Stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> That's what I think we're going for.
Mike Richmond >> here. >> Rich Patterson >> here. >> John Pittz >> here. >> Dan Adams >> here. >> Craig Palmisano >> here. >> Rich Toulson. Johanna Perski >> here. >> Her Pagno >> here. >> Steve Joki
>> here. >> Andrew Campbell. Sam Freriedman. Patty Rosenberg. >> Okay. Um, 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 merkantail licenses. At the conclusion of your case tonight, please approach the board administrator Palama to sign the provided information sheet. Okay. Um, approval of minutes meeting of
November 20th, 2025. Do I hear a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Uh, approval of decisions and resolutions 37-2025
Triumph Building Triumph Development Group LLC. So, I hear a motion. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. All right. Our first case tonight is Scott G. Hmel, 105 South Douglas Avenue,
block 4.02, 02 lot 3 located in the S30 zoning district seeking C variance relief for dormer size pull set back from house and potentially others in order to replace the existing home with a new single family home current on
taxes water and sewer payments proof of advertising and notifications provided representative by Christopher balanc and I'll get uh Roger Sworn, please raise your right hand. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth?
>> I do. >> Okay. Thanks. >> All right, I'll start us off. Thank you, chairman, board members. Report is based on the applicant of Scott G. Hummel 103 South Douglas Avenue block 40 4.02 lot 3
located in the S30 zoning district and the flood zone elevation 10. This is a substantial benefit variance. Although C1 and C2 criteria have to be provided testimony for and the applicant is seeking relief from the ordinances of the city of Margate in order to
construct a new 2.5 story single family dwelling above parking with at least two non-conformities requiring the relief. The location is at the beach block at Douglas Avenue and the style of the home is a Spanish style design and large dormers in high eaves. The halfstory
area wise meets the intent of the ordinance. So the zoning charges on page two. I want to point out a couple items is minimum lot area is 3,000 square ft. They satisfy that with 3,125 ft. Minimum lot width is 40t. They
satisfy that with 50 feet. All the other set packs, front, side, rear, deck heights, they all comply. Building coverage is way under what it can be. Landscape coverage meets the requirements. However, we get to this third floor. And there in lies the uh and the
swimming pool in the back. So, the I'll go over to verances real quick. Swimming pool for clearance. Our ordinance requires a three-foot clear zone around a swimming pool going vertically up and it can't touch
anything. And the swimming pool is partially under the building. So therefore, it's a 0 foot clearance based on that plane of the building above it. However, I do believe that 3-FFT clearance around the pool itself. The half story must be fully contained
below the roof of the second floor and above the roof is existing and proposed. Um again it it's by definition of our half story it doesn't meet the intent of that definition and of course if you don't meet the half story that means the
eve height is off to the maximum height of the third floor eve height is 18 in above the top height of the second floor greater than 18 in exist and uh 18 in is proposed again with the dormer area whereas a maximum dor dormer area is 40%
of the area of a story elevators and stairs stairs or stairwells are exempt and greater than 40% is proposed. So again I just want to touch on those four variances again two three and four half story eh height and dormers they're typically if one
needs a varance they all three don't comply either so I'll turn over to Mr. Balancing. >> Thank you. Good evening everybody. Um my name is Chris Balance and I represent Scott Hmel who's here for his property
103 South Douglas Avenue lot 4.02 lot 3. It's in the S30 zoning district. Scott's been Scott built that house that's there now more than 20 years ago. um you may recall we were here a couple years ago for a couple variances for that house when he was considering some
modifications to it which were never acted on because it just the non-conformities in that existing house just aren't worth trying to work around. It's so dramatic. Um what he what he has done instead is going to build a new house which believe
it or not um will will be smaller than what's there now um in terms of overall size. Um the variances were pointed out by Roger. The pool variance is that there's not a 3-ft step back from the
building. However, I mean, I was around when that control was adopted. And that control was adopted. So, you didn't have a pool running up against the house. Somebody fall out of a window into the pool. Um, or somebody jump out of the window or somebody fell in the pool and you couldn't get to them because you couldn't get all the way
around the pool. I can think of no other reason for that control other than to have clearance all the way around and forgetting that for somebody jumping or falling on the window into the water. But I think I' I'd rather fall into the
water than on the 3ft lip that's now required. Be that as it may, the pool that Andrew designed, there is three foot or more of clearance all the way around it. So there really no there's no safety connotations that arise as a result of the way the pool's designed. It's just a
more contemporary design. Parsi underneath gives you partial shade parts underneath over a deck above. From a fire safety standpoint I see Dan I think I'd rather be able to jump out of a window and cool than be concerned about concrete 3T 3T of concrete below that
really serves no purpose other than I think it's probably more dangerous than it is helpful. Um Andrew can talk to you about the roof. The roof design is simply an attempt to make something that looks different. We get so much crap and
there's nobody else here, so I'm get so much crap these days about the houses looking similar. You have a straight up three-story house, two gables, and a and a deck. Um, that's because of the way that's that's what the ordinance give gives you to work with. Uh, Scott's current house is Mediterranean or
Spanish style. Going to try and keep that theme going, build a new house with with that type of design. And you get that design from the from the roof elements. Uh and Andrew can give you give you more explanation about that. I want you to keep in mind though as you go through this in terms of the
zoning and what what improves. Let me just go through that for you. Um we have a sideyard setback right now at zero on the right side. That goes to eight. We have a sideyard setback on the left side right now at 4.7. That goes to eight or
that that goes to uh 10.6. You have combined side drives right now of 4.92 4.92 5T combined side that goes to 18 and change. Your landscaping now there's none will
conform at 35 and 60. Um parking will be four spaces where two and a half are required. So you'll from a your co coverage cover the footprint is about 300 square feet smaller
than it is right now. Footprints are shrinking and coverage is is well below what's permitted. So not only do you improve dramatically on what's there now you improve significantly over the ordinance as it stands. It's the house is is not blown up so to speak. Um Andrew Beal is the
architect. he designed the house and he could talk about it. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Be told, just give us your name and business address and I'll swear you in. >> Yes. Andrew Betold, uh Thomas Beold, architect, engineer, and planner, 599 Shore Road, Summers Point. >> Okay. And please raise your right hand.
