Okay. All right. We're going to get the meeting started. We're going to start out with a flag salute. I aliance 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. >> Michael Richmond >> here. >> Richard Patterson >> here. >> John Pittz >> here. >> Dan Adams >> here. >> Craig Palmisano >> here. >> Rich Tulsen >> here.
>> Johanna Perski. >> Her Pagno >> here. >> Steven Jaki >> here. >> Andrew Campbell >> here. >> Sam Friedman >> here. >> Patty Rosenberg. Okay. This meeting is being held in accordance
with New Jersey statute requirements of the open public meetings act sunshine law. Notice of this meeting has been advertised in the press and posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building. All applicants are hereby advised that
if you receive board approval tonight, you must come forward and sign a form outlining the procedures for obtaining building permits and mercante licenses. At the conclusion of your case tonight, please approach the board administrator PAMA to sign the provided information
sheet. All right. Um, we'll start with the approval of minutes meeting of July 31st, 2025. Do I hear a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. And then, >> Mr. Chairman, I was >> approval of decisions and resolutions 29-2025. Jerry and Charlemagne Mcool. >> I'll make that motion.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> Okay. Our first case tonight is Michael and Monica Khik, 17 North Madison Avenue, block 229, lot 313, located in
the multif family zoning district, seeking a C variance relief for minimum sideyard setbacks and potentially others in order to cons in order to elevate the single family home. current on taxes, water and sewer payments, proof of advertising, and notifications provided.
Representative by James Swift. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, board members, uh my name is James Swift. I represent Michael Monica Call for 17 North Madison Avenue. Uh we received a call today from one of the neighbors and the neighbor in essence
was confused about what we were trying to do. So what we did is we agreed to meet with the neighbor with our architect. So the architect with specificity could explain precisely what we're trying to do. I don't think it's not going to change the spirit of this application. We did this in deference to
try to be good neighbors. Accordingly, I told my client, I said I would come here tonight and respectfully request that the board permit us to carry this to the October October meeting date and I would request that the board deems it appropriate that we not be required to
renotice everyone. It's not changing the application in any respect whatsoever. We're just trying to be good neighbors and allay. There's really no fear if they just didn't understand what we're trying to do and the neighbor had indicated they simply didn't have the time to review the plan. So, for sake of
expediency, but we didn't want to like push it through and we're trying to be good neighbors. That's it. >> Okay. Great. Is that okay? >> Yeah. And so just >> just for the record, uh the CAC Michael and Monica Call application 17 North
Madison Avenue, block 229, lot 313. That will be heard on October 30th, 2025, 6:30 p.m. in this room. The applicant will not be required to republish or renotice. This is your official announcement for that. >> Okay. >> All right. >> All right.
>> Thanks, Jim. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night. >> Thank you. All right, case number two. Mark and Penny Nestler, 15 Seaside Court, block 610.02, lot 2, located in the S40 zoning
district, seeking C variance leave for minimum sideyard setbacks, combined sideyard setbacks, and potentially others in order to construct an addition to the existing single family home. current on taxes, water and sewer payments, proof of advertising and
notifications provided representative by Mark Nestler. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. My name is Mark Nicer. I'm here along with my wife >> Penny. >> We reside full time. >> I have to get you just sworn. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, >> that's okay. So, you're miss is your
wife going to speak too or probably. All right, Mr. Ner, please raise your right hand. You swear from the testimony will be the truth. >> Yes. >> Okay. And I'm just going to get our uh engineering planner sworn in. Mr. McLaren, please raise your right hand to swear affirm testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth.
>> I do. >> Okay. Do you want to say anything or just let him >> I'll let Mark start off. >> Thank you. We've discussed this how many months? >> Many. Yeah. Yeah. Uh as I said, we we reside full-time and year round at 15
sees court. We're here tonight to uh request two C variances for a project that that we would like to do at the house. Let me just give you some background. Uh 15 seaside court is a two-story 3bedroom
house about 2800 square f feet. It's built in around 1992 I believe and is located within the R40 zone. On the second floor, we have two guest bedrooms and unfortunately only one bathroom. Uh
Jack and Jill type situation. When our children and grandchildren come to visit, there's chaos and conflict regarding using that bathroom. Uh there's no question that another bathroom is uh would help that situation.
