Uh we're going to start the meeting over the flag salute. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and
justice for all. Okay. Roll call. >> Michael Richmond >> here. >> Rich Patterson >> here. >> John Pitz >> here. >> Dan Adams here. >> Craig Palmisano >> here. >> Rich Tulsen. >> Johanna Perski >> here. >> Her Pagno >> here.
>> Steve Joaki >> here. >> Drew Campbell. >> Sam Freriedman >> here. >> Patty Rosenberg. >> Okay. This meeting is being held in accordance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act. Notice has been advertised in the press and posted in
the municipal building and on the city's website. Applicants are advised that if your application is approved this evening, please come forward at the conclusion of your case and approach the board administrator PAMA to sign a form outlining the process for obtaining any
required building permits and/or mercantil licenses. Members of the public wishing to speak during any case must wait for the chairman to open the floor for public comment. All speakers will be sworn in by the
board solicitor and must state their name and address for the record. All right. Um so first we have approval of minutes meeting of February 26, 2026. >> Make that motion.
Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I then approval of decisions and resolutions 12 2026. Steven and Elise Weissman C variance relief. Do I hear a motion? >> I'll make that motion.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. All righty. Um, our first case is Dr. Richard and Robin Goldberg, 17 North Nassau Avenue, block
214, lot 3, zone S40. The request is a C variance relief for minimum sideyard setback and combined sideyard setback to allow installation of an elevator at the existing single family dwelling. Current on taxes, water and sewer, proof of
notice provided. And the attorney is James Swift. Roger, do you want to say anything? >> I'll get I'll get Roger sworn in. Mr. McCarthy raise your right hand. You swear the testimony of >> Rob this evening will be the truth. >> I do.
>> Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. McCclar. Mr. Chairman, James Swift, 1335 Tilton Road, Northfield, New Jersey, appearing today on behalf of Richard and Robin Goldberg. We are respectfully requesting the opportunity to continue this matter to the April hearing date and I'm
respectfully going to ask that we uh be permitted to carry it without the requirement of uh renotice to the neighbors as well as renotice to the newspaper. An issue developed concerning this application which candidly put us in a little bit of a different position
where we're not quite ready to go forward today. We'd rather resolve this and come back with a more complete application the next time. Okay. Yeah, that's fine, Jim. And just for anyone here and for the record, the
application of Dr. Richard and Robin Goldberg, which is 17 North Nassau Avenue, lot 214, lot 3. That will not be heard tonight. The applicant that'll be adjourned till the April 30th, okay, >> hearing date, April 30th, 2026.
Obviously, 6:30 p.m. in this room. The applicant will not be required to republish or renotice. So, that's the official announcement for that. So, uh if you're here for that, come back on April 30th and you'll be heard. >> Okay. >> Thanks, Jim. >> Thank you. >> Excuse for tonight.
>> You're excused. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> All right. Our next case is Helena C. Is it Hope and Waser? It's >> good. >> Hopener, 9 North Koi Avenue, block 210.02, 02 lot 11 zone S25 request C
variance relief for front yard setback to allow construction of a threeseason room with the deck above at the existing single family dwelling current on taxes water and sewer proof of notice advertised attorney Eric Colstein
I'll do a preamble real quick so the report is based on the application of Helena Copper at 9 North Irquy Avenue block 210 10.02 lot 11 located in the S25 zoning district. Again, as Mr.
Richmond indicated, it's there is an existing enclosed porch. Now, they want to make it a threeseason room by adding larger windows and instead of the roof that's above it, they want to put a deck. Now the deck and the porch itself encroach into the front yard setback.
They actually encroach into the minimum front yard setback, but the prevailing setback for the porches is actually less than what the minimum is required. So again, I don't think you'll see much change other than
um a peaked roof above the front enclosed porch. You're going to see a little deck with a hidden by a pent roof. I thought the pent roof was nicely done. So basically there are two one variance minimum front yard setback.
>> Thank you Mr. McLaren. Mr. Chairman Eric Olstein on behalf of the applicant. So >> Eric I don't want to interrupt you just real quick. Uh just for the record her Pagno he's on the 200 foot list. He's recused himself. >> So thank you Leo. So we certainly um concur with Roger's
report. He's correct. What we have is an existing structure where the first level is not being expanded by way of its footprint. It's just being transformed into a three seasons room. It's not habitable space. It's not going to be used for anything other than a nicer
area for three seasons for the family um uh to reside. We're not changing anything regarding the step back, which as Roger said, the average is less than the minimum required. We're at actually 4.7 where the minimum required is five but can't do anything about moving the
structure back. So we do need the variance for that and it is an um increasing the intensity of an existing non-conforming use. Leah with me uh uh Keith Peacock prepared the plans. um sworn in briefly and just walk us through. Uh Roger summary is probably
same exact summary Keith is going to give, but I want to get the testimony on the record of course and then if the board has questions, we can walk through any um issues, but it's basically the exact house that you've seen, just changing the front of it to be the three seasons room with the deck of
Mr. Man. >> Sure. Mr. Peacock, just give us your name and business address, please, and I'll swear you in. Yes, it's Keith Peacock, >> 10 Heather Lane, Hannesport, New Jersey 0836. >> Okay. Please raise your right hand. You swear affirm the testimony you'll give
this evening will be the truth. >> I do. >> You have a licensed architect in New Jersey. >> Correct. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland. >> Appeared before boards before this kind of stuff. >> Wildwood, Camden, New Brunswick, Jersey City. Yes.
