Margate City, NJ Planning Board Meeting of March 26, 2026

Uh we're going to start the meeting
over the flag salute.
>> I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, liberty and
justice for all.
Okay. Roll call.
>> Michael Richmond
>> here.
>> Rich Patterson
>> here.
>> John Pitz
>> here.
>> Dan Adams here.
>> Craig Palmisano
>> here.
>> Rich Tulsen.
>> Johanna Perski
>> here.
>> Her Pagno
>> here.
>> Steve Joaki
>> here.
>> Drew Campbell.
>> Sam Freriedman
>> here.
>> Patty Rosenberg.
>> Okay. This meeting is being held in
accordance with the New Jersey Open
Public Meetings Act. Notice has been
advertised in the press and posted in
the municipal building and on the city's
website.
Applicants are advised that if your
application is approved this evening,
please come forward at the conclusion of
your case and approach the board
administrator PAMA to sign a form
outlining the process for obtaining any
required building permits and/or
mercantil licenses.
Members of the public wishing to speak
during any case must wait for the
chairman to open the floor for public
comment.
All speakers will be sworn in by the
board solicitor and must state their
name and address for the record.
All right. Um
so first we have approval of minutes
meeting of February 26, 2026.
>> Make that motion.
Okay. All in favor?
>> I
then approval of decisions and
resolutions
12 2026. Steven and Elise Weissman C
variance relief.
Do I hear a motion?
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
>> Okay.
All righty. Um,
our first case is Dr. Richard and Robin
Goldberg, 17 North Nassau Avenue, block
214, lot 3, zone S40. The request is a C
variance relief for minimum sideyard
setback and combined sideyard setback to
allow installation of an elevator at the
existing single family dwelling. Current
on taxes, water and sewer, proof of
notice provided. And the attorney is
James Swift.
Roger, do you want to say anything?
>> I'll get I'll get Roger sworn in. Mr.
McCarthy raise your right hand. You
swear the testimony of
>> Rob this evening will be the truth.
>> I do.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you, Mr. McCclar. Mr. Chairman,
James Swift, 1335 Tilton Road,
Northfield, New Jersey, appearing today
on behalf of Richard and Robin Goldberg.
We are respectfully requesting the
opportunity to continue this matter to
the April hearing date and I'm
respectfully going to ask that we uh be
permitted to carry it without the
requirement of uh renotice to the
neighbors as well as renotice to the
newspaper. An issue developed concerning
this application which candidly put us
in a little bit of a different position
where we're not quite ready to go
forward today. We'd rather resolve this
and come back with a more complete
application the next time.
Okay.
Yeah, that's fine, Jim. And just for
anyone here and for the record, the
application of Dr. Richard and Robin
Goldberg, which is 17 North Nassau
Avenue, lot 214, lot 3. That will not be
heard tonight. The applicant that'll be
adjourned till the April 30th, okay,
>> hearing date, April 30th, 2026.
Obviously, 6:30 p.m. in this room. The
applicant will not be required to
republish or renotice. So, that's the
official announcement for that. So, uh
if you're here for that, come back on
April 30th and you'll be heard.
>> Okay.
>> Thanks, Jim.
>> Thank you.
>> Excuse for tonight.
>> You're excused.
>> All right. Thank you very much.
>> All right. Our next case is Helena C. Is
it Hope and Waser? It's
>> good.
>> Hopener, 9 North Koi Avenue, block
210.02, 02 lot 11 zone S25 request C
variance relief for front yard setback
to allow construction of a threeseason
room with the deck above at the existing
single family dwelling current on taxes
water and sewer proof of notice
advertised attorney Eric Colstein
I'll do a preamble real quick so the
report is based on the application of
Helena Copper at 9 North Irquy Avenue
block 210 10.02 lot 11 located in the
S25 zoning district. Again, as Mr.
Richmond indicated, it's there is an
existing enclosed porch. Now, they want
to make it a threeseason room by adding
larger windows and instead of the roof
that's above it, they want to put a
deck. Now the deck and the porch itself
encroach into the front yard setback.
They actually encroach into the minimum
front yard setback, but the
prevailing setback for the porches is
actually less than what the minimum is
required. So again, I don't think you'll
see much change other than
um a peaked roof above the front
enclosed porch. You're going to see a
little deck with a hidden by a pent
roof. I thought the pent roof was nicely
done. So basically there are
two one variance minimum front yard
setback.
>> Thank you Mr. McLaren. Mr. Chairman Eric
Olstein on behalf of the applicant. So
>> Eric I don't want to interrupt you just
real quick. Uh just for the record her
Pagno he's on the 200 foot list. He's
recused himself.
>> So thank you Leo.
So we certainly um concur with Roger's
report. He's correct. What we have is an
existing structure where the first level
is not being expanded by way of its
footprint. It's just being transformed
into a three seasons room. It's not
habitable space. It's not going to be
used for anything other than a nicer
area for three seasons for the family um
uh to reside. We're not changing
anything regarding the step back, which
as Roger said, the average is less than
the minimum required. We're at actually
4.7 where the minimum required is five
but can't do anything about moving the
structure back. So we do need the
variance for that and it is an um
increasing the intensity of an existing
non-conforming use. Leah with me uh uh
Keith Peacock prepared the plans. um
sworn in briefly and just walk us
through. Uh Roger summary is probably
same exact summary Keith is going to
give, but I want to get the testimony on
the record of course and then if the
board has questions, we can walk through
any um issues, but it's basically the
exact house that you've seen, just
changing the front of it to be the three
seasons room with the deck of
Mr. Man.
>> Sure. Mr. Peacock, just give us your
name and business address, please, and
I'll swear you in. Yes, it's Keith
Peacock,
>> 10 Heather Lane, Hannesport, New Jersey
0836.
>> Okay. Please raise your right hand. You
swear affirm the testimony you'll give
this evening will be the truth.
>> I do.
>> You have a licensed architect in New
Jersey.
>> Correct. New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Maryland.
>> Appeared before boards before this kind
of stuff.
>> Wildwood, Camden, New Brunswick, Jersey
City. Yes.
>> We'd ask you to be accepted as an expert
in the field of architecture. Mr.
Chairman.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you. All right.
>> Thank you.
>> Keith, you designed the plan. We've
obviously gone through Roger's report
with the property owner. We agree with
Roger's comments there. Just walk us
through what you've done. Board has a
fairly long agenda tonight, so we don't
want to correct us. Put the positive and
negative criteria on the record.
>> Yeah. So, the as we pointed out, the the
house is existing and we have a front
porch area u that's enclosed now and the
plan is to improve that with new
windows. Uh, and then it had a a small
roof over that area previously and a
chimney. We're removing the chimney.
We're putting a flat uh roof on there so
we can uh glass glass that in and put a
deck on. So, it'll have a railing around
that. Uh, but the the setback is the
setback. We we're it's an existing
condition where the house has been
sitting for for some time. Um, and we're
just looking to uh make those
modifications to the interior as well as
uh change that front area to a an
outside roof.
>> No expansion of the footprint at all.
Correct.
>> That's correct.
>> No expansion of the intensity of the
use. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> Right. Still same.
>> Show the board.
So, uh
again, floor plan just uh showing u
changing out windows in the front. Uh
all some interior things that we're
doing to change around. Uh and then
where this had a roof before and a
chimney. We're taking that down and
we're putting a deck up on the
elevation also in the packet. Um, you
can see the the result at the end of the
day is have a flat sort of roof around
with the railing
where we used to have the the chimney up
the front previously.
>> Based on your design, based on the
review of the city of Mark the zoning
state of New Jersey municipal land use
act, do you see any negatives that could
be associated with this if the board
grants the approval?
>> Should be none. It's and I think it's in
line with the adjacent houses around
that also have outside decks. Uh, so
it's just it's in keeping with what's
going on with the short.
