##VIDEO ID:jZ93x9RRaUc## okay you all stand for a flag site call Michael Richmond here Richard Patterson here Adams Craig palano Michael ruffu John pittz Steven ji Here Andrew Campbell Rich Tolson Patty Rosenberg okay this meeting is being held in accordance with New Jersey statute requirements of the open public meetings act Sunshine Law notice of this meeting has been advertised in the press and posted on the Bolton the municipal building all applicants are hereby advised that if you receive board approval tonight you must come forward in sign a form outlining the procedures for obtaining building permits and Mercantile licenses at the conclusion of your case tonight please approach the board administrator to sign the provided information sheet going to do the uh approval of meeting schedule for 2025 that that's well my question was sort of related January 8th for doing it or should that say 20 if it's a separate meeting no then it would be the eth but we take off the idea of having it as a separate meeting were we intended to do a separate meeting I just assume that we would do we were overlow we might not need that second meeting would be because meeting in December is five weeks I see what you're saying the 11th but we would still hear applications if could be both it could Bean separ right yeah we'll keep it and as it as it approaches we need to adjust the look you know December we have nothing for whatever reason maybe we don't need it but yeah I say we leave it and we'll deal with it as ases okay so approval of meeting schedule for 20 25 I'll make a motion to approve all in favor now we're going to do the annual reorganization election of chairperson and vice chairperson nomin all in favor I nominate Richard Patterson to be Vice chairperson somebody second okay all in favor that's all any Nays okay I just want to make just get it on the record I know well any Nays on Mike Richmond all right next we have a staff appointments uh first one is board solicitor uh I nomin second all in favor I won't ask if there's any nose on that thank thank you secondly uh board administrator I'm going to nominate Pamela pamel p p Pam sh all in favor thank you next we have the um board planner I'm going to nominate Roger McLaren oh and the engineer also all in favor okay all right now we have the appointment of by subdivision sub commmittee our ordinance is a little confusing it defines sub the division committee is two members with Roger then somewhere else it says at least three members so maybe we should have one more there's any would anyone like to be on the uh by subdivision yeah hon it you're an honor it you want to be honor okay so who are the members all right so it's Richard Patterson Craig Pomano and Steve J um I hear a second all in favor okay now we have the appointment of site plan subcommittee Mike br Richard Patterson anybody else guess an alternate an Al not much Bas to preliminary nonbinding propos on occas from time to time there's no set meeting schedule or anything like that okay all in favor all right and then we have um appointment of ordinance review subcommittee that's so again do we have two members in I guess just to play it safe so okay yeah I think how we should okay so John Pitts wants to be on that one um I'll be on that one and uh true you want to be that sure okay great you got that P right we get a second all in favor right all right and now we have the swearing in of appointed members okay um there's three three members up for reappointment sure you're one of them I think I give this um I'll swear everyone together Dan Adams Steve Campell after I swear you just sign those forms I gave you and give them the P so if everyone just stands and raises the right hand and we'll all do it at once I'm say I state your name and take it from there I State your names doly swear or affirm I support the Constitution of the United States support of unit States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States states and in the state under the authority of the people so help me God I do further solemnly swear or affirm that I will impartially and justly per perform all the duties of the office of planning board member according to the best of my ability so me thank you thanks for volunteering I appreciate it uh okay now we're going to do approval minutes meeting of December 19th 2024 make that motion all in favor okay approval of decisions and resolutions 01225 Pam Pamela Feld Randall 02 2025 Scott dner 03225 f s capital P LLC and 04 2025 mrd Margate LLC make a motion second all in favor all right our first case tonight is going to be William and Nicole s solve a bill one 10 South vendom Avenue block 23 lot 6 located in the S40 Z District seeking C variance relief for maximum building coverage minimum rear yard minimum minimum aggregate side yard setback curb cut deck kite and potentially others for the construction of a new single family home car on taxes would are and SE payments proof of advertising notifications provided representative by Eric Goldstein hey Eric before you get started real quick uh Essex Avenue do we need an announcement for that it would be great yeah just to say perhaps we just have that next month Roger and I talked about getting some revised elevations if we could do that without notice and advertisement that would be very much appreciated and that's uh got my schedule right here somewhere February 2 27th okay so if anyone's here for uh Jamie Kushner and Ronald newb 106 south6 Avenue block 5.02 12 excuse me that's not going to be heard tonight that is going to be heard next month February 27th 2025 6:30 p.m. in this room the applicant will not be required to republish or Reen notice so that's your official announcement on that and I get Mr McLaren sworn Mr McLaren please raise your right hand you swear airm the testimony give this evening it'll be the truth do thanks all right kick this off Eric so the the report is based on the application of U William and Nicole solvable 110 South pendum Avenue block 23 lot six located in the S40 zoning District minimum floor elevation is 13 to the bottom zoning if you don't put parking below start to be four so you can see VAR planning and Z report uh the appli seeking relief from the ordinances in order tostr front single family dwelling which will require verances aanes requested are for building coverage minimum rear yard setback minimum side yard setback number of per cuts and minimum per square deck height on the beach and possibly others that may be discovered tonight so this de complete partially a hardship variance because the shape of the lot is a little bit long but it is oversized minimum lot size for this sewing is 4,000 square ft the providing 5333 Square ft uh as indicated on zoning chart on page two highlighted and shaded on page two and three are the variances identified turning to page three the variances required are as follows sidey setback combined whereas the minimum required sidey setback is 37% at a lot width for 22t and 1.82 ft is proposed yard set back to the building whereas a minimum re set back is 20% of lot dep 16 ft and 10.33 ft is proposed re yard set back to the deck whereas a minimum rear yard setback 20% of the lot dep or 16 ft and 11.67 ft is proposed again I would ask Mr Lo confirm that Dimension to the deck and not the house building coverage whereas the maximum building coverage is 30% and 32.3% is proposed number curve Cuts whereas only one curve cut is permitted and two are proposed curve cut width whereas a maximum curve cut width is allowed to be 18 feet and 22.5 feet is a total curve cut width however if you eliminate the one they they would comply with the maximum curve width permitted and last but not least the speed front deck height the maximum Fe permitted Tech height on the beach is base flood elevation plus 20 in which in this case be 11.67 ft from sea level and they are proposed 18.45 ft so that is a varant no no waivers have been requested um couple comments and I'll leave turned over to Mr Goldstein to provide testimony and present his case the shape in lot is angular however as large than required as I mentioned before front deck request is due to the permitted elevated first floor Decko which will be the norm come June more than likely the original ordinance was written with the intent of a 4 in step down onto the deck both beach front and bay front um a reduction of 4 in where about seven feet is requested may not be noticeable based on the size and location of the structure uh I did have one request that was to provide an an 8 curb cut at the beach near the boardwalk so people traversing the concrete public sidewalk and get into the street and get to the ada8 crossing of the bulkhead and they have agreed to do that no Street trees are required in the beach front and the beach block Zone and that's all my only comments right now thank you Mr McLaren Mr chairman congratulations to all the board members I'm being reor in uh my name is Eric olon on behalf of the applicant William svil a little bit different than you said we're sitting right here to my left with his daughter also with me tonight uh John