>> We'd ask you to be accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Thank you. All right. >> Thank you. >> Keith, you designed the plan. We've obviously gone through Roger's report with the property owner. We agree with Roger's comments there. Just walk us through what you've done. Board has a fairly long agenda tonight, so we don't want to correct us. Put the positive and
negative criteria on the record. >> Yeah. So, the as we pointed out, the the house is existing and we have a front porch area u that's enclosed now and the plan is to improve that with new windows. Uh, and then it had a a small roof over that area previously and a
chimney. We're removing the chimney. We're putting a flat uh roof on there so we can uh glass glass that in and put a deck on. So, it'll have a railing around that. Uh, but the the setback is the setback. We we're it's an existing condition where the house has been
sitting for for some time. Um, and we're just looking to uh make those modifications to the interior as well as uh change that front area to a an outside roof. >> No expansion of the footprint at all. Correct. >> That's correct. >> No expansion of the intensity of the use. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Right. Still same. >> Show the board. So, uh again, floor plan just uh showing u changing out windows in the front. Uh
all some interior things that we're doing to change around. Uh and then where this had a roof before and a chimney. We're taking that down and we're putting a deck up on the elevation also in the packet. Um, you can see the the result at the end of the
day is have a flat sort of roof around with the railing where we used to have the the chimney up the front previously. >> Based on your design, based on the review of the city of Mark the zoning state of New Jersey municipal land use
act, do you see any negatives that could be associated with this if the board grants the approval? >> Should be none. It's and I think it's in line with the adjacent houses around that also have outside decks. Uh, so it's just it's in keeping with what's going on with the short. >> And to the extent someone could consider
this to be a negative, would the benefits of what you've designed greatly outweigh any such negatives? >> Yes. I I don't see that there's really any any negatives here at all. Just >> can make a comment. Um, >> I see one negative. Um, you have stones
in the front yard past the past the uh property line and also down the driveway. There's stones. There's no grass there. Is there a plan to put grass in? Uh Roger, >> did you notice the stones there on >> the landscaping side of things >> in the front of the house?
>> I think they've been there probably longer than you've been around, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And they're permeable. >> I thought we changed they make them do >> well on that. That's the front of the house and it's in it's in the city strip, right? But it's over
>> part of it is it's over it's in the property line. the property line is three feet over the um all those stones and everything three feet over the property line right in front. >> Is that a problem?
>> The nature of the project I mean if they were >> the project I like I like the deck and the house next door has the same kind of deck and they're they're out to the street the same but the other houses on the street have grass and not stone there and >> we didn't submit a landscape plan. We
didn't, you know, find the landscaping to be an issue, but I don't know if that's we're not changing anything with the landscaping. So, um, >> did anybody else notice that on the board when you visited the properties? >> It's like typically more substantial
than than this would probably trigger that requirement. That's my personal thought. say, >> if they're like adding a third floor and they're building a big addition in the back and they they needed like five bares, I think then you could probably
leverage >> the additional landscaping, but you know, you're going to make them put grass in the front and they got to buy a lawn mower or cut five feet of grass >> all the way down the side. The whole thing is stone, >> right? >> The whole propert I have a question for Keith. Um
>> the the railing what are they about 4 in thick? >> Yeah, it's 4 in vinyl railing with >> So the deck itself probably meets the 5ft set back the actual usable deck >> when you're standing there. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Four 4 foot seven right for the deck. >> Well, but usable space >> usable space once once you're once you're behind the railing itself. >> It's at 4.7. 3/10 of a foot. It's about 4 in. >> Yeah. >> So, the usual deck. >> Yeah. I have no problem with the deck myself. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Anyone else from the board? >> Anyone from the public? Okay. Public portion is closed. All right. There's no other questions or
discussion. It's just 1 C variance. That's for the front yard setback to the deck. requirements 8.4 ft and they're at 4.7 ft. No specific additions, just the standard ones will be put in every resolution.
Anything in Roger's report, any outside approvals that may be required uh subject to any representations made during the course of the hearing, just the standard ones. So, we'll need a motion, a second, and a roll call vote for that one variance. >> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second it. Mike Richmond. >> Yeah, I don't have a problem with this at all. Um, as far as the stones go, like um Roger said, and I agree, they've been there. It It's a very small project
and um you know, for that little bit of um stone, I don't have a problem with that. As far as the driveway stones concerned, we're we're in we're in a a situation now where we're allowing the um Again, in the tire ship, you're allowed artificial
turf on stone or you're allowed pavers on stone. >> Right. Right. >> The middle ship. >> Yeah. So, so Right. And and again, the stone is pvious. So, I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson. >> I don't see anything negative here. I
approve the application. >> Craig Palmisano. I I see the one negative, but um the deck is equal to the other ones on the street and it's a good good improvement on the house itself, but now that the stone stones are clarified for me, I'll
go that way. I approve. >> Johanna Perski, >> um I think it's a nice improvement consistent with the aesthetic of the neighborhood. So, I approve. Steve Joaki.