Also on the second floor, there's a 11 by17 uh office and adjacent to that is a 11 by11 open balcony. Um they are located directly above our garage and utility room. The proposed project would entail
converting the open area into a full bathroom with access through the office. Um the construction will not change the footprint of the building. Therefore, no change to the building or lot coverage. We're keeping it's no expansion um in
any direction. Here is why we need the two variances. The right side of our house which uh would be extended at the time of the construction met the setback requirements. The distance between the house and the
the wall is 3.6 ft uh to the property line. It's now a pre-existing non-conforming sideyard setback. That would not change due to the pros the pros construction at would and would remain at 3.6 ft from the
property line. We also need a combined set sideyard setback which is also a pre-existing non-conforming condition that also would not change. It would remain at 13.5 ft and I think 18.5 is
required. So there would be no change to the footprint or the existing setbacks use or occupancy of the of the property. The front and rear setbacks are not affected whatsoever and the roof is uh would not
exceed the height of the existing roof of the house. We do not see any detriment to the surrounding area of the neighborhood. The exterior would match the existing uh ephus structure of the house that it is now. Um
we believe we also need a waiver due to the fact that our survey is we had it done. We bought the house 5 years ago and uh it's more than 2 years old and the surveyor has passed away. So we'd like a waiver for that. >> So park nothing has changed in
>> nothing has changed now >> five years. >> In conclusion, we believe the variance is uh to be granted without could be granted without causing substantial detriment to the public good and it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the municipal municipal
zoning plan and ordinance. Um, have any questions? >> Anyone from from the board have anything? >> So, Mark, you're actually not going out as far as the existing wall. You're actually bumping in a little bit, right? >> No, that was changed. Roger.
>> So, you're matching. >> We're matching the wall. Yes. >> Did you want to Did you want to go? >> I believe that's what it shows. >> Yes. >> Originally, when I came to see you, Roger, we were going to do that. Uh, and then since we needed the variance
anyway, we decided to just ask where it match wall. >> I remember that conversation. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Anyone else from Oh, I'm sorry. That's right. So, just to jump in there real quick without reading my whole report, the there was two variances being
sought. One is a rightard setback on the side where 8 ft's required, 3.58 ft is existing, and 3.58 ft is proposed. In my report, it says 5 ft for the new portion. But again, Mr. Nicer came back and said, well, if I'm going to come to the from the board muscle, match the
wall below. And correspondingly, the combined sideyard setback requirement stays the same, too. It's 18.5 ft is required and 13.58 ft is existing and 13.58 ft is proposed. Again, he's matching the wall uh setback that's
below it. again the when these when this development took place the 3-foot setback was was required back then so uh I personally I don't see any hardship I mean the any detriment to this either
you're not even going to see this he's not increasing the building footprint uh but I leave it up to the board members to decide that on their own I think Mr. Nicer's testimony has been uh enough to display for the board to make a decision.
Okay. Anybody Anyone have anything? Nope. All right. We're going to open up to the public. Anyone from the public likes to speak? Okay. Public portion's closed. All right. if we're ready for a motion. And I'll just note John Pittz is sitting
in the in the audience. He was on the 200 foot list. He recused himself for this application. It's two variances. Um there's the sideyard setback on the right side. They're at 3.58 ft and that's what they're proposing. And then the combined sideyard setback where where 8 ft's the requirement for the
sideyard and the combined sideyard setback 18.5 ft's the requirement. They're at 13.58. They're staying at 13.58. There's the waiver because the the survey is older than two years, but the testimony was nothing's changed. And then in terms of conditions, we we'll
note just the standard ones. Anything in Mr. McCclar's report, unless otherwise addressed, subject to any other approvals that may be required, any representations made during the course of the hearing, just basically the standard ones we put in every motion. >> Okay. Also, he's subject to the substantial improvement. >> Sure.
>> rules. I don't see that being an issue with this minor addition. All right. Do I hear a motion? >> Okay. >> Michael Richmond.
>> Uh is not adding another bedroom. Um it's a relatively um the house is not a big house. I think that I understand why he would like the bathroom. Um it's written back of the house. I
don't think it affects the community in any negative way. So, I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson, >> I don't think you'll be able to see what was done by the time it's done. >> I I think it's minor. Uh I don't see any
negative impact and it improves the house. I vote yes. >> Dan Adams. >> Oh, that's green. Got it. New new stuff. Um, you know, being a grandparent myself and and understanding, you know, my my
grandchildren are a lot younger, it's important to please your family and to be there for your family and to have a growing family and have them part of your life is important. And the fact that nothing is changing with the sideyard setbacks. It's the same as what the house was built and there's no negative impact on the neighborhood. I
vote yes. >> Craig Palmisano. >> Yes. I agree with the other board member statements and I approve. Rich Tulsa other side. Sorry about that. I approve her Pagna.
>> I approve. >> Approve. >> Steven Jazaki. I see no detriment to this um project and I uh I approve. >> Drew Campbell.
>> I approve as well. >> And Sam Friedman. >> I agree with what the uh board has uh said and I >> motion carries with nine in favor and zero opposed. >> Thank you, Mr. Meiser.
