this me meeting of the Margate planning board February 27th 2025 is called to order please stand for the flag salute Al flages roll call please Richmond Richard here Dan
Adams Craig palano here John pittz here Steven ji Here Andrew Campbell Rich Tolson Patty Rosenberg 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 a ized 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 mercanti licenses at the conclusion of your case tonight please approach the board administrator to sign to sign the provided information sheet I'd like to hear a motion for the
approval of the minutes for the meeting of January 30th motion I'll second all in favor I opposed motion passes I'd like to hear a motion for approval of decisions and resolutions
number 5 2025 election of chairperson and vice chairperson number six 2025 appointment of administrator and professionals number 7 2025 appointment of minor subdivision site plan and ordinance
review subcommittees number eight 2025 William and Nicole solvable number nine 2025 5 North Monroe Avenue LLC number 10 2025 Bruce and Randy Pasco
and number 11 2025 Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg I'll make that motion all in favor I opposed motion passes first B is Richard and Donna Bell 109 South Union Avenue block 21 lot 5
located in the S40 zoning District seeking C variant relief for building coverage and potentially others in order to install an elevator in the existing home current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notifying
provided Mr McLaren please be swor in okay I'll swearing Mr McLaren then uh Chris just a couple quick announcements and then we'll turn it over you Mr McLaren please raise your right hand and you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening it be the truth yes I do okay and for everyone here tonight there's uh six applications on the
agenda but four are going to be po or two are going to be postponed so if anyone is here for the application of Stephen and Mary sver 106 South Lancaster Avenue block 13 13 that's
going to be postponed to March 27th 2025 6:30 p.m. in this room the applicant will not be required to Ren notice or republish and the same thing with the application of Sonia vexin 9606 Venter Avenue block
130 L 37 that's also going to be heard March 30 March 27th 2025 6:30 p.m. in this room the applicant will not be required to republish or Reen notice Leo I think you said 106 instead of
108 108 South Lancaster is the Steven and Mary silver 108 South Lancaster March 27th 2025 6:30 p.m. so save everyone some time all
right and uh you're up Mr balson Roger I'll got Mr mlar thank you Mr chairman uh board members report is based on the application of Richard and Donna Bell
109 South Union Avenue block 21 lot 5 Zone S4 Fone elevation 10 background as follows the applicant is seeking relief from the ordinances at the city of morgate in order to construct an elevator to service the first and second floors of an existing single family residence two
variances have been identified to to existing conditions deemed complete zoning chart on page two and continued on page three highlight the zoning just do want to point out a couple things lot area ,000 ft is
required 6,000 ft is provided allowable building coverage is 30% 42% exists and 42.6% is the variance as proposed and also the combined side yard setback were
22 feet based on a maximum combined side yard setback based on lot width 8.4 feet exists that includes the garage 15.4 feet is proposed that does not include the garage but the bumping out for the Elevator Shaft slightly goes into the
combined side yard setback however the minimum side yard setback is still being met uh that's pretty much it I'm not going to continue further than thank you Mr mlar Po members my name is Chris Bon excuse me I represent the Bells with
respect to this application this evening it is relatively simple um 610 of the percent coverage and I side yard setep back to that's all it's being done the elevator installation the bells aren't here John Van's here as their
representative um it's just the depth of the elevator is all that we're asking for you'll see that on the right side of the house just set back is three feet to the garage we are well within that we don't make the set back on that side any worse in fact we are set back 10 feet from the side Lot line which is what's
permitted we are hampered or penalized because what the existing left side is uh Pete you want to just kind of go through your plan and all right uh Mr Weiss just give us your name and address please Peter Weiss
38 please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give this evening it'll be the truth I do thank you I will accept so the the lot is currently occupied by a TW story house um it's an upside down
house meaning the first floor is basically all bedrooms and uh in the garage and the second floor has the main living space on the right side and the mive street is on the left side so the bells spend most of their time on on the
second floor and Mr B is having trouble now with his knees and he has trouble getting up and downstairs they like to be able to um access the house and get to the second door without having to go up all the stairs so what we're proposing to do is that an elevator we
we you know we we discussed and and looked spent a lot of time trying to find another spot where we put an elevator in ternally but we really couldn't find one that wouldn't sort of destroy rooms here and there so um we decided to locate it on the right side in the
driveway that'll allow them to access the elevat and then also get to each floor so it's sort of a twoo kind of configuration of the elevator um it's a wide driveway right now it's over 15 ft so even know we're going to
be protruding into it 5T or so we still leave the three required parking spaces up the S side so we're not impacting the parking yeah right combin so adding this doesn't increase the width of the building in it at all since the gr already protrudes
Beyond it quite a bit yes no I think it's at the end of the day it's aous request No in fact I mean it said back in the street it wouldn't even see unless you H up driveway so your required parking spaces
are still being met correct okay and you're not covering any Landscaping it's it's you're covering the elevator of concrete it's all concrete now board have any comments or questions fatty sorry can you actually get a car
door open though next to you know this elev you know for the first car that's parked in that area oh well I mean this is a a parking space it's not a car was a car is smaller than a parking
space answer yes yeah Park here so bet how much how much how many feet do you have from the edge of the elevator to the edge of the drive seven feet I'm not sure what you're ask what
Patty was asking from the from the edge of the Elevator Shaft from the outside edge to the got 10 ft that's 10t parking space is most cars are about 6 and half ft wide
yes Mr W just a so I can clarify the reason we had to the reason you're looking to put it there is because you need to get grade level correct because it's already how many steps or feet up to that first Flor level yes how far is that the distance I'm curious like the
first Flor steps to the front 50 Ines it's probably three and half feet or so okay you answer I just wanted clarification you're looking so the access is from grade level to get into it verus having yeah I mean it doesn't
make sense to me to have an elevator if you have to go up steps to get through I I agre I just want to clarify anything else in the board anyone here from the public have any questions comments ments public portions
closed Leo could you read it okay it's there's two c variances for the Elevator Shaft the combined side yard setback measured to the Elevator Shaft is 15.4 Ft for 22 FTS the requirement then
building coverage 30% uh permitted they're at 42 and they're going up to 42.6% so and the this the condition will just be the standard conditions we put in every resolution that's pretty much
it have a motion hear a motion Richard Patterson uh I this is a Dom Minimus application I don't see it affecting anything in the neighborhood light air uh any harm nobody's going to even know it's there I approve the application
Dan Adams I will Echo uh Mr Patterson's comments and due to the fact that the person needs access to their own is having difficulty I will vote in the affirmative for this application Craig Pano I would find it very hard to turn
down elevator request people need them the most um I approve this Steven joaki I Sentiments of my colleagues I
agree Patty Rosenberg John pittz I approve motion carries six in favor and zero next case is Alexander Chelli 106 South claron Avenue block 302 Lot 10
