Legal Summary JAN 2026: Margate City v. Steve Baglivo
Roger McLarnon, the Zoning Officer for the City of Margate, has moved for Summary Judgment against developer Steven B. Baglivo regarding a so-called “bait-and-switch” development at 9708-9712 Ventnor Avenue. (Margate Gardens Complex)
Margate City alleges that Baglivo obtained approvals for a 6-unit project but constructed a 12-unit complex instead.
SEE LEGAL DOCS BELOW.
The Bait-and-Switch Allegation
In 2022, Baglivo secured Planning Board approval for 6, two-bedroom residential units. By reducing the unit count from an earlier proposal, he avoided high-density “D” variances and residential parking requirements.
However, municipal inspections in 2024 and 2025 revealed that each of the 6 approved units had been physically split into two independent living quarters.
These subdivided units feature:
- Locked Barriers: Deadbolted doors requiring keys on both sides separate the “halves”.
- Duplicate Facilities: Each sub-unit contains its own kitchen, laundry, electrical panel, and hot water heater.
- Occupancy: The building has twelve mailboxes, twelve intercoms, and twelve separate leases.
Lease and Parking Violations
The city claims Baglivo submitted altered leases to officials that removed references to sub-units (e.g., changing “Unit 201-B” to “Unit 201”) and omitted clauses stating tenants were renting only 50% of a unit.
Furthermore, while the Planning Board required twelve dedicated residential parking spaces, Baglivo’s actual leases state that no off-street parking is included. In his deposition, Baglivo claimed the discretion to withhold parking from tenants as he “own[s] those parking spaces”.
The City of Margate, through its Zoning Officer, is asking the Superior Court to compel Steven Baglivo to bring the property at 9708–9712 Ventnor Avenue into strict compliance with the original 2022 Planning Board approvals.
Specifically, Margate wants the following actions:
- Developer Baglivo must permanently reduce the number of dwelling units from twelve back to the approved six, unless he successfully obtains a new “D” density variance and all other necessary permits.
- Restore Dedicated Parking: He must dedicate two parking spaces to each of the approved residential units, as originally required, rather than withholding them at his discretion.
- Correct Site Plan Deviations: The parking lot must be reconfigured to match approved site plan, correcting unauthorized changes to drive aisles and space sizes.
- Obtain Proper Certification: Baglivo must bring property into compliance so it can pass “Final Zoning Re-Inspection,” which is prerequisite for issuing final Certificates of Occupancy currently missing for the occupied units.
- Remove Unauthorized Improvements: Extra kitchens, laundry facilities, and separated electrical panels used to facilitate the twelve-unit configuration.
Status of Case
Litigation has reached a critical phase as both sides prepare for potential resolution without full trial:
| Milestone | Date / Status |
| Pleadings Closed | Early 2025 |
| Discovery Extensions | Granted through November 2025 |
| Expert Report Filed | September 19, 2025 |
| Motion for Summary Judgment | Filed January 2, 2026 |
| Proposed Trial Dates | March 18–20, 2026 |
Key Takeaways
- Unlawful Density: Margate Gardens project functions as 12 units where only 6 were permitted, violating Municipal Land Use Law and local zoning codes.
- Parking Breaches: Developer failed to provide dedicated residential parking spaces that were central condition of original approval.
- Abatement Sought: Margate asking Court to declare configuration unlawful and compel Baglivo to reduce units back to the approved six.
Nice summary. Thank you for keeping us updated on this information. This has been going on for too long and needs resolution.
How did Margate City Guv get hoodwinked so easily? Any dimwit could see what was going on, but the birdbrains who are supposed to make sure plans are followe, were all at Snuffy’s Bar, tying one on when project was built. DOH!
Or they were too busy finalizing the Tequila Bar scam?? Margate Planning Board are full of fraudsters, they ALL need to go, especially that nasty scumbag Richard Patterson! And why is a local active builder, Mike Richmond, Chair of the Planning Board? Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
Glad we moved from condos next door- HORRIBLE development on that property.
Hope they make him tear it down!
Why isn’t Eric Goldstein being sued for misrepresenting the project or at least a witness to testify about Baglivo’s fraud that Goldstein abetted? He should be barred from representing applicants in the future.
Did McLarnon suspect it would be altered?
Baglivo atty Eric Goldstein and Margate Solicitor John Abbott knew what was going on at the Margate Gardens complex. They both came up with stories that it didn’t matter if there were 6 or 12 units, and they were going to make them condos. Never happened.
They also said that the 6 renters had family and friends living on the other side of the divider doors.
I’ve had dealings with McLarnon and he’s very full of himself, a liar, and a jerk. I’m glad he’s being exposed. I hope this takes that smirk right off his face. He should be fired immediately!
Someone should look into where Baglivio bought 12 kitchens *cough* *cough* Colmar. Connect the dots!
Proof? Should be easy to provide. Bring it.
How does he [Baglivo] keep leasing units without a final CO? [Certificate of Occupancy] Isn’t that a hazard?
I understand not throwing current tenants out of their units due to Baglivo’s ‘bait and switch’ scheme with Margate. But developer Baglivo should never been allowed to start a new lease after previous tenants vacated.
Margate wasn’t able to prevent Baglivo from leasing to new tenants. I think the County (DCA Department of Community Affairs) would have needed to do that. But, because Margate Gardens complex was less than 5 years old, Margate either chose not to inspect, or were not able to.
Hopefully, anyone thinking of renting one of these units will see the controversy online around the Margate Gardens residential units.
Margate wants the 12 units reverted back to 6, and assign 2 parking spaces for each of the 6 units. That’s really the only option Baglivo has to remedy this expensive mistake.
The legal costs have to be getting very high.
Hmmm. What does Baglivo’s insurance policy state? Subpoena his agent and bring a copy!