>> Thank you very much members. I'd like to thank uh Roger and Palmo for their assistance in this process. All right. >> Next application is um Anthony Damato,
9612 Mammoth Avenue, block 330, lot 33, Morgate City, New Jersey. 0842. The applicant is seeking the re relief from the ordinance of the city of Margate in order to construct a new
flood compliant single family home on a non-conforming lot within that multif family zone. With the lot width being only 25 ft and required width is 40 ft. There are inherently going to be variances. The existing structures
comprise two separate residential units which do not conform to the city's density requirements. By ordinance, the lot can be only the lot can only support one residential dwelling, you know, where to exist. However, only one unit
is proposed. >> Could have said it any better myself. >> Did you want to go, Roger? >> I'll go real quick unless Eric you want to introduce yourself in your application. >> You can go ahead. I I'll wait and then you I'll kick it off. >> Thank you, board members, board chairman. The report is based on the
application of Anthony Damato, 9612 Mammoth Avenue, block 330, lot 33, located in the MF zoning district. The required first floor elevation as a minimum is elevation 12 to the bottom of the floor dictated by the zone that they're in. Meaning the first floor
elevation as a minimum is 13. Uh the background, as Mr. chairman already uh discussed this is both a C1 hardship variance and substantial benefit variance and those proofs have to be accordingly. So after discussing with the architect
today we we kind of modified uh the report and the review there are two variances being sought. One is the left set set back to the building and decks where 8 ft is required. 3.5 ft is uh proposed and again because of the MF
zone the minimum setback is either 8 or 10 ft there there's no leeway for narrow lots in this zone and the right size setback of minimum 8 ft and 3.5 ft is proposed again to provide symmetry to
the application. I just want to point out a couple things on the bulk standards. The minimum lot area is 4,400 ft². Existing lot area is 3,125 ft. And really in the MF zone, all that that means is if it was 4,400 ft, they
could have two units. So because it's less than that, they're only allowed to have one. >> So I wouldn't look it's existing non-conforming, but it's actually conforming for single family. Uh lot width 40 ft required. And here's where they're getting uh hammered is the
25 ft lot width. And again, you'll see these throughout the MF zone. These narrow, long, and deep uh undersized lots for duplexes, they become single family homes. Building coverage, which
is a sticking point, 45% is the maximum. They're less than that with this application. Uh front yard setbacks to the building is the prevailing is 6.8 8 ft and they're proposing 19.33 ft where the existing house was 6.6 ft.
Just a little background on the site. I I probably fielded about 50 calls over the last four years about this location and every response has been the same way. It's you can't rebuild two units on there. Uh other than that, I think it's very uh
self-evident what they're proposing. It's not the first time we've seen this type of application in the zone. I turn over to Mr. uh Goldstein. >> Thank you, Mr. McLaren. Mr. Chairman, gentleman Palma. Uh good evening, Eric Goldstein. On behalf of the applicant, uh we do concur with Mr. McLaren's
report regarding the variances we're seeking. If any of you have been to the site, there are presently two structures on the lot. Now, there's a small kind of damaged uh structure in the front and a smaller equally damaged structure in the back, neither of which are flood compliant. And it does occupy uh the two
uh structures occupy one lot which of course we don't have enough square footage. This was never the intent to put two there but rather to do a two for one swap to make the lot compliant with what's allowed per code by way of our square footage being 3125 foot as
opposed to 4400. We're under on all of the coverages except we do have sideyard setbacks that we need variances for because based on the 25 foot wide lot, if we complied with ADA on each side, we'd have a fairly narrow house. So when
Mr. Lolio was designing the house, and you'll hear from him in a second, we wanted to leave enough room on each side for emergency personnel, at least 3 ft to be able to get in the back. We gave an extra half foot on each side, so it's three and a half, and the rest of it is fully compliant. So, I'm going to swear
Bob in to discuss the plan for under on height. We're over on landscaping, under on building coverage. Um, we meet parking. It's just these two sideyards that we need the variances for. And Bob, if you don't mind coming up, Mr. Manos is swearing in. We'll go through your
Mr. Lolio, just your name and business address, please. >> Robert 219, New Jersey. >> Please raise your right hand. You swear from the testimonial this evening. It'll be the truth. >> I do. >> And Mr. Chairman will accept his credentials. the architect. >> All right, Bob, you testified here
before. You understand the board. If you don't mind, they've already qualified you as an expert in the field of architecture. Walk us through the house, the bedroom count, the coverages, and what you've designed to kind of blend into the neighborhood as well as possible. >> So, the house is, as we mentioned, on an
undersized lot. So, supposing a single family dwelling that's two stories over a parking level. Uh so we meet the story requirement, we meet the building requirement, uh we need the overall building coverage even though the lot's under size for
duplex single family. We're 2% under the o overall building footprint and landscape coverage, we meet that. We're pretty much uh we're right there at the landscape coverage requirement. Front yard setbacks all meet the
prevailing setbacks. Um the ground floor is just garage, a little entry foyer and a storage area. All flood protected material. >> Let me stop you there real quick just so we have it on the record. There's no intent to put anything on the ground
level that would otherwise not meet Margate and FEMA's flood codes. So there's no first level um portion of the house that's going to be completed and livable. Correct. >> Correct. habitable space won't be on the first level and the property owner is going to file a non-con conversion agreement.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Continue. And then the second floor level is just there's four bedrooms on that level and then the top floor is the main living area, kitchen, dining, living and then there's a bedroom a fifth bedroom in the back. Um and then we have just decks out the front. No third floor, no third floor
decks. So it's pretty clean and simple. The as far as the sideyard setbacks, if we met the 8ft setback on each side, we'd be left with a 9 foot wide house. Uh so be like 9 ft by 30t tall be very matter. So obviously that's why we're
here. It's a true hardship. And then the proposed house is 18t wide. And we left 3 and 1/2 ft on each side for east to get through the to the rear yard for any fire escapes. And then any firewalls would have to be 3 ft or greater. So we
just did 3 foot6. Um that g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g gives us a limitation on the amount of window openings we can have on the side. So that's kind of how we arrive at that 3 and 1/2 ft. Bob, you've designed the house. You've worked with can uh very closely with the building um property owner
based upon your knowledge of the state of New Jersey micro land use law as well as the city of Margate zone code. Do you see any negative that could be associated with this if the board were to grant the application? >> I do not. And to the extent that this design is certainly beautiful, the lots
not big enough to support um regular size house, two and a half stories over parking, would the benefits of the board granting this greatly outweigh any negatives? If someone could associate a negative with this application, >> yes, >> positives outweigh the negatives being the standard we're going by.