>> And to the extent someone could consider
this to be a negative, would the
benefits of what you've designed greatly
outweigh any such negatives?
>> Yes. I I don't see that there's really
any any negatives here at all. Just
>> can make a comment. Um,
>> I see one negative. Um, you have stones
in the front yard past the
past the uh property line and also down
the driveway. There's stones. There's no
grass there. Is there a plan to put
grass in? Uh Roger,
>> did you notice the stones there on
>> the landscaping side of things
>> in the front of the house?
>> I think they've been there probably
longer than you've been around, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> And they're permeable.
>> I thought we changed they make them do
>> well on that.
That's the front of the house and it's
in it's in the city strip, right? But
it's over
>> part of it is it's over it's in the
property line. the property line is
three feet over the um
all those stones and everything three
feet over the property line right in
front.
>> Is that a problem?
>> The nature of the project I mean if they
were
>> the project I like I like the deck and
the house next door has the same kind of
deck and they're they're out to the
street the same but the other houses on
the street have grass and not stone
there and
>> we didn't submit a landscape plan. We
didn't, you know, find the landscaping
to be an issue, but I don't know if
that's we're not changing anything with
the landscaping. So, um,
>> did anybody else notice that on the
board when you visited the properties?
>> It's like typically more substantial
than than this would probably trigger
that requirement.
That's my personal thought. say,
>> if they're like adding a third floor and
they're building a big addition in the
back and they they needed like five
bares, I think then you could probably
leverage
>> the additional landscaping, but you
know, you're going to make them put
grass in the front and they got to buy a
lawn mower or cut five feet of grass
>> all the way down the side. The whole
thing is stone,
>> right?
>> The whole propert
I have a question for Keith. Um
>> the the railing what are they about 4 in
thick?
>> Yeah, it's 4 in vinyl railing with
>> So the deck itself probably meets the
5ft set back
the actual usable deck
>> when you're standing there. Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Four 4 foot seven right for the deck.
>> Well, but usable space
>> usable space once once you're once
you're behind the railing itself.
>> It's at 4.7.
3/10 of a foot. It's about 4 in.
>> Yeah.
>> So, the usual deck.
>> Yeah. I have no problem with the deck
myself.
>> Okay.
Anyone else from the board?
>> Anyone from the public?
Okay. Public portion is closed.
All right. There's no other questions or
discussion. It's just 1 C variance.
That's for the front yard setback to the
deck.
requirements 8.4 ft and they're at 4.7
ft.
No specific additions, just the standard
ones will be put in every resolution.
Anything in Roger's report, any outside
approvals that may be required uh
subject to any representations made
during the course of the hearing, just
the standard ones. So, we'll need a
motion, a second, and a roll call vote
for that one variance.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second it.
Mike Richmond.
>> Yeah, I don't have a problem with this
at all. Um, as far as the stones go,
like um Roger said, and I agree, they've
been there. It It's a very small project
and um you know, for that little bit of
um stone, I don't have a problem with
that. As far as the driveway stones
concerned, we're
we're in we're in a a situation now
where we're allowing the um Again, in
the tire ship, you're allowed artificial
turf on stone or you're allowed pavers
on stone.
>> Right. Right.
>> The middle ship.
>> Yeah. So, so Right. And and again, the
stone is pvious. So, I'm going to
approve it.
>> Rich Patterson.
>> I don't see anything negative here. I
approve the application.
>> Craig Palmisano.
I I see the one negative, but um the
deck is equal to the other ones on the
street and it's a good good improvement
on the house itself, but now that the
stone stones are clarified for me, I'll
go that way. I approve.
>> Johanna Perski,
>> um I think it's a nice improvement
consistent with the aesthetic of the
neighborhood. So, I approve.
Steve Joaki.
>> Yeah, I had my doubts at first.
Um Oops,
>> you're on. You were on.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, I I had my doubts at first, but um
it will match the rest of the
neighborhood and it's preserving an old
house, which I think is beneficial. So,
I'll approve.
Sam Freeman.
>> Uh I think it's a tasteful uh
conservative uh in addition uh
increasing the usability of the house uh
and in keeping with the the shore uh
aesthetic of the neighborhood and I
approve.
>> John Pips.
>> We are not expanding the existing
footprint. Uh we've approved similar
projects here recently. So yeah, I
approve. Good luck. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Motion carries with seven in
favor and zero opposed.
>> Okay.
Our next case is 8509 Atlantic Avenue
LLC
uh block 113.02
lot 17 zone S25.
Minor subdivision approval to create two
lots of sea varants relief to allow
construction of a new single family
dwelling requiring front yard setback
relief along Atlantic Avenue. Current on
taxes, water, and sewer. Proof of notice
provided and the attorney is Eric
Goldstein.
I'll read off again. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, board members. The report is
based on the application of 8509
Atlantic Avenue LLC located at, believe
it or not, 8509 Atlantic Avenue,
lot 113.02,
lot 17 located in the S25 zoning
district. I do want to point out
something uh a little unusual with this.
The backyard, the the houses behind this
property, it's S40. So that's why they
can do the subdivision. And actually the
subdivision is by right. All the bulk
standards are being met. Lot width lot
area. However, I don't know if you
recall the house next door came in. The
front yard setback is where the pool is,
but they wanted to push the house back
at the time. We knew this was going to
happen. It's going to uh it's going to
make the frontier setback uh
>> funny for the next guy that comes along.
And here we are. So we could I could
approve this with the subcommittee as a
byite subdivision, but I suggested that
they bring it in all as one to approve
it as a as a subdivision and show I
think the subdivision helps show why
they need and can justify this variance
rather than just coming in and and
asking for that variance at later point
in time. So it's a hardship variance
based on the lot next door is causing
the hardship by the position in the
house. So, there's two variances. One
for the front yard set back to the
porch, Atlantic Avenue,
and uh the building on Atlantic Avenue.
And they're not proposing the porch
facing Atlantic Avenue, but the side of
the porch is in the front yard setback
that's facing Lancaster Avenue. Other
than that, all the
um requirements for the subdivision are
being met. Um Mr. Masser and his
surveyor done a nice job in providing
the waiverss requested. So the the board
would have to approve those waivers
and I see no reason why you couldn't
approve those waivers, but the testimony
that they need to put on is for the C1
and C2 criteria for the front yard
setback from Atlantic Avenue. I'll turn
over to Mr. Goldstein.
>> Uh thank you Mr. McLaren and Mr.
Chairman. Eric Goldstein on behalf of
the applicant. Um
so Roger's correct. What we have here is
the subdivision which is by right
property owner didn't want to build a
house similar to the one next door on
Mansfield which is very nice but it's a
different type of design. It's that very
very large that we're seeing now um
house which might be ultimately too
large for uh the area and instead uh
representative of the owner who's here
Mr. senseman thought it would be a
better idea to go in with two smaller
homes, subdivide the lot, and
unfortunately based upon the large house
next door, which has the pool in the
front yard and the fence in the front
yard, it skews the setbacks for the
first house that would be on the corner
of Atlantic and Lancaster. So, as Roger
indicated, you've got a buyight
subdivision. The one house on Lancaster,
which is not on the corner, needs no
variances. But the house on the corner
has the unfortunate result of your
ordinance, which bases the setback, even
if there's only one house, on that
house's setback. So, this house on the
corner would be set back much, much
further than it is proposed to be if we
followed the zoning code. With me
tonight, uh, Mr. Mr. Ramy Nasser is
going to testify uh in support of the
application and you all have in front of
you the layout as designed by uh Mr.
Nasser's office and Mr. Sensman. So Leo,
I'm going to ask if Ramik could get
sworn and then walk us through the plan
as to why this design is a better design
than just the one big house and what
we'd be faced with if Mr. Sman built the
house on the corner um with the setbacks
he's required to build. I think you all
have in front of you where that house
would line up if we don't get the
variances tonight. So,
>> okay. Yeah. Mr. Nasser, just give us
your name and business address. I'll
swear you in.
