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

Please stand for the flag salute.
Pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> Roll call, please.
Michael Richmond,
Rich Patterson
>> here,
>> John Pit
>> here,
>> Dan Adams
>> here,
>> Craig Palmisano,
Rich Pollson
>> here,
>> Johanna Perski, Herb Zagno,
>> Steven Jeki
>> here,
>> Drew Campbell, Sam Freriedman, Patty
Rosenberg
>> here.
This meeting is being held in accordance
with 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, Palma, to sign a form
outlining the process for obtaining any
required building permits and/or
mercantile 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.
Also, the microphones aren't working
tonight, so if you're speaking,
speak up.
>> Like to hear a motion for the approval
of minutes for the meeting of January
29th, 2026.
>> Motion. Second.
>> All in favor?
>> I.
against. Motion passes.
I'd like to hear a motion for the
approval of resolutions and decisions.
06 2026 V2 Properties Entity 7 LLC
07 2026
Charles Charles Charles and Ireina
Erlick
8 2026 Samuel and Jamie Adler 9 2026
Scottstock
10 2026 Gem Hospitality Inc. and 11 2026
Down Beach Development LLC.
>> I'll make that motion. Second.
>> All in favor? I
>> opposed. Motion passes.
We're now going to hear from Jim Rutella
from Rutella Associates.
>> And and Jim, just before you start, I
might as well make the announcements on
the postponements in case anyone's here
for those. And and also on the
resolutions, just to to the board's
aware, number 11, 2026, Down Beach
Development Group, Down Beach
Development LLC, that was a a sub a
minor subdivision. By law and by our
ordinance, we have a minor subdivision
committee that can approve those without
a hearing and discussing it with Roger.
It doesn't happen often, but when it
does, you know, Roger and I felt that we
should do a short resolution
>> so the full board should at least aware
of it. So, that's what that one is. And
then um on the agenda, we had four
applications initially, but three of
them are actually being postponed. So I
don't want everyone to have to sit here
for for nothing. So the following
applications, which were scheduled for
tonight, will now be scheduled for our
next meeting, which is March
26th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in this room.
The applicants in those cases will not
be required to republish in the
newspaper or renotic to the property
owners within 200 feet. So if you're
here for any of these applications, come
back on March 26th. And they are John
and Jamie Duke, which is 102 North
Gladstone Avenue. Uh Jeffrey and
Michelle Greenberg, which is 115 South
Lancaster Avenue, and Danielle and Sally
Feldman, which is 4 South Arbal Avenue.
So those three applications will not be
heard tonight. March 26, 2026, 6:30 p.m.
in this room
and after Mr. Rattell is done, we'll get
to the Weissman application on 119 South
Clarendon. That will be heard.
>> So North Claron real uh briefly uh board
members, I want to introduce Jim
Mattala. He's a licensed planner in the
state of New Jersey. He's also a
certified American Institute of
Certified Planners at United States of
America. also has his MBA, has had
multiple positions in the area, and
currently is a president and CEO of his
current company, Retal Associates. He's
done many, many master plans, and not
only that, he's done many master plans
in our area. So, he's very well in tune
with the shore communities both in
Margate and elsewhere. So, Jim, take it
away.
>> Thank you. Good evening, chairman,
members of the planning board, uh, Jim
Rella, the associates. Um we've been
engaged with by city of Margate for
about 11 years uh doing both planning
and uh grant work. Uh we've been
involved in uh the dredging project
that's ongoing many various roads
projects, number of resiliency projects
and uh and other projects throughout the
city. Um in addition uh as as uh Mr.
Claron mentioned we just recently
finished the Summers Point uh master
plan re-examination. We're currently
working on your neighbor, the veterary
uh master plan rea examination. That
process is just starting. So um
certainly we're we're familiar with your
area and uh um and with the process. I
passed out a uh a short um summary that
talks about our experience. It talks
about the um your current master plan
and what its recommendations are, some
demographical changes that that have
occurred over the last decade and uh
some next steps just to give you just to
kind of frame the uh process
regarding the process itself. If you
look at page two,
the process for a master plan re-exam is
prescribed in state statutes. So there's
there are certain elements that you must
do in order to uh do a master plan
re-exam. Obviously your plan uh was
adopted in uh 2017. Every 10 years plan
needs to be re-examined. So that's part
of why we're here. Uh you're ahead of
the game, which is good. Uh but the
steps in the master plan process is, you
know, number one, uh looking at the
major issues and objectives in the in
the current plan, the 2017 plan. uh the
extent to which those issues and
objectives have been addressed since the
last uh master plan was adopted in 2017.
The extent to which uh the uh there has
been significant changes in the
assumptions, policies and objectives in
the community and there's pro there's
there's many uh recommended changes in
the city's master plan, development
regulations and zoning map. Updated
redevelopment areas. Basically, we look
at any redevelopment areas that occurred
and they have to be documented in the
master plan re-exam and relationship to
other plans, state plan, uh, county
plan, and adjacent municipalities.
Um, we did a real brief summary of, uh,
demographics in the city just to kind of
give you a look at what's happened in
the last decade. Sure, none of this is a
surprise to you. Uh obviously the the
first uh graphic talks about the
population decline about 17% in the city
since 2010
uh which is not unusual in the barrier
island communities
uh the summer population being more than
double uh which is shown through uh data
that's been select census and has been
connected by the or collected by the
stat strategic planning organization uh
school age population has declined but
is starting to stabilize.