>> Correct. Okay. >> For for Bob, um I'm happy that you went three and a half foot 42 inches on each side. Uh, can you tell me how big the garage door is? >> The garage door is a 16 foot wide door. >> 16 foot. No front door.
>> There's a side. >> I I know there's a side door. Why is there no front door? It's aesthetics, but you know, >> to try to get as much storage space in the garage as possible. If we had to put a quarter in, we'd be very tight with the garage. >> A 10ft curb cut, 9 foot driveway, and
then 16ft garage door. I just hate saying no no no no no no front doors on some of these houses anymore, but that's the way it is. It's it's a nice looking house. I like the three and a half foot. I would just love to see a uh front door, but you don't have one on there.
>> Thanks, thanks. >> Anybody else? >> Uh yeah, question. Um Roger, do you know if it was not in the multif family zone, what were the sideyard setback requirements be? >> Five foot. And actually you you brought up a good
point years ago in the multif family zone if you weren't if you were going to do a single family home you went to the single family zoning standards and the 5 foot setbacks would apply. One reason we got rid of that is you saw a lot of subdivisions
occurring in a multif family zone creating small lots again. >> So we tried to get away from that and this is the result. uh the front yard setbacks the original report was there there was a variance required there. How did we Bob >> and I went over the existing survey and
with you had to use a microscope to to look at some of the the numbers on there but we we resolved the the issue with that. >> Okay. So there's no remediation on the >> No. Correct. >> Got it. I concur with those original numbers. >> Got it. >> So I just have one question regarding
and it's for the the sideyard setbacks. You have three and 1/2 ft which is fine. Do you know what the distance is to the properties on either side? How far that is? It's hard. Again, I was trying to look at that on the survey to try and figure that out. But do you know what the distance
from the 3 and 1/2 ft to the other property is? >> Uh, >> I mean, ballpark if you had an idea. >> The right's a lot. The left is much less. >> Yeah. I'd have to >> again I'm just looking at it >> I'm just looking at it from a fire I'm looking at it from a fire safety aspect
>> and and three and a half ft's great. It's good for access for us but to try and put ladders up there and try and do something in 3 and 1/2 ft almost impossible. So that's what I'm wondering what the distance is to the other properties >> just so we can have >> the one on the left is scaling out to about 11 ft.
>> Okay. Okay, that's fine then. >> But that you know that would be my only concern. And uh M m the property owner here, Mr. Deano, just referenced the fact uh Mr. Adams that the one on the right is even further back. That's that's significantly further over.
>> Perfect. I didn't get a chance to go out and look at the property myself. So I normally do, but I didn't have an opportunity and I like, you know, I just want to know that we have access. >> Sure. And the one on the right is actually so far over it looks like the driveway is part of the house that we're doing here. That's a significant um
concrete curve cut there >> about 31 ft. >> Yeah, it's pretty far. Thank you, Mr. President. >> All right. Anybody else? >> Anyone from the public likes to speak? Public portion is closed.
>> Okay, it's uh two variants, two C variances, 25 foot wide lot. I'll note the existing non-conformity there, but only variances are sideyard setback to the deck in the house on the left side. 8 ft the requirement. They're proposing three and
a half. And then the same thing on the right side. 8 ft required, three and a half proposed. >> In terms of conditions, I'll note that they'll provide the non-con conversion agreement. And then just the standard conditions that we put in everything. Sure. >> That's pretty much it. Need a motion, a second, and a roll call.
>> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. Michael Richmond. >> Uh, yeah, I think it's a good project. It's a 25 foot lot. That's obviously a hardship. It's in the multif family
zone. They're going to set up. Well, they can't do it anyway, but now it's going to become a single family and be elevated, especially in that zone is a great thing to do. So, >> Church Patterson,
>> 3 and 1/2 ft's been the minimum that we've been accepting on these 25 ft lots. So, I'm glad to see that. Um, I don't see any detriment here. Other than that, I agree with the chairman. I vote yes. >> Dan Adams. >> Yeah. To echo this the same statements,
I I agree. At least there's three foot sideyard setback for both sides for access. Um, I I do have to ask, so how long does it take you to go from the front how long it's going to take from the front deck to go to the back of the house being 84 feet long? It's not going to be a quick walk. >> Maybe that's on purpose, you know,
family relation, whatever. >> But looking at the area and knowing the area and knowing the flood issues in that area, I think it's important that the flood elevation is met and that we're going to see that in that area. And the fact that we're going from a multif family area to a single family
home, I think only helps Margate City and beautifies the neighborhood. So, I think it's a good project and I vote yes. >> Thank you, >> Rich Tulsen. >> Thank you. Um, I agree with what's been said. I can't add anything different.
Uh, the safety issue that Chief Adams raised, I think, is very important. So, I vote in favor. Herb Zagnner, >> I think it's a nice improvement to the neighborhood back there and um it's uh agree with the board.
>> Stephen Jaki, >> I think it's the best design that you could come up with with property this small. Um I am disappointed in the fact that you got five bedrooms going in there. I think that could be a problem. Uh, but I can't make my decision based
on that. So, I'm going to have to um approve this based on that criteria. >> True. >> Was that a yes or no? >> That's a yes. >> Oh, >> true. Campbell.
>> I agree with my fellow board members. I have nothing new to add. It's a nice project and definitely improve the neighborhood. I do approve. >> And John Pittz. >> Um there's a lot of these 25 foot wide lots in the presidential
multif family zone. We've approved quite a few of them with three and a half foot sideyard setbacks. Uh I think there's one going on right nearly behind this on uh Monroe. I think um the the two stories over parking is very attractive
for that narrow lot. Um, I think as the planning board we should consider ensuring that going forward we maintain the three and a half foot sideyard setbacks. >> Um, I approve. >> Thank you. Craig, did you vote? >> All right.
>> Okay. One more. >> Yeah. John's I I love the three and a half foot and you know we do and um I approve. It's a clean looking project and um it's a big improvement. I approve. Thanks. Did I jump in? No, I didn't call my name.
>> What was John's vote? I'm sorry. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, motion carries. Nine in favor and >> All right. Thank you all. Good night. Nice early night. >> Thank you. >> Good luck with the project. >> All right.
>> Our last case of the evening is Alyssa Miller, 314 North Fredericksburg Avenue, block 501.01, 01 lot 12 located in the S30 zoning district seeking C variance relief for minimum sideyard setbacks and
potentially others in order to elevate the existing single family home and construct a second floor addition current on taxes water and sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided representative by Christopher Balson
you want to go first >> yeah I'll lead Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For members, the report is based on the application of Alyssa Miller, 314 North Fredericksburg Avenue, block 501.01, lot 12, located in zone S30
require first way elevation is elevation 11 to the bottom or 12 to the top. Uh Current is planning a zoning report deemed complete. This is a substantial benefit variance. Background is as follows. The applicant is seeking relief from the ordinance of the city of Margate in order to elevate an existing
1.5 story single family dwelling make it two stories and to construct an addition in the rear. Many of the variances if not all are a result of expanding an existing non-conformity zoning chart on page two. Uh the shaded
in areas are the variances required. Just want to point out that the lot area for the zone, the minimum size is 3,000 square feet. They were at 5,940 square ft. So, it's a nice size lot. Minimum lot width is 40 ft. And the lot
width that they're proposing or existing is 60 ft. Lot depth is 99 ft. So, again, we have a very relatively deep lot and somewhat wide lot. And just a little bit of history on this block. I believe the
there was one large lot to the right of this that was subdivided into five smaller lots. So that's why you had the small lots next to this one big lot. This is kind of left a leftover. So uh before my time by the way
so on page two I'll go to variances. No waiverss have been requested the front yard setback to the building whereas the prevailing front yard setback determines a front yard setback to the building. The prevailing is 18.57 ft. 11.2 ft exist uh and 11.2 ft is proposed.
Front yard set back to the porch is similarly to the building whereas the prevailing front yard setback for the decks is 14.6 ft. Existing is 5.3 ft and proposed is 5.3 ft. And again this house has been there for quite a long time. It was built according to the standards
that existed at the time. sideyard set back to the building on the right whereas the minimum required sideyard setback is 10 ft. 3T and 5.4 ft exist and again 3 ft and 5.4 ft are proposed where it's 5.4 ft. That's the little jog
in the back sideyard setback for the decks and the right rear whereas a minimum required sideyard setback is 10 ft. 5.4 ft exists and 5.4 ft is proposed. Again, it's an expansion of a non-conforming setback.