>> Ramy Nassar, 1425 Candlean Boulevard,
Maze Landing.
>> And please raise your right hand. You
swear affirm the testimony you'll give
this evening will be the truth.
>> Yes, I do.
>> I know you're a planner, engineer.
You've been
>> licensed planner been in front of this
board a few times, but majority like Aar
Township and Atlant County and Cape May.
>> Hi, Ron. talk us through the plan and
kind of Roger said about the
subdivision. We have the waiverss
requesting. We have a lot of
>> Do we need to go through the waivers?
Like
>> we can do that last in case the board
has questions, but I think let's focus
on
>> the subdivision itself and the layout of
the two lots.
>> We are looking in the S25. The existing
lot is 6,500 ft² and the S25 requires a
2500 square foot lot with 40ft
perimeter. The lots we're proposing,
they exceed that. 3250 foot lot with a
50-ft frontage. The lab on Lancaster as
Mr. Goldstein stated that doesn't need
any variances. It's fully compliant with
the front yard setback for the porch for
the structure sideyard setback or reard
setback coverage. So, it's a fully
compliant. The corner lot will have an
issue because the house next door on
Mansfield and Atlantic uh is set back at
35 34 uh 33.4 ft from the street. And
according to the ordinance, you look in
the block and you have to average the
front yard set back for the houses for
the porches. And there's only one house
and that house got the variance to be
pushed back and have the pole in the
front that caused the the requirement
for this variance. The front porch for
the other for the existing house is
25.4. So if you add all these setbacks,
you are left with almost nothing to
build on this lot. So this lot becomes
unbuildable because of the variances
that were granted to the house to push
it all the way from uh Atlantic Avenue.
>> So um we feel that it could be a C1 but
I'm looking at Go ahead.
>> Can I I mention one thing?
>> Yes sir.
>> When that house was developed next door.
>> Yes.
>> The requirement or a setback is the
setback you're asking for.
>> It was 8.1.
>> Yeah. 8.1.
>> Exactly. So now we're asking for Right.
>> So, currently the existing setback we
have on the house is 8.1 and the front
porch is 4.7, but we're not proposing
any front porches on Atlantic. So, the
side of the front porch that faces
Lancaster would have a front yard set
back because it's a corner lot uh of
8.1. So, we're requesting to have the
house and the porch set back to be 8 8.1
instead of the 33.4 and 25.4. So, that's
the variance we're we're seeking. Um it
could be a hardship variance or could be
a C2 variance. I mean I'm looking at
this uh I would rather look at as um not
a hardship variance because u if it
wasn't for the subdivision we wouldn't
have to be here. So I'm looking at as a
C2 variance and according to the
standard pursuant to NJSA uh 405D70-2
uh the board have the power to grant
these variances which we call them uh
benefit versus burden. We have to prove
that the deviation from the ordinances
benefits to the town. Uh you look at
this property, we have to look at the
municipal land use law and how what p
purposes are we advancing. The two
structures they will be built according
to the standard with the freeboard.
They'll be fully compliant with any
flood requirements for uh per FEMA
standards and uh the base flood
elevation and the freeboard that's
required. So that's basically we're
securing uh the safety from fire, flood,
panic and other natural and man-made
disaster. Uh the other one is to provide
light air and open space. When you look
at this house, the house is almost 90 ft
in width or 80 80 88 ft. So you really
have no view corridor. You just have one
structure from the side of the h
property almost to 8 pointt from uh the
street. by having two structures having
proper setbacks in between you create
kind of view card or you break the
monotony of the big structure. So I
think that's a benefit to ensure light
air and open space uh for the area. And
the last one I'm looking at is because
we comply with the density actually we
exceed the minimum lot area so that
we're promoting the establishment of
appropriate population densities and
concentrations. So I feel this is the
positive require criteria. We're meeting
those with this subdivision and allowing
the lot to be built on because you have
a a fully compliant lot with lot area,
lot width, but you cannot build because
you don't have the proper setback
because of the ordinances requirement.
>> And I'm just going to interrupt you here
for a second. If Mr. Sman and when they
went to build the house complied with
the setback, just show us on the line
there how far back it would be and how
narrow the house would be. I I would say
that a lot would be uh other than 12 ft
under 12.
>> So you'd have a very narrow box car kind
of a house if we complied with the
setbacks which is a quirk sometime of
the ordinance because we're bound by one
house which is specifically very far
back off Atlanta.
>> I think complying with the requirements
that'd be a terrible detriment to the
neighborhood. It would not be anything
positive be negative.
>> So this would be the kind of case where
if we complied with everything we're
required to do the end design would be
worse than the baron.
>> Oh definitely 100%. So that's how we
showed that the proof that the deviation
from the requirements is beneficial to
the the municipality. Uh negative
criterias I don't see any because we are
allowed to have two homes. We're
proposing two homes. We're not
increasing the densities or the making
the lot smaller. We're complying with a
lot area. So I don't see any negative
criteria to this. So I feel that the
requested release can be granted without
any substantial detriment to the public
good and will not substantially impair
the intent and purposes of the zone
planner zone. Yeah.
>> Thanks Romy. I try to do that tres
fasting. So,
>> Roger, the one thing I wanted to point
out because the houses and the designs
are in front of you. They're going to be
fully compliant. We're not coming back
for variances for the houses after the
fact, especially on the one on
Lancaster. They're going to have um
substantial improvement. There's not
going to be anything on the first level.
It's going to be your standard flood
compliant house where restrictive
covenant's going to be on. So the board
doesn't have to worry by granting this
that there'll be something else built
that doesn't otherwise comply. What's
built there other than the variance for
the setbacks on the corner house will
fully comply with Margates's ordinances.
So I know sometimes that can be an issue
that board might think we're going to
come back later and try to sneak
something else in. We're not. Mr.
Simpson wants to build two compliant
houses, but he can't build a compliant
house on the corner because of the
setback. So as far as the height and
everything else, they'll just be
completely compliant. We don't have
anything else unless the board has
questions and we certainly will answer.
But we think this is truly the case
where the variance and the uh coming in
for an application under the land use
law. It's a betterment to do it this way
than if we did it by right because
you're getting compliant homes that
actually fit in with the neighborhood.
So we would rest subject to answer any
questions. We have nothing else to put
on. So if this house was, say there was
five other properties that you would
base the front yard set back on, that
house is sitting away for that would be
thrown out of the equation. So here
you're stuck with it.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Right.
>> It's one of the quirks of this
ordinance.
>> All right. Anybody from the board?
>> Nope.
>> Anyone from the public?
Public portions closed.
>> Yeah. Uh just real quick with is Roger
as far as the submission waiverss.
I mean you you kind of outlined them in
your report. You're you're
>> Yeah, I included the the subdivision
checklist. And again, they're they're
not unusual. You know, we're not
developing a 20 acre parcel of land in
the woods. Um the map size
on
the plan itself, Mr. uh Nasser and
TransU
justify the waiverss on the top left
second paragraph down.
I agree with the with the requirements
particularly number six the checklist
item waiver from uh so and control
settlement plan they're going to get a
certification from them and they need
that to get a building permit anyway
no cinema or building permit and zoning
permit requirements anyway so they have
to go through another level to submit
the stuff anyway
>> yeah and they're really just submission
items but a lot of towns handle them
right up front to be heard
By virtue of hearing you, we're almost
saying they're
>> and we we're going to have to put in a
formal, of course, Mr. Man is a former
formal subdivision plan. So, you're
going to have another crack at this when
Romney's office prepares the plan in the
myar for Roger and and uh Mr. Richmond
to sign off on. You'll see what you
know, all the courses are going to be
set and the monuments will be set as
part of the subdivision. And Atlantic
and uh Lancaster are not county roads,
so we're not going to have to go to the
county. We'll get it past Margate and
then file it and then the lots will be
created.