A little summary there.
Uh median income has significantly
increased over the last decade. Give you
a little comparison of Margate versus
other communities.
Margate is the leader in that category.
Um, second home ownership housing has
continued to increase while total number
of housing units has declined based on
the census data and census data came out
uh just a couple weeks ago. So, it's
pretty relative pretty accurate and
updated and market median home price has
increased over 100% since which is not
unusual. you know, all the downtown
seen a significant increase over 100%
since co. So, um, it just gives you a
little little taste of some of the
demographics. Obviously, if you're
selected to do your national plan, this
analysis will be much more in depth and
there'll be I'm sure we'll uncover some
other trends and that will be uh that
you want to consider.
The next several pages talk about the
recommendations for the last master
plan. I won't read through those, but
you can take a look at them in your at
your leisure. Uh you're probably
familiar with those those
recommendations. Some have been
addressed, some have not been addressed.
Master plan exam will we'll go over
those issues
and and then we'll we'll take a look at
current issues. Um,
you know, one issue that affects all the
down beach communities, all the uh
coastal communities is the new coastal
regulations.
We have some good news on that. Uh,
yesterday the Senate President uh
introduced legislation that would uh
that challenged those regulations. Um
and uh basically the resolution that he
introduced would require that the D
revise the regulations within 30 days
where the regulations become null and
void. Uh the assembly has passed a
similar resolution. Uh our our senator
Don Guardian is a sponsor on that
legislation. Um this is significant
because the Senate President is a
Democrat. um he's the leader of the
legislature. So, you know, our uh
feeling is that he's we knew that he was
opposed to this. He's a North Jersey
legislator. Um so, it's it's really
showing bipartisan opposition to these
regulations and um it's also showing
that the leadership is opposed to these
regulations. So, very significant
and we'll continue to track this going
forward. These both of these bills um
will have to go through the typical
legislative process uh through
committees and then through uh adoption
by the Senate and by the Assembly. They
do not have to be signed by the
governor. Once they're passed by both
houses, then the resolutions is in
effect and D must act within 30 days.
So pretty significant. And I think all
of you know um you know we've been
working with the mayor and and all in
all the communities because these these
regulations they're much more than just
elevating homes. The regulations are,200
pages and affects everything from storm
water management to wetlands
to the amount of coverage you can have
on a lot. uh just a number of
significant issues that would affect all
the communities and and quite frankly
increase the cost of housing uh
throughout the area and make it much
more complicated for folks to uh to
develop or to improve their properties.
So that's been a that's a a quick update
on where we stand on that issue. Um
other issues that uh second issue was
the issue of affordable housing uh
meeting that requirement that was
recommended in your past master plan. um
the desire to protect commercial
development uh from being replaced by
residential development. That was also
something that was addressed in the last
master plan and desire to prevent
overdevelopment of small lots. Um you
know, there are just a few things that
uh I gleaned from reviewing your plan
and listening to your uh discussions
over the years. I'm sure there's very
several other issues that are important
to the city that if we're selected to do
the master plan re-exam'll examine with
you and and uh certainly uh come up with
solutions or recommendations to address
those issues. So with that, if you have
any questions, I'd be happy to answer
them.
So Jim, what do you think the timeline
would be if this if the assembly and
senate is successful getting the that
bill through
>> because uh the rules go into effect July
20th if nothing happens. Um and uh
you know it's really hard to predict,
but the Senate President sets the agenda
for the Senate, so I would think we move
pretty quickly. Um, assembly bill has
probably seven or eight sponsors. I know
that other assembly folks are are
thinking of joining in sponsorship. Uh,
also has bipartisan support. So, it
really depends on
>> Well, that's important.
>> Yeah. Really depends on their process.
>> Jim, has anybody else signed on in the
Senate who says
>> No, it was just Senate President.
>> I haven't strong enough in itself, of
course, but I didn't know.
>> I know uh I spoke today to Senator
Paul's office. they plan to uh ask to be
a co-sponsor. Good. So, I think we're
going to see others join that process.
>> So, another question I have for you,
Jim, is Governor Cheryl when she took
office, she signed off on a 90-day
moratorum of all that. Was that
included?
>> It was not. It was It was strange. The
governor signed off on the bill in his
last day in office and the and that
uh allowed them to escape that 90-day
clause. So, they're not affected by the
90-day close.
>> How can we?
>> Yeah.
>> How do you anticipate the process will
work, Jim? I mean, getting a little bit
in in the weeds. There'll be some
meetings with us, meetings from folks in
town, businesses in town. How does that
work?
>> It's a good question. Uh, we usually
work with a committee of the of the uh
plane board. Plane board is the ultimate
uh adoption adopter of the of the master
plan exam. Um, you know, we provide
updates for the full full planning board
as they move forward. They're all open
to the public. So, they're all public
meetings.
>> Uh, certainly we can meet with the the
local business organization and other
organizations that are impacted by the
master plan
>> and uh, you know, just try to get as
much input as possible.
>> If I remember the last one from
researching it, there's multiple
committees that actually participate,
right?
>> Yeah. that that master plan was you did
all the elements of master plan. There
are nine elements of master plan. So it
was much more involved than what we're
doing here. This is more of a review of
what was done
>> uh 10 years ago.