>> Yeah, I had my doubts at first. Um Oops, >> you're on. You were on. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I I had my doubts at first, but um it will match the rest of the neighborhood and it's preserving an old
house, which I think is beneficial. So, I'll approve. Sam Freeman. >> Uh I think it's a tasteful uh conservative uh in addition uh increasing the usability of the house uh
and in keeping with the the shore uh aesthetic of the neighborhood and I approve. >> John Pips. >> We are not expanding the existing footprint. Uh we've approved similar projects here recently. So yeah, I approve. Good luck. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Motion carries with seven in favor and zero opposed. >> Okay. Our next case is 8509 Atlantic Avenue LLC uh block 113.02
lot 17 zone S25. Minor subdivision approval to create two lots of sea varants relief to allow construction of a new single family dwelling requiring front yard setback relief along Atlantic Avenue. Current on
taxes, water, and sewer. Proof of notice provided and the attorney is Eric Goldstein. I'll read off again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, board members. The report is based on the application of 8509 Atlantic Avenue LLC located at, believe
it or not, 8509 Atlantic Avenue, lot 113.02, lot 17 located in the S25 zoning district. I do want to point out something uh a little unusual with this. The backyard, the the houses behind this
property, it's S40. So that's why they can do the subdivision. And actually the subdivision is by right. All the bulk standards are being met. Lot width lot area. However, I don't know if you recall the house next door came in. The front yard setback is where the pool is,
but they wanted to push the house back at the time. We knew this was going to happen. It's going to uh it's going to make the frontier setback uh >> funny for the next guy that comes along. And here we are. So we could I could approve this with the subcommittee as a
byite subdivision, but I suggested that they bring it in all as one to approve it as a as a subdivision and show I think the subdivision helps show why they need and can justify this variance rather than just coming in and and asking for that variance at later point
in time. So it's a hardship variance based on the lot next door is causing the hardship by the position in the house. So, there's two variances. One for the front yard set back to the porch, Atlantic Avenue, and uh the building on Atlantic Avenue. And they're not proposing the porch
facing Atlantic Avenue, but the side of the porch is in the front yard setback that's facing Lancaster Avenue. Other than that, all the um requirements for the subdivision are being met. Um Mr. Masser and his
surveyor done a nice job in providing the waiverss requested. So the the board would have to approve those waivers and I see no reason why you couldn't approve those waivers, but the testimony that they need to put on is for the C1 and C2 criteria for the front yard
setback from Atlantic Avenue. I'll turn over to Mr. Goldstein. >> Uh thank you Mr. McLaren and Mr. Chairman. Eric Goldstein on behalf of the applicant. Um so Roger's correct. What we have here is the subdivision which is by right
property owner didn't want to build a house similar to the one next door on Mansfield which is very nice but it's a different type of design. It's that very very large that we're seeing now um house which might be ultimately too large for uh the area and instead uh
representative of the owner who's here Mr. senseman thought it would be a better idea to go in with two smaller homes, subdivide the lot, and unfortunately based upon the large house next door, which has the pool in the
front yard and the fence in the front yard, it skews the setbacks for the first house that would be on the corner of Atlantic and Lancaster. So, as Roger indicated, you've got a buyight subdivision. The one house on Lancaster, which is not on the corner, needs no
variances. But the house on the corner has the unfortunate result of your ordinance, which bases the setback, even if there's only one house, on that house's setback. So, this house on the corner would be set back much, much further than it is proposed to be if we
followed the zoning code. With me tonight, uh, Mr. Mr. Ramy Nasser is going to testify uh in support of the application and you all have in front of you the layout as designed by uh Mr. Nasser's office and Mr. Sensman. So Leo, I'm going to ask if Ramik could get sworn and then walk us through the plan
as to why this design is a better design than just the one big house and what we'd be faced with if Mr. Sman built the house on the corner um with the setbacks he's required to build. I think you all have in front of you where that house would line up if we don't get the
variances tonight. So, >> okay. Yeah. Mr. Nasser, just give us your name and business address. I'll swear you in. >> Ramy Nassar, 1425 Candlean Boulevard, Maze Landing. >> And please raise your right hand. You swear affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> I know you're a planner, engineer.
You've been >> licensed planner been in front of this board a few times, but majority like Aar Township and Atlant County and Cape May. >> Hi, Ron. talk us through the plan and kind of Roger said about the subdivision. We have the waiverss requesting. We have a lot of
>> Do we need to go through the waivers? Like >> we can do that last in case the board has questions, but I think let's focus on >> the subdivision itself and the layout of the two lots. >> We are looking in the S25. The existing lot is 6,500 ft² and the S25 requires a
2500 square foot lot with 40ft perimeter. The lots we're proposing, they exceed that. 3250 foot lot with a 50-ft frontage. The lab on Lancaster as Mr. Goldstein stated that doesn't need any variances. It's fully compliant with the front yard setback for the porch for
the structure sideyard setback or reard setback coverage. So, it's a fully compliant. The corner lot will have an issue because the house next door on Mansfield and Atlantic uh is set back at 35 34 uh 33.4 ft from the street. And
according to the ordinance, you look in the block and you have to average the front yard set back for the houses for the porches. And there's only one house and that house got the variance to be pushed back and have the pole in the front that caused the the requirement for this variance. The front porch for
the other for the existing house is 25.4. So if you add all these setbacks, you are left with almost nothing to build on this lot. So this lot becomes unbuildable because of the variances that were granted to the house to push it all the way from uh Atlantic Avenue.
>> So um we feel that it could be a C1 but I'm looking at Go ahead. >> Can I I mention one thing? >> Yes sir. >> When that house was developed next door. >> Yes. >> The requirement or a setback is the setback you're asking for. >> It was 8.1.