located in the s30 zoning District seeking SE variants relief for building coverage minimum rear yard minimum sidey yard setback and potentially others in order to construct an addition on an existing single family home current or taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of
advertising and notifying provided Mr McLaren thank you Mr chairman board members the report is based on the application of Alexander Chelli uh 106 South claron Avenue block 3.02 Lot 10 what is it with these Beach block
applications every application is Beach block that's a that's a good thing okay back to reality it's located in zone s30 FEMA Zone elevation 10 uh see conceive Eran is Planning and Zoning report de complete this is a substantial benefit
variance the background is as follows the applicant is seeking relief from the orces of the city Margate in order to construct an addition by expanding the non-conforming right side setback further building and adding a balcony within the side yard setback there is an increase a slight increase in building
coverage but no decrease in landscape coverage existing structure is flat roofed art that their style zoning chart is on page two and three again just to highlight a couple items minimum lot air is 3,000 square
feet they exceed that by providing ,250 Square ft minimum lot width is 40t uh they exceed that at 52 feet so the uh fances are as follows indicated on page four the
report side yard setback to the building on the right side whereas a minimum side yard setback is 8 feet 4.8 feet exists and 4.8 feet is proposed for the addition and the Del deck balcony again that's an expansion by non-conforming SE
back uh it's probably about 10 foot of expansion towards the street side yard set back to the building combined whereas a minimum combined side yard setback is 19.24% back uh rear yard setback is not a
variance uh building coverage where as a ma maximum building coverage is 38.757195 the elevation certificate was provided and yields a first for elevation of 11.75 navd88 which is equivalent to
13.05 ngbd 29 datm as shown in the uh flood certificates um again this is subject to the substantial Improvement rules I would Gather By looking at this if this won't even come close to the substantial
Improvement however you still need to provide uh proof for that form during submission for construction permits and that's all at this time M thank for having us my name is James Swift I represent Mr chicken's here in the front row we have with us Mr
Hall who's our architect he's want to prepare the plans um very briefly um this set of plans which the board sees before tonight is first let's say look at this we went back and forth a number
of times this is a result of a number of ideations the point was to obviously improve Mr chell's property but also to be let's say cognizant of the neighbors and not to impact negatively in any way
on the neighbors we have had conferences with the neighbors the neighbors have been explained precisely what we're going to do we've shown them the plans and we've tried to be let's say Good Neighbors the reason we didn't ask for too much here is because and here's how this property I mean this application
got start a little bit of History this part and can I point to the plans Mr solicitor and have them sure yeah those are what you submitted with the application okay I'll note that we can call them A1 uh application plans
this it was discovered there's fairly extensive water damage right here the front so obviously it's got to be repaired no matter what we need some re remediation while we were at it we're looking at the remediation that needs to be done we had
a chance to re at what the situation is over here the is extremely tight there's really not much you can do with it if you take a look at the proposed application in Ence we're trying to pull this garage about 9t forward toward
Avenue what this will allow ch is to put a car lift inside of the garage you pull one car in it goes up on a lift and you can pull another car inside in essence it'll allow him to use which is pretty much a nonfunctional it
right now and there going to have to be some more interior work to accommodate that we again spoke to the neighbors about that they were in favor it's going to be 9 foot pulled forward what we're not going to do is expand the building
in any side backs side setbacks will not be impacted they will not be increased at all we will not be removing any Landscaping so the Landscaping stays the same what we would like to do and hopefully the board feels that this is
an appropriate approval on top of this 9 foot pull out is have a another bedroom up there and if you take a look at the propos you want to have a deck out there if you've taken a look at the
property and been to the property the deck that is presently there for lack of a better term is decorative it's not accessible by a door if you want to get on that deck you have to climb through the window so it it's really it's lost space if we can pull this garage out a
little further what we can do is have um not a giant bedroom but we would have a meaningful deck that you could at least utilize a property uh a little bit better again we would submit to the board that this application is not going to be meaningful one way or the other to any of the neighbors it's not going to
have any negative impact we figured while we're here remediation work that has going to have to be done we might as well make the property a little more functional property was built in 1987 is it a terribly old property not terribly
old but let's say some of the functionality that exist in 1987 doesn't exist today so again we wanted to be cognizant and let's say take into account any impact on the neighbors but you don't think it we would be obviously
if we tore the property down and we build up that sort of structure would be significantly more obtrusive in terms of impact with the neighbors I believe we could tear it down build up again Mr Chelli has spoken to the
neighbors he takes all these factors into consideration hopefully the board looks at this and said that this is really not going to have any negative impact on anyone else but it will permit um Mr Chelli and his family to use the property let's say marginally better
than it presently is and could I introduce Mr how to describe some of the technical aspects of the application sure uh Mr H just give us your name and business address please and I'll swear you in sure Chris H registered arid arit 728 West okay
please raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth yes great thanks thank you I think use a microphone yes there you go I think Mr Swift did a good job explaining uh the overall vision of the
property essentially um Mr Chelli was able to renovate this property with his late father 10 years ago so there's some fa ties to the aesthetic so when we first met and Mr Chelli just explained uh that they don't have a functional garage uh for parking and they're looking for a functional garage for
parking we did look at raising the property why don't they have a functional garage um it's it's just 18 feet deep and then there's a two foot stair inside so just that stair encroaches and it's it's very minimal you know it's a minimal stair so and
then this piece which is a utility panel access kind of encroaches into that garage uh area so uh it's just very small um essentially so we looked at raising the property which is what their neighbor did directly to the West uh in
order to allow for an understory parking space when when facing Mr chck Kelly right to the right yes to the West that's yeah to the West yeah to the Bay yep the big grous which is fully raised with the yeah garage so we did explore
that option they Mr Chelli is about three feet below Bas flood elevation uh currently um so he's his house is is 42 in above grade now raising it that 3 feet we would be about six feet up so we we be we'd be in front of the board
again for a variance for additional height for building coverage and non-conforming setbacks so we looked at that option and we felt that this um the Minimus addition in this location to increase the garage area
to allow for that car LIF um was a better zoning alternative how hard do the garage have to be to piggy back the cars that was my question ceiling in the garage the ceiling in the garage is about 12 feet tall 12 that's what it is existing just there's it's three feet to
grade to the first floor Underside the first floor and then they have 9 foot ceilings so it's a 12 foot ceiling pipe now it will need a new garage door obviously like the garage door currently is a conventional style that comes but it'll be the same height as the garage existing garage correct correct that's