>> And I also believe there is grant money
involved in last master plan where we
had to
>> have x amount of public meetings. We had
to have these other subcommittee
meetings in order to fill the
requirements of that grant.
>> Yes.
Was actually two parts. So was a
pre-sandy grant then or is it or then
the master plan?
>> Right. So you were fortunate you got a
lot done then and we'll we'll use that
information. It's all good information.
>> Um you know big part of the master
planning process is to build consensus
and you're basically making
recommendations for the governing body
to make things happen ordinances to
change zoning um do certain capital
improvements. So, you know, building a
consensus between the planning board and
community and the governing officials is
very important.
>> If not, we have a plan that
>> won't get which is not not our goal.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh sort of timeline. I I mean once we
kick this off and uh choose who we're
going to have to reexamine the master
plan, is that a year process?
>> Usually it takes about a year. out of
here,
>> you know, to provide adequate time to
hear from everyone and uh and get
feedback in the whole planning board.
>> You know, it's uh it takes time.
>> Mhm.
>> Is this like a two-step process where
like you have the re-examination and
then you'll have the actual plan that
you start working on?
>> No, it's just a re-exam. The re-exam is
six points that I just mentioned is the
re-exam. And uh so re-examination is
really a one-step process. Um and uh you
know we'll evaluate the existing plan
and provide updates and and new
recommendations for the next decade. Uh
so it's really one one document one
plan. Now beyond that, you know, if you
if you decide or the governing body
decides that they want to implement
portions of the plan and we go move
forward and do zoning changes and
ordinances and things of that nature to
to do implementation.
>> Nothing else.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your time and uh if you have any
questions, feel free to reach out to me.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Jim.
Can you get this as like a PDF or
anything?
>> Sure. I'll send
you.
>> Okay. Our first case is Steven and Elise
Weissman, 119 North Clarendon Avenue,
block 303.02, lot 10, zone S25. C
variance relief for building coverage
and front yard setback to allow
construction of a new single family
dwelling.
Applicant is current on taxes, water,
and sewer. Proof of notice provided.
>> The microphone
Mr. McLaren
>> be sworn in. Be sworn in.
>> Mr.
Please raise your right hand testimony
throughout this evening and be the
truth.
>> I do.
>> I'll be brief on my pres uh presentation
of the report which is based on the
application of Stephen and Elise
Weissman 119 North Clarendon Avenue
block 303.02
lot 10 located in the S25 zoning
district. also in in a flood zone zone X
which defaults by ordinance to the next
adjacent highest most conservative
uh FEMA zone which is elevation 8. So
they're allowed to go to still 9 ft
above grade for the first floor whereas
a minimum uh elevation 12 for the first
floor
and also added in the what Jim was
talking about the packed NJ rules and
you can see the difference in elevation
for a minimum goes from 12 to 14 as I
see it. The background is as follows.
The applicant is seeking relief from the
ordinances of city Margate in order to
construct a new single family dwelling
within the S25 zoning district. The lot
is a prototypical S25 size and shape.
Again, that means when the S25 zoning
district was developed. It was based on
a 40 foot lot wide by 2 and 1/2 ft deep
uh lot. If you turn to page two on the
zoning schedule, you can see that the
lot area meets the requirements. Lot
width meets the requirements. Lot depth
is not required, but you can see the
62.5
um that's what generates 2500 ft. They
are here to seek two variances. is one
is the front yard set back to the
building. Uh 12.8 ft is the uh
prevailing front yard setback for
principal structures. 18 ft exists on
the old structure and they're proposing
12T for
most of the structure and 6.67 ft. So
it's a variance either way. It's just a
magnitude of a variance based on that
bump out. And the other varants are
seeking is building coverage whereas 40%
which is on the high end of the sliding
scale which were 1,000 ft. They're
asking for an additional 5%.
So they're seeking 45% building coverage
or 1,127
ft. And also all the other requirements
if this came from the zoning office
other than the two variances I would be
able to sign off on this.
the plans reviewed on the bottom of page
three
and the documents reviewed on section
two on page four. And again, I reiterate
the front yard setback for the building
and building coverages of the two
bearances. No waiverss have been
requested. And again, I I kind of went
over the the flood stuff, but I'm not
going to go over that right now, so we
don't have to get in the weeds on that.
So, I turn it over to Mr. Goldstein at
this point in time.
>> Thank you, Mr. McLaren. Um, Eric Olsson
on behalf of the applicant Steven and
Elise Weissman. Uh, with me on my left
is Mr. Weissman and Mr. Lley prepare for
plans. And Leo, I'd ask that they could
be sworn in because they're both going
to testify a little bit this evening.
>> Sure. Uh, Mr. Weissman and Mr. Lolio,
why don't you just state your name and
address or business address, Mr. Lolio's
case for the record, please?
>> It's Robert Lolio, 219 Belleview Avenue,
Hamilton, New Jersey.
Steven.
>> Okay. And if you can each please raise
your right hand each way where swear
affirm the testimony you'll give this
evening will be the truth.
>> I do. Thank you. And Mr. Lolia licensed
architect will accept his
>> Yeah, we'll accept his credentials.
>> Thank you, Mr.