>> Yeah. 8.1. >> Exactly. So now we're asking for Right. >> So, currently the existing setback we have on the house is 8.1 and the front porch is 4.7, but we're not proposing any front porches on Atlantic. So, the side of the front porch that faces
Lancaster would have a front yard set back because it's a corner lot uh of 8.1. So, we're requesting to have the house and the porch set back to be 8 8.1 instead of the 33.4 and 25.4. So, that's the variance we're we're seeking. Um it
could be a hardship variance or could be a C2 variance. I mean I'm looking at this uh I would rather look at as um not a hardship variance because u if it wasn't for the subdivision we wouldn't have to be here. So I'm looking at as a C2 variance and according to the
standard pursuant to NJSA uh 405D70-2 uh the board have the power to grant these variances which we call them uh benefit versus burden. We have to prove that the deviation from the ordinances benefits to the town. Uh you look at this property, we have to look at the
municipal land use law and how what p purposes are we advancing. The two structures they will be built according to the standard with the freeboard. They'll be fully compliant with any flood requirements for uh per FEMA standards and uh the base flood
elevation and the freeboard that's required. So that's basically we're securing uh the safety from fire, flood, panic and other natural and man-made disaster. Uh the other one is to provide light air and open space. When you look at this house, the house is almost 90 ft
in width or 80 80 88 ft. So you really have no view corridor. You just have one structure from the side of the h property almost to 8 pointt from uh the street. by having two structures having proper setbacks in between you create kind of view card or you break the
monotony of the big structure. So I think that's a benefit to ensure light air and open space uh for the area. And the last one I'm looking at is because we comply with the density actually we exceed the minimum lot area so that we're promoting the establishment of appropriate population densities and
concentrations. So I feel this is the positive require criteria. We're meeting those with this subdivision and allowing the lot to be built on because you have a a fully compliant lot with lot area, lot width, but you cannot build because you don't have the proper setback
because of the ordinances requirement. >> And I'm just going to interrupt you here for a second. If Mr. Sman and when they went to build the house complied with the setback, just show us on the line there how far back it would be and how narrow the house would be. I I would say that a lot would be uh other than 12 ft
under 12. >> So you'd have a very narrow box car kind of a house if we complied with the setbacks which is a quirk sometime of the ordinance because we're bound by one house which is specifically very far back off Atlanta. >> I think complying with the requirements that'd be a terrible detriment to the
neighborhood. It would not be anything positive be negative. >> So this would be the kind of case where if we complied with everything we're required to do the end design would be worse than the baron. >> Oh definitely 100%. So that's how we showed that the proof that the deviation from the requirements is beneficial to the the municipality. Uh negative
criterias I don't see any because we are allowed to have two homes. We're proposing two homes. We're not increasing the densities or the making the lot smaller. We're complying with a lot area. So I don't see any negative criteria to this. So I feel that the requested release can be granted without any substantial detriment to the public
good and will not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the zone planner zone. Yeah. >> Thanks Romy. I try to do that tres fasting. So, >> Roger, the one thing I wanted to point out because the houses and the designs are in front of you. They're going to be fully compliant. We're not coming back for variances for the houses after the
fact, especially on the one on Lancaster. They're going to have um substantial improvement. There's not going to be anything on the first level. It's going to be your standard flood compliant house where restrictive covenant's going to be on. So the board doesn't have to worry by granting this
that there'll be something else built that doesn't otherwise comply. What's built there other than the variance for the setbacks on the corner house will fully comply with Margates's ordinances. So I know sometimes that can be an issue that board might think we're going to come back later and try to sneak
something else in. We're not. Mr. Simpson wants to build two compliant houses, but he can't build a compliant house on the corner because of the setback. So as far as the height and everything else, they'll just be completely compliant. We don't have anything else unless the board has questions and we certainly will answer.
But we think this is truly the case where the variance and the uh coming in for an application under the land use law. It's a betterment to do it this way than if we did it by right because you're getting compliant homes that actually fit in with the neighborhood. So we would rest subject to answer any
questions. We have nothing else to put on. So if this house was, say there was five other properties that you would base the front yard set back on, that house is sitting away for that would be thrown out of the equation. So here you're stuck with it. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> It's one of the quirks of this
ordinance. >> All right. Anybody from the board? >> Nope. >> Anyone from the public? Public portions closed. >> Yeah. Uh just real quick with is Roger
as far as the submission waiverss. I mean you you kind of outlined them in your report. You're you're >> Yeah, I included the the subdivision checklist. And again, they're they're not unusual. You know, we're not developing a 20 acre parcel of land in
the woods. Um the map size on on the plan itself, Mr. uh Nasser and TransU justify the waiverss on the top left second paragraph down.
I agree with the with the requirements particularly number six the checklist item waiver from uh so and control settlement plan they're going to get a certification from them and they need that to get a building permit anyway no cinema or building permit and zoning
permit requirements anyway so they have to go through another level to submit the stuff anyway >> yeah and they're really just submission items but a lot of towns handle them right up front to be heard By virtue of hearing you, we're almost
saying they're >> and we we're going to have to put in a formal, of course, Mr. Man is a former formal subdivision plan. So, you're going to have another crack at this when Romney's office prepares the plan in the myar for Roger and and uh Mr. Richmond to sign off on. You'll see what you
know, all the courses are going to be set and the monuments will be set as part of the subdivision. And Atlantic and uh Lancaster are not county roads, so we're not going to have to go to the county. We'll get it past Margate and then file it and then the lots will be created.
>> Okay. >> All right. There's no other questions. The the relief being sought to the minor subdivision to create the two lots and then with respect to the one house, the front yard set back along Atlantic
was proposed at 8.1 ft where you heard the testimony based on this average. the requirements 34 feet and for the same house that the the the decks and porch facing uh Lancaster they're also at 20 at 8.1 ft and the
requirement is 25.4 ft based on that same calculation. So those are the two C variances. The minor subdivision uh approval will be included of that and
then the checklist items will say uh they're listed in Mr. McLaren's report and they'll they'll be granted to the extent otherwise the applicant does not or cannot comply with them. >> And the conditions will just be the standard ones. I mean I I don't know you might have already done this but the tax
assessor signs the official lot numbers and addresses. We've not done that yet, but we'll get it over to Mr. Mangan as soon as we're >> he'll assign those. Um, anything else in Mr. McLaren's report, unless otherwise addressed, any representations made by the applicant during the course of the hearing and, you know, subject to any
outside approvals say you're not on a county road. I guess they still >> stamp it with an exempt or minor. >> Um, and uh that's that's pretty much it. And and yes, Palm 8, everyone can vote. So, we'll need a motion and a second and a roll call vote. I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second. >> Mike Richmond. >> Yeah. I see. I don't see any detriment to the neighborhood. Um I definitely think this is a hardship variance and I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson.