Barnhart and Bob loo both of whom are going to testify so Leo before I get started maybe we'll just get them sworn in and then I can walk through some of the uh Preamble stuff with the application one thing Roger kind of brushed over which you're going to see a lot more of unfortunately the D now has over 10,000 pages of proposed rules and rs on the new beat front and Bayfront development um currently not aw it will be according to the governor in July so what we're talking about is the continued FEMA requirements that D and again I guess it'll end up in Margate at some point keeps going higher and higher and potentially further back from the beach further back from the bay so although those aren't regulations yet John can talk about those a little bit and Roger as well it's something we all need to be concerned with which at some point potentially this deck height may not be a variance at all if JD if he gets what it wants so Roger John's G to talk about that a little and Roger and I spoke about that today these are rules that are coming and they'll be detrimental for development in general but not in effect yet we have to keep an eye on on them they're six months out and they will be come up okay Mr Barnhart Mr uh lolia just give us your business your name and business address please if you need please raise your right hand each swear firm the testimony you'll give this evening it be the truth I do and Mr chairman will accept their credentials as expert Mr barnhard and engineer and planner Mr lolio architect yes thank you Mr chairman Mr Manos so before I get to Bob just a little bit of the history of the site as you all know property backs up to a commercial building and a parking lot the structure itself could have been raised under the automatic variance law to go up to take advantage of the views over the dunes in the beach rather than raise it in its current footprint Property Owners thought it might be a better idea to tear it down and start from scratch which does make the lot coverage much much less still a variance of course and still a number of variances on the configuration of the property but making it much better than what is there today so said that if you don't mind might kind of walk us through your plan we'll get done as far as the planning aspects of the VAR yeah per mentioned it was early discussions were whether to save the house or to tear it down and build new uh obviously we decided to build a new structure and it's your typical two and a half stor over a parking and entry storage area so the ground floor consists of a two car G um a little storage area and then an entry vestle off the back of the house the first floor will be our Main Kitchen dining living level with two bedrooms on that level um the second floor will house four bedrooms a den and then the third floor will be the primary Suite the house is approximately 4,300 Square fet um as far as the variances go the combined sidey um we meet both middle and sidey setback it's the combined sidey that does not meet the requirements so the current sidey adjacent to the neighbor we're at 8.33 FT and 8 foot is required so the house adjacent to the neighbors which would affect them the side guard meets the requirement it's the beach side um that creates the non-conformance on the side but there's really no adjacent property that's affected because it's on the beach and that is in part because the there's 9.8 to a porch so if you go to the building line we would need to set the combined side guard it's the porch that encroaches towards the beach going to stop you for a second there Bob but fairly important correct me if I'm wrong is that the sidey yard setback is at its most narrow point at that area it does get wider as the property goes back long but we're measuring it from that one specific pinch Point not from the RO it's not based on an corre the farther you go towards the back of the angle the more it will the side if we took the measurement from the F point back a bit correct so we're talking about this one area where yeah it's this little the P by it's 9.t off the and then as we go back it will it will if you split the difference it's probably pretty close to performing at the halfway the other one the other is the rear yard set back um that would be this side of the property 16 foots required we're asking for 10.33 Ft the current house is at 10 we tried to maintain that building line of the existing dwelling um and specifically this is important of course to the board what's behind the house if you're at the rear looking backwards what's back there that's parking lot for the S not another house there's no other yard there's no other area to look into if you're at the back of this house looking rearward you're seeing a parking lot c yeah there's no real neighbor affected on that side as far as the open of would you clarify that just a little bit and characterize the rear yard as a unique situation in Marg there aren't too many homes that don't have a rear yard neighbor here you've got a rear yard parking lot which is even rare still correct correct it's unique situation and then the rear yard also Roger wanted yard to the deck is 11.67 Ft um again 16ts required there was an existing raised deck um that was only 5T away from the property so with the new house we're trying to make it a little less imposing than when what was there while trying to as best we could meet the ordance the other one was the building coverage building coverage right now required is 30% our building coverage is 32 and again what exists today was 36.8% so we're kind of trying to balance in between existing and proposed building conforms and I want to mention that our landscape area has drastically our lot coverage has drastically been reduced was about 90% and we're going down to 35% which is the requirement because the whole thing was the exting there was a few Planters John can you repeat that the landscape yeah uh the lock coverage the landscape coverage was 90% previously no no the lot coverage lot coverage yeah um lot coverage was 90% we're going down 35 35% it meets to orn so weing so to be clear I know this is important to the board members we're going from almost no where it is today at 90% lot coverage to a percentage that complies with all of the landscap correct a question on the building coverage you're starting with a clean slate you've got a big lot by morgain standards I I don't understand why we would allow you a bigger building you know the previous one's not there anymore today standards it's you've got a big lot I I see it's an odd shape but it's not detri I don't see that as a hardship 53 foot frontes bigger than most lots of well that's it's kind of a comment that you're starting from scratch on a big L and you're asking for it really just came down to the decision of if we kept what was there we would have been cover would the decision early on that we had to make because they wanted to maximize the potential of the property well they're technically not because if they decided to lift it they could have gotten a lot more but they're not doing that yes just well listen respectfully Mr Patterson we talk about this all the time every single property on every single lot can comply there' be I understand that and if this was a small lot if it was odd shap restricted it but that's not the case well you do have an odd shape and you have a parking lot behind so well I don't have a problem with your set back when you're backing up to a parking who cares I think that's concern the size of the house build a house too lot right that's that's it to me it doesn't I don't think you would that because don't know there could be a good chance there could be a good chance it does get lifted there could be a chance right you couldn't stop us from doing something we could do by right I think the point is board always looks at what you get as a benefit from the town what you get is going from 90% lot coverage down to 35 which is a significant number you get the curb cut that's now is across the entire front you get a new structure that's blood compliant so in tearing it down and starting from scratch as opposed to rehabing it there is a significant benefit by saying you're starting with a blank slate you can make it comply isn't that the case for every single application that comes before the board there's no case that can't comply so we think this is a better alternative by asking for a lot coverage variance the benefit building house we're not say no we're not saying that we're saying that it's Poss we're saying that everything possible right now we're seeking to get a better planning alternative which is why we're here uh they could certainly tear it down and build per code or they can raise per code and we wouldn't be right well yeah to to meet the building coverage the building you have to sh this yard back down understand I understand that's the purpose of us is to unusual issue that's an unusual issue the other avances were for the two curve cuts um we're at seven bedrooms so we have two spaces in the garage and then two spaces in the driveway the extra curve cut was due to the