Okay. So, this is I'm glad the other
cases kind of uh went off tonight
because this is very specific and
personal uh to Mr. Mrs. Weissman. And
Mr. Weissman is going to testify first
and just describe his concept for the
use of this house. This is actually a
four bedroomedroom house with an office
and Steve is going to explain uh at
least initially why the variance is
being requested and what his goal is. Uh
Steve come up. You've been sworn and uh
meeting is being recorded. I know you're
going to give some personal information,
but hopefully this is a controversial
people listen
here in general. Just speak loudly
enough so there's a clear record and uh
then Bob and I will go through the
technical aspects of the case. Why don't
you explain what we're trying to
accomplish tonight?
>> Uh good evening, chairman, members of
the board. My name is Steve Weissman. My
wife Lisa and I have owned our property
for over 11 years. This community means
a great deal to us and our goals to
build what we hope will be our forever
home, place where we can live year round
and continue to be part of this
neighborhood.
The additional space we requesting comes
from enclosing a small portion of the
existing third level porch. We
originally hoped to keep that area as an
open outdoor space off the bedroom, but
in order to make the home functionally
prop properly for our needs, we made the
difficult decision to enclose it. We are
not increasing the height or the width
of the home. We are simply enclosing
space that is already part of the
structure. That enclosed area totals 133
square ft. At the same time, we are
reducing the first level living space
142 square ft. Meaning the overall
living space is actually being reduced 9
square ft from what otherwise would be
permitted.
We have tried to be very mindful of both
the neighborhood and the intent of the
zoning requirements.
Our goal has been to build responsibly
in a way that is flood compliant,
environmentally conscious, and
consistent with the character of the
street.
The home we contain the home will
contain four bedrooms and a home office.
For us, this space is not about luxury.
A few years ago, my wife was diagnosed
with cancer. and recently went to major
life surgery.
Since then, ongoing medical needs have
become part of daily life.
There are supplies, equipment, and that
most people never see, but are very real
for us.
Enclosing this porch would allow for a
private changing space, enclosed toilet,
and a dedicated closet for medical
supplies. So, these necessities are
organized and discreet rather than
integrated into primary living areas.
On paper, 133 square ft may seem modest,
but in daily life, it can make a
meaningful difference in my wife's
comfort and dignity.
Before coming before you, it was very
important for us to speak personally
with our neighbors. I spoke with Michael
and Jane Ferano at 121 North Clarin,
Steven Band at 117 North Clarin, Fred
Freddman at 115 North Clarin, Lenny
Baglia at 113 Clarin, Bruce and Frank
Cats at 122 North Clarity. They are
aware of this request, having expressed
their support, which means a great deal
to us.
We care deeply about this community. We
support local businesses, participate in
local events, and support fundraisers.
We're committed not to just building a
house here, but to continue to be
active, responsible members of this
neighborhood.
We understand that you must evaluate
this application under planning
standards and we respect that. We
believe this request is modest and that
advances the purpose of good planning.
It does not increase height, density, or
intensity of use. It includes flood
compliance, provides additional off-
streetet parking, which helps relieve
congestion on our narrow street and
remains consistent with the character of
the surrounding homes.
We simply want to build a home that
works for this property and works for
our life and allows us to move here
full-time. We sincerely appreciate your
time and thoughtful consideration. Thank
you.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> We recognize, of course, under the New
Jersey Municipal Land Use Act that a
person's individual hardship isn't a
land use hardship. We're not asking for
a hardship barrier. What Mr. Weiss, Mr.
Mrs. lightsman are asking for is the
ability to use the house slightly
differently than most people use their
home. He's going to have an office.
They're moving into the house full-time.
So, it'll be an office, not a bedroom,
so it's four four bedrooms, but the
additional space is really to
accommodate uh Mrs. Weissman's needs for
her medical care. Uh, and as Steve said,
sure, there's room in the house that you
could put medical supplies, but the goal
is to have medical supplies available
easily.
It's a very personal thing for her to
have some dignity, to be able to just
use her bedroom the way she wants.
I think Steve said it, but I'll repeat
it. He would much rather use the outdoor
space for outdoor space. The unfortunate
necessity of his wife's condition
requires him to use it as indoor space.
Having said that, I still think we
should discuss it in depth by the design
of the house and how he still believes
that based upon closing that area that
he can meet the requirements of Margate
zone code along with the requirements of
the municipal land use act and how in
his opinion this design modest as it is
and also based upon Roger's report that
this particular street if everybody took
a look has a fair number of um homes
that kind of I would call them outliers,
but a fair number of homes that skew the
front set back already. So, this is kind
of the lightning in a bottle project
where it doesn't have an adverse impact
on the neighbors. I believe there's only
one set that are here tonight who are
going to speak in favor of the
application. Everybody on notice, of
course.
if you don't mind coming up here. Um,
and you've been sworn to walk the board
through the design of the house. And are
we good on the setback? Are we sure that
the number is um as it is in Roger's
report or are we
>> I was coming up with an average of 11.8
instead of 12.8.
>> I went off your chart.
>> Did you maybe make the mistake?
>> 200 seconds.
It's probably a typo. I have 11.8.
>> Double check on that because that's
important for the the distance. So
that's let me look at the Do you have
the 200 step back?
>> I'm at 11.26. If you don't count the
subject and 11.8 count,
May I give this to you? You have a copy?
>> I think I do in my file. I don't have my
file.
>> May I bring this up to Paul handover
chief?
So make sure we got the number right
because that foot might make a bit of a
difference not on the coverage barriers
but on the setback variance because we'd
be asking for basically foot less.