>> Well, without a variance, they have a 12oot house, which is impossible. It It makes no sense that I I see it as a hardship, and I don't see any negatives. I approve the application. >> Craig Palmisano.
>> Yeah. You're you're matching the existing house there now is 8 foot from the property line and the amount of grass between the sidewalk and the property line is about 5 ft. So you have like 13 ft of space from the sidewalk to the house and you're matching the
existing house. And I'm I'm okay with that. I have proof. >> Johanna Perski. Um, and I agree with what's been said. Um, it seems certainly seems like a hardship. I agree.
>> I agree with the other board members. You know, you need the variance to build the house. So, I agree. Steve Joaki, >> I think that we created a situation that that made you have to come here.
But I I do hope that when you build these houses that you use different designs, may may take advantage of the corner and and the side house because what we see is when they divide a lot, boom, boom. It's the same thing. They
take the blueprint. So, I have no choice in this. I mean, I I have no say, but I just sincerely hope that you do that to keep Margate or help Margate improve its design. >> So, I approve. Thanks, >> Sam Freriedman.
>> I would uh echo the the rest of the board and uh approve as well, >> John Pittz. >> Uh I think it's a bit unfortunate that this lot is being subdivided. There's plenty of demand for oversized lots uh especially in this area for the municipality. Eric, I'm happy to hear
you say that there won't be any requests for variances for the two new lots. As a result, um the setback requirements dictated by the adjacent property are definitely uh restricted and unreasonable. Um I approve the variance. Thank you.
>> Motion carries. Eight in favor, zero. >> All right. Our next case is Daniel and Sally Feldman, 4 South Argo Avenue, block 102.01, lot 23, zone S25,
requests C variance relief for building coverage and front yard setbacks to allow construction of a second floor addition. >> Take a five minutes. >> 5 minutes. Chris isn't here yet. >> They call him I told him,
>> uh, we're gonna take like a five minute break. Chris, >> no, we're good. >> Does he get the merits for that? >> All right. >> Daniel and Sally Feldman, 4 South Or Avenue, block 102.01,
lot 23, zone S25. C variance relief for building coverage and front yard setback to allow construction of a second floor addition. Colonel and taxes order and sue approve of notice provided. Attorney is Christopher Balinsson.
Hard right. >> Okay. Um thank you board chairman board members. This case was uh supposed to be heard in February but got pushed back to March. So it's dated February 25th. The application of Daniel Sally Feldman 4
South Argo Avenue block 102.01 lot 23 located in the S25 zoning district and the applicant is seeking relief from the ordinance of the city Margate in order to construct a second floor addition to a non-conforming setback to on an existing single family dwelling.
The lot is prototypical S25 size. I mean it's the actual dimensions are S25 dimensions and an older dwelling on it with a second floor addition will replace an existing deck with the living space and increase non-conforming
building coverage. So page two is the zoning chart highlighted are the non-conforming issues plans reviewed. On page three documents reviewed section three on page four the variances identified and agreed upon the
sideyard setback to the building on the right side whereas a minimum setback is 5T 4.4t exists and 4.4t square ft is proposed. Building coverage whereas a maximum permitted building coverage is 40% based on a sliding scale. 46% exist
and 52% is proposed. Again the typical comments uh in this area of the city is not uncommon to see front yard setbacks and building coverages be non-conforming. We have a lot of smaller homes with modest
uh height buildings but they they're they're wide and they cover a lot of areas. So again, my report is bas basically uh complete at this time. Mr. Balinsson. >> Thank you, Mr. McLaren. Members of the board, my name is Chris Balson. I represent
Felman's with respect to their house at 4 South Orgon Avenue. That's 25 zone. It's perfect 25 lot 2500 by 6245. Um you saw the pictures. This is a second story addition kind of filling in a hole where now per started
off the front of the house. Um but because of the existing occupy guard will maintain that side as exist currently both the front yard also
carrying the inside cover porch area roof on that building coverage. Although it's already impervious, the fact that you're covering a low
raises the coverage a couple a few% in this instance doesn't affect drainage doesn't affect doesn't affect storm water areas across Peter Weiss didn't plan comment on the
exact nature of the addition and I can just Uh, Mr. Weiss, just give us your name and business address, please. >> Please raise your right hand. You swear affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth.
>> And we'll accept his credentials as an architect, I assume. >> Yes. Peter, you did plan for the board permit and speak about
would you back. >> Um, so this is a 25 zone. The lot size is minimal for that zone by 64 and a half. existing house, an older house.