correct so it's it's a 9 fo6 expansions toward toward the front to allow for that uh car parking um in Mr mcclaren's report uh initial report from the zoning office indicated that we are below flood so uh in the plan proposed plan you'll
see a mud room in this back portion that would not be able to be added at this time because we already flood so it would be storage crot spas and would be revised to show
um so that area would correct that would that would uh be storage area it's not allowed to be habitable space it is you can't add habitable to areas below the new flood
height so we're we're at 116 so we're above Federal BFB but we're not above the height so we we're not expanding into that flood ordinance my question to you is um on the parking number one space out by the
street that's approximately feet1 parking bring the back that what you're adding it destroys the FR Park we did measure the front parking space with uh the vehicles that they have which is the
larger sedan it does not cross the sidewalk yeah I saw one there today there was a Mercedes in in the driveway there going to was the front of the house correct well it would be new wall 9 fo6 hour
correct is that parking space is that part of the minimum parking yes it would be yeah well you could get a variance for that you need a variance for an undersized parking undersized parking space you're not going over the sidewalk cor right it's it's 158 currently it does not go over
it has to be 18 ft right currently exactly it's 158 I'm sorry from the garage door to the property line as proposed right um so it would encroach 2 fo4 so you would need a variance for that okay and the VAR another variance for the garage door being less than 18
ft from the property line and you're you're adding on the second floor existing non correct on the side yard set back side we're covering the garage that's expanding out towards the street correct with with habitable space how far is
that new addition coming forward 9 foot6 9 fo6 can I go back to the 18 feet again the 18 foot parking spot doesn't cross the sidewalk no it doesn't okay all right it does not I'm sorry I'm sorry property line sidewalk yes it does not cross the
sidewalk uh there's a a we actually measured it there's an exting planner right on the property line which visually we were able to kind of see where where the property line is without having a survey around there Mr chair just before we came to the hearing we
went out and measured anticipation of that particular question it's not come and we did look at the neighbors garage door which actually is further towards the street than where we're proposing we just don't want parking spots that cross the sidew understood
yeah 100% understand so it it does not encroach over the sidewalk um it's about 30 in outside of the property and and we did we did talk about moving that garage door in um but that would kind of eliminate the ability to do the lift to get that additional
space uh above and we felt that with the additional storage removing the understory um it benefits in the summer to allow for an additional car but it also benefits in the win a lot for additional storage if they not goinging fully raised home through outo Furniture Etc so you can still Pell is actually
they do use the house all year round uh so they will be able to kind of use the vehicle when they're down uh with their one vehicle uh park in the garage parking in the driveway in front of that if needed for Gest and then the lift can
be used for um patio furniture storage Etc so that it's not just left out sure not understand how the works you're OT ail they actually um go up you can
you're have the tracks go up higher exactly yeah it will have one single panel above the header of the garage door that stays in place and then the you can raise the track to the ceiling so that you have a single panel and then the other if functions just like a a
typical garage door but rather than suspend it from the ceiling you can have a track that runs at the ceiling does that make sense I kind of feel that the car lifts is almost going to be mandatory because that's that's our
third car you have five correct correct so you really have to have that lift in there I think that's acceptable right and that's the the goal is to put it in the whole reason for the reason
why we're here is to make put it in correct I we start can make it a condition it's not a space anyway any AC third space but they they technically are
providing that third space but we don't recognize it in Ocean see they they did I don't know if they still do or not they it's it's a conditional use if you go in with the you have to sign basically a g restriction like an
underscore um you have to sign a legal document indicating that it's installed and used those Mr chairman if it's helpful we would stipulate that that's fine and part part of like the this is a dated house it doesn't
have an elevator chelles do have family that are elderly so the primary bedroom right now is on the third floor so part of the expansion and adding that to the second floor is just providing additional sleeping area that's
we were hoping that the board renders a finding that this would be a better use to this SP OB furt anything else that's that's the one Ben that we have the garage is not big but it's so we are able to fit a car in to get that
addal space you said the LA room was not going to be in there you move you that wall back to them yes yes yeah yes the wall yes back of the the back of the well so that's the propos none of that is there now so
that is going to come back correct yes correct anything else Jim Mr chairman uh board members um that is our presentation Mr Chelli is here want to him but we respectfully requesting that the board you know viewed this
application we did spend some time trying to be cogn of the impact on the neighbors and hopefully the board makes a favorable finding that it's a good project that furthers the U the intent of not only the Margate zoning uh
ordinance but also the municipal land use law thank you for hearing us anything else from the board anyone here from the public public have any questions comments public portion is closed the board has nothing further Leo
would you read a motion please okay so it's a c variance application uh I'll summarize them it's a side yard set there's a side yard setback bar on the right side of 4.8 ft where 8 ft's required the combined uh sidey yard
setback is 13.1 ft or 19.24% required building coverage is going to be 44.4% where 38.757195 8 foot Dimension about right and and the the requirement for a garage door to the parking for the to the
property line is also 18 feet as I understand it you do have 18 ft to the sidewalk it's just to the property line and then um in terms of the number of parking spaces three are required is that correct Roger for five bedrooms
they they have the one fully compliant the one that we just talked about in front of the the um the driveway and then so they're deficient in parking but one of the conditions is going to be they're going to put that third space that that they
must put a lift in the garage to accommodate the third space although that doesn't technically count under our ordinance as a parking space then the other condition is that mud room area will be converted to storage only as opposed to living space then the standard conditions applicant will you
know comply with any representations that made during the course of the hearing anything else to Mr McLaren's report unless otherwise has addressed and subject to any outside approvals that may be necessary so we'll need a motion in a second and a roll call
second Richard Patterson uh I I don't see any negatives for the neighborhood U it it gets better use of the house he gets uh more compliant parking uh I don't have a problem with a
parking spot the short par parking spot as long as it doesn't extend over the sidewalk so I approve the application Dan Adams yeah Mr I don't negative aspect to the neighborhood went
out MET s C pom on this com on side concessions you made and the put Steven ji I think adding that lifts would
relieve some at least one core of a of a parking spot if it's used and I hope it's used um um the um the parking in front where it's really short I don't like to see
car hous take advantage of it because it's there but in this situation I think it works so I think my opinion is that this is actually beneficial in a way you are getting better use of the
house and I think it's a neat house actually and it's quite look it's done so I approve Pat Rosenberg um I was bit on the fence on thiso I was worried about your neighbor beinged comp