fact that there was a cent six foot wide East Min on the neighbor's property so utilize that that that East Min to created second Cur 9 foot wide curve cut and that gets you extra three spaces so we have a total of seven spaces instead of is the E on the neighbor's property orer it's on the neighbor's property you have corre run with the I thinkr Construction so Bob real quick on the deck that you're asking for a height VAR for is that going to be solid is it going to be open it will be some sort of open de got underneath right that'll be on a stone base okay so even though you don't get credit for pervious cover it will it would allow percolation of the Rin water through the deck yeah and this is a highly perable area correct that's just a it's a low retaining wall oh that yeah it's going to be like an open Gap kind of correct that's not solid wall it's got open yeah there's going to be like a horizontal board with one in gap I don't want to an entry the bulkhead is going to be up like the bulkhead is going to be higher than that PA that that's kind of what happens Eric was that easement uh used for parking and storage prior yeah today I'm going to turn it over to Mr barnhard unless you have questions for Mr lolio to continue right any other questions for John all right John you were obviously in the in the room and I talked with Roger about the new DS affect this all very quickly talk about that just a little bit before you get into your testimony seing are not only required but will be favorably looked upon byic topic just educ so um the discussion was with regard to the of what's evolved over time and were modif number ago when when elas things have changed to the elation but what Hasen and rules adulations currently called the real rules and they have a standard in them which and talked about this on a couple of other cases but I know we have some new MERS they have a standard in them which is called the climate adjusted flood Elation that from a numers perspec is that have you have and then you have location what's wonderful is that through some of the Chang that you have been involved in is that when you establish the ability many of these homes it's put them into a point even if they're relatively constructed it's put them into a point of compliance I don't want to say by accident but what I mean by that is this building is proposed to be the finished floor is 18.45 if you take the 10t if you take the 10 foot FL elevation you add 6 ft to it it takes you to 16 to Elevation 16 so this building would be comp assuming those rules are adopted um so what it's doing is it's forcing everything higher and what that does them to especially these big beautiful ocean front homes is they have deck structures they've become you know the reason you own that property that location so you can enjoy your out to have the deck structures based on your current down the elevation that the way is written verus where going to be required to be is a major discon the elevational is dramtic and those structures want to be at very very close to the which is what is proposed even this so I think what has to happen is you have have to do it in way that not netive Neighbors when you're that are going to be elev way we are how the are developed around andate ATF location how high will the deck be over the so thehead requ here is is but the bulkhead is not at 13 so stop second elev is we talk about you know the give and take in addition to everything else the city's getting at that location a brand new bulad at the elevated height doing it this way as opposed to the house R just another thing to consider please talk about the existing condition and I recognize and you know we do a lot of cases I recog the stat made a lot and it's it's a correct statement you tear the house down you have it from sleep but from a planning perspective that's not in my opinion that's not really the only way to look at case you have you have a person who owns a home he has a home that has a footprint that is not compliant it's at 37% building we have to be careful with with our building footprint because of the fact that we've got stand to and so we build a peri rule is being applied in the building which gives you very little as to how you how you modify that right like for example we closer to the obviously move the wall because the wall is at the average 5 setback so you it creates limitations for where the building walls would be with that with that stand it's it's hard it's you have a you have a property that has a building a specific size to it somebody wants to make the decision to instead of trying to renovate that tear it down and me to build a new home and from a plan perspective it's it's my opinion that penalizing that person to take them all the way back to the current standards is a tough call to make because they could leave it as it is renovate and make it look nice and that building footprint is what it is and and it exceeds the standards but because of all the things that they're proposing to give back on this property you have to balance that and say okay yeah they're not bringing it back completely in compliance but we have a case here where and's talk about the building cover specifically because that seem to be the biggest concern we're taking it from 37 all the way back to 32.3 that that additional coverage is obviously with purpose for room sizes and such inside the house how many square feets the house new house how many's in the existing house 4ud have to look at this in my opinion as a balance so what are the give backs by caring the house and building a new house number one back the benefit is that building is 100% compant regard number two the side set which right now exists at less than is going to 833 the others are all exist yard and side on own is and then rear the so we have opened up we opened up Thea we have increased landscape coverage considera and we are building a new flood de structure that meets all the other stands when you look at this from a negative perspective okay if we build this building as we proposed what are the negative impacts well we think because of the location of this and because of development pattern around it we think the negative impacts are netive we already discussed we have what I call immedately next to us which is a TW building that goes almost to the buhe at thece there's an bu buer that structure itself actually has a roof a roof imately behind thek that not anywhere that's that entire that entire fa immediately adjacent to us we have moved the building from to 8.3 so the neighbor to the rear to the to I'll side were opposite the ocean front is seeing a dramatic benefit with regard to their to the set between that house and our house furthermore that building if you're if you visit the site recently which I'm sure you all did um was two was two lots two houses if you look on our aeral photo that have been torn down to build one very very large house beautiful home uh very very well done and um but again keeping in the scale you've got our building with some with some minor deviations but you now have a a house behind us that is essentially twice the size of the house that's proposed on this slot you have a property next to us which is a full block of resal and then you go across the street and say well how are we impacting that guy on the ocean front he's blocking his own Fu if you visited he's got major everen structur everen trees right in the corner here by his buk that creates a green wall so he can't see toward toward this property and Hiser to and he's also because of way so yes it is a deviation yes you do have a blank slate in fury because you tear down the build but you do have to look at what's there I mean that's the appropriate way to do it from PL perspective and our clients bringing it back as as far as we think is is reasonable and still create the benefit to to the neighbors without creating a maor impact negative impct to to your land last thing I'll leave you with with regard to the building coverage is it's 2% I would arue s we we measure for a living we design for a living I couldn't pick up a 2% difference on if I went to a site I couldn't say oh that's 30 that's it's very very minor deviation it obviously has meaning to our client or else they would have just gone back to the 30 and work to get rid of one more so we think that there is there are positives to allowing this property to be constructed as it is proposed on this plan just a c there the other vages to touch on I already touched on the height of the deck um and why would we think that is Justified I think we're heading in that direction for all these properties especially on the ocean front um we did also because I wanted to satisfy myself about this topic the food structure along along Mar has a top elevation I check actually a couple different blocks has a top elevation varing right now between 17 and 17 and a half if that's the elev federal government and and the state felt that the that the short protection should be at this location it would seen from an engineer perspective it would seem very prudent to have all of your