You swear affirm the testimony. Give this evening. You'll be the truth. >> Yes, sir. >> And you're an architect. Ju just an >> architect and a planner. >> And a planner. And you've been here several times. >> Yes, sir. >> We'll accept his credentials. >> You have planning license? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Um, Andrew, if you want to take the board through the current conditions of
the house, what I'd like you to do is kind of show some of the zoning improvements, not only over the ordinance, but over what what's there now. >> Correct. So, Chris has already mentioned a lot. You can see the actual existing survey up on your screens on the other side. You can see the easterly and
northerly property lines. It's a zero lot line. We're improving both of those significantly. the easterly uh plot line which is at kind of the bottom of the page that's going to be increased almost 10 uh 10 foot 7 in where it's zero currently and then the rear yard setback
which is the norly problem we're on the right side that's going to actually go up to 12 ft we're currently at zero so we're we're pulling the whole building and create increasing light air and open space because the building's coming in on both sides and it's also coming in off the back the front of the building
will be respecting the front porch line. That is the average for the block. However, our block will be a little bit further back with the actual building line, not the deck line, but the building line than the block average. >> Couple feet behind. The building line's a couple feet couple feet behind where it's required to be.
>> Correct. One of the issues that and if I can direct you to to the second sheet of your of your packet is that is a half story. They really wanted to get this much style. We believe from a flood perspective that obviously the house
should be all raised. You can see that it's it's quite your zoning flood elevation is actually all the way up here. The existing building doesn't need to comply with the proper flood requirements now. So with the first floor having to be almost 8
feet up in the air or very close to it, we elevated the entire structure which serves two purposes. number one against a flood and number two it provides a ton of extra parking. So we have two parking spaces outside two parking spaces within a garage. Um and down on that lower
level which I know people have some issues with lower levels. You know the entire lower level is basically a foyer space that runs all the way to the back that has access to an elevator and then we actually have some lenai space where the pool comes into that. Again, we're holding 3 ft from the building, but from
the vertical plane because the pool biseects uh from the outside and the inside. That's the issue. So, our pool kind of comes underneath the building, but there's still a 3-FFT access around it. So, from a safety perspective, I don't see that as an issue at all. Um, again
on the elevation pages, a Mediterranean style home, especially when you have an all raised house, it's going to be very, very, very difficult to do something that's actually Mediterranean with the rules that or the definitions that the city currently has in place with the dormers. We uh
absolutely talked to Roger before we started this design. kind of knew we were going to be in front of the board, but we tried everything we could to kind of mitigate that half story so it didn't appear like, oh jeez, these guys trying to break the rules to have this this huge building that's imposing on the front. One of the things that's
important to note that you can see on here on the side is our half story is actually back from the plane, I'm sorry, from the plane uh that's currently all the way out at the out of the street, but after the setback, we're back almost another 10ish feet from the wall below.
So, as we ascend, we pull back. We're also doing that. You can see this on the back side of the building. As we ascend, we pull back. We're pulling back about another 2T, 2 and 1/2 ft from the rear yard. So, our rear yard set back to the dormer or the top floor is actually 14
1/2 ft or 12 ft was required. So, we pulled it in mass wise. So, when you're looking at the building, it it's not up in the back. You know, we're trying to keep it we're trying to keep that light air up. And Andrew, one of the reasons for the roof controls, dormant controls, even height controls that we have now is
for that specifically to decrease massing on the street to decrease massing on the neighbors. >> Absolutely. >> And I can't think of a better example than this house where you decrease massing on the neighbors simply by improvement of the setbacks. But at at the third level, you have you have tucked the house well back in the front,
back in the back in the rear, the elevator on the opposite side. >> That's that's permitted. >> Yes. But but otherwise the the the intent of that aspect of the ordinance for massing and imposition is met. >> Correct. On the on the left side which
would be the um west side of the building. We have our stair and our elevator tower in this space. So that's arguably conforming to those requirements because we have to get the elevator and stair up there. It's on the opposite side where we have like a a small master bath. Again, we're not
pulling it on the sides, but we've already come in multiple feet on either side of this building anyway. So those those pieces aesthetically that we're wrapping the roof around the entire third floor to try to reduce mass. So you see a ton of
roof here. Uh and then yes, we have vertical walls that simply come through. >> From a from a design perspective, what what gives you that Spanish that Mediterranean look? What >> specifically what you're seeing here, this is, you know, pretty much what you would see as a Mediterranean style home. You wouldn't have these very high