John pets motion carries with five in favor and one opposed next case Gail and William Levering 108 North Quincy Avenue block 318 lot 20 located in the s30 zoning District seeking sea variants relief for pool
distance to property line and potentially others for the construction of a new single family home they're current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notification provided Mr McClaren can I
I I want to actually recuse myself from this one because I know that people personally have had conversation with them so i' rather not vot okay I understand Eric
3547 yeah so uh my report is based on the application of Gail and William Levering at 108 North Quincy Avenue block 318 lot 20 Zone s30 again just a little bit of background of this application they were in front of
the board a couple years ago in order to on Quincy Avenue we have set it's one of the few streets in Margate that we have a set front yard setback they requested a variance for the front yard setback to the building and the front decks to be a foot closer for the building to Quincy Avenue
unfortunate so they're going to have their pool that as designed in the backyard so as fate happens sometimes there's errors and laying out and uh the front yard setback is actually where it's supposed to be for
the ordinance shrinking the backyard down by one foot which pushes the pull back a foot closer to the property line in the rear in order to maintain a 3-foot buffer at the house so that is a Vance they're they're seeking a Vance for the front for the the rear yard
setback from the water's edge to the property line of six ft required and they're asking for 5T an alternative would be to up to the applicant to reduce the three-foot clearance to a two- foot clearance between the building and the
pool but Mr go it's all yours all right so there's a little bit of a story here and I think it's very important uh to understand what happened okay and you might remember this going back to 2023 how this case first came before the
board the applicants purchased the property prior to the zoning change where Quincy had the hard setback and Rogers report is 100% accurate we have nothing to dispute in the report but this was I think it might have been the
first case coming in on a variance for Quincy ad because they bought the house with a specific idea of what to build on the property but that then couldn't have been built because the municipality changed the zoning to the hard stop on
Quincy so you have the initial Property Owners Lings who bought the house believing that it was their fault it wasn't a trick situation with the municipality they thought they had the ability to build their house at the 200
foot setback average which would have been much closer to Quincy Avenue and they got caught in the switches of the new zoning had they submitted an application sooner even a staff committee under the time of application
rule we wouldn't be here the original House wouldn't have needed a variance everything would have been closer and at that point they would have had more room for the pool so and I think I'm right about this Roger you probably remember more than anyone else this I think was the first setback case on Quincy when the
new ordinance was put in place because we would have started staff committee probably in July 2023 is that when ordinance was passed so we would have been right around that time but we didn't have Committee in yet so
we didn't get the benefit of the old ordinance under the 200 foot setback okay that is of course irrelevant to the board because that's every property owner who buys their property takes it as it comes and we're not asking you to retroactively fix something that now
isn't fixed but that's the first step as to why we got here two years ago and it was a significant case you might remember to get just slightly closer for the front
setbacks on Quincy which board saw fit to Grant Rogers report that building was at the same the building itself didn't get any closer it was all about porches so building had to
be at 18 it was at 18 the porches had to be at 12 first and second floor and third are all at 10 okay so this is not a case where the house was made any bigger the house is actually the exact same size that it would have been no
matter what the porches were made bigger because it's very important for the Lings to have outdoor space so when we came in we could have moved the house to 17 and the porches to 10 that would have been you know we would have given up an
extra foot but it was all about the outdoor living space that was the purpose of how we started this when the house following the granting of the variances was set for the
foundation the foundation was not laid out taking the variant into consideration so after we go for the variant and take a lot of time to get it
and and the property owners have to go through the effort of coming here already which is no easy task as you're well aware and they put on the case to get slightly bigger
porches after doing all of that the house is ultimately built to the by right setbacks and everything that would have been to their benefit by way of the variance went away
and again this isn't the board's problem but the history of this is Property Owners by the house believing they can do something with the property the ordinance changes they can't they come before the board they get
approved for a minor portch setback they build the house it's too far back and everything they did up to date is moved so what we're here for tonight we're going to hear an explanation from the surveyor is
to ask the board for a one foot variance from the rear property line to the waterers edge of the pool now as we're well aware bargates ordinance is six feet and that's a pretty hard and fast number but we have
to ask ourselves what that six feet represents it's not a uniform construction Safety Code long port couple throws of rock away is a hard and fast five feet other towns are hard and
fast five feet six foot number is an arbitrary number that this board put in place when the regulation used to be 10 feet so if you go back to the 2015 and 16 when full setbacks were 10
feet everybody was coming in for various requests to get less than 10et so the board we're going to make it six and that's our hard and fast number municipality changed the ordinance but what is that six feet based on it's an
arbitrary number it is not a safety issue because if it were a safety issue other towns couldn't do the exact same pool 5iv feet from the property line the goal has always been to make it so if you hop a fence you don't fall into a
pool and drown we would submit that the difference between and 5T six feet required what we're looking for in 5T is not in any way a public safety health or welfare issue here it's an arbitrary bright line that the city
Drew after they moved it back from the 10 foot SE I'm GNA get into that a little bit more but before I dovon is here he's going to talk about what happened put us in this situation um he's a licensed professional surveyor so
Mr Manis I'm going to have him sworn and just ask you to qualify him in the field of surveying so come on up and we can uh sure hey Mr Bonnie just uh give us your name and business address and I'll get you sworn in use the microphone
please one here are you swearing me in or yeah just just give us your name and address for business address 13 ston Court Township professional land surveyor okay and just please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this
evening it'll be the truth yes I do okay yeah I I uh I I'm sure many of you have seen my name on a lot of plans throughout the city over the past 20 years I've been doing a lot of work here in Margate for a lot of different
developers and uh had looked at all every kind of architectural plan imaginable from Don zer God bless the soul his hand drawn looks like he was drawn with a crayon and you know we uh and I'm not getting any younger I have
to sit down and interpret these things when they come in front of me um this one here uh and I usually require them to send me their CAD drawing so I have their actual AutoCAD drawing that that where they produce their their drawings
and I take that and I bring it into my computer overlay it make sure that everything this one I never had the cad drawing sometimes I make an exception if uh there aren't that many pilings you know that sort of thing this one here I
looked at this site plan and I have a a portion of of it here where it shows the S plan and this is this was basically the only thing I had to go by to determine how far the house was to be