Uh, I really had no comments. I'm not going to agree to my report. I rely on the testimony of Mr. Balinsson and Mr. Randy Schaefer to conclude the uh the report. >> Thank you, Mr. McLaren. Board members
ceremony. My name is Chris Balance. I represent on the village who are here with us this evening uh for their property on um 314 North Freddersburg. identified in the tax map is block 12 in block 501.01
uh it's in the R it's in R30 um in the S30 zone 3,000 foot lot minimum this lot is almost 6,000 ft. This is a house that's been there since the 50s. Um it's it's it's a it's almost a cottage has one bathroom right now. Um, what the Millers are
trying to do is just take advantage of the lot size they have and build on on the existing footprint. So, they have a full two-story house from front to back. Right now, it's that's actually two stories now. It's a story and a half a half story toward the front. That's going to be raised to two
stories and then that will follow through to the rear. The house remains at two stories. It's not a three-story house. It stays at two stories. Um, the garage will remain. They'll have four parking spaces to the side from the left side. And um as Roger pointed out, there's a variance on the right side.
That's an existing condition. Variance from the front of the house. That's an existing condition. None of those are being expound expanded or exacerbated. Everything else complies. Um everything else complies with the ordinance with respect to coverage with respect to landscaping. It's just two
variances for the existing condition. Justification really is the house is going to be raised almost on grade right now. The house will be erasation flood compliant uh and um obviously aesthetically enhanced because it is the only house left on on that side on that
block actually that um bears its original colors. Uh Andy Andy Schaefer is our project engineer and planner. Uh Andy um can give you his benefits credential this morning. >> All right. Uh Mr. Schaefer just give us
your name and business address, please. >> Yes. Andy Schaefer um 1425 Kent Tillan Boulevard, Maze Landing, New Jersey. >> And please raise your right hand. You swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Okay. And I know your engineering planner Chris, I know he's been here.
>> Mr. Mr. Sharon, Mr. Chair's been here many times before, >> right? Yeah. Weifications. >> Absolutely. Subdri. >> Um and you get the board the benefit of um existing conditions of the property. What's proposed a couple variants? >> Certainly. Existing conditions are is a
house with a detached garage which is a little bit unusual for the city of Margate but it does allow for propensity of parking. The house is sort of locked in here because there are utilities between the house and the garage lead the street. It's a 1950s build. We're
not expanding the footprint except to the rear which doesn't create a variance. So, we're completing the second story as well as adding on to the house where I just indicated and for reference view the back of the house that I'm pointing to now where the twotory
additional will be added. >> You said the house is kind of pinched in. There's utilities to the left side of the house on the garage side. >> Yes. >> So, that would prevent the house from expanding the footprint from expanding if they wanted to just >> keep it lower and slide over. We can't do that because the utilities from the street.
>> That is correct. And and another test of whether we're overdoing it or not is how we're doing on the building coverage. And we're after this, we're still well under the allowable building coverage in spite of the negative created on that um number of a detached garage which would
normally be under or attached smaller impact. So we're not overimpacting the lot. Um >> height remains height remains compliant even with the lift. the height remains compliant. And in terms of it's a two-story house now be next to another two-story house. This house is not
proposing any windows on that side that I'm pointing to here, the neighbor, and they don't have any windows either in that side of the house. So the there there really is no impact to this development. The house is being lifted to be flood compliant as Mr. Balance already said. Um
>> and the variances are for the right sideyard setback which is existing. >> Yes. So the right side setbacks are not being exacerbated in terms of the distance but they are in definition being exacerbated because of the height >> vertical expansion. The
>> vertical expansion. Yes. >> And same with in the front yard setback at the front of the house at the second floor and that's being changed from a half story to a full second story. >> Right. >> And that requires variance as well. >> That's correct. And in in the back of the house, there's a new deck which will
touch into the sideyard and that technically requires variance as well. >> That's correct. So, while we're not increasing, excuse me, decreasing the setbacks, we are exacerbating them by the distance that they that the setback requirement is existing today. It'll be
increased. Um with respect to the variance justification the you see this as obviously the flood flood compliant home is is found to meet positive criteria and also the aesthetic enhancement you find that >> that's correct. So looking Mr. McLaren's
letter in looking at this as a C2 variance it's clearly not a hardship C1 because we could technically move the house but that >> well maybe not because you can't move it over. >> No there's there's utilities and things in the way plus it blocked the garage. So that leads us still at a C2 where we're increasing the size of the house.
And in terms of looking at special reasons which Mr. McLaren suggested we do under 40 colon 55D items B to secure from uh flood u damage. So that accomplishes that by making this a FEMA compliant house. Then
under letter I the creating a desirable visual enhancement. This is a 1950s build that's going to be just about reconstructed uh other than the studs. So, new siding, new windows, new porches, new roof, everything's going to be replaced. >> When you look at the rest of the block, it will fit in be more consistent with
the remainder of of that actually of the entire block. >> That's correct. Yes. >> It's the only the only original house left, so to speak. >> That's correct. >> Um and the fact that with the new construction, with all this construction, you'll have all all new systems, all new HBAC, all new plumbing, all new electric. That obviously has
been found to meet the purposes of the act as well. >> That's correct. Yes. >> You see the varianc is being granted without substantial detriment to public good without substantial impairment? I absolutely doities. I absolutely do. >> The fact that we're on the right side or setback, there are no windows proposed on that side and no windows on the
>> existing house. That's correct. >> So you don't see it as any impact in neighbors or public? >> No. and and the only time I would consider an impact of that sort be invol one that would you know create an impact is if we're asking for a height which we're not all I have Mr.