structures that are on your lot your decks um anything that's on that deck add about that elevation so um you know we saw at Atlantic City marget didn't have at the time but back in sing we saw located in city where the D were ripped completely through um and what started to come so the fact that the dun is there does not mean that that you're not going to have water hit these properties and elevation 17 is the number that these act so bringing all these structures to that elevation from an engineering perspective and a blood perspective we think makes a whole lot of sense um the the only other variants I didn't mention is with regard to the curve cut if you visited the property the majority of this site this Frontage is curve cut now most of the front curve Cuts they're separated slightly but you have a curve cut right here and curve cut that goes from this all the way ACR ofer we're just to reorient them the one curve cut is curve cut the area at 9 wide and then we have a standard 18 wide curve cut go the of this build so I don't I and I agree with Mr there's not a lot from a hardship perspective that's not the case this is this is an appropriately sized lot for the Zone it's an oversized lot 5000 this in my opinion is a C2 type of application where benefits and deviation outweigh the detriment I've talked about the negative impacts neighbors I don't see that there are any um I think the benefits of pulling of of increasing Landscaping pulling the home away from the from the neighboring home building a beautiful home the ocean outweigh any of the poal negative spefic location if we had an undeveloped piece of property then the conversation about is a clean Fleet I think that's hard to argue but that's not what we have here and and we certainly don't have a very very um consistent single family home neighborhood so for all those reasons we believe that the Guan would be and John you mentioned the negative criteria want to go the positive very quickly do you see that this project that's approved by the board would be a positive and be a benefit to the city of Margate of the city of morgate to the state of New Jersey municipal yes I think that there are special reasons um for purpos that exist I think that this creates a much moreable visual environment creches has developed have already provided and it does not create a substantial negative impact and one other benefit that we don't talk about enough but we should this also prevents flooding this not only Margate but state of New Jersey flood hasard ordinance is being satisfied where right now we have a nonf flood compliant structure correct it is nonant and will comp warart certainly here to answer questions the homeowner is here Mr loio is here we would like to get the board's inut on uh Mr Barnhart Mr Loo's testimony and kind of see where you're at regarding our requests we think that we've proven the case positive and negative but certainly reserve the right to have either Bob or John continue to test so just for the record I mean the house is not going to reduce flooding it's going to reduce damage to the house I'm sorry well would be great if be a reducing but no it will take a an existing nonf flood compliant house making it flood compliant that's phrase that I just continue to be you said why should the property owner suffer by putting a nicer house and for all the reasons you said because he has to meet the current requirements I know know what the square footage was of the old house but it had to be smaller I mean he's got to be getting a bigger house with the three floors doesn't total area yeah but but the footprint is what dictat sizes per I understand that but it's not a smaller sare foot of but the floor plate as you know would dictate room sizes and bed sizes and such and that's kind of dire of of of asking for 2% coverage VAR I think P had an interesting comment yes corre yeah just to put into perspective I mean it's only from the line so there was if you take the existing footprint because as I said the other three are essentially the same set so so this proposal was to take that footprint and and chop of the house off along that side to give that 8.3 foot side and that's where you pick up the lot coverage that's where you pick up the landscape correct there's less lot coverage on the proposed house than the existing yeah you if you look at the survey you see this was all concrete there concrete the rear the whole front is concrete it's a dramatic improvement from a landscap and frankly an athetic perspec open it up to the public my name is Sam lashman I live at uh Hanover Avenue I'm not neor of this property but I'm listening to the application I have hey Sam hold on one sec you're you law lawyer or you're testifying as a member of the of the city you swear if from the testimony you'll give will be the truth yes I did and your address on hand 11 n North okay thank you go ahead I understand that the height is uh changing I think the owner is probably correct in trying to elevate the house my question is about the curb cuts it seems like it's uh eliminating any uh standby parking for people to drop people off or not at when they go to the beach uh it doesn't seem like there's going to be any solid area in front of the house to park I don't know if that's correct or not shown on not drive front I'm not sure are you saying for somebody come down D well I mean if if they pull tight to the vad there's probably enough room to to be there but I mean the reality of it is that's a you know that's a 30C stop and it's really you're not stop happens at every at every street end right now there's Cur you have 22 from the to their Drive what's an average car 18 22 so you pull right up to thehead let again the property owner has agreed to put a handicap accessible Ada entrance so that would be a place for people to pull up with a disability as well anybody else from the Public Public portion is closed anybody else on the board Mr Rich before go forward here I just I do want to get some idea um if you don't mind just take take a quick second and talk to Mr lolio and the property owner based on some of the comments the board members have made if we could take just a two or three minute sure break absolutely so Mr chairman the property owner being here is certainly very helpful as usual he's heard the board's comments um what he would proposing Mr loio said he can make it work is to reduce the rear setback variance by two feet it would take four feet to bring it completely in compliance if you move the rear yard in two feet we'd pick up 1.8 or almost two% of additional Landscaping so we'd still be over but we'd be minimally over and as John just pointed out we'd be reducing the degree of non-conformity of the rear yard sep so rear yard would be at 12 and that would give us 31 we 1% over on building we would amend the application we still want the board's input of course because you we don't want to go into this blindly but having Mr SI here um taking your comments into consideration wants to be a good neighbor wants to do right but at the same time wants this house I think that's kind of the compromise back and forth much more Landscaping I'm looking at Mr Ji now um you're going to get by moving this more than is on the plan now so we would amend and go with that for the vote please so that deck would be moved in also yes all right okay anybody else on the board I think all right if there's no other discussion or comments it's a c variance application I'll summarize them and then we'll need a a motion in a second the C variances are the combined side yard set back they're at 1.82 feet or 22 FTS required the rear yard set back as amended is going to be 12.33 ft 16 ft required that's to the building to the deck it's now going to be 1.67 ft for 16 ft required it's the rear deck building coverage 30% is the permitted maximum the amended given the the cutting off a little bit of the back of the building 31% curb Cuts you're allowed one they're proposing two the curve cut width you're allowed 18t Roger is that accurate 22 25t total is that right John I thought you said an 18 and a nine for the two curve Cuts I think the nine includes the E only it goes over the property so it doesn't really I got you so okay so about 22 and a half feet and then the beach front deck height they're proposing 18.45 where the permitted height is 11.67 Ft conditions I'll note the uh the Ada access um by the bulkhead and then I'll that better and then any other representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing anything else in Mr MC's report subject to any outside approvals and basically just the standard conditions that we put in every resolution so we'll need a motion a second and a roll call vote Michael Rich okay um so the combined I don't have issue that espe of way is shap re yard bringing that in a couple more Fe there is a parking lot in the back that doesn't neighbors back including the deck being mov back that's a good thing building coverage I so we're almost there now Cur cut I'm okay with just because it is a it doesn't the street so I am going to approve it but I am going to say it's