pitched roofs that are all done up in tile. They would be a much more flat roof, which again we comply with the roof pitches, but they would be a lesser pitched roof. They wouldn't be these very steep sloping roof. That's not something you typically see in a Spanish. >> So, it's really just a design element. It doesn't give you any more living
space than the third floor. The third floor still applies. >> No. And again, as Roger noted in his report, our hot story is square footage wise right where we're supposed to be. We're not trying to get more out of this. We're we're simply trying to get something more aesthetically different. You know, whether you think it's
pleasing or it's not pleasing, that's fine. But like I think a lot of people are getting tired of these same boxes that keep sprouting up all over town. And we think this is a much nicer alternative um than what we're seeing typically. And that's why we're for you. We're doing this is pretty much an aesthetic ask to the board to say, you
know, we we believe this is nice. We believe this is different. We hope you believe the same. We're trying to trying to do everything in our power to keep this space brought in so it doesn't feel like it's that >> and and you from a planner's perspective, an architect's perspective, you think that that this design meets
the intent of the the ordinance with respect to how how a three-story house might impose on a neighbor or impose on the street or impose on the sidewalk? >> From a massing perspective, I believe it does because again, we're pulling it in from the front. Arguably, you could say, "Well, you don't really need to pull in from the back." But, you know, we're
we're trying to create this piece coming inward. And we knew that that was going to be an issue with the board, but again, by pulling it back and creating that space off the front of it where we believe it will be the most noticed by the public, we think that's the best way to do this. That's why it's back further
than the other two floors below it. >> And otherwise, this house meets or exceeds >> Yes. >> on in a good way all the zoning controls and and what's currently there. >> Yes. And as that's clearly shown in in in last week's report, we're basically asking for this aesthetic
variance. Um, and obviously the pool bearings and and again with the pool where we're still creating the space around the pool. You still have six feet actually from the edge of the pool to the edge of the rear property line. So we're holding that space. We wanted we thought it was more important to have
the setbacks around the pool um from the property lines from neighbors. So that was imposing to you know. So we we bisect it with um the house as opposed to pushing it closer to the neighbor. >> And there's still access to the pool
from the back of the house. >> Correct. There there on Yeah. You'll see a couple. >> Let's let's let's get that clear. So if I come out the back of the house from inside to outside underneath the deck. >> Mhm. >> How many feet is there till I get to the >> There'll be a 3 ft from that. >> So there'll be access
>> correct all the way around. >> Yes, sir. >> No. No impediment. underneath completion. >> How big is a pole? >> It's modest. Um that's actually the pool is approximately >> It is uh about 12'8 in by 10 10 and a
half ft. >> So it's not a huge pool, right? >> Andrew, let's talk real quick about the land use act and the positive criteria and what has to be addressed. You already touched upon the land and open space and I think that's obvious in light of the zoning improvements at at grade. >> Yes. Um, and but in the aesthetic,
you've al you talked about the aesthetics as well. U depending upon what you're looking at, this does give a different aesthetic treatment, a different aesthetic look. >> We believe it's a desirable visual environment. Yes. Is that a it's a change from other buildings that have been popping up. >> Do you think the variances, the two variances requested, I say two because
we're going to bundle the top floor variances into one kind of um can be granted without sub substantial detriment to the public. Good. I mean, tell me that. Tell me about the benefit to the neighbors in this design versus what's there now. >> Correct. Again, we're we're pulling the building away. We're we're reducing the mass as you look at the building because
it's stepping back. So, from a massing perspective, we believe we're following the intent. The intent of the ordinance is we don't want a huge piece up there and we don't want a lot of space up there. We're hitting it. As far as the space is concerned, what we're allowed to have spaced and then from a massing perspective, again, the entire building
is still wrapped with a roof that wraps around it. It's just not by your definition. >> And when you consider a variance, the board gets to look at the variance as a whole. So the improvements alto together on on the piece of property on the on the lot are dramatic in terms of that that >> absolutely I mean we have a zero setback
on two sides for their sake even our pools are expecting you know a sixoot setback there and all the accuchments for the pool the pool equipment the air conditioners everything is within all the specs the the landscaping etc and we're providing more parking than currently what's there we're getting the
building out of flood as opposed to what's there's many improvements on >> so therefore you think the varian can be granted without substantial impairment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance. >> It's an improvement obviously of the zone plan. >> Yes, I >> thank you very much. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. >> Okay.
>> Um when you look at the front view, can you put the views up of the front and rear view of the pal on the on the front view on the left side? >> Yes, sir. >> And the rear view also? >> Yes, sir. Uh those side walls on the left and right side walls. Yes, sir.