Okay. Um, how how high are from the where the house is now uh to where you're raising it? How many feet aside? >> It's going from approximately elevation 9 to 12. So, it's about a 3 and 1/2t. >> Okay. >> Lift. >> So, does that kick in the how would does
that kick in the thing where if you go over 3 ft, you have to get a variance? >> No. No. >> We're we're we're at the maximum minimum >> first floor elevation. >> No. No. Right. Right. But so >> they were putting parking underneath. Yes. That would be >> right. Right. Exactly. Okay. Okay. Um,
so yeah. >> Right. We're not asking for any additional first floor height, >> right? So theoretically you could have raised the house and asked for parking underneath 9 ft >> which would have made it a lot higher and I guess theoretically you could have
even went for another half story. Correct. >> Absolutely. Oh yeah. >> Right. So I I the point I'm trying to make is that I know there's I don't think that house is going to stick out like a sore thumb in that neighborhood. First of all, because you're keeping it, you know, just at the minimum and you're
only going two stories, see a traditional foundation go higher traditional foundation, >> right? Well, that you need it. You have to be able to flood it. So yeah. Um >> if they went three foot three feet higher, it'd be the same variances as
>> correct. So there's no change. Okay. Okay. All right. Uh what you having ribbons or a concrete driveway to that garage? You're not >> Yes, there's an existing. >> Is it going to be like Is it going to be like what the existing is now?
>> There's not a proposal to change it. >> Okay. But you didn't show it on this drawing. >> It didn't show. >> Well, it just shows one car going in and nothing else there. But what's what's this? A papers or a porch to the left side of the house on the plot plan?
under this condition. >> Yeah. Right there to the left side of the house. Is that pavers that go in there? Is there deck? >> That's right. Cobblestone. Look. >> See this? >> That's the addition. >> That's the addition.
>> The addition. The hatched area is the addition to the back of the house. >> No, it's on the left side front where it says 32 ft to the to the wall. 32 feet.5 >> right >> to the building. What's What's that there? The 10 ft.
>> That's the That's the existing driveway. >> There's a landscape area. >> Grass in there. >> Grass area. >> That's grass. >> What's it supposed to drive? >> Concrete. Yes. >> They're still under the cover. >> They're not.
They are grass. >> All right. Um, >> yeah. Okay. It's grass there. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? >> Yeah. I just have one question cuz I heard it twice now and I just want to
clarify that I thought I heard something saying on the right side there's no windows. >> Right. >> That's correct. >> On the neighbor. >> On the neighbor's side. Okay. Not our house. >> Okay. Cuz the way that was being said, it was sounding like they were talking about your house and I'm like, >> "Wait a second. I see that." Okay. I
just want to make sure that was clarified because I was a little confused with the way that was said. >> We'll have plenty of access. >> Plenty of access. I I like that on both sides. And we can drive a truck right into the driveway. >> Yeah. >> Hopefully we never have to do that.
>> Okay. Everybody else on the board? Anyone from the public? Public portion is closed. Leo. All right. It's another C variance application. I'll summarize the variances. Front yard setback. The
requirements 18.57. They're at 11.2 and they're standing at 11.2. Uh front yard setbacks to the house to the porches and decks. The front yard setbacks 14.6 is the requirement. They're at 5.3. They're staying at 5.3.
And the sideyard setbacks on the right side. 10 feet the requirement. Again, it's not changing, but they have three. And then it bumps into 5.4. And then same thing with the decks on the right at the right rear. 10 ft's the
requirement. And five, it's at the 5.4 setback. So those are the four variances. And I guess Chris, you'll get you'll provide one of those non-con conversion agreements, I assume. And then I'll note that and then any other anything else to Mr. McLaren's report any representations made by the
applicant and uh subject to any outside approvals that that might might be required. >> I don't think you have to have a um >> yeah that non-con conversion agreement if if they need it they'll they'll do it but they won't need it in this. >> So you don't need it for
>> not not if you have >> there's no head room. Okay. >> No no head room. >> All right. Right. >> Got ahead of myself. All right. >> It's all right. That's it. We'll need a motion, second, and a roll call vote. >> Motion. I'll make the motion. >> Second. >> I'll second.
>> All right. >> Michael Richmond. >> Uh, yeah. Like I said before, I think it's a modest for what we're getting. We're getting a a flood compliant house, a a remodeled house that'll look nice in the neighborhood, but it's not going to
be too high and stick out like a sore thumb. So, I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson. >> This is another easy one. It's a modest house in a modest neighborhood. I I approve.