Mr Lao and you know at one it's it's basically five variances down kinding going down to four but it's it's an oversized lot an I know there's I know that what we're doing is better than what's there now I think of a situation like that I I you know you design a house you got to kind of take what our guidance is into consideration I kind of feel like that was a c nothing like some of the things like I said the the the lot the way it's shaped with the com all that I'm okay with that in the future I would just like to see more consideration toity Richard Patterson pretty much would Echo what what Mike said I have no problem with any of the variances I have no problem with the VAR the back even before you reduced it I guess you had to reduce that to make the house smaller um well I'm not going to repeat said I appr Dan Adams I have to say a couple good things bu stech Mr Richmond said um we do have a clean Sate you're going as we sort of say but Andrew Campbell I'm satisfied with the um the change to the building coverage um bringing it down to 31% I agree um you can't really tell that much difference between 1% let alone the the 33 that you were at before um I also appreciate the landscape coverage um I think that's a big deal especially um the closure you are to the beach so um I approve Rich Tolson is we don't know always we also AR couple assumtions being but IIT and the amendments theod Patty Rosen only motion carries with seven in favor and zero thank you all good night okay our next case is five north mon Avenue LLC 122 Hunton Avenue 3111 located in s257 District seeking a c variance relief for full setback from House the others for single time have on Curr on taxes and Sewer payments all right thank you Mr chairman board members my report is based on the application of five North Monroe Avenue LLC 122 North Huntington Avenue block 3101 15.01 located as 25 zoning District this house was approved by zoning I believe in 2023 or 2024 it's under construction nearly done they want to add a swimming pool on my zoning chart the front yard setbacks do meet the required that has not a VAR so turn page three Vance required is minimum set back to the pool clearance it's a three foot clearance is required from the ERS Edge to any vertical structure or anything above it and there asking for a zero foot clearance for the swimming pool so that's I'm not going to continue any more than that that's it thank you members of the board my name is Chris B and I represent North mon Avenue LLC with2 um it's really easy we have a ordinance provision reion has been yourin for quite some time and my understanding is that it is to deter people there's a couple reasons and that raises a couple observations number one the house that we are dealing with it has been designed specifically so there are no decks above there's one window no opportunity to jump from that structure into the pool if there were sense the the other two reasons that you have that control issues cced many above the pool is sked couple under the first floor there there is no issue and there's no issue with respect to circulation around pool and I think we add Scott the app will tell a little bit more about the case but John O please rise so at least you can confirm what I have said have to Sayce conf yeah uhy John Mr oenis just give us your name and business address for the record please John obelenus 108 South monel Avenue Atlantic City okay please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you give this evening to be the truth I will okay John you're the AR LIC AR JY yes before I have accept J Mr yes um Mr this house is fully pered almost finished am I right yes a couple of comments with respect to the reasons why a pool would be situated a couple feet away should be situated a couple feet away from the house would you address those and and confirm that I'm right when it comes to design of this house location yeah and you know when you look at um the pool itself and its relation to the structure um there's really no walls that come up against it there's a column at the corner and uh there's a staircase we maintained at the ground level at least put separation between structural column the edge of the pool the water's edge of the pool so one can navigate around the pool without a problem they're not being block there's no solid wall so in that sense set back that is fo correct have yes to to column the structural column itself we maintain that 3ot separation and the underneath the first floor where the pool is located how many the gives allows for circulation around the pool we have at least 5T from the edge of the pool to the actual solid wall to the house the design the am right design the only window in the back of the house above the pool is the cas window that is behind the kitchen sink yes and often times those casement windows um there's a limitation to what they can open as it is I think it's 4 in so one can't really you up all the way and jump out and you know again it's difficult if somebody really wants to do it they'll do it regardless of where the pool is but for my not experience but opinion that yes C they look like Double H Windows the upper ones don't to casement at the kitchen level is that they double H is that bedroom bedrooms question John there's no deck back allow anyone to jump off the deck correct someone penetrated yeah something maybe a feature for the window that prevent kids from pulling up a pool below or not you know just just addition to window and you think as shown and as requested is a safer design than if you were to have a three strip of concrete or tile paper right below the back of the house without question I believe that's you know this this this version with the water directly below I think it's actually further in so that you really know that you can hit the water for you to fall out or make a point to jump out you're going to hit water and you see this having any substantial impact on the on the public on the zoning ordinance on the I don't think so that's anybody from the for when I say that and I say with all respect it's you know I worry about people being Mr pamer just give us your name for the record I'll swear you Scott pamer okay please raise your right hand you on the testimony you'll give will be the truth do um to address your concern I don't know if this alleviates your concern or not but on each of those bedrooms windows on the side of the house there's two windows that gives you um access to each of those rooms and that's that's on the side yard that's not shown there but I could show you in the plan I have a computer here and I can show you that plan uh third no that's that's true the top has a window there's Yes except she's asking about this level and she's correct there there's one window does have that that's fine so second floor you have correct now I could say there's a I'm trying to think the window is trans of a window in the bathroom on this level and then you also I guess that's the next closest window as well as the front there's a window on the third floor on the third floor Yes actually you have from the front of the house on a third floor yeah is an erress window because the bathroom window is not an it's a deck it's actually a to deck yes okay yeah and there's you know I want to say it's like four or five feet of of decking um okay so you have erress in the front of the house yes I do yeah okay um so I'm a builder um I I had started this project I really had not intended I had thought about it full um the reason we come down here is um to really to reprieve for my family we have a a son with multiple diagnoses and really the summer is the time we kind of get to like spend time with him get him away from school and and kind of reset him um he was never he would never get into a pool um um until this summer we learned that you know it was kind of therapeutic to him and so that the idea of having a pool came up after a friend let us use their pool we had multiple sessions over the summer this past summer with like someone who helped them as like therapeutically in a pool and and that's how this idea came up um is this your primary residence this is a summer summer residence and and I will be moving into this as soon as we receive the C so this isn't your primary no we're in Pennsylvania primarily um but we spend basically from June to August here and then you know weekends and you know other medications um so it's also I can't we can't send him to a typical Camp because he has a problem sweating so this is really like for us you know the summer knowing that the pool was something good for him you know that's how this became of interest and and that's why I'm making this ask so correct right we just can't send up the camp um to a typical day camp where you do Sports and other things because he overeats so now knowing that the the pool is something that's good for him that he enjoys it's therapeutic that's how this idea came up it certainly wasn't something we thought about at the beginning of starting this project but but this is where we are so that's why I'm making the ask and um you know I I've built probably 