Um, it's only two stories and the first floor is actually only a couple steps, but the volume of the house is relatively small. There's a port below which is really only one step
above three and that's covered by a deck on the second floor which is currently I guess. So what we propose to do is was basically fill in um
the second floor deck and that will enable us to enable us to extend the master bedroom out walking closet and sitting room. So basically without having to make it more
siding on the vertical board than what's in that that front of the house on the second floor. >> Well, yes. Um what what it is actually you can't really see it on the on the plants is actually a void on the second floor down
>> comes it comes across the entire that's about 168 ft total from that ceiling plant it doesn't extend any further into the non-forming side setback than currently the setback is currently for the record on that requires
the coverage very we cover. >> Yeah, everybody's coverage doesn't change because it's exactly now, but we are expanding the buildings. That's building coverage. Um, but as Roger pointed out, this part of the city, you know, tends to be small lots with, you
know, 50% coverage is pretty much so unusual out of character. Obviously, the benefit of a plan like this is that it maintains the existing character of the neighborhood and by leaving that house there and the expansion that that the homeowners need
to build new house and aesthetically I assume we're going to open the neighborhood zone. Okay. Um, anyone from the board have any questions? >> No.
>> No. Anyone from the public? Okay. Public portion is closed. >> All right. It's another C variance application. There's two C variances to the sideyard setback on the right side. Five is the requirement, five feet and
the proposal is 4.4 feet. And then building coverage, they're at 52% where 40% is the permitted maximum. And as far as the conditions, again, just the standard ones, anything in
Roger's report, unless otherwise addressed, any representations made by the applicant, any outside approvals that might be necessary. Pretty much it. Motion and a second and a roll call. >> Motion.
>> Second. >> Mike Richmond. Um, >> I did notice, Craig, that they're taking out the uh concrete in the governor's strip and putting grass in.
>> The other house was not in the >> Yeah. I I I'm just saying they're they're Yeah. Unlike the other Yeah. Okay. >> And I think the planter might be a little bigger too than what's there now. Is that correct? >> Or a little better done. Let's put
>> like a masonry. >> Right. Right. You're getting rid of that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. Anyway, uh yeah, this I have no problem with this. I'm going to approve it.
>> Rich Patterson >> again, as in the other cases, I I don't see any negative here. Uh you it's covering an area that's already the the extension is covering an area that's already covered. It's the technicality
that now becomes part of the house. So, I don't see a problem with this. I approve. >> Craig Palmisano. >> Yes. So, I think it's a big improvement for the homeowners to have a bigger master bedroom. And um it's only a three-bedroom house now. And the porches
are closed on the corners on the house next door. The upstairs are closed completely. And they're all out as far as that one is on the front anyway. And um the awning upstairs now is just going to be replaced by a a hard roof. And um they're updating the project and the
trees are added and the governor strip on this property. They're added and I approve. >> Johanna Perski. >> Um it's consistent with the character of the neighborhood. I approve it. purpose now. Was she done?
>> Was she done? Sorry. >> I agree with the board members. It's a nice improvement. Nice to see these older houses stay in existence in this town. >> I approve. >> Steve Joaki. >> Um yeah, I'm going to um side with the
other the others and uh I'll approve. >> Sam Freriedman. I was concerned about the the lot coverage. Uh and I'd like to highlight the technicality that although the percentage of building coverage is in
fact growing by numbers on the sheet, the existing structure is over overhanged uh and and is is still impervious land. So we're not losing any impervious land based on this addition. Uh and for that reason, I would agree
and and I vote for this improvement. John Pittz. >> Uh, I approve. >> Motion carries. Eight in favor, zero opposed. >> All righty.
Our next case is Jay and Lorie Weinstein, 39 Bayside Court, block 710.04, lot 3, zone S40. Request C variant relief for rear yard setback to allow extension of the covered rear decks with
a fixed roof above. Current on taxes, water and sewer proof of notice provided. Attorney Christopher Balance. All right. >> Yep. Thank you, board chairman, board
members. I think I remember having discussions about this project like at least five six years ago. Here we are. Application of Jay and Lori Weinstein 39 Bayside Court block 710.04 lot 3 located in S40
zoning district. Again, as Mr. Richmond pointed out, the applicant is seeking relief in order to extend and expand an existing first floor rear yard deck and expand a roof that meeting the sideyard setbacks. Uh it's a substantial benefit variance deemed complete.
The zoning chart on page two highlights the areas that are need attention and discussion and testimony. Page four of the documents reviewed the plans reviewed and the variances required in section three sideyard setback to the deck minimum where it says minimum
sideyard setback is 8 ft and 7.9 ft. You almost hate getting this in there but it's a variance. 7.9 ft is proposed. Sideyard setback to decks combined whereas a minimum combined sideyard setback is 18.5 ft. That's based on the
total width of a lot. 17.7 ft exists and 17.7 ft is proposed for the addition. Again, it's an expansion of a non-conforming setback. Rear yard setback for decks over 18 in from grade whereas a minimum rear yard setback is 23.6
based on 20% of the lot depth. And of course the lot depth varies on this lot. 18 ft exists and 15 ft is proposed to the addition. So they are the three variants of being salt. Lot coverage does not change because the deck is
covering where the sheds where they're like a >> open from the top kind of drop down sheds were attached to the building. So that's not changing at all. And I think I like I said when I met with the applicant about five years ago I said
you need a varance for this and here we are. So Chris go ahead. >> Thank you Mr. My name is Chris Bson for Jan Ste who are here for 39,000 really really simple application
existing over here down here you guys probably saw that that is back out um eliminating those storage beds. We take up that 3 ft with some additional give them the ability like a full size dining table outside. We're going to
replace what was a table with a hard heart there. That's going to be very f it's not the whole back deck just that necessitates like a one/10enth of a