>> Okay.
>> All right. There's no other questions.
The the relief being sought to the minor
subdivision to create the two lots and
then with respect to the one house,
the front yard set back along Atlantic
was proposed at 8.1 ft where you heard
the testimony based on this average. the
requirements 34 feet and for the same
house that the the the decks and porch
facing uh Lancaster
they're also at 20 at 8.1 ft and the
requirement is 25.4
ft based on that same calculation. So
those are the two C variances. The minor
subdivision
uh
approval will be included of that and
then the checklist items will say uh
they're listed in Mr. McLaren's report
and they'll they'll be granted to the
extent otherwise the applicant does not
or cannot comply with them.
>> And the conditions will just be the
standard ones. I mean I I don't know you
might have already done this but the tax
assessor signs the official lot numbers
and addresses. We've not done that yet,
but we'll get it over to Mr. Mangan as
soon as we're
>> he'll assign those. Um, anything else in
Mr. McLaren's report, unless otherwise
addressed, any representations made by
the applicant during the course of the
hearing and, you know, subject to any
outside approvals say you're not on a
county road. I guess they still
>> stamp it with an exempt or minor.
>> Um, and uh that's that's pretty much it.
And and yes, Palm 8, everyone can vote.
So, we'll need a motion and a second and
a roll call vote. I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second.
>> Mike Richmond.
>> Yeah. I see. I don't see any detriment
to the neighborhood. Um I definitely
think this is a hardship variance and
I'm going to approve it.
>> Rich Patterson.
>> Well, without a variance, they have a
12oot house, which is impossible. It It
makes no sense that I I see it as a
hardship, and I don't see any negatives.
I approve the application.
>> Craig Palmisano.
>> Yeah. You're you're matching the
existing house there now is 8 foot from
the property line and the amount of
grass between the sidewalk and the
property line is about 5 ft. So you have
like 13 ft of space from the sidewalk to
the house and you're matching the
existing house. And I'm I'm okay with
that. I have proof.
>> Johanna Perski.
Um, and I agree with what's been said.
Um, it seems certainly seems like a
hardship. I agree.
>> I agree with the other board members.
You know, you need the variance to build
the house. So, I agree.
Steve Joaki,
>> I think that we created a situation that
that made you have to come here.
But I I do hope that when you build
these houses that you use different
designs, may may take advantage of the
corner and and the side house because
what we see is when they divide a lot,
boom, boom. It's the same thing. They
take the blueprint. So, I have no choice
in this. I mean, I I have no say, but I
just sincerely hope that you do that to
keep Margate or help Margate improve its
design.
>> So, I approve. Thanks,
>> Sam Freriedman.
>> I would uh echo the the rest of the
board and uh approve as well,
>> John Pittz.
>> Uh I think it's a bit unfortunate that
this lot is being subdivided. There's
plenty of demand for oversized lots uh
especially in this area for the
municipality. Eric, I'm happy to hear
you say that there won't be any requests
for variances for the two new lots. As a
result, um the setback requirements
dictated by the adjacent property are
definitely uh restricted and
unreasonable.
Um I approve the variance. Thank you.
>> Motion carries. Eight in favor, zero.
>> All right.
Our next case is Daniel and Sally
Feldman, 4 South Argo Avenue, block
102.01,
lot 23, zone S25,
requests C variance relief for building
coverage and front yard setbacks to
allow construction of a second floor
addition.
>> Take a five minutes.
>> 5 minutes. Chris isn't here yet.
>> They call him I told him,
>> uh, we're gonna take like a five minute
break. Chris,
>> no, we're good.
>> Does he get the merits for that?
>> All right.
>> Daniel and Sally Feldman, 4 South Or
Avenue, block 102.01,
lot 23, zone S25.
C variance relief for building coverage
and front yard setback to allow
construction of a second floor addition.
Colonel and taxes order and sue approve
of notice provided. Attorney is
Christopher Balinsson.
Hard right.
>> Okay. Um thank you board chairman board
members. This case was uh supposed to be
heard in February but got pushed back to
March. So it's dated February 25th. The
application of Daniel Sally Feldman 4
South Argo Avenue block 102.01 lot 23
located in the S25 zoning district
and the applicant is seeking relief from
the ordinance of the city Margate in
order to construct a second floor
addition to a non-conforming setback to
on an existing single family dwelling.
The lot is prototypical S25 size. I mean
it's the actual dimensions are S25
dimensions and an older dwelling on it
with a second floor addition will
replace an existing deck with the living
space and increase non-conforming
building coverage. So
page two is the zoning chart highlighted
are the non-conforming
issues
plans reviewed. On page three documents
reviewed section three on page four the
variances identified and agreed upon the
sideyard setback to the building on the
right side whereas a minimum setback is
5T 4.4t exists and 4.4t square ft is
proposed. Building coverage whereas a
maximum permitted building coverage is
40% based on a sliding scale. 46% exist
and 52% is proposed.
Again the typical comments uh in this
area of the city is not uncommon to see
front yard setbacks and building
coverages be non-conforming. We have a
lot of smaller homes with modest
uh height buildings but they they're
they're wide and they cover a lot of
areas. So
again, my report is bas basically uh
complete at this time. Mr. Balinsson.
>> Thank you, Mr. McLaren. Members of the
board,
my name is Chris Balson. I represent
Felman's with respect to their house at
4 South Orgon Avenue. That's 25 zone.
It's perfect 25 lot 2500
by 6245. Um you saw the pictures. This
is a second story addition kind of
filling in a hole where now per started
off the front of the house. Um but
because of the existing occupy
guard will maintain that side as exist
currently
both the front yard also
carrying the inside
cover porch area
roof on that building coverage. Although
it's already impervious, the fact that
you're covering a low
raises the coverage a couple a few% in
this instance doesn't affect drainage
doesn't affect doesn't affect storm
water areas across
Peter Weiss didn't plan comment on the
exact nature of the addition and I can
just
Uh, Mr. Weiss, just give us your name
and business address, please.
>> Please raise your right hand. You swear
affirm the testimony you'll give this
evening will be the truth.
>> And we'll accept his credentials as an
architect, I assume.
>> Yes.
Peter, you did plan
for the board permit
and speak about
would you
back.
>> Um, so this is a 25 zone. The lot size
is minimal for that zone by 64 and a
half. existing house, an older house.
Um, it's only two stories and the first
floor is actually only a couple steps,
but the volume of the house is
relatively small.
There's a
port below which is really only one step
above three and that's covered by a deck
on the second floor which is currently I
guess.
So
what we propose to do is was basically
fill in um
the second floor deck and that will
enable us to enable us to extend the
master bedroom
out walking closet and sitting room. So
basically without having
to make it more
siding on the vertical board
than what's in that that front of the
house
on the second floor.
>> Well, yes.
Um what what it is actually you can't
really see it on the on the plants is
actually a void on the second floor down
>> comes it comes across the entire that's
about 168 ft total from that ceiling
plant it doesn't extend any further into
the non-forming side setback than
currently the setback is currently
for the record on that requires
the coverage very we cover.
>> Yeah, everybody's coverage doesn't
change because it's exactly now, but we
are expanding the buildings. That's
building coverage. Um, but as Roger
pointed out, this part of the city, you
know, tends to be small lots with, you
know, 50% coverage is pretty much so
unusual out of character.
Obviously, the benefit of a plan like
this is that it maintains the existing
character of the neighborhood and by
leaving that house there and the
expansion that that the homeowners need
to build new house and aesthetically I
assume we're going to open
the neighborhood
zone.
Okay. Um, anyone from the board have any
questions?
>> No.
Anyone from the public?
Okay. Public portion is closed.