set back in the front and this caught me with my pants down because he has a note here he says line of exterior face of garage setback and he has right below that the number
18 I miss the fact that he had on the opposite side he had the number 17 his 18 feet was to the to the overhead door to the door which is something rarely I you rarely see that
you rarely see a back to a garage door it's always to the concrete block foundation wall that's how this happened uh that was because he could show a parking spot of 18 feet I I don't know what he was trying to accomplish he was
showing a parking spot of 18 feet he wanted the 18 ft to the to the door yeah I guess is what what he was looking for there um well you got the 18 ft plus one I mean you got the you got the parking spot plus a little
way but unfortunately we're 5 feet in the back now I just did a a uh I just did a plot plan you know Longport Margate doesn't require a full surveyor plot plan for building permits Longport
requires us to take the architect's drawing and completely reproduce it on a survey plan and submit it for um approval I just did one and matter of fact it was for uh re Revolution SC duckers Revolution Builders over at
pelum Avenue and uh uh the approved plot plan right there on pelum shows 5et to the pool in the back so I I think that uh that the the counselor here has made
a good a good uh argument for get getting a little leeway on that one foot considering that the next town over is only holding for five fet and to have the the required height fence all the
way around close Gates and lock Gates and all that sort of thing so that's that's where that's how it happened and this is where we're at if you would have put the um structure building at 17
ft parking space in front of the door would have been 16 18t it would have been 16 to that parking space which wouldn't which wouldn't have given you the three you would had it anyway you couldn't have put the house so it's it's where it
really should be it's probably in the back of my mind when I looked at the 18 ft it probably made sense to me parking space in front of the door is only 17 7 in it's 5 in shy of the 18t re
existing so it would have been it would have been 16 feet and that's to the sidewalk too right isn't the property line at the sidewalk yes I took a picture do that's we have right now yeah
so it's really not a legitimate parking space so the it would have been a foot how many spots are they required to have how many beds three spots so you got illegal spot well I would say that you know the measurement by a board member
respectfully I wouldn't call that science I wouldn't call it I don't think you're supposed to go out yeah let's not take pictures of properties for the 80th time okay you can you could explain that to
the board but we don't need independent pictures I again I I don't know anywhere in the municipal Andrew law that tells the board members to go out and measure theer please gentlemen this is not what we're
here we're here there are mistakes made mistakes okay the goal here is to fix something that's been a mistake it's not to go out and measure with a gotcha your spots do I'm not saying gotcha I'm just saying you're
sure I have a we could but I think what we're trying to get to here is an explanation as to foot is this untenable not safe pool but that's not
code you're saying safy okay but that's nowhere in any building or construction compy that's not a minimum clearance that's listed anywhere it's an arbitrary number that went down from 10 to six because it was just easier that way when
we talk about what what do you mean it was easier that way at 10et every single pool was an application for Americans which people were getting at the time and as you know the law is if one specific aspect of your zoning law continues to get
variances granted under that then generally the board or the municipality would change that so it doesn't become and that's exactly what the city did in 14 or 15 so maybe this is something for the new Master Plan next year Well it may be but I'm going to respect ask the
board who has some pretty detailed measurements what the 5 foot represents it represents what the board felt at the time was a safety issue that's what the board filed were we backed by FEMA or oosha or whatever no it was just the board's decision don't come back if
you're under six feet true and that was made clear there's there's another alternative here we uh granted a variant we say six feet for safety we also say three feet around the edge of the pool for safy and we graded a variance when it was the
house was open in the back similar to yours where you could move the pool a foot closer to the house and get a variance there because the safety issue was being able to reach anybody from any spot in the pool and you you do that in this case
you can reach if you move the pool a foot closer to the house you can reach anybody safely from anywhere so you really have two Alternatives here move the pool a foot closer to the house or make the pool a foot shorter or the board could Grant the variance I said
two alternatives to what you're answering two alter two Alternatives yeah so in other words which you're saying that um two two squares 24 in to the from the
from the structure to an edge of a pool where they would walk by well not from the structure because it's open underneath the structure there's a column there there's a Col on the corner correct no's colum right in the middle middle wide and between the pool is that's
danger that's exactly Rosenberg said is exactly why we don't want to move because the way the house is constructed the clearance there is so tight that it doesn't work so we we did talk to Roger about
that and that was a potential fix but it's just I think that is more that is actually more dangerous from the safety standpoint than moving the pool to 5 feet which is an arbitrary number not based on
safety if the board says we need three feet or the municipal ordinance says we need three feet of clearance for emergency Personnel to get into a backyard or if they need a certain width of stairs that's based on uniform Construction a real empirical piece of
data that you rely on here it was just previously 10t now at six based upon the this is what we're going to do to make it different and less less of an obstruction for people to get their pools to be a little bit
bigger so if the board has a reason other than because I'd like to hear six feet is is an arbitrary number uh my point is uh there's a lot of house here
um it's like 55 sare fet 52 square feet and that is maxed out for the house total total square foot of the house this house has built needed no varant I know was within 52t of being too big well that's like saying you're almost late that means you're on yeah you can
say that but some of these it takes up a lot of a lot of a lot the house takes up a lot it's under unlock coverage lots are market and we squeezing pools that's the problem that's why we try to keep uni respectfully your arguments are
that it's almost maxed down and it's covering a lot of the line lot of it's this house could could be built without any variances so if it's a lot of house then the municipal ordinance allows us
to build too much house how long is this s and 20 by 8 8 by 8 by 20 I have a comment too according to the asilt survey it is 18 ft from the front of the house to the property line the front property line is
actually in the sidewalk he's a license surveyor he said the property he's a license surveyor the property Line's in the sidewalk in the sidewalk not the sidewalk yes in the sidewalk it's in the sidewalk it's not behind the sidewalk the edge of the sidewalk is not the property
line and the corn is marked out by a draw hole that means that means it's concrete so it's in the sidewalk yes there's a sidewalk yeah sidewalk yeah the back of sidewalks on his
property sure it right on a survey but then doesn't that put the car into the sidewalk what's that doesn't that put the car into the sidewalk then but it's on his property it's on his property can we press pause for a second
here here for the pool yeah we're not this is like a creation of an issue that doesn't exist you're right you're right should be basing your decision on whether there's a legal parking spot that's shown potentially incorrectly you're you're absolutely him I'm I'm not
saying parking spot illegal I don't care about that that's enough of the parking lot let's talk about the pool right trying to make this as safe as possible that is correct you can't do it to move it a foot CL the alternative of