foot side guard. uh and three three foot further encroachment into the rear yard. Currently, it's 18 feet. It reduces to 15 feet which is still fairly substantial rear yard setback in town. Those are the variances. It's 3 ft extension of the deck which gives
them more outside living space because we use the backyard a little better. Uh and a tenth of a foot into the sideyard. Gary famous Gary Benic is the architect of the job. want to explain I just highlight
>> sure uh >> yeah Mr. Mednick just give us your name and business address address and I'll swear you in >> Jerry Medic 559 road >> please raise your right hand you swear from the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth >> yes
>> and Chris since he's famous I assume his qualifications are acceptable You've been before this before in many years. >> The outbound property and what you guys do. >> Well, effectively we're taking this much
explain it. So they regurgitated but we're basically turning the awnings into a criminal as opposed to was them where there were these storage units in the front were basically instead of being detected at the point
in my opinion we're not really you know we're really not taking up too much coverage here not adding it. The thing is is that above all we're not adding any uh square footage to the house. We're just dealing with the decks. And
more importantly, what's the most important thing is that the deck itself is going to be going from a the deck on the first level be going from a fiberglass deck to a wooden deck with spacing allowing the area become pvious
as opposed to deck that's impervious. Now, >> the entire deck right now is is impervious. the entire deck >> that's coming up in place and we'll allow them pretty quick in the deck. That's the only in the area where there
currently are storage bins at the front of that currently at the front of the deck. >> That's right. You can see the storage bins here to out those obviously hard surface more. >> That's correct. In fact, it will train
better when you change the composition of that surface real setback just existing setback in the setback. So it goes from 15 ft 18 ft where there's currently about I think >> correct. Tell us if you think from an
aesthetic standpoint, from a usability standpoint is that the public good obviously enhance the look of the backyard. This is >> and the new executive surface obviously promotes drainage and percolation which
is also benefit to city town. >> Yes, it does. >> Anything else you would like to add? >> Uh no, thank you. I >> I do want to point out that there is a 15 foot wide public right ofway in the backyard also that's unimproved. So
you're not encroaching, >> you should maintain, >> right? You're not encroaching that into your neighbor's backyard, >> right? >> This deck is avenue, which doesn't extend the size of of the current house. What are you really going to see if
>> right? Thank you very much, >> Chris. What what's the siding on this house? >> Stuff stuckco. And do you have you plan on putting stuckco on the bottom of the deck? You want to take the storage units out and you want to continue that
stuckco around and then just >> we're basically >> you just what what >> changing materials. >> Yeah. Okay. But but what you're doing is you're taking that triangle. You're squaring off the triangle to increase the length of the deck. Yeah.
>> Yes. And is there access to underneath here? >> Access. >> You got like an Are you going to do any storage down there or something? You know, you got your storage bins. I'm just curious where that storage is going to go. >> You're going to find storage underneath. >> No, I have no
high. >> It's not high enough and it's going to be uh pvious. I mean, you're going to have the spaces here. So, you know, I mean, maybe besides a surfboard, you're not access, >> right? Yeah, I get I get that point. But I'm just curious what what's being
stored down here because I know that sometimes people will be taking the beach chairs down there that can get wet, you know, just just to keep things out. Would you have a problem with that? >> The garage that's part of the house. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Storage would be >> all right. So, okay. So, it's going to
be sealed off. >> So, Chris, those storage units in front of the deck now are permanent fixtures there. We're on a hard surface is really the point of coverage, but yeah, they they are um >> and we're just coming out bringing the deck out to those points on the front of
that deck. >> It's like almost Roger. >> Roger. Can I just get a point of clarification? So, because they're not enclosing any spaces here, there's no increase in the building coverage as it
relates to like the previous case. >> Yeah. There's no walls, >> right? If they were enclosing any of those spaces, then the building coverage would correct because you have increased space. Thank you. >> Yeah. And but but you're allowing water to come through >> right now.
>> Make it purvious. >> Okay. Anybody else from the board? Nope. Anyone from the public like to speak? Public portion is closed. >> All right. This is a C variance application.
There's three variances. I'll summarize them. They are as follows. The sideyard setback to the deck 8 ft's the requirement. It's at 7.9 ft. So just a small deviation there. Then
the that also requires the combined sideyard setbacks 18.5 ft is the requirement and they have 17.7 ft. And then the rear deck is above 18 in in grade. So the required
rear yard setback is 23.6 6 ft and they're bringing it out to 15 ft from 18. And the conditions again, standard ones, uh, anything in Mr. McLaren's report, any outside approvals that may be necessary, any representations made
by the applicant. Again, just the standard stuff. So, need a motion and a second, and then a roll call. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Mike Richmond. Yeah, I don't see any detriment to the
neighborhood. In fact, uh like Mr. Menick was saying, um getting rid of the uh fiberglass and uh building a wood deck with the um AAC whatever slats in it I think improves the um impervious
situation and I'm going to approve it. Bridge Patterson. >> Uh I'll approve for the same reasons >> Craig Palmisano. >> Yes. Um you putting you're taking soft roofs off and you're making a fixed
roofs which is fine. Um there's no negative to the neighbors. um this huge easement behind you and um you're going to have great views there and um I approve >> Johanna Perski. It's definitely an improvement taking it
from impervious coverage to pvious. So for that reason I'll approve her Pagna. >> I agree with the other board members and do your outdoor space. So I approve >> Steve Joki.
>> Yeah, I think Mr. Richmond uh gave my um concerns. Yeah, >> I approve. >> Excuse me, >> Sam Freriedman. >> I agree with the uh board's uh existing comments for the record and would like
to also say if it's going to be imper uh impervious permeable coverage, that's an overall benefit to the to the uh plot. I approve. >> John Pitz. >> Nothing to add. I approve.
>> Thank you very much. >> Motion carries. Eight in favor, zero. >> Okay. Our next case is John and Jamie Duke, 102 North Gladstone Avenue, block 308, lot 24, zone S25.