>> So Bob just to be clear.
>> Yes.
>> Just to be I'm sorry
>> Bob you were sworn in, right?
>> Yes.
>> Just to be 100% clear. So it wasn't the
mistake on Roger's report. It would have
been a mistake on your plan that Roger
then looked at and made a report of.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, we were wrong, but I think
we're a foot off on the set.
>> On my on the site plan, I I put the
average at 12,
>> so I round it up. Um,
>> my chart
real quick, the one that was in the
application from Ponzia's office is
dated September 30th, 2025, and it has
12. The one you just gave me is from
2017.
>> Okay. But does it have 12.8 or 12?
>> 12.
>> Okay, that's what I have on my site
plan. 12,
>> right?
>> So
>> there must have been two
>> that 8 ft mean that, you know, 10 in.
>> It's still a front yard variance because
>> still variance, but we just want to make
sure it doesn't look as significant. Um,
it's 12 ft, not 12.8. You know, we
always talk about the we fight sometimes
over inches, but we just want to make
that clear that it's not as much as is
in the um zoning report.
The one you have in your hand didn't
count. Um the subject project wasn't
included. So we got it done after that
because I think it was Colins's didn't
have the um number for the actual
property.
>> But it is 9 years old.
>> Yeah.
>> So I came up with 12 on my site plan.
>> Okay.
But we're still asking for a front yard
variance because the second floor
extends out to 6.6,
>> right?
>> So, obviously, we've been working on
this for a while for Lisa and Steve,
trying to take their uh personal
problems um into account so we can give
them the best possible house. So, walk
through, if you if you would please, all
the details of the plan, including this
area that needs the variance. But I
think we should also go through the fact
as Roger said, all of the other issues
regarding this house are compliant. No
waiverss,
no requests for any other u we've got a
a governor's trip, we've got a street
tree, we're doing everything, but we
need to be married. So, walk the board
through, please. Uh so it's your typical
2 and 1/2 home, four bedrooms with an
office, uh 4 and 1 half baths, and the
total square footage is uh 2,260
ft. Um two and a half stories. So we
have uh two and a half stories over
parking level. So we have uh one car in
the garage and then we have a ground
floor entry and an open veranda in the
back.
>> So I'll stop for a quick second here.
Super important here. No pool.
>> No pool. No living space on the first
level. Not habitable at all. Garage
storage. That's it. Correct. Okay. And
then I have uh two two parking spaces in
the driveway, one in the garage. So we
have a total of three parking spaces. Um
if it's a fourbedroom house, only two
spaces are required. So we're
>> exceeding the minimum. If you want to
count the office as a bedroom, we still
have the extra third parking space. Um
so five bedrooms would require uh three
spaces. So regardless of how the board
views the office, we're saying it's an
office, but if they said, "Well, it
could just be a bedroom." We're still
correctly parked.
>> Correct.
>> We either have one additional spot or
just enough,
>> right?
>> We're not need of any parking garage.
>> No.
>> Um and then you go to
the
main the first floor is your main
kitchen, dining, living level with a
large porch. Um,
important thing to note that the living
level could have extended further into
the front yard, but we have a very deep
front porch. So, that space we're losing
on this level, we're trying to um gain
on the bedroom level for the needs of
the family. Um, brings us to the second
floor.
And then the second floor, it's just uh
two bedrooms and then the primary up
front with a you know a decent size
bathroom and medical changing area. Um
so that there's about 5'4 in that's
extending beyond the principal allowed
setback and that's to create a nicer
bedroom and that medical changing area.
Um otherwise it would have been a second
floor porch. So, we're really just
trying to encode that little bit of
space. And then the third floor, just a
bedroom, a bathroom, and an office.
The fact that the house is closer to the
property line in front, not only creates
the variance for the setback, but it
also creates a coverage variance because
we've got an area that's not porched,
that's forward of the house itself.
Correct. Correct.
So those two variances are basically
interdependent on on one another. If the
house wasn't coming out as far as it
was, we wouldn't need a coverage
variance. But let's also talk about I
think it's important for the board
what's there now. So the house that's
there now not flood compliant. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> And it has a planter that's not pvious.
That's all the way out of the property.
Correct. Yes. So, what's the setback of
the um
>> the current what I don't really want to
call this a plant or whatever you want
to call
>> that's right on the property line.
>> So, that's going to be gone. Anything
that's close to the property line is
going to be gone and everything will be
at grade um pushed back non-habitable.
The first um living space on the first
level meets the setback. Correct.
>> Correct. So the
>> it's actually Yeah.
>> Yeah. So the front yard to the um garage
is over your 18t requirement. Um we're
at 18.33 ft. The property line to the
main first floor is also 18.33 ft. It's
when you get up to the second floor
bedroom, the building to the property
line is 6.67 ft. And then when you step
back on the third floor, um third floor
is at uh 12 ft. So, it needs this front
yard setback. So, it's really just that
second floor building that's projecting
out. All the other levels need the front
yard setback. Um,
and like I said, the second floor
encroaches 5'4 in beyond that 12t
minimum required setback. And that's a
difference of only 133 square ft. Um,
so that's all we're asking for. And as
Steve said, although we're getting a
little bit more on that level, we've
given up, Steve and Elise have given up
a substantial amount on the first level.