course we talk about this a lot is that you could make the pool seven feet instead of eight there's no law that says you should have it at eight we're asking for it to be eight and to be a foot closer to the fence and the whole purpose of that is it affects nobody you
always talk about you know are the neighbors adversely affected by this pool coming back a foot it does not affect anyone that who are here for my next case are going to be objecting the neighbors got
notice it does do something for the city there's always a question what does it do for the town what it does is the town is getting Quincy Avenue the sacred Street in the parkway where the setbacks
are hard and fast untouched because of this error so even though the board granted a variant to move everything closer to Quincy now you have have Quincy not touched I don't know if there's been any further variances
moving the home closer but you're getting the maintenance of Quincy at what the municipal governing body wanted which was to preserve and it says in Rogers report what we would call the Grand Street in the parkway at 18 feet and not
17 and the porch is slightly forward but the house is not so there is a give back but there's a mistake that was made here and when you're talking about a house that's new and it's built well and this house again could be could be built with
no variances Bonnie's explanation makes perfect sense there's no contention of Our Testimony as to why this shouldn't occur and can't just arbitrarily look at this and say well I don't like it it's for
safety there has to be a reason we're not hearing any reasons from the board as to why this shouldn't be branded we have professional testifying nobody's testifying an objection I would imagine open up in a second well if you were
asking for a setback for the house there's nobody from the board saying well why is the setback 25% of the depth of the thing that's what the rule is I don't understand question you're saying we're not given a reason why six foot is is the six six foots the rule right if
the setback the side of the house is 5 feet and you want four feet you're saying well the board's not given a reason why it should be 5et that's what the rule is yeah and and people do variances for that but that rule is based upon legitimate Public Safety
Health and Welfare because with stairs and with pool equipment and air conditioning equipment it's based on the depth of the lot so it VAR no it's not based on it's based on the 30 the minimum setback is 5et okay that means there won't be a house closer to the lot than that with the pool equipment or the
air conditioning equipment so that leavs the emergency Personnel to be able to get in and out so that is based on something real and Rich if you read through the setback ordinance for the front taking the uh average of the homes 200 feet in either Direction that's
based upon not skewing the homes so they kind of eventually after all this construction line up so you don't have one that's sticking out further than the other all of those sets are based on something legitimate the setback to the pool is based
upon what Eric the only reason I'm here and you asking forther Varian is because the Mr Bonnie made a mistake okay that's why we're asking for it otherwise we would have been able to use the variance as we got a year and a half
ago and we wouldn't be here isn't every single case that comes before the board based upon somebody wanting something that's not doable by right so it's It's Not Unusual sometimes it's a mistake sometimes it's an encroachment because of an elevator or
because of a car lift or something else but we're here you're here to adjudicate variant cases and there's a mistake and we're trying to get the benefit of what the property owner went in for the first time unfortunately there was an error in
the construction and the design which leads us to come before you seeking the variance but I think I have a pretty good read on the board no one's made a comment as to why this pool shouldn't be where we're
attempting it to go you've heard about the parking spot you've heard about the front garage the 17 and a half with the measurement no one said it shouldn't go here and here's why Rosenberg did say it shouldn't go closer to the house if we agree because it's too tight based upon
those columns but going to the rear property line there's nothing in the back that affected by that neighbor's house is pretty far away on um the street behind so what are we talking
about this this pool also have a a hot tub area on it yes it's really a can't do a Rich why don't you come up just real quickly rich gson is the Builder um just in case he's gonna have
a back and forth I don't want to be problem the say you can't do it's a short you're G to soak and you're we're get we're gonna get the Builder SW uh Mr Jackson just give us your name for the record Richard Jackson address 8101 Fon
Avenue okay please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening it be the truth does this does this testimony have anything to do with the pull setback Craig does it have anything to do with how close it is to the backyard well then can we move on so we don't have much more you've
heard the case you know the file you know this house um Power that's not our concern either anything else in the board I'm sorry are you done I think you could speak you were
sworn in yeah think only I have to talk in the microphone please the only thing I have to say is we did discuss naring the pool but it's only 8 foot as it is so I mean if it was a 10 foot pool I think she would have been more open to that you
want to see some little pools yeah but she's got grandchildren and stuff so she was like it eight the board ask further questions I think we put on the case I'm sorry did you no not
yet I was waiting for you to finish I'll finish with the right to reut from the public okay anything else in the board anyone from the public here any questions or comments public portion closed Eric yeah
look this is an error it's this much towards the back of the property line and we understand that it's a variance because we're going for a one foot
difference The Back Fence it's not safe to bring it up we think as Miss Rosenberg said two feet from The Columns so this would be considered one of what you would call a very D Minimus request
is not president setting and I would say that if anybody else goes for variant builds the house where it would be by right and not the variant they would even have a more difficult argument than this one because it's just the pool it's not the house it's
it's a foot from the rear of the house to the from the rear of the pool to the fence which affects no one and other than a rule that is based on nothing you think this
can be granted without any detriment to the Zone plan or to the municipal land use law and we would rest there have much more to say there's no other questions um it's just the one C variance the the pool set back
to the rear yard they're asking for 5 feet the requirement six feet um I don't think there would be any anything other than the standard conditions that we put in any resolution if approved and uh that's the that's the one variance so it's a motion a second
and a roll call vote that second Richard Patterson a tough one if there wasn't a mistake and the house was built where it was the pool would have been made
smaller or access would have been able under the house on it the board came up with six feet the board's no safety expert I agree to that but that's what we determined we wanted I've heard nothing to support
other than the surveyor made a mistake so let us have the pool I I just can't see it I vote no Craig palas to not adhere to our ordinance would be a benefit to the home owner
only just this one home owner um I agree with foot was 10 foot at one time we made it 6ot and we pretty much been standing by that and um I I don't want to be like I said there was a lot of house
on there and there some of these big houses there's just not room for a large pool so Jes 7 Foot by 20 foot pool is not too big I'm going to say no to the application of
Stephen ji um I I agree with uh the other two um I think it doesn't meet the the C variance um and and it could be seven
feet and I think that we we need more rooms around po not not shorter so I uh vote no Patty Rosenberg I'm looking at um the original site plan and it looks like you were planting
Shrubbery or something all around the the back of that pool area when it was supposed to be six foot and at 5 foot you're not going to have that and I haven't heard anybody bringing up you know the landscape
coverage um so at 5 you know John pits application is denied with zero in favor and five of post next Case is Jamie Kushner and Ronald Nissen bomb 106 South essic Avenue can