>> All right. It's another C variance
application. There's two C variances to
the sideyard setback on the right side.
Five is the requirement, five feet and
the proposal is 4.4 feet. And then
building coverage, they're at 52% where
40% is the permitted maximum.
And as far as the conditions, again,
just the standard ones, anything in
Roger's report, unless otherwise
addressed, any representations made by
the applicant, any outside approvals
that might be necessary.
Pretty much it. Motion and a second and
a roll call.
>> Motion.
>> Second.
>> Mike Richmond.
Um,
>> I did notice, Craig, that they're taking
out the uh concrete in the governor's
strip and putting grass in.
>> The other house was not in the
>> Yeah. I I I'm just saying they're
they're Yeah. Unlike the other Yeah.
Okay.
>> And I think the planter might be a
little bigger too than what's there now.
Is that correct?
>> Or a little better done. Let's put
>> like a masonry.
>> Right. Right. You're getting rid of
that.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Good. Anyway, uh yeah, this
I have no problem with this. I'm going
to approve it.
>> Rich Patterson
>> again, as in the other cases, I I don't
see any negative here. Uh
you
it's covering an area that's already the
the extension is covering an area that's
already covered. It's the technicality
that now becomes part of the house. So,
I don't see a problem with this. I
approve.
>> Craig Palmisano.
>> Yes. So, I think it's a big improvement
for the homeowners to have a bigger
master bedroom. And um it's only a
three-bedroom house now. And the porches
are closed on the corners on the house
next door. The upstairs are closed
completely. And they're all out as far
as that one is on the front anyway. And
um the awning upstairs now is just going
to be replaced by a a hard roof. And um
they're updating the project and the
trees are added and the governor strip
on this property. They're added and I
approve.
>> Johanna Perski.
>> Um it's consistent with the character of
the neighborhood. I approve it.
purpose now. Was she done?
>> Was she done? Sorry.
>> I agree with the board members. It's a
nice improvement. Nice to see these
older houses stay in existence in this
town.
>> I approve.
>> Steve Joaki.
>> Um yeah, I'm going to um side with the
other the others and uh I'll approve.
>> Sam Freriedman.
I was concerned about the the lot
coverage. Uh and I'd like to highlight
the technicality that although the
percentage of building coverage is in
fact growing by numbers on the sheet,
the existing structure is over
overhanged uh and and is is still
impervious land. So we're not losing any
impervious land based on this addition.
Uh and for that reason, I would agree
and and I vote for this improvement.
John Pittz.
>> Uh, I approve.
>> Motion carries. Eight in favor, zero
opposed.
>> All righty.
Our next case is Jay and Lorie
Weinstein, 39 Bayside Court, block
710.04,
lot 3, zone S40. Request C variant
relief for rear yard setback to allow
extension of the covered rear decks with
a fixed roof above.
Current on taxes, water and sewer proof
of notice provided. Attorney Christopher
Balance.
All right.
>> Yep.
Thank you, board chairman, board
members.
I think I remember having discussions
about this project like at least five
six years ago. Here we are. Application
of Jay and Lori Weinstein 39 Bayside
Court block 710.04 lot 3 located in S40
zoning district. Again, as Mr. Richmond
pointed out, the applicant is seeking
relief in order to extend and expand an
existing first floor rear yard deck and
expand a roof that meeting the sideyard
setbacks. Uh it's a substantial benefit
variance deemed complete.
The zoning chart on page two highlights
the areas that are need attention and
discussion and testimony. Page four of
the documents reviewed the plans
reviewed and the variances required in
section three sideyard setback to the
deck minimum where it says minimum
sideyard setback is 8 ft and 7.9 ft. You
almost hate getting this in there but
it's a variance. 7.9 ft is proposed.
Sideyard setback to decks combined
whereas a minimum combined sideyard
setback is 18.5 ft. That's based on the
total width of a lot. 17.7 ft exists and
17.7 ft is proposed for the addition.
Again, it's an expansion of a
non-conforming setback. Rear yard
setback for decks over 18 in from grade
whereas a minimum rear yard setback is
23.6
based on 20% of the lot depth. And of
course the lot depth varies on this lot.
18 ft exists and 15 ft is proposed to
the addition. So they are the three
variants of being salt. Lot coverage
does not change because the deck is
covering where
the sheds where they're like a
>> open from the top kind of drop down
sheds were attached to the building. So
that's not changing at all. And I think
I like I said when I met with the
applicant about five years ago I said
you need a varance for this and here we
are. So Chris go ahead.
>> Thank you Mr. My name is Chris Bson for
Jan Ste who are here for 39,000
really really simple application
existing over here
down here you guys probably saw
that that is back out
um eliminating those storage beds. We
take up that 3 ft with some additional
give them the ability like a full size
dining table outside. We're going to
replace what was a table with a hard
heart there. That's going to be very f
it's not the whole back deck just
that necessitates like a one/10enth of a
foot side guard. uh and three three foot
further encroachment into the rear yard.
Currently, it's 18 feet. It reduces to
15 feet which is still fairly
substantial rear yard setback
in town. Those are the variances. It's 3
ft extension of the deck which gives
them more outside living space because
we use the backyard a little better. Uh
and a tenth of a foot into the sideyard.
Gary famous Gary Benic is the architect
of the job. want to explain
I just highlight
>> sure uh
>> yeah Mr. Mednick just give us your name
and business address address and I'll
swear you in
>> Jerry Medic 559 road
>> please raise your right hand you swear
from the testimony you'll give this
evening will be the truth
>> yes
>> and Chris since he's famous I assume his
qualifications are acceptable
You've been before this before in many
years.
>> The outbound property and what you guys
do.
>> Well, effectively we're taking this much
explain it. So they regurgitated but
we're basically turning the awnings into
a criminal as opposed to was them where
there were these storage units in the
front were basically
instead of being detected at the point
in my opinion we're not really you know
we're really not taking up too much
coverage here not adding it. The thing
is is that above all we're not adding
any uh square footage to the house.
We're just dealing with the decks. And
more importantly, what's the most
important thing is that the deck itself
is going to be going from a the deck on
the first level be going from a
fiberglass deck to a wooden deck with
spacing allowing the area become pvious
as opposed to deck that's impervious.
Now,
>> the entire deck right now is is
impervious. the entire deck
>> that's coming up in place
and we'll allow
them pretty quick in the deck. That's
the only in the area where there
currently are storage bins at the front
of that currently at the front of the
deck.
>> That's right. You can see the storage
bins here
to out those obviously hard surface
more.
>> That's correct. In fact, it will train
better when you change the composition
of that surface real
setback just existing setback
in the setback. So it goes from 15 ft 18
ft where there's currently about I think
>> correct. Tell us if you think from an
aesthetic standpoint, from a usability
standpoint
is that the public good
obviously enhance the look of the
backyard.
This is
>> and the new executive surface obviously
promotes drainage and percolation which
is also benefit to city town.
>> Yes, it does.
>> Anything else you would like to add?
>> Uh no, thank you.
I
>> I do want to point out that there is a
15 foot wide public right ofway in the
backyard also that's unimproved. So
you're not encroaching,
>> you should maintain,
>> right? You're not encroaching that into
your neighbor's backyard,
>> right?
>> This deck is avenue, which doesn't
extend the size of of the current house.
What are you really going to see if
>> right?
Thank you very much,
>> Chris. What what's the siding on this
house?
>> Stuff stuckco. And do you have you plan
on putting stuckco on the bottom of the
deck? You want to take the storage units
out and you want to continue that
stuckco around and then just
>> we're basically
>> you just what what
>> changing materials.
>> Yeah. Okay. But but what you're doing is
you're taking that triangle. You're
squaring off the triangle
to increase the length of the deck.
Yeah.
>> Yes.
And is there access to underneath here?
>> Access.