So they can have some open space. They
would prefer to have more porch, but
they need this area for themselves. Uh
the medical changing area, which is
basically the variance. If it wasn't for
the medical changing area, we don't have
the space on the second floor, which is
uh closed in. And if that's not closed
in, then it's porch and it's not housed.
and it's back far enough.
>> Correct. It's important that the the
allowed habitable area of the house
based on the size of the lot is 2500
square ft. We're only asking for 2260
ft. So, our habitable living space is
less than what's allowed. Um, mainly
because we're taking a lot from the
first floor and putting it onto the
second floor. Um
and then the or same thing with the
building coverage. The ground floor
area, first floor area is only 829
square ft. It's that little pro that 5'4
in projection on the porch that's
creating us to go over the building
coverage. So even though it's not at
ground level building coverage, it's
overhanging. So that counts towards your
building coverage requirement.
>> Bob, you spent a lot of time designing
this house. we've gone through with
Stephen Elise uh and extensive
design and redesign what you've put
together now and submitted to the board
is complete. Would you testify as an
experienced architect of the state of
New Jersey that this house uh takes into
consideration the city of Margate zoning
code and the state of New Jersey
municipal land use act so much so that
the benefits of the variance we're
seeking specific to the whitesman but
also based upon your design outweigh any
negatives that could be associated with
the process? I
>> see that. Yes.
>> And to the extent someone could somehow
say that this is a negative based upon
if this area were opened up would the
benefits greatly out greatly exceed any
possible negatives um taking this case
as a whole.
So your testimony that the benefits
outweigh the negatives. The board has
the view of the house. What we have is
one level of fourth not two. And is
there a third floor deck?
>> There's no third floor deck. So, that's
another big thing we didn't discuss. No
deck up top, no deck in the middle.
There's a deck down low, and the rest of
it is habitable space um above the flood
plane.
I have a question
on the second floor. So, you want to
extend the second floor so it's a little
bit larger.
How does that affect the far for the um
third floor?
If we were to meet the if we didn't
include that second floor that 5 foot4
portion of the addition would still be
in
>> we would still be 50% on
>> that's important. It seems kind of
important.
>> Yes.
>> What's the square footage of the third
floor?
>> Third floor is 425
ft.
>> What's the square footage of the second
floor with the um
>> just about 1,000 square ft.
>> Okay. So we're under what it could be.
We're not maxing out. I see what D
saying. We're not getting a bigger third
floor by you giving us a bigger second
floor.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> So, Bob, what is the setback to that
first floor? 18. Is that in line with
the 18 ground?
>> Yeah, it's 18.33 ft.
>> So, 5 years from now, what's to stop you
from coming in and closing that first
floor porch six more feet and you still
comply with the front yard setback on
the average?
Well, we would agree in a D in a um you
could file the resolution if that would
help.
>> Condition of approval will be no
expansion of the living area.
>> You could add six like almost six a
little over six feet.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We're not Look, and this is
one where you're going to find a very
agreeable applicant. This isn't we're
going to get this and then come back
later with an aha, we got you. This is
we need this for Mrs. Weman and we can
record the um as a condition of the um
approval if the board sees fit, record
the resolution with the county clerk so
it's on record. No one else in the
future could do it either,
>> right?
>> It's not just us.
>> Okay. I just don't want to see another
>> somebody comes in and closes a porch and
then they want a porch again
>> to the board and later coming back and
saying, "You gave me this, I want more."
You know that that happens occasionally.
That ain't going to happen.
>> Good with that.
and all the other bulk requirements are
being met. Um, so it's really just the
two bearings front yard setback to the
second floor building and the building
coverage. Even though
the ground floor meets the coverage,
it's the overhang of that second floor
that put this over.
>> I do like the small area of the ground
floor. I think that's
>> I got it.
>> There's no converting that to Williams,
but
>> that's that's what I want to hear.
>> And we filed a non-con conversion
anyway. Look, I know people This is not
This isn't that house. This is the house
that Mr. Weissman is going to say, "Come
by and check it out anytime. We're not
trying to get away with it. He just
needs it for his wife's medical care.
That's that's the only reason we're
here.
It's a smaller house." He said the third
floor doesn't max out the second.
There's nothing else to this house.
Just a question of curiosity. You talked
about the third floor versus the second
floor. The ground floor versus the
second floor. What What's the percentage
there? We're we're under discussion
about trying to have more open space on
the ground floor. I'm just trying to
have just ballpark against spitball. It
doesn't need to be accurate.
>> The ground floor living space.
>> The no ground open space.
>> Open space.
>> Oh, open space.
like the Miranda space.
>> Well, you got the Miranda and then
you've also got actually the area in
front of the garage if you want to think
about it.
>> So, the area in front of the garage is
118 by 25.
>> Yeah. And then the back is like
>> 7 ft or something.
>> Back is uh 9 by 25.
>> Then it jogs in a little bit. So, it's
probably like 11.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Yeah. A lot of people enclose apparend.
>> Yeah.
>> But that's not something we're planning
on doing either.
>> So that would also be a condition.
>> We're your mercy. This is something they
need for medical purposes. The board
wants to put conditions on. We're okay.
So I just want to be clear. So we're
looking at the second floor where that
medical changing area is. We're looking
at that would have been open space for
the second floor, but now we're
enclosing that. And what was that square
footage total? The extra
133 ft.
>> Okay.
It's basically from this wall of the
medical changing area.