>> They're 40 foot long 40 foot tall walls, aren't they? >> Yes, sir. >> That's and that's that was our point when we tried to bring the um dormers and the third floors into the roof area by not having those massive walls. So, from the front of the house, it to me it
still looks like a massive house, a 40 foot tall house. >> Well, and that's kind of the argument with showing it in two dimensions. These walls, >> they're set back further than that. No set back >> and they're interrupted by the roof. So to me they're not read as a continuous wall. It would be different if this wall wasn't here and you saw that roof coming through
>> and from the rear also from the house you know from the rear standing you know the house behind them if there's an empty lot or whatever there there's 40 foot tall walls there and it's set back also >> interrupted by the roof. And again these spaces over on here where the stair and the elevator exist that could be that
tall because they're allowed to be that tall for the access. I know the elevator can be sure I know that the elevator and the dormer you have drawn there is a typical dormer >> in the rear see the rear one the dormer there that's typically what we have maybe larger if you can
>> but that that door inside the roof line >> yes inside the roof line that's what happens when we raise the eaves up more than 18 inches how how high are the eaves raised >> so on all these you know your lowest your lowest top plate height is approximately 7 foot
top >> from a foot and a half you went to 7 ft. >> No. So that's 7 foot to the top weight. Then you're going to be down probably about another 8 to 10 inches to the bottom of the socket. So you're talking about again an increase. Yes, absolutely an increase. >> A huge increase. Really
>> an increase. But again, if it was a dormer wall anyway, that dormer would be allowed to be up that high regardless. So >> the dormer e could >> it's set it set back in. >> Right. And again, front and back it is set in side to side. It is not set in at all. front and backward. >> Okay. That that that's all my point of
the 45 foot walls or 40 foot walls, you know, on both sides. >> Yes. >> So, um getting into um Mr. Pomado's point like we if we if this house didn't have the
the the you know the higher dormers and we started the roof at that height of the main roof. Okay. So those you could if that main roof was start at that height, you'd still have those what the the height of those walls
there. Correct? You follow what I'm saying? To me, that main roof breaks up. The the reason like Craig was saying, we didn't want the mass to come up. Okay. But I think that when you do that main roof at that level, >> it does break it up. And I think that if
you built Roger, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if you built that house and and you you and and you did it like we've been normally doing it now with the Dutch look, >> um you'd still you you'd still probably
have those walls from gray to to that roof height of the main roof the same the same math. Well, and my other argument is these dormers, and I agree from a graphic when you're seeing this, you see that wall, but this is back, this is back 24 feet from the front property line. This is back probably 34
feet plus from the property line on on pretty much both sides. So, again, because we were pulling away from the neighbors, both front, side, rear, and back. You know, we were kind of saying, all right, what makes the most sense and how do we do as sensitive as possible? That's a pretty small area that's coming out. But if this was a cross gable, and
Roger could attest to this. This was a cross gable that we had coming through it, it'd be a vertical wall. >> That's what Mike's saying. >> Exactly. And not even Dutch >> and not even and not even a break. Like like when we do those Dutch things like the rear >> my argument is that goes all the way to
basically saying like, hey, the Dutch would come down here and here. Let's rip that off and kind of just let it be what it is. And I think when it's done in a sensitive way, I mean, honestly, we're trying to pull fast. We just kind of do what we could and and not even see you guys. That's we're coming to kiss the ring and basically say, "Look, we think
this is an aesthetically pleasing structure that's different from everything that's out there." What do you guys say? We're asking to change the ordinance. Where's that fee for some forgiveness? >> I I do have a question and it goes back to since Mr. Balson brought it up in the beginning on the fire safety aspect. Can you zoom the uh rear elevation a little
bit, make that a little bigger? Oh, can you zoom that a little bit, Pama? Okay. So, my my question here is I understand the pool's going to go underneath that first floor overhang. >> What's the access to the balcony for us?
When I say us, the fire department, how are we going to get to that balcony with the pool accessing under the deck? >> Sure. on the clock plan that pool. I want to So, thank you. So, the pool
ends pretty much right at the edge of the balcony. So, the ladder can go right up here. >> So, it have to go on the side. >> Yeah, on the side. And also keep in mind that you still have another six feet on the back side of the pool towards the rear power line. So, you could have the ladder at a at a
>> Well, it's an unsafe climbing angle. But we're not going to climb at an angle of that that demeanor from the back side of the property. >> I'm just saying I my point is we we would not have direct access to that little balcony that sits there. It would have to be off to the side of it.
Correct. >> Right. Yes, that is correct. And it's a Juliet balcony so I can hop onto it. It's not railing. >> No, but it is an access point. It is a bedroom on it. >> Right. Yeah. >> It is a bedroom. >> And that's that's my point for for egress or access. And the reason why
this is here is there's a very good view that looks out towards the back side of the building. When we pull this away, you'll notice that there aren't any other really bedroom windows here. It's just these are like laundry room and that kind of thing. >> What's what when you add the pool to assume you had the 3 ft.
>> Mhm. >> What how much of the pool sticks out below for dance point. How much of the pool comes beyond the wall? How many feet? >> Actually, this is back another fiveT. No, actually you'd be you're 5t. You're almost to the first half. It's going to
be closed, but it's there. >> Yeah. >> Are they sliding doors? >> Yes, sir. >> So, also is it the whole front of the house is all decked? >> Yeah. Three decks in the front. >> I mean, you know, >> I understand that, but that bedroom's
separate from the front of the house. If something happens, it's blocked. >> I'm just looking for an egress point out the back. >> We can jump in the pool. >> Well, That was our originally if I correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what you guys said originally. You didn't want people jumping out of
the window. >> But again, >> well, a three-foot lift down below. Three foot lift down below. Dan's not going to give you >> going to give you much. >> As long as there's access. He's telling me there's access because it goes to the middle of that. >> Yeah, it goes the So, it's 5t off the corner. It's approximately 3 ft. So,
you're going to be about almost in the middle of that first pane of the easterly pain of the of the door. Yes, sir. And we can make that the oper operable floor too. So it makes it easier to get at >> I don't want to fly that over. >> That would make sense for the the owners
and the occupants. >> No problem. >> Yeah. I mean I'm just saying look at it from a safety aspect. That would >> Yes sir. >> What was that the last thing? >> Just this is the Palmer. Can you put the plot plan up? >> Right.