150 something homes I very rarely apply for variances um in this case it's personal and no not at all and uh none no it was all by right um so for that reason I'm asking for your consideration and I appreciate it I'm happy to pull up the plan and rev yeah so I I'll review yes yes sir correct and then does that satisfy you and then this is a this is a bedroom that's a bedroom um with with two windows on either side and correct and then to point out this transom window there's a there's a bracket on you can't you can't get out of that window there's there's a moon in the middle it opens and it lcks about this far off of off of the uh the frame all right anybody from board microne oh that's close it's a sliding glass door and that that's installed and trimmed out anyone else from the board okay we're going to open it up to the public good afterno good evening Sam lashman 119 North hover all right same just because it's a new application you swear to tell the truth yes I do okay go ahead I don't I don't think there's a detriment to the uh neighborhood or the plan uh there's somewhat limited land on that BL and in the whole area so if they want to fit this pooling I don't think it's a problem for anybody uh I did want to hear the details but uh I will say Mr dalon addressed some of the seage issues that block is a little higher than some of the other neighbors and that spot is a little higher so I don't I don't think there's any problem with it so I just appreciate your comment thank you we're not sitting a precent by doing this the board is concerned about that there are a couple under have this situation okay anybody else from the publiction closed okay it's a one C variance for the full setb back in the rear the requirement is 3T to any vertical Dimension or membrane or whatever the terminology is and they're we'll call it zero but kind of negative variance goes under the house so that's the one variance put the standard conditions that we put in every resolution and uh we need a motion and a roll call motion second and a roll call vote second Michael Richmond yeah when the three foot rule around the pool came back I always envisioned to be able to get around the pool it was an issue I built pools that we backed up directly to the house and we just did one it backs up to the house so that's um that was always my idea for the which I think is a good thing to had the three-foot perimeter um and that this pool does have that three-foot perimeter I I I'm not really I'm if I can't be concerned about people doing stupid stuff all the time so if they want to you know if they're stupid enough to jump out of the pool then they're stupid so I'm not going to deny the pool for that reason I'm going to approve it Richard Patterson I agree I think the three- foot around the pool whether it's under the house or around the house you have to safety issue of being able to access anybody that's having problems in the pool as long as an satisfied that the firemen have access to all the places and I approve Dan Adams thank um I have to say thank youy I will I don't think this is a a good idea to to have this pool um in know of your situation I feel it's hard to say no but um I don't approve Andrew Campell um we have setbacks and clearances for a reason um the three feet to me should be enforced vs e I think it does I think that it does have I can I can let's get through the voting I mean they got the four but we got one more now okay we can that's okay Patty r the motion carries with five in paper and two okay all right our next case is Bruce and Randy pashco two 12 North Kenyon Avenue block 43.2 lot 16 located in the s25 zoning District seeking SE variance relief for front yard porch and deck setback third floor deck design shed size and potentially other others in order to raise and renovate the existing home and construct a second and FL Edition car on taxes W and Sewer payments proof of advertising and notification provid representative by Christopher okay thank you all right thank you Mr chairman board members report is based on the application of Bruce Casco 212 North Kyon Avenue block 41 13.02 lot 18 located in s25 single family zoning District FEA Zone elevation 8 meaning that the minimum elevation to the first floor is elevation 11 to the bottom zoning starts at 12 or 9 ft above grave or parking SE relief planning zone and is as follows the applicant is seeking relief from the oran of the city of Margate in order to elevate and expand an existing non-conforming single family structure in the s25 zone The Proposal was to elevate the drilling for parking below and this rears that has to go higher than base flood elevation plus three state law permits non-conforming structures to be elevated to the lowest highest requirement without baranes say that 10 times FAS complete the zoning chart highlighted in yellow or shaded are the vares on the zoning chart contined on page three also the plans reviewed to generate the report as well as the documents reviewed as a submission is part of the package interance is requested and required minimum front yard set back to the building whereas a prevailing front yard setback is 17.5 s ft 14.3 exist 14.3 ft is proposed again it's a one of our just to expand on that real quick one of our quirks and our ordinance is the front yard setback begins at the face of the house that is not changing it's expanding by going higher but the front yard for this property is where it is minimum front yard setback to the Texon pts whereas the prevailing front yard setback is 12.2 10.3 ft exist and 10.3 ft is proposed for the elevated deck and a new second again it's an expansion of a non-conforming setback minimum side setback combined whereas a minimum combined side setback is 37% of the lot width or 14.8 ft 14.5 ft exist and 14.5t is proposed 310 of a foot which is 4 in minimum reard setback we're at a minimum setback is sorry back to rard setback is 17.5 for feet 16.3 feet exists and 16.3 ft is proposed again that's for the building part the main structure expansion of a nonconforming setback by adding that second and half story at those setbacks triggers this Vance along along with the lift uh accessory structure for the garage whereas parking below a drilling is permitted provided that a detached garage is not present so you have if you want to lift the house to provide for parking that's why we give you the additional height you have to get rid of the detached garage and a detach garage exist and is proposed to remain however my conversation with Mr Balon that that may change maximum permitted building coverage whereas the maximum permited building coverage is 37.4% based on that sliding scale that we have 40% exists and 40% is proposed the build again this is triggered by the lift building coverage is not changing they're adding on on what exists maximum size of the third floor deck whereas the maximum commit of third floor deck area is one half the area of the deck below the third floor deck is 72 square feet and the deck area below is 82 square feet I believe in the in the application they had it's wider than one third of the width of the building but since there is a deck below it that that's the first PR curb cut width whereas the maximum width of a curb cut is 18 feet total and 20 feet is proposed again that was scaled not to mention if it exist if they're not making it wider I would say that's not really a erance but I think they are expanding it I'm not going to go through my comments at this time I I'd rather turn it over to the applicant to provide us testimony if there's any changes that they want to make or discuss goad Chris thank you m m um my name is CH Bon board members I represent Bruce Randy Pasco who are here in their property 212 North Canyon Avenue block 41302 lot 18 the s25 zoning District this is a application where the pasos will remain on the existing footprint raise the house give you the elevation SEC raise the house and add a second and third 50% third floor second floor um the elevation right now I think it's like 123 Roger 12 is where it needs to be it's just a few inches above what what is required now in anticipation THS said assum me but in anticipation of a change since they're doing this work with the second third floor it makes sense to raise to raise the house at one time rather than do the addition then come back and raise the house should that be necessary so if you're a building new you could do the 9 ft yes absolutely sure um so implicates a bunch of variances and we heard earlier five Varian whatever it may be but this these are variances simply for the vertical expansion there is no further approachment in any setback and the setbacks that are are not in conformance are relatively minor in this instance as Roger said in the in the rear yard I'm sorry in the um sidey yards we meet both side yards right have five and nine we meet the side we don't meet the combin side Mar it's off by three t0 of an inch uh real quick on that just have a question on Dan what is the clad was that measured to the existing you have to be yeah Mr masan just give us your name and business address for the record