>> I got you.
>> It's actually a little less than that
because
>> So the the total square footage of the
entire property
>> is 2260
and we're out 2500. Yeah, still modest.
I mean, we're not looking at anything.
>> It's a smaller house. Again, we to be
clear,
>> Mr. Mrs. Weissman started discussing
this project. I said, don't come in with
a maxed out house and then ask for more.
Come in for less. This is one specific
thing we're looking for only, and that's
the plan you have in front of you. It
could be much bigger. It's not.
>> So, I just want to clarify one other
thing. The the total height from ground
is what?
It's It's less than 30 ft from the first
floor.
>> From the first floor up.
>> Yes. Okay. That means the
>> And I was just curious. So approximately
how many feet is it from the ground
floor?
>> You're about 39 ft.
>> Okay.
>> That's that's the maximum period.
>> So we would rest, you know, certainly
answer any more questions the board had.
Um
>> just one housekeeping one, sir. I
truly uh respect the fact that you're
being completely truthful of us up here,
but you said it is about a year round
res but on the application unless he's
addressed
>> we're trying to build a house to be able
to move.
>> He wants to move here to move here. Fair
enough forever. I think I think you said
you're forever forever.
>> Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you for the
clarification.
If you've been by the house now, it's,
you know, certainly nice. No offense to
Stephen Elise. It's it's not much. It's
going to be the house that they can live
in year round for that.
>> Anything else in the board?
You done, Eric?
>> Uh, I am the subject of just Mr.
Chairman being able to answer some more
questions. We're done.
>> Anyone from the public want to comment?
Please come up and state your name and
get sworn in.
Give us your name and address 122 North
Cl.
Mr. Cats, do you swear affirm the
testimony will be the truth?
>> I do.
>> Thank you.
>> So, um, I live across the street from
the subject property. I'm here today to
express my support for the approval of
this variance application.
As a neighbor, I believe the proposed
changes will be a positive addition to
our street. Although parking is not the
subject of this variance, our street is
quite narrow and the additional off-
streetet parking can only help the
overall safety and accessibility for
residents. Over the past years, several
neighbors, including myself, this past
summer, have experienced vehicle damage
from trucks and landscapers navigating
through the tight roadway.
In my case, a repair call cost exceed
$5,000 after my car was my car was
sideswiped. Any improvement that would
help reduce congestion is beneficial to
the neighborhood as a whole. I would
also like to share some personal context
regarding the homeowner Elise Cardonic
Wisman. Elise is currently facing a
serious and ongoing medical condition.
The variance being requested is modest
in nature. Yet, it would be meaningful
meaningfully improve her daily comfort
and help accommodate her medical needs
within her own home.
For more than 30 years, Alisa has
dedicated her professional life to
caring and researching treatments for
pregnant women with cancer. Even now,
she continues to work and volunteer her
time supporting that cause. Those of us
who know her and understand how much she
has given to others over the years,
which makes her current circumstances
circumstances especially more
meaningful.
This request is simply about making her
home more functional for her day-to-day
life. Importantly,
the proposal does not encroach into side
or rear setbacks and does not negatively
impact neighboring properties. My
understanding is the overall first floor
footprint is actually being reduced to
offset the modest enclosure being
requested here.
Having lived in Margate for 7 years,
I've seen this board thoughtfully
approve variances which when they are
fair, appropriate, and beneficial, I
respectfully believe this application
represents that kind of situation.
Alis and Steven are wonderful neighbors
and committed members of the community.
Several other neighbors who were unable
to attend today have also expressed
their full support. Practically
speaking, this request is modest,
reasonable, and consistent with the
character of our neighborhood.
On a personal level, I believe that when
a small accommodation can be
meaningfully improved someone's quality
of life without harming anyone else,
it's something worth supporting. I
respectfully ask the board to approve
this application. Thank you for your
time and your service. Thank you.
>> I have a clarification question. Um, so
in the table it says that there are four
parking spaces.
There's only three.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> That's all that's required for five.
Correct.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I just
>> we still as
he's moving here to have an office. It
was legitimately an in office. So four
would be two, five would be three, but
we still have three. So we have enough
parking requirements.
>> So even if it got converted to a
bedroom, you're still good.
>> Okay. Correct. But it won't.
>> So Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything
else. I I would like
>> public is closed.
>> I'm sorry.
>> That's all right.
>> I just want to go ahead briefly sum up.
Um
>> there's really not much to this. It's a
variance of course, but Mr. Lolio stated
the positives outweigh the negatives.
This is one that the property owners are
giving up a lot on one level to get more
out of the second level, but it's not
really that much more. In fact, the
house is uh based on the net square
footage, much less than can be built. Um
we'll answer any questions the board may
have. We can put conditions on that
guarantees the house as it's built will
remain as it's built without any
changes. But um this is one where the
design was just really put together to
accommodate a medical need and not for
any other purpose. And I know that this
board hears a lot of stories about how
someone has a special need or they have
a cousin who comes visit. Everyone has a
story to get more space. They're
actually using their store to get less
space in the overall house. They just
want it in a certain area which makes it
the merit. We think it does satisfy the
C2 criteria and we'd ask the board to uh
pass it as
real quick. Bob, what is the elevation
of your first floor?
>> Didn't see that listed on the plan.
right here. I haven't set the grade yet
the building will probably be 10. So
it'll be like elevation 19. It's there's
high grade here.