>> Palmer can you put the plot plan up? So it's a little pixelated, but it's 107 to this setback. It's 151 to the edge of the pool. So you're you're approximately 5T from the edge of the pool to the edge
of the house. >> So it's it's five it's 5t to the back back end of the pool from the house. >> No, no. You have six feet to >> here is five feet from this side edge over. You have five cross, excuse me. The pool um is taking up
what is it? How many feet into the building? Under the building? >> Uh underneath the building, it's it's approximately >> six feet or so. >> No. No. Because the pool itself is only 10 and a half ft. >> No. From from the from the outside columns to the
In other words, it would be storage space if it wasn't >> Yeah. or be it outdoor lenai. A lot of people are doing the outdoor lenai where you kind of that's how it's >> Is there any there's no storage space located on this >> on the back side of the the garage. The garage is a little deeper so there's room for bikes and that kind of thing
and storage. Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Anybody else from the board? >> Yeah. You talked about benefits of the house especially replacing the existing home. Uh can you talk about benefits of the pool? Um,
you know, we're we're obligated to >> we're looking at the project as a whole. You can you can tuck that variance into into the project as a whole. >> Okay. >> Which which law allows you to do. >> Very. >> You know, one benefit I do see with putting the pool underneath is that
you're uh because now we consider pools u impervious. So when you're putting you're going to have living space there anyway. So by putting the pool under the house, you're reducing that impervious space. >> You're not taking up as much coverage with pool area,
>> right? And John, I mean, you can look at, you know, you laugh, but and and you say, what's the benefit? I I would say a benefit is having the water below a window rather than concrete. And yeah, I don't know why I don't know why people don't think that that's
realistic. >> You could argue that all day, >> but how deep? I I don't I don't see why that's I don't see what's wrong with that argument. I think that's that's that's fair. Pull's like six feet deep. >> I just can't think I can't think of another reason that that control exists
other than to have access all the way around which we have. >> Can you talk a little bit about the pool equipment? >> Yes, sir. That pool equipment is 10 foot off of both the rear and the side property lines located over on this section pool
and elevated. >> That's elevated how high? >> Uh it's elevated almost to the first floor. So it's up almost 8. It'll be screen >> and the requirement in the rear is five and it's going to be 10. >> Yes. And it's has to be 10 from the side.
Anybody else? Okay. Um, anyone from the public likes to speak? >> Nothing else. >> I can't turn it off. >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. >> Roger, you got anything? You You're
going to do the the grass governorship, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. No street trees. >> Grass governorship. No street trees. Uh >> not on the beach. >> Chris, can you are you talking about making that the the operable panel? Or
maybe Dan, you know what? What? What did I miss there? >> On the >> Okay, >> that's the side that slides. >> I got you. Hold on. decide that we would technically have access. Okay. >> Um
Chris, you want one one vote or do you need to separate the pool for any reason? Okay. >> All right. So, it's a C variance application. There's four variances. One's for the pool. The other three are as Roger indicated in the test indicator somewhat related. There's the swimming
pool clearance variance. We require three feet. They have that around but but it there's the overhang so it's zero fit foot technically if you draw a plane above it. Um the half story is required to be contained within the
roof of the second floor and it's not. So that's a variance. The eve height uh variance the maximum height of the third story eve is is it's allowed to be 18 in above the top plate of the second floor. and
they're greater than that and then the dorm area uh 40% of the area the half stories permitted and they're exceeding that the conditions I'll note that the the gate where the ladder would go up will will be the operable panel I'll
note that they'll put in the grass governor strip no street trees are required uh any other conditions in Mr. McLaren's report subject to outside approvals that may be required and subject to any uh representations made
by the applicant during the course of the hearing. So that's the motion and the second we'll need and then a roll call vote. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second. >> Michael Richmond.
>> Well, obviously the new house is a huge improvement over what's existing there as far as setbacks coverage. Um like Mr. Balon said said earlier uh or maybe Roger they could go to 30 39%
building coverage they're 35% 36%. As far as the pool goes they have the sixoot setback in the rear which I think is important. They have the three feet all the way around which I think is important. I again, you can't
I mean, people do stupid things. I we can't we can't keep everybody from doing stupid things. I really I've never really had a problem with um a pool going underneath the house. Um, as far as
the uh roof, like I said before, if if it was I think the main reason we we um implemented that uh roof thing was because we didn't want to see the sheer wall, the massive
walls. I think that by the design, by the main roof being at that height, I I think that really um addresses that. It's on the beach block. It is nice to have something a little different looking. It's going to be a
real nice looking house. Spanish style house. Cool house. I'm sure Scott um is going to make it a beautiful house and um I approve it. >> Rich Patterson. >> Yeah.
I'm a convert on the pools. I I I feel the three foot around the pool is is sufficient uh from the house. Uh really looking at it from a safety point of view. As long as you can get anywhere around a pool,
um I'm okay with it. And I think the uh I think it is a unique design. And I think the way the as as the architect explained it, the way it's set back so much on the front and a little bit on the back and sides,
um it takes away from that massive look of it along with being less than uh less than the maximum coverage. So I vote in favor. >> Dan Adams. >> Yeah, I'm going to echo uh Mr. Patterson's statements. I I agree. It's
a very unique design. I think it's a very it's an improvement to the area and I do like the factor that the dormers will take away from that massive look and won't look like a monstrosity on the block. You answered my questions for the
most part concerning the safety aspect. Um and you know I agree you know the pool the setbacks around it is fine and having six feet to the rear and you're not going covering the entire lot. Uh, I will vote yes as well.