we take a break for five minutes we're back in session next Case is Jamie Kushner and Ronald Nissen bomb 106 South Essex Avenue block 5.02 Lot 12 located in the S3 30 zoning District
seeking sea variants relief for building coverage front porch setback side yard setback rear yard setback and potentially others for the renovation of an existing single family home current on taxes Water and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notification provided
Mr McLaren thank you Mr chairman board members original application original report was January 27 2025 the Revis revised plan based on revision submitted by the architect and the applicant so they're taking
existing the application to Jamie cusher Ronald n bomb 106 South Essex Avenue block 5.02 Lot 12 s30 Zone fima Zone elevation 10 uh C variances for Planning
and Zoning report this is a substantial benefit variance the applicant is seeking relief in ordinances in order to construct additions by expanding the second floor requirement side set back barrance combined side yard setback barrance rear yard setback barrance and Baran is to
construct an addition of or not forming attached garage it's my understanding that that storage area above the garage will be removed from the application we'll need confirmation from that also U zoning chart on page
two lot area 3,000 ft is required 3,125 ft² is provided as is typical The s30 Zone on the beach block continued on page three documents reviewed and plans reviewed and as you can see in the plans
reviewed the final set or the alterations through existing residents and elevations John D benedetto sk-3 provides elevations which in my opinion gives a board a better perspective of what they're proposing and what what are the actual variances
instead of looking at just a plan so Advan is required as follows sidey setback to the building on the right whereas a minimum side yard setback is 8 ft 2.5 ft exist and 2.5 ft as proposed for the second floor that's an expansion
of a non-conforming setback sidey setback to the building combined whereas the minimum side yard setback is 18.5 ft that's based on 37% of the lot width 2.9 ft exist and 2.9 ft is proposed and again that takes into consideration of
the garage being attached to the principal structure in at or near the property line and the rear yard setback to the building whereas the minimum rear yard setback is 20% of the lot dep or in this case 12.5 fet 6.8 feet exists and
6.8 feet is proposed for the second floor addition again that's an expansion of a non-conforming setback the the first floor is not moving but they're adding the second floor to match the first floor that is driving the bares at this point in time I will turn it over
to the appli thank you Mr McLaren Mr chairman Eric Coy on behalf of property owners with me tonight to my right is John deetta we prepared the plans to my left is Mr nissom one of the property owners um I think this is a fairly straightforward
case Rogers report of course we agree with uh the house has been there for quite some time it is not flood compliant the goal is just to perk it up to make the streetcape a little nicer along essics and there was originally
proposed to be a area of storage that's been removed but um Mr de benetto it's his first time appearing here I'd like to get him sworn in Mr Manos and then qualified as an expert architect and he will take us through the plan okay uh Mr Beno just give us your name and business
address please John de benedetto 335 home Press Road jenkinstown PA and please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony you'll give this evening it be the truth I do de beneden Ben I think I said bened
that's okay I know this is your first time here theard takes it arit seriously but want to make sure a couple things you are licensed in the state of New Jersey yes the board about your qualifications ask as well I have a I have a little script
there so good evening my name is joh benedetto we believe this house was constructed in 1950 in 1996 the current owner improved the can you go over his qualifications want
to get him qualified first right I hold on hold on I'll get I'll I'll jump there thank you you're welcome I've been in private practice since 1980 I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey and seven other states I'm certified by the National
Council of architectural registration boards I'm a longstanding member of the Society of American registered architects in which I've been elected to their college of fellows in addition to my architecture practice for 35 years I provided design build Services through a
construction company that I formed for this complete service you accept as anert we'll accept your qualifications yes you have so many qualifications we just wanted to get qualified okay so now you can go through it now you can start over okay
this property at 106 South Essex Avenue is a twostory residence zoned s30 block number 5.02 Lot number 12 the first floor is 1290 Square ft the second floor is 1290 Square ft for a total living
area of 2580 the front porch is 350 square fet and the garage is 263 the house has been maintained and it is in excellent condition the issue at
hand is the roof structure Bears on the walls of the first floor ceiling height leaving the second floor exterior walls about 4 foot six High denying full utilization of floor area and and
Furnishings the focus of the proposed alterations is to raise the roof to enable the second floor walls to extend to a full 8ot height for full utilization of bases there are also interior alterations proposed including minor
partition alterations and toilet room alterations the property is in zone AE and the flood elevation is 10 ft sidewalk elevation is 7.67 ft and the existing first floor elevation is 10.5
ft the property was appraised February 16 2024 by a State Certified residential real estate appraiser the replacement value of the house structure $720,000
983 based on that appraisal half of that appraisal value is $360,000 492 we have a contractor Steve Howard whose work is centered along the coastal towns of New Jersey he confirmed that
his estimate to complet complet the proposed alterations would be no more than $350,000 Which is less than half the appraised replacement cost of the house structure therefore we are not required to raise the structure to a higher
elevation and I have copies apprisal Stu really isn't for the board it's more the building construction C I'll hand you all right focus on Zing construction
okay the zoning conditions as Illustrated on the site plan are as follows the minimum required lot area is 3,000 square ft existing is 3,125 square feet proposed is 3125
square fet and we are not expanding the existing footprint of the building the maximum required building coverage is 39.3% existing is 52.7% proposed is 52
57.2% we are not expanding the site coverage and we're keeping this existing condition the required front yard setback is 5 feet the existing front yard setback is 4.7 ft the proposed
front yard setback is 4.7 ft as we are not altering this existing condition the required West sidey yard setback is 8 ft the existing West Side yard setback is 2.5 ft and 6.8 ft the
proposed Westside yard setback will remain 2.5 feet and 6.8 feet as we are not altering this existing condition the required East Side yard set back is is 8 ft the existing East
Side yard setback is 0.4 ft at the garage and 8.6 feet at the house as we are not altering this existing condition the required rear yard setback is 12.5 ft the existing rear yard
setback at the garage is 0.1 feet and 6.8 ft at the house as we are not altering this existing condition the maximum allowable Building height is 30 feet the existing building height is
21 feet the proposed Building height is 30 feet to the top of the new Ridge and compliant I'm it's actually less than that you measured from the street Rog confirm that we're not going up as the height from the street we're still getting the benefit of the Bas flood
correct it's measured from the first finished first do you measure to the uh mid mid slope of the roof or the ridge the ridge okay but it's still it's still it's still under yeah the uh required off street parking
is three spaces okay according to the ordinance I believe it was three driveway correct no you're correct there's three so I believe that bed what my my
review of the uh of the ordinance it was three was required we're providing three as you can see there are existing conditions that we request to be accepted as grandfathered existing conditions the new roof will be finished with blue fiberglass shingles the first