>> Yeah, you
>> anything else from the board? Yeah, I
got Steve question.
>> Um,
you know, on my inspection of the house,
the house seems higher than um it seems
to be sitting higher. Uh, in your print,
it looks like it's the garage is going
to be like even with the sidewalk and
street. I mean, it's it'll be pitched up
ahead. What I'm getting at is around the
corner is a house and the driveway is at
a steep angle and nobody's going to park
in there.
>> That's not the case here.
>> That's what that's what my question is
about.
>> We know the house you're talking about.
It's got a very short steep angle.
>> Yeah, I think that's
>> a cl Yeah,
>> I try to do a 10% slope in the driveway
which
>> Yeah, that's like a 30% slope that comes
down. The car can't park cuz it can't
hit the ground.
>> It's that angle. I can't bother that.
>> So, no, that's not the case. They must
have had
>> I didn't think it would be, you know,
but I just have to ask.
>> That was built on a dune.
>> Yeah, cuz we're not allowed to add more
than like a foot of fill, right?
>> As long as you get positive drainage,
that's all we want.
>> No, that's not going to happen here.
>> Okay, you want Sure. Just real quick,
Archer, I understand that the the point
about that first living floor because if
technically by right come out, we'll put
a restriction dealing with that the
applicant agreed to. But I know uh John,
what about that space underneath?
>> No, he was just trying to get some
figures together.
>> No, it was justformational.
>> Okay. So,
>> but there's also the condition that that
not being closed.
>> There was two places being closed. was
the veranda and
>> the second floor
>> and the second floor or first not the
first floor
>> the first floor first living
>> in the future and then the f
>> the first living space and then the
ground floor to get those confirm will
remain open as shown correct
>> all right so it's a C variance
application it's two variances there's a
front setback requirement I think we
settled on is 12 ft and at that second
living level it bumps out to 6 six seven
ft. So that's a variance. And then
building coverage 40%
and they're at 45%.
The conditions will note that that first
living level um will remain as shown on
the plans
at I think it was an 18.33 front yard
setback or whatever shown on Bob's
plans. and we'll work to get some
language that that can be recorded
whether it's in this resolution or some
some other document if you want to just
record this resolution
>> and you can put proof in put language in
there that proof of recording because
I'll get it done
we'll work with that and that that would
apply to this house obviously if someone
demolishes the home they're going to
start from scratch or something like I'm
talking down the road
>> um because I just don't want something
out there you know but we we'll get that
worked out and then that veranda at the
ground floor will remain open as shown
on Bob's plans and then the other one
would just be the standard conditions.
So be put in every resolution subject to
any outside approvals.
>> Uh any representations made by the
applicant they'll comply with those and
anything else to Mr. McClar's report
unless otherwise addressed on the
record.
>> All agreed.
>> Great. So we'll need a motion, a second,
and then a roll call vote.
>> I'll make that motion.
>> Second.
Rich Patterson
>> on this house
on this particular house in this
particular neighborhood.
I I don't see a problem. I I think the
applicant has given enough back to
offset what he's asking for in his
situation uh that I don't see a
negative. So, I vote to approve the
application.
>> Dan Adams.
Um, I'm I'm in agreement as well. I I
think, you know, looking at the other
homes in the neighborhood, I think you
you put together a beautiful design. In
fact, I kind of like the design of this
home better. And I really feel, you
know, you hit home with your your plate
and your situation. And um it's
important to have the quality of life
that everybody should have. And by
providing this area and providing this
for your wife and your family, I think
it's important. And I just want you to
know if you ever need anything, feel
free to call on us. We'll be there for
anything that we can do to help you. And
I think it is a positive addition to the
neighborhood. And I vote yes.
>> That's the fire department, not the
planning board.
>> It's the fire department. Yes.
>> Rich Tolson.
>> Yeah. I'm going to let you know just
jump out in front and be in favor of
this one. I do have one question, Leo.
any restrictions we put on this
property, do they apply to the current
owner or to the property,
>> they would run with the land. So, if
they sold the same house, they would
that would be subject to the same same
restrictions.
>> Just needed a clarification. Thank you.
But based on the pictures that we've
shared with one another of existing
newer homes in that neighborhood, this
is a much more pleasing architecture and
aesthetically um and for all the obvious
reasons I thank you
>> Steve Joeki.
>> Yeah. Um you guys made a lot of you
really you really worked hard to get
this
um approved.
Um, and then in the light of the
circumstances, I I'll just approve of
it.
>> Patty Rosenberg.
>> Um, I think that the house is
a charming looking home. I think it
looks very functional. I'm glad to hear
that you want to become a full-time
resident of Margate to build this house
and not just have it as a summer home.
So, I approve.
John Pittz.
>> Uh, yep. I approve. Um, I think the
ground floor design of this house would
serve as a model for going forward in
Margate for what we're looking to do in
Margate. Um,
on a sort of personal level, welcome to
Margate. You will love living in
Margate. The services here superior to
anywhere else you'll find. So, you're
making a good choice coming.
Thank you all.
>> Thank you all.
>> Motion passes with six in favor and zero
opposed.
>> Hey, pick two.
Roger.
>> Did we adjourn?
>> We have any other business?
>> Good reason. I appreciate it.
>> I hear a motion to adjurnn.
move.
>> Thought I had him in the