please Daniel Scott Mion register AR state of New Jersey my address is 1409 New Road in North and you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening it'll be the truth I do Mr chairman will accept this credentials here numerous times just just a comment about the the cladding on the this was elevated about 2013 or so that's my the house the house was built rebuilt after Sandy it was damaged in Sandy it was taken down after that this is a new house at higher elevation but it has that stone cladding around the the foundation right Stone vene stone veneer so our ordinance has a provision where we'll give you four in if you have stone veneer so I would say that's really not a variance because the survey indicates then they measure to the foundation they're going to measure to that stone veneer so right there block there's block behind it there's block behind it so we assume that it was approved and and compliant when it was built it's just we we used the legal survey for for the correct and the depth of that flading is probably 30 in both sides it's at least four or five inches correct all right so my recommendation to the board is that that not really a that's sure whatever the cladding is we believe it's it's not it's not set stone it's a if you took that off and you measured to the concrete block they they can fly um let me just finish up where I was as I said setbacks are not significant got a foot and front yard is off by um couple feet it's front is 103 versus 143 um I'm sorry 103 to the porch 143 to the house porch requirements 12 and the house requirements 17 so it's off three to the house two to the porch and that that doesn't change um what what we can improve upon Roger I'll address your comments the curb cut will comply for sure coverage already building coverage already complies Landscaping complies the uh third the uh with respect to the existing garage that was previously approved with the building permit that was constructed when the house was however we understand the situation we would like to reduce that to we like to keep the width of 9 fet because that working remain s foot garage door that can St we'd like to shorten it down to 10t so be 9 by 10 90 ft versus 80 ft and need a 10 square foot barings for the accessory stru exactly rather than pulling in rather than buying an 80 80 foot shed and put it there we can reduce that still have b b sh cut short enough back and that would increase Landscaping on the lot a% I believe like sorry I do have that number you give me I got a question for shs sheds are to mean they're not really need right and the comment about storage Under the Stairs we will change that to place for the garbage and recycles perfect so you need a height VAR for that shed too I think it's around 12T High same as garage right right yes 10 versus 12 n vers um and that's that's the application guys it's it's addition second third floor consistent with the houses next door the house to the right as you look at it the small Rancher that's owned by the pasos so we're not have a situation where we're moving over a neighbor that's their house and Patterson's house is behind them and there's a pool there not in structure so to the extent the there's a concerned about massing on the surrounding houses the house next door neighbor exactly three stories nobody behind um Dan all yours uh certainly I'll I'll try to be um so it is an addition um to an existing um single family home of one story uh the proposed is two and a half stories plus the parking underneath it as you know I'm sure you're concerned as a board of the new regulations that were we the public uh uh portion of those closed in December we're wai July to see what the D comes out with um to add this kind of investment into a building it I know it's hard for you as a board it's also hard for us as a design design professionals to advise our clients at what elevation they should be looking to build to protect their Investments because it does look like um all all signs point to you know five five or more feet um that were going to be required so we tried to Design Within the ordinance use the existing home um go go up utilize uh you know maximize the parking obviously I think that's an issue on uh barrier islands of course all the barrier islands are Park will be one in the yes front of the that's correct the uh other issue I wanted to touch on um uh well with going into describing the the uh the building real quickly is you can see the parking configuration as as Chris had said you know two parking spaces we will reduce that to an 18t Cur cut one in the garage we are providing an elevator uh because of the size of this home as you know it's going to be a challenge as we move forward because these homes are going to have to be significantly higher uh but utilizing for parking underneath is a benefit once we get up uh we we're you know we're adding um you know we're adding several bedrooms we're going from a a three three bedroom two bath to a six bedroom sorry I forget four bath I believe um wanted to touch on on the the variants for the uh third floor deck as well this deck is under roof uh it is pushed into the building so I understand that the requirements approximately I I believe if I do the math right about 41 square foot were allowed the full height of that deck right by the slider is about 6 by eight so that would give you you know about uh 48 square feet now continues down so that deck may be measured as a larger deck but it really creates the shadow line in the gend so we're using yes which is that's correct it's not the full full WID so it's a very small deck but I believe that the the Aesthetics of pushing a a a deck back into the Gable line will give it more scale better than a flat Gable end so I believe there's a big aesthetic Improvement for for this and it's very we're talking of you know the 10 square ft uh difference if you count the area where you can't stand uh it may be a little wider but it it slopes down so the area about 48 squ feet Yes Ro so in floor plan you're you're know you you see a 12 by uh eight deck it's really the usable area is only going to be the width of that uh slider which is about six feet and and it slopes off and Dan because it is pushed back into the building your thir flu area is actually reduced by that's correct right it could be living area so it is it is a um architectural element that we've used multiple times I think well I understand the definition in the zoning or it really doesn't contemplate this type of structure and that's right if we had pulled this deck all the way over yes yeah if we had enlarged that that second floor deck but we chose chose not to one one other thing I wanted to jumping around with the front yard setback it is an average obviously of the street uh and we did if I could just uh I just have one photo of apologize of a satellite and you could see on our on our original drawing we do have the list of the properties and their setbacks but as far as the average the house uh directly um I'm not sure you know 210 um the side house 210 uh is actually about the same distance away from the street uh the one next door is pushed back but it has a covered porch so we were trying to adjust it to to the houses immediate to it the average is thrown off by some of the houses towards the end of the block which are are pushed further back so aesthetically the house the the block does go kind of has a bulge in it for the setbacks and I don't think we're affecting anybody's view he you know air yes the one the one the smaller house um 214 is pushed back but it has a covered porch so it does appear that it sticks out you know about the same distance it's a smaller older home too which will probably at some point you know look at the obviously the prevention of flood by complying with the yes anticipated D regulations also an aesthetic enhancement to the property be consistent with some newer houses on the Block yes yes I believe I really what this comes down to and we're I think we're all struggling this next 18 months should be interesting but we're trying to make everything higher safer and more resilient I know designing to Future codes is a little bit of a Gambit but I think you know by lifting this up it's just going to be better for the in the future sorry cut out there um flood it's FL it's flood right I I you know as far as being flood proofed or or not causing flood it is the homes that aren't protect Ed from flood to come off their foundations and hit other homes and that's that's really what happened in Sandy so it's not just the flood being flood safe it's it's it's taking that older stock of home and making them safe which is a big benefit to the um do you see there being any substantial DET public good no I think there the safety factor is POS zoning Z no thank you here okay anyone uh on the board have any questions comments just another comment on Dan's credentials I think he just he's a little humble but he's also a FL plan manager and a construction official yes construction I teach co uh the code courses out of the like uh I if if you go back to 2018 which is very