>> Craig Palmisano. >> Yes. Um, I I'm in disagreement with a couple board members here on the um the eve height. Uh, I think it's um I think that's wrong. I think we what we tried to do before with the um keeping the houses the top of the houses smaller
looking from the street. Uh it was down that street today. There's nothing but twotory homes on that street. And I know it's going to change. It's going to be But this is a massive home and standing across the street from it is going to be massive looking. I don't like the extra dormers on the top. And
um and I'm against um putting pools underneath the house. It's not I'm not in favor of that. So I vote no. >> Johanna Perski, >> um I appreciate the thought that was put into the design. It's not easy to um
build above base flood now with some character. So I think um when you consider all elements of the design with um the consideration of coverage uh I approve >> I'm pleased with the uh setbacks coming
all the way back and everything. I was very concerned about the pool, but now that you've explained it with the three-foot all around, um I I'll approve >> Steve Joki. >> In many regards, I uh want to agree with with Craig with the
size of the house and the dormers. Um it is hard to build a house here. Um never been a fan of the pools being underneath the house. And in fact, I think that we should have a more of a footage more than three feet
from the pool edge to the property. Um, I disapprove. >> John Pittz. >> Yeah, I uh cannot approve the pool under the house. Everything else I think is fantastic. I think it's a great design.
Would look great on the street. Looks like it's going to get approved anyway. So, I wish you the best of luck and look forward to seeing that house on the beach. I do not approve. >> Motion carries. Five in favor. Three. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you everyone. >> Okay. Our next case is Allan and Carolyn Spiegel 28 Harbor Lane, block 709.02, lot 31 in the S50 zone.
that laid off on this. So, the applicant is the application of Allen and Karen Spiegel, 28 Harbor Lane, block 709.02, lot 31, located in the S30 or S50 single family zoning district. They're in the
uh flood zone elevation 8. Background is as follows. The applicant is seeking relief from the ordinances of city Margate in order to construct a second and third floor addition partially in the sideyard setback above an existing structure that's already encroaching into that setback. This is a
vertical expansion of a non-conforming setback. Minimum combined sideyard setbacks still conform. Uh this can be viewed as both a hardship and substantial benefit variance. The hardship is the unusual shape of the lot which uh the sideyard setback changes as
it goes back as the the lot widens up and there's actually two backyards, three sideyards and and a front yard. Little unusual. So go to schedules S50. Uh you can see highlighted are the variances. I do want to point out that
the minimum lot area is 5,000 square ft. They comply with over 8,000 square ft. Lot frontage is uh 50 feet. 50 feet is the circular area of that park. All the front yard setbacks are existing
and they comply sideyard setbacks. You have an existing nonconforming right side yard setback and again they're expanding upon that vertically. So there in lies the uh variance. And similarly to the last case where this house was
constructed and a third floor was added on prior to these ordinances being in effect. So what Mr. what Mr. Weiss the architect is doing is mimicking what was there before. So you have the the the height variance or the not the height
variance but the uh the half story and the eve height are variances as well as the sideyard setback. I'm not going to go into what they have story that the evite require, but you can see on the right side elevation on the plans how
high that right side will be in regard to the eve height. But again, I mean, that's that's how the house was originally designed back in the day. And he's just matching what was there before. Again, it's uh just, you know, hard to retrofit an older house with a
with a new ordinance. It's not intended for this style house. But I'll turn it over to Mr. B. >> I have a question. Roger. When Mr. was there before, there was there was a um
there was aition there before. >> Oh, no. You know what? >> The whole third floor I Yeah, I said I thought the one edition was there before, but it's not. >> So, yeah, you're adding this whole third floor edition. >> Okay, you're up.
>> Thank you. Um Chris Balance, I represent Adam Allen and Carrie Spiegel who are here with us tonight for 28 Harbor Lane. Uh it's block 709.02, lot 31. Um, it's an existing single family home. The Feeals are moving into the house from
Morstown permanently and they're trying to recapture some of the space, office space, exercise space that they have at their home in Mortown where they're selling. Um, and they really have a nice opportunity to do it with with minimal relief, I think, in light of the existing design of the house. You'll see
the right the right sideard setback because the shaped lot is just that corner. >> Yeah. >> The shape. It's about 10 square feet or 11 square feet. Um, and Pete will tell you better than I can there, but trying to put a third floor on an existing two-story house, it's almost impossible
to bring that roof below the existing roof, which is kind of the requirement. You can do it when you start new. It's harder to do it this way. So, that's that's why Roger said you have the hardship element and the flexible sea element. Uh, but Pete can talk more about the roof design than I can. I can only say it's affected the right side
here at setback. It's such a tiny little corner in light of the triangular lot. That to me is an easy one. Pete can talk to you about the roof and how that works. Pete, anybody anybody when you go and see this house, do you see the backyard? How beautiful the pool landscaping is? It's
like phenomenal. >> Phenomenal. >> I'm astonished. I look >> Mr. Weiss. Just give us your name and business address. I swear you >> Peter Weiss. Uh 38 East Lacrosse Avenue, Northfield. >> Please raise your right hand. You swear a turn of testimony and you'll give this
evening. It'll be the truth. >> I do. >> Well, accept this credentials and architect obviously. >> Hey, the speakers are trying to pick up some of the space that they have at home in order to make this their home, exercise room, um a wreck room, an office. Uh and the trick was to try to
do that within the existing house without >> doing something else. Would you tell the board what you did and how you came up with that? is actually >> no Peter. >> Where's your house? >> It's in. >> Okay. So, they have a house in Mount and
