important in this case because it involves municipal land-use enforcement and the integrity of the Planning Board process.
The (Margate) Planning Board approved a six-unit project. That approval was not abstract. It was based on sworn testimony, public hearing representations, density calculations, parking representations, professional review, and public comment.
The Board’s approval was then memorialized in a written resolution that approved six residential units and required two dedicated parking spaces per residential unit.
Allowing Defendant to continue operating twelve dwelling units without obtaining variance relief would substantially impair the public’s confidence in that process.
Judge denied the stay request. Items listed below are if judge were to grant a partial stay.
Defendant to:
1. Immediately stop entering into any new leases, lease renewals, extensions, license agreements, occupancy agreements, or similar arrangements for any of the unapproved subdivided spaces;
2. Immediately stop advertising, listing, marketing, or offering any unapproved subdivided space for rent;
3. Provide Plaintiff and the Court with a complete current rent roll identifying all occupants, unit designations, lease commencement dates, lease expiration dates, and whether the tenant occupies an approved unit or an unapproved subdivided space;
4. Provide copies of all current leases and lease amendments for the residential spaces;
5. Provide written notice to all affected tenants that the Court has found the property in violation of Resolution 47-2022 and the City’s zoning requirements and that the stay, if granted, is temporary and subject to further court order;
6. Maintain two dedicated parking spaces for each of the six approved residential units during the stay and provide Plaintiff with a written parking plan identifying those spaces;
7. Refrain from towing, threatening to tow, blocking, charging extra for, or otherwise interfering with residential tenants’ use of the dedicated residential parking spaces;
8. Maintain all insurance, life-safety, and code-compliance obligations without treating the stay as a waiver of any City enforcement rights;
9. Post an appropriate bond or other security if the Court determines that security is necessary under R. 2:9-5(a) and R. 2:9-6;
10. File status reports with the Court and Plaintiff every thirty days identifying any changes in occupancy, parking, leases, tenant notices, and compliance efforts.
So what is the outcome
Regarding Roger McLaren‘s letter to the court identifying the failure of the developer to follow the approvals of both the zoning board, site plan approval, and building permit:
First, this letter should’ve been issued over two years ago because it was obvious the various approvals were not followed; painfully obvious and transparent to everyone watching or listening to what was going on in the meetings.
Well, many of these items listed are in violation of the approvals one major item should be brought to the top of the list and corrected immediately. It is related to item 8 in the letter.”
8. Maintain all insurance, life-safety, and code-compliance obligations without treating the stay as a waiver of any City enforcement rights;”
The original plans for six units were approved to meet all the codes for Fire and life safety habitation of the units under a certificate of occupancy assuming they were built per the approved building permit set of plants. They were not.
They are now in violation and put all the residents in the building at risk due to the construction, not meeting the fire and life safety codes of the state of New Jersey.
Margate should demand that the developer at a minimum correct the construction of these units into six units and immediately evacuate six of the residents.
2024 and 2025 the Margate solicitor was worried about lawsuits by pressing the developer too hard.
They should be worried about making what is right and safe for the residence that are in the building; and that dictates that the units immediately be vacated or put back in accordance with the building permit set of plans for six units total in the building.
I’m fairly certain that the New Jersey Department of community affairs that overseas all building departments would agree with this.
The wording of the headline is misleading, yes it is continuing but Margate Won and Baglivo has the right to appeal. In the meantime Judge Gibson gave Margate a strong decision. Baglivo is also incurring costs. It would be interesting to see what rent he is getting that is helping him delay.
I still cannot believe this was not apparent during the construction process. Yet, the taxpayers foot the litigation bills.
Is it just a coincidence that Jim Galantino just retired a short while ago. Something really smells here.
Our Mayor and Commissioners need to disclose their involvement, individually or through their business or family interests, with Baglivo and his projects. We know in fact that Baglivo was a big financial supporter to their last campaign and considered Collins and Horn his “friends”.
The unanswered questions are many. Did our Mayor and commissioners benefit economically from the sale of products or services to Baglivo? Did they specifically provide products or services to the 6 or 12 project?
Is the slow walk of remedies related to their relationship and a concern that Baglivo may disclose uncomfortable information? What is our solicitor’s relationship to Baglivo? He said nothing was going on but was proved wrong by the court findings.
Is there an Amedeo influence involved here that set certain actions into motion? So many questions with no answers. No investigation into this situation. Just another day in Margate.
Don’t we deserve a real explanation as to what happened here?
Next up will be a Master Plan brought forward in the winter when many are away. Get ready to follow the money again and again. Tequila for all until 4am.
NJ Department of Community Affairs, Regulatory Affairs Inspectors, review fire code and building codes as applied to a set of Building permit documents for Fire Life Safety code issues, on behalf of the people/public.
Based in Trenton, NJ. Municipal Building Departments fall under the NJ DCA.
If the Building Permit was issued showing only 6 units (as it should have been, based on the zoning approval) the design for fire alarm, fire protection, egress paths etc. were evaluated based on 6 units.
If 12 units were built and occupied, then the existing building has not met the NJ building codes for fire life safety systems. A SAFETY Concern.
This building was inspected when the city thought there were 6 units. We all know now that there is 12 units as it was admitted during the litigation.
Here is the thing, the Margate Fire Department probably considered the number of smoke detectors based on 6 units, and now there are additional walls, making a once single bedroom into 2, etc.
I’m pretty sure there are not enough smoke detectors in some of these units and it would be in the cities best interest to at least have Margate Fire inspect all units, I’m sure the renters wouldn’t mind and would feel safer.