interesting and and I apolog we talked about this exact issue and I think I made these exact points as far as would be consistent with my testimony and happy to share with everybody just real briefly if you go up and down the coast North Carolina gets hit by you know storms every five years we get hit by generational storms every 30 years we just have a memory we forget they all their homes are lifted the story up and I'm sorry the Aesthetics are going to change we're going to have to rewrite the ordinances on all the shore towns that this legislation goes through we have no control over that I'm just trying to you know do what's best for the towns at this point by looking at it as I said higher saf or or more resilient we tried to comply your comply to your ordinance wherever we could on on in this situation we weren't trying to exceed or add to any of the non existing nonconformities anybody else from the board okay open up to the public anyone from the public like to speak man how are you just give us your name and address uh van 221 okay Mr car do you swear airm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth yes okay thank you I apologize I just want to look at this I wor about off the backyard I live Jason Property I like living so you can see here this is the second floor deck and then just the stair down it is yeah on two sides and that you could see that on the side elevation uh which is yeah here and here so these two no we're bringing straight up from the ex okay that but I had a little issue last summer I want fireworks in my backyard I know they're legal but after midnight you want to start shooting fireworks you're going to have a problem the cops came out they couldn't go there I had to they were inside their house so if they going not shoot fireworks I got no problem but anybody else from the Public Public portion is closed good Chris okay it's another C variance application I'll summarize the variances and we need a motion in a second the front yard setback they're proposing 14.3 feet which is where they're at now 1.57 is the requirement front yard set back to the deck and porches 10.3 ft proposed 12.2 is the requirement combined side yard setback based on Rogers input with Mr masion that's no longer a variance minimum rear yard setback they're at 14.5 feet or 14.8 is the requirement with respect to the detached garage that's going to basically now become nine feet wide by 10 feet deep so it's 90 square feet it's 12 feet high so it requires two variances as an accessory structure the height uh think nine I believe nine fet is permitted they're about 12 feet and an area for a shed is 80 square feet and this will now be 90 square feet um building coverage they're they're staying at 40% Rogers actually go down a a little bit or no no that'll stay the same stay the same it's existing not conforming right going it is a okay so they're not expanding it not expanding it they're at 40% now staying at 40% the maximum permit is 37.4 six the third floor deck size um can only be half the size of the deck below it um they're technically 72 square feet um where the one below it is 82 feet but per Mr M's testimony that the usable square footage is really about 48 square feet and then the curb cut variant is going to go away they're going to comply with Cur curve cuts the rear yard set back 16.3 was it re yard setback is 16.3 yes it's showing duplicated comb is the requirement 14.8 no the requirement is okay gotcha okay so not that correction um and then those are the variances the condition well I'll note what they're going to do with that attached garage it'll be 9 by 9 by 10 90 sare feet anything else Mr M's report higher than 9et yeah 12 say that again okay okay um not storage and the plans will be revised applicant will comply with any other conditions in Mr mcl's report any representation subject to any outside approvals conditions run with the land the standard conditions we put in every uh resolution so we'll need a motion a second and a roll call vote Michael richond yeah um we got rid of variance we minimized another variance the garage into a shed the other four Varian performing I think it is a benefit to the neighborhood that we're raising the house getting it out of the flood andove Richard Patterson as far as the deck on the third floor they're being penalized because they've chosen to have a small deck on the second Flor I think it's a reasonable the deos if the deck second four deck wentross the front as they usually do it wouldn't be a VAR other than that I agree with chairman I approve Dan Adams age stepen just second to mimic what Mr richond and Mr Patterson had said don't agree with their comments so I'll approve Andrew Campbell um going fifth um means that everyone else stole my thunder so um I can Echo the rest of the board memb thoughts um especially Dan with the futuristic look at what's to come down the road um and you already have existing nonconforming issues there already I approve tol motion carries six in favor and Zer thank you for your okay our last case is Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg 115 South Lancaster Avenue block 12 Lot 8 located in the S40 zoning District seeking Sean Rel for beach front po deck elevation and potentially others for the proposed new home at the subject property current on tax are and SE payments proof of advertising and notifications provided represented by Christopher B yeah I'm going to be really really brief this application was already in front of the board so I'll just uh the report is based on the application of the application of Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg 115 South Lancaster Avenue block 12 L8 located s30 zoning District Fone AE elevation 11 uh also this is a coastal a Zone requirement so breakway all the walls below the first floor have to be break away and the pool and the pool deck should not be attached to the main principal structure and actually on page four of my report I included the section of pools from as c-24 which is the requirements for construction and flood zone requirements I just put it in there for everyone's benefit and for the applicant but the only variance required is beach front full deck height or the maximum permitted deck height of the beach is V plus 20 in which would be 12.67% land inside the street um we received approval several months ago for a new house on the property um be front living area had not yet been designed it has since been designed and it's simply request to have the full and de extend from the same elevation as the first floor um similar to what you heard before but it's 17 not not 18 um John can give you testimony similar to what heard before but John said told me today that even D first D here is elevation 17 so if you're going to have waves penetrating that D I think behind it want to be than it we'll be we'll be to it we'll be right the first floor is and hoping all right Mr barard one more time name and address please please raise your right hand you SAR testimony you're about to give will be the truth starten viction everybody's Rec some t down always internal had showed was comp have to once continuation of of the structure if I'm not mistaken that's but in the coast way Zone it's got to be basically the design of briway pool there's three different requirements here between these beach front streets were designed originally Margate they slow down towards the beach now they raise the beach up so it's kind of it's It's the low point when it should be the high point anybody else from the board anyone from the public all right Mr carluchi real quick name and address again2 all right van carluchi correct van you swear airm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth yes thanks I think it's going to be aent thing in the street for over years absolutely beautiful pictures I see it's going to be better God bless anyone else from the public y okay it's a one C variance for the elevation of the beach front the height of the beach front deck they proposed elevation 17 and the maximum permitt 12.6 or the yeah the maximum permit is 1267 ft that's the one variance in terms and conditions we'll just say all the standard ones subject to Mr McLaren's report outside approvals of any representations made during the course of the hearing just the standard on like to make a motion Mel Rich uh yeah I especially uh since the homeowner spoke with of the neighbors I really don't see any impact on the neighborhood um like John was talking about with uh I know my U relatives lived on nasau Avenue and they were one and they were said there was waves coming down their street um so it's the way the world get things higher I think it's a good thing and I'm going to approve it Richard Patterson I agree with Mr Richmond I Dan Adams I agree with both Mr Rich Mr Pon and I just want to Echo what Mr Val had said about coming out all theat I have to agree this is only makes sense to keep a level and it's an improv supposed to be whatever it's good I approve Andrew Campbell I approve as well Rich Tolson Patty Rosenberg moot carries with s in favor Z I hear a motion to adj make all in favor