they they're trying to sell that house and they want to move down here permanently and Allan's got very specific ideas about his library and his game room on the upper floor. So, they're going to try to sort of recreate that in this house. So, that's sort of
the the driving force here. So, and the proposal was to expand the uh second floor to the right. >> You started on the right because there was a void there above the garage, >> right? To the right is currently one
story. Um I mean, the original house is two stories, living on the first floor, four bedrooms on the second, and then there was a space on the side, which appears as though it was a garage at one time. Um, so and that was one story. So
what we proposed to do is basically fill out over top of the piece on the right um make that home office and gym and then add a third floor um on the third floor. So,
the um the game room, they have a pool table, air hockey, ping pong, all that kind of stuff. So, we're trying to get one large space on third floor. Now, if you try to
um do a third floor completely conforming to the ordinance, you're basically obligated to do a Mansard roof. Manard gamble roof. >> Um, which would then if you if you did that, it would push the volume
into the middle of the house. All right. So, that that's a completely different thing. You'd have to tear off the entire roof. Um, move the the room over there, but then we got this stairway that runs up here, which is the way to get up there. Uh, the principal way to get up
there. So, if that was there, it's going to cut the space in half. So then we end up with two little spaces instead of one big space. So that just sort of defeats the purpose of would defeat the purpose of of adding the third floor. Um Pete with a substantial improvement rule
um these guys can do this on the existing house that doesn't need flood. If if they had to pick up this space by building a new house, what would the difference be? >> Yeah. So I did an overlay um which I'd like to pass around
So that's just an outline of what could be built looking from the right side which Roger mentioned earlier um today by right you know if you had a ground floor and you had two and a half stories above it the red line is the profile of what you could have
>> and we're just you know I just like to compare that to what we're proposing u which is significantly less Is it it the difficulty? What's the difficulty with working with within that existing roof and complying with the ordinance? Why why doesn't why isn't
that achievable? >> Well, like I said, to do that, we'd have to tear the entire roof off. Um >> Well, why is that? What's the difference between working with this house or working with new construction? What? I don't understand why you can't do it here, but you can do it with a house you're starting freshman. >> Well, a lot of it had to do too with the
stair coming up. I mean, it would be just the whole layout would be different. I mean, when you have these third floors, they typically lend themselves to having a bed, you know, two bedrooms on either side, bathroom in the middle. But that's not what we're trying to achieve here. We kind of have, you know, just sort of a big loft space,
if you will. Oh, it wouldn't achieve our goal, you know, >> without ripping the roof off. >> Without No, we just wouldn't achieve the goal period because they want one big room, you know. Gotcha. Um and then you know ripping the roof
off also is that expense >> and this see this this fits this fits the need this fits what they're what they're looking for. >> Yeah. Yeah. And as you can see on the right side I mean this is um it does step back as it as it goes up. So I mean it just sort of um
reduces the impact on the street which I think is the main um purpose for having the mass >> and and with the way the culde-sac is shaped and that that element is back here to the corner. So the there's really no imposition on this house over here.
>> Yes. And the house on the right actually if you look at it it's there's no windows on that side. So I don't see any um impact on that house at all. From an aesthetic standpoint, do you think uh this design is advances the purpose of the land use sack is from um design
standpoint? >> Yeah. >> And um obviously from from an massing standpoint, this house is better renovated than building new. >> I think so. Yeah. >> And with what we just talked about, do you think the variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the
public good and the zoning ordinance? >> Yes. >> That's all we have. Mr. The house is to the right. It has a slope roof and it's all um solar panels. >> There's no windows on that side of the house at all next to this new addition. >> Yes,
>> that's all we have. >> Mr. Weiss, just a question. That that's a spiral steps >> from the second to third floor from the gym to the >> Yes. >> Okay. I just want to clarify, make sure I Yes. >> Does it have to be four foot diameter or
what? They're typically five foot. There's a minimum I guess, right? >> Well, I've seen >> I think I made it five foot, but um >> you know, by code, it's not really the egress stair. >> So, doesn't really matter.
>> So, there's two sets of stairs going to the third floor, right? >> Yeah. The spiral stairs and regular. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Is there stairs going up to the second and third floor from the utility room? >> That second door in the front? That room in the front is just storage.
>> I think what he's looking at in that utility room, that's two steps that are already existing, correct? >> They used to be an old garage. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, the re I'm assuming the reason they're doing the spiral because the
other set of stairs go you have to go through a bedroom, correct? >> Correct. Yeah, >> but there is a convent there'll be a conventional set of egress stairs. >> Yeah, that stair is already there. We're going to leave it there, >> right? >> Goes up to the third floor. It just goes
up into the attic now. >> Anybody else from the uh board? Anyone from the public? >> Please. Yeah, just give us uh your name. We know you're the advocate. Just for the record. Okay, Mr. Spiegel, I just got to swear at the end. >> Sure.
>> Raise the right hand. You swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. >> I do. >> Okay. Go ahead. Thanks. >> Um, I brought pictures of my house in not Laurel. If if the board needs it, I if you don't need it, I won't do it in terms of what we already have.