>> Dan Adams. >> I agree. Uh I think it's beautiful what you're looking to do there. I think you're going to make a really nice look for the neighborhood and it's not going to be something that's oversized and obtrusive to the neighborhood. and I think it's going to be great and good
luck with it and I approve. >> Craig Palmisano, >> a renovated home instead of a torn down home. I like that a lot. I approve. >> Rich Tolson >> for all the reasons previously stated. I
approve as well. >> Her Pagno, >> I agree with it. It's uh with everyone else said. It's nice improvement back there. Steve Josaki. >> Yes, I agree with everyone. I think it I think it is a nice improvement and u
it's good good for the city. I >> Sam Freriedman. >> I agree. >> I agree uh with what the board has recommended and I do approve as well. >> And John Pittz >> uh not expanding the footprint of the home, all the variances or existing
nonconformities. Uh I approve. Good luck. Thank you very much. [Music] >> I must have dead hands, >> right? >> All right. >> I don't have anything. Anybody?
>> Do we have any other business? have a ordinance sub subcommittee. >> Didn't we have an ordinance subcommittee? >> Yeah. >> I think we should try to get together and maybe discuss >> what ordinance changes we like to see so we can kind of mention it in the master
plan. >> I have to we have to figure that one out. >> I could check. I could check. I'm sure we have a resolution. >> Yeah, it's probably a resolution. >> I can pull I can pull it up. >> We have an ordinance subcommittee. I think there's three board members and myself
>> here. >> And maybe just get together and start thinking about things. >> Yeah, I think I'm on that. >> Okay. >> I I think Yeah, that's great because we when is the when do we start the master plan like the >> Well, it has to be it's it's a big exam,
so we have to select a professional to do it. Um I have one in mind that's doing the adjacent communities, Jim Jimala. It's not half a bit. No, we can select one. It's professional services.
>> So, it's a re-exam or or we can RFP. It's ever It's the board's desire. Whatever the board desires, we can do with consent of council or commission. >> The same guy as last time. >> I think I have Mike Richmond, John Pittz, and then alternate um Andrew
Campbell as the ordinance subcommittee. >> Okay. So, let's try to get a a meeting together within the next few weeks just to talk about stuff. It's I think you need to Was it >> Mike John and then as an alternate Drew Campbell?
>> Okay, good. >> Uh >> I can verify that once I'm in the office, but that's what I have. >> Yeah, we'll talk more about the the master plan. I It might not be a bad idea to to have who if we're going to think about a couple people or I'm going to leave it up to you, but if we are to
have maybe them come and interview them, you know, talk to them. What do you think about that? >> Well, I would suggest you have a master plan subcommittee. So, it's not that process shouldn't be on the record. It should be >> on off the side. >> Right. >> Agreed.
>> Right. >> Okay. Good. >> So, do we want to select the committee for that now? Wouldn't >> Wouldn't the ordinance committee be the same as the master plan committee or >> Not necessarily. No. >> No. >> This only happens once every 10 years, >> right? Okay.
>> Yeah. It would be a couple people getting together with Roger to say, you know, who decide who who to select or who to potentially select. >> All right. Well, how many people should be on would you suggest for >> three board members plus an alternate? >> Okay.
All right. Well, I'd like to be on that committee. I'd like Rich to be on the committee. Um, >> John. Um, and and I may be involved in another capacity. >> Okay.
>> So, if there's somebody else on board, >> right, >> like that, I appreciate the offer, the acknowledgement, but I may be there anyway. >> Okay. >> In some fashion. >> Okay. So, you just wouldn't be able to participate in that meeting.
>> I wouldn't be for participating, but I'm just >> Well, if there's a quorum in the meeting, that would be a problem. you are a board member here and I I know where you're what which side you're coming from. So that would be a separate meeting from the subcommittee meeting.
>> Okay. So unless you want to do both, but we can't have >> The only reason I suggested it, Mr. Chairman, is maybe we involve more members of this board by allowing someone else if I'm going to be involved.
>> Okay, I get you. Right. All right. Anybody else? Who do we have? We need one more. >> We need an alternate because we have Mike Rich Patter and John Pittz. >> So, we need an alternate >> Craig.
Well, you have all that. >> Yeah. Coming from you. place. >> We're off the record. >> We want to try and pick a date >> for kickoff meeting or >> uh
>> you guys can we can communicate through email. I'll set up a subcommittee >> like three the three can can communicate or the four because it's not a quorum. So you're safe there, >> right? >> All right. Good. >> So we all in agreement. Mike Richmond,
Rich Patterson, John Pitz, altered it. Craig P. What was that? I put Craig Patterson. >> One of the same. >> All right. Okay. Anything else? >> We're good. Mo motion to adjourn.
>> Do you want second? >> Do you want the 17? >> Yes, please return. >> You want them back? >> Just coming back next. >> Right. The plans won't they're not going to change. >> You'll lose. A lot of people lose and then
favor.