floor siding will remain the second floor siding will be Hardy Shake style shingles matching the existing second floor condition the first floor porch and second floor deck deck will remain as this our previous submission included a
9- foot high storage closet addition at the rear of the garage roof we have eliminated that idea there will be no storage additions to any portion of the exterior of the property these proposed alterations will enhance the athetics of
the property and the streetcape of X6 Avenue and in no way will detract from the value of neighbor neighboring properties and in fact we submit that these will enhance property values appreciate your attention and I'll take question' gone through the
house I'm sorry I got Mr de Mr deetto you walked the board through what we're planning on doing here uh based upon the uh city of Margate Zone code in the state of New Jersey municipal land use law do you see any negative associated with this
variance request if the board saw fit to Grant it I do not to the extent that taking all the time in your design acument into consideration would you say that what you put before the board is a substantial benefit that the benefits
would greatly outweigh any negatives if any negative could be associated with this project yes okay so let's talk about the property a little bit that was a very formal and very well put together uh presentation but the board's going to have questions regarding what we're
really doing within the house so just tell them and Ron can testify as well what we're trying to do and the reasons for doing that well as I said the the focus of this whole effort was to make the second floor spaces functional um
the walls come up about that high and the roof comes down and you can't furnish against them you can't walk around that room and so raising the roof is the focus of the whole project uh in in the process they decided that uh some
upgrades to a couple of bathrooms would would be you know desirable um and that's pretty much it that's that's pretty much what we're doing the front this there's a there's a small deck on the uh second floor front
that remains as is there's a porch on the first floor at the front that remains as is um it's really it's really raising the roof is what we're after here so the walls will go from 4 foot to 8 foot yes
yes us manys floms on the flo you have three on the second floor right now and how many are on the first floor right we got to get them sworn it I'm Ronald niss bomb 106 South ESS Mr niss bomb please raise your right hand
you swear to tell the truth I do thank you uh there are five bedrooms uh originally when I bought the house in 1995 there were two bathrooms we took the closet and made it into another full
bath So currently there are five bedrooms and three full baths um I'm the second owner of the house um Tomy is grown now have
grandchildren and uh uh the second floor some reason when it was built uh is strongly peaked so essentially what we're asking to do is to raise the sides so that we have a full
normal uh bedroom with the regular sized walls so we we are adding a bedroom I was under the impression that the bedroom count was not increasing so now you need a parking vars no the bedroom count I don't believe is inreasing
you're going from five to six so you're increasing are we maybe putting up partition because the one of the first floor bedrooms extremely large m clear the outside structure roofs coming
up we're not expanding the footprint R all that's correct footprint stays Remains the Same so I just want to get the positives and negatives about the yes
ass add B and the garage top structures removed excuse the application I'm sorry the structure that you had originally on top of the garage that's not part of this any yeah as I said there will be no uh exterior storage additions anywhere on
the property so it's fair to say that the house Still Remains well below the All Height me from fin first Flor and without change to the footprint of the house the board is basically seeing is a roof being raised up everything else is
being done internally but there are no change to the exterior correct other other than wall finishes deciding chairman I find this to be a fairly diim case the board members have some questions here but fact they were
Nott footprint fact that everything being maintained other than the roof going up and it's still stay well below the allight imag we would rest subject to being able to call either one of our Witnesses F
questions anything else in the board you know I'm just looking at at the area and I went by the house Mr McLaren do you have any ideas because I know you've been pretty good with finding places we can come up with some open space here what do you think we can
do to less impact of the addition looking at the driveway I have a photograph of the driveway it looks like originally there was you know maybe a green strip down the middle because the way concrete [Music]
my my thought process wasy come put the midd you put in that middle concrete Patty everything's supposed to be the record I'm sorry Roger what were you saying sir that middle strip that Patt was
talking about probably was grass if you remove that put on Stone you get 50% credit okay Ron do you understand that come on strip put a grass strip
there or papers yeah R won't live the footprint of the house hasn't changed since I bought it we know what their answering is if you would give some considerations as Miss Rosenberg said to adding something that would make
it more pervious there's a type of P yes I understand now would you be willing to do that yes positively okay and what what's behind the house the uh concrete there's a couple air conditioning unit back there yeah and
it's a it's a very very tight area back there to the fencecrete yeah we could remove the concrete and put papers back there thank you so based upon I'm sorry go ahead
well we have the distance 62 18 gives you4 so was Miss Rosenberg requested we can we move on with the case please We Believe Miss rosenberg's idea is a good one to put the strip of pavers
that are pervious in the middle and removing the concrete in the back with the same pavers that would give a credit Chiefs as well to less runoff at the site so we'd be willing to do that Mr Mr Mom said that would be okay U don't know
if we can find anywhere else to put Landscaping we get some credit for papers but that's probably as bad as good as we can get anything else in the board that's a yes yeah I'm sorry there are two conversations going on and then I want to make sure you're aw
yeah anyone here from the public have any questions or comments public portions closed if there's nothing else in the board would you read it motion please yep okay it's a c variance application I'll summarize them
and then we'll need a motion in a second it's a sidey yard setback on the right side two and a half feet rates required combined sidey yard setbacks uh 2.9 ft or 18.5 FTS required the rear yard setback is 6.8 ft or 12 A2
is required and then parking for six bedrooms four spaces are required they have three so there's a one parking space variance the conditions um and I believe if I Roger if I understood you correctly there's on the plans there's some storage addition shown on the top
of the garage that's not going to be part of the application that's going to be removed and then um for the discussions here at the end of the hearing the applicant will put uh pavers on Stone down the middle of the driveway and in the back of the house they'll they'll submit something to to be
approved in Roger's discretion and Mr deetto can send that to Roger and me directly and if he says it's okay we'll get as much as we can and um that'll be fine Mr and then the the other conditions would just be the standard ones and anything else in Mr mcclaren's report L otherwise addressed any
representations made during the course of the hearing subject any outside approvals Richard Patterson I see this a case of uh restoring an old house and actually making the house more useful without expanding the footprint I I see no
negatives here I only see a benefit to the neighborhood and to the order I approve the application Dan Adams Craig Pomano yeah I agree with the other board members so how do you
vote yes thank you I think they voted yes Stephen ji yes I I'll agree with the um other board members it's a yes vot Patty Rosenberg I agre thank you thank you for your input too that's
always important i' like to get that before we go thank you P John pitz motion carries with five in favor and one opposed thank you thank you all very much than
Rich do you want to do you are we done or are we are we done I hear a motion to adjourn motion all in favor all in favor opposed motion passes meeting and jour