>> You got like an Are you going to do any
storage down there or something? You
know, you got your storage bins. I'm
just curious where that storage is going
to go.
>> You're going to find storage underneath.
>> No, I have no
high.
>> It's not high enough and it's going to
be uh pvious. I mean, you're going to
have the spaces here. So, you know, I
mean, maybe besides a surfboard, you're
not access,
>> right? Yeah, I get I get that point. But
I'm just curious what what's being
stored down here because I know that
sometimes people will be taking the
beach chairs down there that can get
wet, you know, just just to keep things
out.
Would you have a problem with that?
>> The garage that's part of the house.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> Storage would be
>> all right. So, okay. So, it's going to
be sealed off.
>> So, Chris, those storage units in front
of the deck now are permanent fixtures
there. We're on a hard surface is really
the point of coverage, but yeah, they
they are um
>> and we're just coming out bringing the
deck out to those points on the front of
that deck.
>> It's like almost
Roger.
>> Roger. Can I just get a point of
clarification? So, because they're not
enclosing any spaces here, there's no
increase in the building coverage as it
relates to like the previous case.
>> Yeah. There's no walls,
>> right? If they were enclosing any of
those spaces, then the building coverage
would correct because you have increased
space. Thank you.
>> Yeah. And but but you're allowing water
to come through
>> right now.
>> Make it purvious.
>> Okay. Anybody else from the board? Nope.
Anyone from the public like to speak?
Public portion is closed.
>> All right.
This is a C variance application.
There's three variances. I'll summarize
them.
They are as follows. The sideyard
setback to the deck
8 ft's the requirement. It's at 7.9 ft.
So just a small deviation there. Then
the that also requires the combined
sideyard setbacks 18.5 ft is the
requirement and they have 17.7 ft. And
then the rear deck is
above 18 in in grade. So the required
rear yard setback is 23.6 6 ft and
they're bringing it out to 15 ft from
18. And the conditions again, standard
ones, uh, anything in Mr. McLaren's
report, any outside approvals that may
be necessary, any representations made
by the applicant. Again, just the
standard stuff. So, need a motion and a
second, and then a roll call.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Second.
>> Mike Richmond.
Yeah, I don't see any detriment to the
neighborhood. In fact, uh like Mr.
Menick was saying, um getting rid of the
uh fiberglass and uh building a wood
deck with the um AAC whatever slats in
it I think improves the um impervious
situation and I'm going to approve it.
Bridge Patterson.
>> Uh I'll approve for the same reasons
>> Craig Palmisano.
>> Yes. Um you putting you're taking soft
roofs off and you're making a fixed
roofs which is fine. Um there's no
negative to the neighbors.
um this huge easement behind you and um
you're going to have great views there
and um I approve
>> Johanna Perski.
It's definitely an improvement taking it
from impervious coverage to pvious. So
for that reason I'll approve
her Pagna.
>> I agree with the other board members and
do your outdoor space. So I approve
>> Steve Joki.
>> Yeah, I think Mr. Richmond uh gave my um
concerns. Yeah,
>> I approve.
>> Excuse me,
>> Sam Freriedman.
>> I agree with the uh board's uh existing
comments for the record and would like
to also say if it's going to be imper uh
impervious permeable coverage, that's an
overall benefit to the to the uh plot. I
approve.
>> John Pitz.
>> Nothing to add. I approve.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Motion carries. Eight in favor, zero.
>> Okay.
Our next case is John and Jamie Duke,
102 North Gladstone Avenue, block 308,
lot 24, zone S25.
See variance relief for sideyard setback
to allow construction of a second floor
porch and to increase the height of a
second floor bathroom ceiling. Current
taxes and sewer app proof of notice
provided attorneys Christopher Balson.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, board members.
The report is based on the application.
This this also was carried from last
month to this month.
Application of John and Jamie Duke 102
North Gladstone Avenue block 308 block
24 location S25 zoning district.
The applicant is seeking relief in order
to construct a second floor porch or
deck along adding additional ceiling
height to an already non-conforming
setback to an existing single family
home. The lot is undersized which does
not meet the minimum lot width nor does
it meet the minimum lot area.
This is the classical C1 case. Hardship
with subarances being sought. Page two
is a zoning chart with the highlighted
areas showing the deficiencies,
the expansion and non-conformities.
Continue on page three also the plans
reviewed
and page four the documents reviewed
and section three the variances required
which are as follows. sideyard set back
to the roof, whereas a minimum sideyard
set back to the roof is 5T and the
altered roof is proposed to be 2.6 ft.
Sideyard setback to the porch on the
left, whereas a minimum set back to the
porch or deck is 5 ft and 3.8 ft is
proposed.
Sideyard setback, the third variance is
a sideyard setback to the porch on the
right side, whereas a minimum setback
for the porch is 5 feet and three feet
is proposed. And finally, the sideyard
setback to the porch combined, same as
the building, whereas the minimum
combined setback for the porch and deck
is 10 feet and 6.8 ft is proposed.
Um, some general comments, a lot area
and width do not meet the requirements.
Again, you have another situation where
you have a an existing home or a smaller
lot. It just doesn't meet everything,
but it's this one. It sits back.
It sits all the way back in the lot.
Imagine the uh average front yard
setbacks for this property. Um
so I will turn it over to Mr. Balson on
this
balance. I represent
another unique property that they own
which is a lot that's 20 ft wide. It has
an existing home
built virtually at grade which is
probably that weird
when they bought it. I understand
that they're putting the house back into
the hammer status fixed up a little bit
entirely but the only request for
um
the plan
tell you about
it.
>> Okay.
>> Mr. Be just your name and business
address, please.
>> And please raise your right hand. You
swear affirm the testimony you'll give
will be the truth.
>> Yes, sir.
>> An architect and planner. You were here
recently. We'll accept his credentials.
>> Yes.
>> Andrew, you were very glad you're
reported.
>> Yes. So what's there two?
There's a bathroom that's on the south
wall, southeast side of the building.
That bathroom again the size of the
building, excuse me, the footprint in
the building is not changing from
simply
the ceiling height and back. The back
wall of the bathroom's 4.8 in tall, but
it literally goes through
like this. So, we're expanding that to a
whopping 7 foot like one inch. So, we're
getting two and change feet here. Um,
and we're only adding about a foot of
height to the entire structure. So,
we're going 1 foot. We're maintaining a
5 on 12 pitch. And then on the front, we
believe we're adding some serious
aesthetic benefits to the home by adding
this front porch. It's approximately a
10 by3 front porch. Uh from an
impervious perspective, I think we're
raising the impervious coverage by about
seven square feet because most of the
porch is being built over uh per
impervious spacing. Um we're not
touching any of the landscaping. There's
relatively very mature tree on that
eastern property line bushes that also
very mature on that property line. Not
touching those. We're simply adding a
front porch for aesthetic benefit. It's
also the master bedroom. Um, so it also
will provide another means of escape and
also we can complete the looks of the
home. It'll show a five on 12 pitch on
the front of the house. Whereas
currently it's kind of this red box
looking thing in the front. Uh we
believe it's a aesthetic benefit that is
good for the city. It's good for
lighting an open space because again
we're adding a foot to the building and
we're adding this very attractive front
porch onto the building we believe. Um
and again not increasing the footprint
which is approximately 517 square feet.
size two.
>> In fact, you're tucking the front porch
and front deck. You're tucking that in
from the existing side also.
>> We are we are bringing them in on either
side. Um you know, again, it's kind of
proportionate to the width of the lot.
This is 15 ft less and we're only asking
for a little bit less than two feet on
either side for the setback for the for
the pool.
>> You say that because the fact doesn't
require
>> correct. Correct. Again, we have no
available land to purchase. So, we're
stuck with what we have. And again,
these are modest
revisions to the home, which will be a
huge benefit not only to the to the city
aesthetically, but also to my clients
who can get just a little bit more
breathing room in that bathroom and have
a little something nice out in the front
for them to to enjoy. Again, they're
excessively far back. Plenty of parking.