>> So, I thought I would just let you know. I think one of the concerns is that you can address it that you're going to put 57 grandkids in there and make this four bed. >> And that's one of the reasons I took the pictures. But I like to play ping pong. And of all the tables, now we have a lot
of tables at home, but of all the tables I would use would be ping pong. I need a ceiling. You know, plain and simple. I'm not going to put a big heavy pool table up there. I'd like to, but I'm not going to. I've had a pool table my whole life, but I'm not going to do it.
>> And the intention is not for this to be sleeping space. >> No, it's it's not. It's We I need We need to move the laundry room up because we have to make the existing laundry room a pantry because our kitchen's too small for a year round kitchen people. It's great for what we use it now for,
but not for year round. So, we have to put the laundry upstairs. We lose part of the new space to laundry, which also makes us have to go through this expense. I'm not thrilled about spending this money to build this. I'm really not. But um
to make us comfortable and to get the storage we need to we need this. So yeah. >> Thank you. >> So do you have any questions for me? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um public portion is closed. >> All right.
Again, nothing further. It's a C variance application. There's three variances. That sideyard setback on the right side, it's at 5.32 ft. They're going up 10 ft's the requirement. Um, and then the the half story, the
requirement has to be fully contained within the roof, the second floor. So, that's a variance. And then the the roof eve height you're for the third floor is uh permitted to be 18 in above the top plate of the second floor and
they are exceeding that. So those are the three variances. Terms of conditions I believe it's just the standard ones that we pretty much put in every resolution subject outside approvals anything Mr. McCarn's report unless otherwise addressed subject to any representations made during the course of the hearing. Ju just the standard
ones. I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it. >> Mike Richmond. >> Yeah. Again, I I think the way Well, I mean, it is the
one variance for that little pieshaped thing. That's just really dimminimous. And um the way the lot is shaped, it makes total sense to me. Um and again, it is an older house. It's not like
they're starting from scratch. And the way the uh d the third floor is designed the way it sets back and on the side there's like you know a a bit of a open wall there but if um
they were building a new house it would even exceed that um height. Uh so I really don't see a problem with it. They're going to move down here full-time. Um, they're not. Doesn't look like they're
adding any bedrooms. No, >> they're not. >> Huh? >> They're not. >> No, they're not. So, I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson. >> I'm also going to approve it. That that
the setback is is minimal. And I understand the the problem with a old house. We're trying to address the new standards with an old house. I think he's done the best he could with a with what he designed. So I approve.
>> Dan Adam, >> you know, I I look at this property. It's unique. The size, the area being on Harbor Lane, the way it is and the way it's situated and how you have it landscaped and how you have it laid out is just it's beautiful. I mean, I wish I had a yard that size in in my where I
live in Margate. Um, as far as the aesthetics, I think you kept this this the look of the house. If you were to tear this down and build a new house on that property, it could be a McMansion. It could be a lot bigger and it could be a lot taller. And I think Mr. Pomisano
said it, the house next door, you look at uh slope roof with um >> solar panels on it. So, it's not a detriment to the neighbor. It's not a detriment to anybody and I think it looks great and I approve.
>> Craig Palmisano. >> Yeah, I agree with the other board members. Um, it's going to be a nice addition for you to move down here and a game room is a great thing and it's a great lot and um it fits in the neighborhood and uh I approve.
Johanna Perski, >> I think um the improvements that will be made will definitely contri further contribute to the aesthetics of the property um and align with the neighborhood um just keep consistency.
So, I'm going to approve Zag. I believe it's a a nice improvement to the neighborhood and you you kept it relatively conservative and uh it's going to be a nice enhancement to the the area. I approve >> Steve Joaki.
>> Um want to compliment you, Pete. You did a nice job on this. Um, I I think not to say it's an improvement, but it's it's in keeping in tune with the neighborhood the neighborhood. And um,
as far as the hardship, I don't see the hardship in it because it doesn't have to be built as for the substantial benefit. I think for this neighborhood in the city, I think it fits in that because it's uh you're keeping something
that's nice. So, I approve >> John Pips. >> Uh yeah, just one comment. I have no idea what parking is like on that little culde-sac. I would like >> It's easy. Yeah, I can imagine. I mean, parking is always a problem in Margate.
>> Yeah. Um, >> yeah, it's, you know, you're not expanding the footprint of the property. So, I approve. Welcome to Margate. You're going to love retiring. >> Can I ask one more one more thing, Roger? There's a there's a really mature
maple here in Governor Strip. Maybe request a waiver for the second tree. It's just going to look kind of silly. >> I'd be fine with that based on the the size and shape that >> landscaping on the properties, >> right? This great throw away will be a second street.
It's really not going to do much. It's going to be overshadowed by this maple. It's >> 40 ft tall. >> Is everyone all right with that? >> Hand vote. >> Yeah. Just as anyone have anyone can
oppose to that. >> All right. I'll incorporate that. >> Thank you very much. One, one street, tree, one way. >> Put in one, wave the other. >> Or is the one already there? >> The one already done. >> Are we done?
>> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. Motion carries with eight in favor and none opposed. We're going to open >> another general public. All right, hold on. >> Quiet. >> What is this? >> We just have We just have to
>> We got to >> We got one more thing to do. >> Thank you. >> Just Just for the record, we got to open it up to the public for general comment. I see an empty room, but >> Right. All right. Open up the public
general comments. >> They didn't hear you. Should we get somebody from Walla to come over? >> I'm going. Um, >> seeing none, please. >> All right. So, do I hear a motion to adjourn? >> Motion. Second. All in favor? I
time.