Two off street parking spaces. Again,
it's a twobedroom, one and a half bath
home. about as
>> if anything can deact.
>> Correct. And again, that's also
important for light air in space. I
mean, if they were to decide to tear
this down and try to build something
bigger and compliant, it would be much
more excessive. It be taller and do all
these other things. This is kind of
being nice to the neighbors and we
believe this is a benefit.
>> Madison, you have the number existing
combined side effect. It's 4.92 the
house. Um the second improvements in the
project side back 6.8
It's almost in terms of premium for it's
almost 2 and 12,
>> right?
>> Um
with respect to the hardship
factory, do you see any detent?
>> I do not. Again, it's a single family in
a single family zone. It's an undersized
lot, but it's about as again it's a
modest home.
not plan on doing tweaking believe and
adding something beautiful on the front.
>> Correct.
>> You could have um brought the house
forward more, right?
>> They could added to the front.
>> Yes.
>> And then a porch go on top of that, too.
>> Yes.
>> Right.
That's the middle.
>> All right. Anyone from the board?
>> No.
Okay. Anyone from the public?
>> Yeah. Interesting. Uh small sign public
portions closed.
>> Just some zoning trivia.
If you use the standard for the combined
side, you're a setback. The combined
side you're a setback is actually less
than a minimum you're a setback. That
that lot is so narrow.
>> Yeah. Very funny stuff.
>> Small small smallest line. Um, all
right. So, if there's nothing else, it's
a C variance application. I'll uh
summarize the variances. There's the
sideyard setback to the to the roof over
the bathroom.
5 ft's the requirement. It's at 2.6 ft.
And then there's the sideyard set back
to the porch on the left side, 3.8 ft,
where 5T's the requirement. And then on
the right side for the porch, 3 ft or
5T's the requirement. And then the
combined sideyard set back to the porch
is 6.8 ft or 10 ft is the requirement.
And again, standard conditions, anything
Mr. McLaren's report, unless addressed,
otherwise otherwise addressed, any
representations made by the applicant
subject any outside approvals that might
be required for for this home.
Just the standard ones we put in every
resolution. So, we'll need a motion, a
second, and a roll call.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Second
Richmond.
>> Yeah, I had a hard time finding this
house,
>> which isn't unusual, but
uh yeah, this is so minor. I I mean,
it's so far back. You
anything that I'm front will be an
improvement, you know. Uh 5 foot high
bathroom ceiling. Yeah. Anyway, I see no
uh issues with it. I'm going to approve
it.
>> Rich Patterson.
>> Well, you got a crummy looking little
house that you're going to fix up the
whole front of it.
>> It
Well, it's not going to be crummy
looking when they're done with it.
Um it sits so far back from the street,
nobody can see it anyway. But you're
making nice improvement and it makes
sense to do what you're doing to the
bathroom. I approve.
>> Greg Palm.
>> Well, I've been here 12 or 13 years and
I've never seen a 20ft lot in Margate.
Uh it's going to look like some of the
new 25 foot lot houses that we're
building now. So, it's a big
improvement. Um there's only 1 foot nine
on one side of the house which is pretty
small but um it's going to it's a big
big improvement for the property and I
approve
>> Johanna Perski.
>> Um so I drive by this house every day
and I think it's adorable. Um I was very
excited to see that someone bought it
and was going to continue using it as a
single home. I appreciate the small
improvements. I think this house is one
of the few remaining unique homes in
Margate that give it its character. I
approve that.
>> Heragno.
>> Well, excuse me.
>> I agree with the other members. You
know, great character, nice modest
improvements, and uh it'll be uh it'll
be improvement for the block if we can
see it.
Steve Joaki.
>> I I got I like this house. This house
reminds me of old time Margate back in
the 60s, doesn't it?
>> Yeah. Really? I mean, a lot of houses
just look like this. And I think this is
such a substantial improvement. Like I
can't not say no on this. This is uh
it's it's a good improvement and it's
very substantial for Margie. So, I'll
approve on that. hand.
>> Sam Freriedman,
>> I agree with the rest of the board and
echo their uh their sentiments. I I
approve.
>> John Fitz.
>> Uh yes, several members have said we've
got a few of these extremely narrow lots
in Margate. Um the proposed
modifications don't expand the existing
nonconformities
while improving the property. I approve.
>> Motion carries. Eight in favor and zero.
>> All right. All right. Our last case of
the night,
Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg, 115
South Lancaster Avenue, Lock 12, lot 8,
zone S30.
C variance relief for deck elevation to
allow expansion of an approved pool
deck. Current taxes would ensure proof
of notice provided. Attorneys
Christopher Bellson.
>> Okay.
>> I lead us off. Uh,
>> thank Mr. Chairman, board members, the
report is based on the application of
Jeff and Michelle Greenberg,
115 South Lancaster Avenue, block 12,
lot 8, located S30 zoning district.
This house came before us before uh
believe in 2025
and it's also partially within the
coastal way zone. So what they want to
do is they have approval for
the elevated pool deck on the beach and
they just want to fill in a little side
area. I think I color coded it. The
little red area is the varants. It's
maybe
12 by six field of deck.
So it's basically it's a variance of the
expansion of the variance because you
need that variance for additional
height. The setback that's in the front
yard setback
along Lancaster Avenue actually complies
with the ordinance for the setbacks to
the front yard porch.
So the variants is a
beachfront deck height. The maximum
permitted deck height on the beach is BF
plus 20 in which is elevation 12.67.
And they're seeking to expand that deck
at elevation 17 as shown on the plans.
And that's pretty much it.
>> Thank you. This is um my name is Chris
from the Green Bird um 115 South
Lancaster Avenue on the beachfront. This
is a fill in of an area that should have
been done when we came to ask for this
deck initially. It's a small corner as
Roger said it's small corner Lancaster
Avenue side. It meets the front yard set
back on Lancaster. The sideyard variance
that Roger points out is is the
beachfront. Um the deck is there now at
the beachfront. It's just a section that
was an oversight not to do it then and
they're asking to do it now. It's the
same variance that was granted
previously.
It's really it's for the elevation of
the deck. The height of the deck is for
for whatever reason the ordinance says
you're allowed to go 18 in above base
flood which would be uh down close to
the ground and you fall behind the
bulkhead if you did that. But John
Barnhart's here so John can talk too.
>> What I say is not evidence. What I say
is just taking up your time.
>> John, just uh your name and business
address please. John Barnhard, office
address 400 North Dover Avenue, Atlantic
City.
>> And please raise your right hand. Do you
swear from the testimony you'll give
this evening will be the truth?
>> I do.
>> All right. Thank you. And the variance
what's what's happening with respect to
>> addition.
>> Sure. Um so um quite simply the the
exhibit that Roger has in his report
really kind of tells the story. Um but
the as as
of the single family home
that was um that was elevated
to have it flow out from the home. That
was that was um that was approved a
number of months ago. And the proposal
this evening is to take that deck area
and extend it toward Lancaster Avenue.
um still still beyond the front yard
setback requirement, but the the and the
the uh hatched area that you see before
the little orange uh space that I have
shaded is actually permitted and and is
allowed to be there. U but when you keep
extending that expanded area and get
beyond the setback line um because of
its height p the decks in the in the
going up to the bulkhead need to be
lower. So therefore that little area
actually creates a variance. I mean, you
could look at it as sideways expansion
of the front porch, but because it's
beachfront at the at an elevation, it's
considered the pool deck or the the deck
pool deck.
>> That's correct. Yeah. And, you know,
it's a case of, you know, it's extending
decks toward Lancaster Avenue. I mean,
the key issue is, you know, obviously
blockage of air light and open space,
but you actually have front porches.
Everything is up at that elevation that,
you know, portions of that front porch
are yet out even further than this
proposed expanded area. So, as you're
looking down Lancaster Avenue, if you
were a person walking down the sidewalk,
you're not even going to see this
expansion until you get right up.
>> It's actually behind
>> it's behind it's behind the front the
line of the front porch. This even
though this is expanding out, the front
porch comes out even further and then
this even the expanded deck actually
jumps back a
>> testing for the variance as a result of
the elevation of even off the ground.
>> That's correct.
>> And that's where the rest of the first
floor and the deck are of the house.
That is correct.
>> Firstly, you built.
>> Yes. And back at that time when we were
talking about elevations and floors
having to go up and we it was a lot of
speculation as to whether or not the
rules were going to be in place. Well,
the DP rules are in place
>> and building coverage still meets the
requirement. Landscape meets the
requirement and there's nothing else
that's that deviates from the ordinance
as resulting this.
>> Yeah, we believe that's the that's the
only deviation and as Chris mentioned um
had the designer realized this at the
time uh it probably would have been part
of the original application.
>> The fact it's behind the which is any
detriment to it to the public or to the
zoning ordinance or zone plan? No, I do
not believe there's a block of parlay in
open space. Um I I believe that um you
know, it's just another aesthetic
improvement to the site. Obviously, it's
for the benefit of our of our client,
but um it'll continue to beautify this
magnificent property with no negative
impacts.
>> Thank you.
>> Good. Anyone from the board?
>> Uh just a quick question. Point of
reference doesn't apply to the variance
request for sign. Is there a new
bulkhead going in there?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay.
All righty. Um, anybody else? Anyone
from the public?
>> Yeah. Public portion is closed.
Uh, similarly to the original approval,
this is in the coastal way zone. So, it
can't be attached to the house. It has
to be separate.
>> Say it again. Right.
>> The This is in the coastal way zone. You
see that line? It's going through that
in the shaded area on the left.
So
the female requirements are everything
in in a coastal way goes to the bottom
of that uh
height requirement. So that higher the
deck it gets it out of harm's way and I
think that was part of their testimony
earlier. So this is just an expansion of
what that prior testimony was.
>> But the deck's not attached to the
house.
>> Well, the whole house has to be have
breakaway walls.
>> Yeah. John tell John tells me that the
the elevation now is consistent as we
ask for is consistent with the new
>> Roger I have a question. Um when when
you when we first approved that deck to
be higher that was and I think you said
that to avoid stepping down when you
left the house so you're at even levels.
Right.
>> Right.
>> That was part of it. Yes.
>> It's also the bulkhead height.
>> Yeah. And the first floor height of the
house.
Yeah,
>> Steve. Steve, you had to step down. You
stepped down like four or five steps to
conform to the
>> Yeah. Yeah. The the genesis of the
original ordinance allowing 20 in above
BF was so they would have a 4 in step
down from your first floor since the
houses are up higher now,
>> right?
>> They they want that same luxury. I don't
understand why it couldn't have been
higher before
>> because I think it only makes sense that
it should be level with the house
>> when we first came in
>> but before it would have had to have
been stepped down so we had to have a
variance to raise it.
>> Correct.
>> Yes.
>> When we first came in Steve we asked for
extra extra
>> Yeah, I got that. I I just but I just
couldn't understand why
>> the law or the ordinance is
>> you could correct me if I'm wrong, but
like Roger was saying a while ago the
the be we weren't making houses go as
high. So a lot of these houses being
built on the beach, you could do what we
just talked about, step down maybe one
step or maybe, you know, come out the
door. But now at the houses, we we kept
that ordinance, which you know, that's
something
there's a couple things that happened
tonight that maybe when we talk about
the master plan, we're going to talk
about revisiting. And I think this would
definitely be one of them because, you
know, we don't want the house is like
being high and looking down the beach,
but now every house is high.
>> So it's
>> we kind of outgrew that that philosophy,
right?
>> What I envision happening and here we
are. We're getting a discussion. we
should be voting first. But however,
>> um we're looking at maybe this type of
deck would be allowed to be at this
elevation of the whatever that first
floor elevation is,
>> right?
>> Within limits. We don't want big giant
aircraft, you know, helicopter landing
spots and all that.
>> That's going to be just for each part.
>> No, it's let's get on those roads.
>> Yeah, we have to
>> Yeah, we'll talk about that later. All
right. Um All right, we're good. Yeah,
it's just the it's the one variance for
that to fill in that deck height on the
>> it's allowed to be elevation 12.67 67
and they're at elevation 17 and just the
uh typical standard conditions of the
>> sideard. Right?
>> The technical sideyard bulkhead,
>> right?
>> The be the beach side
>> by definition that's the sideyard.
>> It's the sideyard, but it's not a
sideyard setback bearings. Right.
>> It's not a setback bearings.
>> It's allowed to be out of the bulkhead.
>> It's allowed to be out to the bulkhead
if it's a lower back. Right. Correct.
Okay.
>> Take it back.
>> Yes. That's just for that elevation to
the bulkhead.
So that's it in standard conditions.
Just a motion, a second, and a roll call
vote.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Second.
>> Mike Richmond.
>> Yeah, it makes total sense. It's very
dimminimous. And um I'm going to approve
it.
>> Rich Patterson.
>> Those were my words exactly. It makes
sense to bring it up to the level of the
whole deck. I approve.
>> Right. Paul Misano.
>> I agree. I have no problem with it. I
approve.
>> Johanna Perski,
uh, I agree and don't have any other
comments.
>> Approve.
>> Her Pagna,
>> I approve.
>> Steve Joki,
>> I approve.
>> Sam Freriedman,
>> I approve.
>> John Pittz.
>> Uh, as the debt plate variance was
approved previously, I approve.
>> Motion carries. Eight in favor.
>> Thank you. I love it.
>> We have any other business?
>> We got uh
You're
>> welcome.
>> We have a little
>> some other business.
The
master plan subcommittee reviewed the
proposal for the master plan for
consultants. It was what 20 275 or
something like that.
and uh
>> we're conducting business.
>> The uh
>> subcommittee recommends to the planning
board that we hire Mr. Retala to start
on the master plan. I we can then
therefore recommended a governing body
to enter into a contract with Mr. Retala
and we get started.
We need to vote on it or
>> I would we just re
>> All in favor?
>> Anybody opposed?
>> All right.
>> My recommendation that we go that route
and get it done.
>> So we recommended the governing body to
that that we retain or hire Jim for
>> Dallas. I reached out to the mayor. He's
fine with it. Is that the whole cost of
the master plan? It's it's just a
reexam. Yeah. Well, I was surprised. I
thought it'd be a lot more.
>> So did I. I think it's right. Again, the
the prior master plan
>> was through state grants and FEMA grants
after Sandy
and they make you do a lot of things to
spend a lot of money because they're
giving you a lot of money to do it and
that's why it took a lot longer and
there's more to it and and I think we're
going to see some pretty important
things in this master plan that uh it's
going to be really good stuff. Again,
the master plan is your game plan for
what you want to do on the football
game. The ordinances is the actual
playbook.
>> So, we need this to get the playbook.
>> Yeah, I think just for the record, can
someone just make a motion to recommend
to the governing body
>> that we hire Jella for the master plan
and then someone a second and then an
all in favor would be fine.
>> I'll make that motion we hire Jella.
All in favor? I
>> Anyone opposed?
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> That's it.
>> That's That's all I have.
>> By the way, we uh had six beanies in
under two hours or was it No, wait.
Wait, an hour and a half.
>> Hour and a half.
>> Cases.
>> Sorry.
>> Six cases.
>> So,
>> you want the case back?
>> Motion to close.
>> I'll make a motion.
>> Motion to adjurnn.
Second. All
>> in favor? All right.
You want the