See variance relief for sideyard setback to allow construction of a second floor porch and to increase the height of a second floor bathroom ceiling. Current taxes and sewer app proof of notice provided attorneys Christopher Balson.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, board members. The report is based on the application. This this also was carried from last month to this month. Application of John and Jamie Duke 102 North Gladstone Avenue block 308 block
24 location S25 zoning district. The applicant is seeking relief in order to construct a second floor porch or deck along adding additional ceiling height to an already non-conforming setback to an existing single family home. The lot is undersized which does
not meet the minimum lot width nor does it meet the minimum lot area. This is the classical C1 case. Hardship with subarances being sought. Page two is a zoning chart with the highlighted areas showing the deficiencies,
the expansion and non-conformities. Continue on page three also the plans reviewed and page four the documents reviewed and section three the variances required which are as follows. sideyard set back to the roof, whereas a minimum sideyard
set back to the roof is 5T and the altered roof is proposed to be 2.6 ft. Sideyard setback to the porch on the left, whereas a minimum set back to the porch or deck is 5 ft and 3.8 ft is proposed. Sideyard setback, the third variance is
a sideyard setback to the porch on the right side, whereas a minimum setback for the porch is 5 feet and three feet is proposed. And finally, the sideyard setback to the porch combined, same as the building, whereas the minimum combined setback for the porch and deck
is 10 feet and 6.8 ft is proposed. Um, some general comments, a lot area and width do not meet the requirements. Again, you have another situation where you have a an existing home or a smaller lot. It just doesn't meet everything,
but it's this one. It sits back. It sits all the way back in the lot. Imagine the uh average front yard setbacks for this property. Um so I will turn it over to Mr. Balson on
this balance. I represent another unique property that they own which is a lot that's 20 ft wide. It has an existing home built virtually at grade which is
probably that weird when they bought it. I understand that they're putting the house back into the hammer status fixed up a little bit entirely but the only request for um
the plan tell you about it. >> Okay. >> Mr. Be just your name and business address, please. >> And please raise your right hand. You swear affirm the testimony you'll give
will be the truth. >> Yes, sir. >> An architect and planner. You were here recently. We'll accept his credentials. >> Yes. >> Andrew, you were very glad you're reported. >> Yes. So what's there two?
There's a bathroom that's on the south wall, southeast side of the building. That bathroom again the size of the building, excuse me, the footprint in the building is not changing from simply the ceiling height and back. The back
wall of the bathroom's 4.8 in tall, but it literally goes through like this. So, we're expanding that to a whopping 7 foot like one inch. So, we're getting two and change feet here. Um, and we're only adding about a foot of height to the entire structure. So,
we're going 1 foot. We're maintaining a 5 on 12 pitch. And then on the front, we believe we're adding some serious aesthetic benefits to the home by adding this front porch. It's approximately a 10 by3 front porch. Uh from an impervious perspective, I think we're raising the impervious coverage by about
seven square feet because most of the porch is being built over uh per impervious spacing. Um we're not touching any of the landscaping. There's relatively very mature tree on that eastern property line bushes that also
very mature on that property line. Not touching those. We're simply adding a front porch for aesthetic benefit. It's also the master bedroom. Um, so it also will provide another means of escape and also we can complete the looks of the home. It'll show a five on 12 pitch on
the front of the house. Whereas currently it's kind of this red box looking thing in the front. Uh we believe it's a aesthetic benefit that is good for the city. It's good for lighting an open space because again we're adding a foot to the building and we're adding this very attractive front porch onto the building we believe. Um
and again not increasing the footprint which is approximately 517 square feet. size two. >> In fact, you're tucking the front porch and front deck. You're tucking that in from the existing side also. >> We are we are bringing them in on either side. Um you know, again, it's kind of proportionate to the width of the lot.
This is 15 ft less and we're only asking for a little bit less than two feet on either side for the setback for the for the pool. >> You say that because the fact doesn't require >> correct. Correct. Again, we have no
available land to purchase. So, we're stuck with what we have. And again, these are modest revisions to the home, which will be a huge benefit not only to the to the city aesthetically, but also to my clients who can get just a little bit more breathing room in that bathroom and have
a little something nice out in the front for them to to enjoy. Again, they're excessively far back. Plenty of parking. Two off street parking spaces. Again, it's a twobedroom, one and a half bath home. about as >> if anything can deact.
>> Correct. And again, that's also important for light air in space. I mean, if they were to decide to tear this down and try to build something bigger and compliant, it would be much more excessive. It be taller and do all these other things. This is kind of being nice to the neighbors and we believe this is a benefit.
>> Madison, you have the number existing combined side effect. It's 4.92 the house. Um the second improvements in the project side back 6.8 It's almost in terms of premium for it's almost 2 and 12,
>> right? >> Um with respect to the hardship factory, do you see any detent? >> I do not. Again, it's a single family in a single family zone. It's an undersized lot, but it's about as again it's a
modest home. not plan on doing tweaking believe and adding something beautiful on the front. >> Correct. >> You could have um brought the house forward more, right? >> They could added to the front. >> Yes.
>> And then a porch go on top of that, too. >> Yes. >> Right. That's the middle. >> All right. Anyone from the board? >> No. >> No. >> No. Okay. Anyone from the public? >> Yeah. Interesting. Uh small sign public
portions closed. >> Just some zoning trivia. If you use the standard for the combined side, you're a setback. The combined side you're a setback is actually less than a minimum you're a setback. That that lot is so narrow.
>> Yeah. Very funny stuff. >> Small small smallest line. Um, all right. So, if there's nothing else, it's a C variance application. I'll uh summarize the variances. There's the sideyard setback to the to the roof over
the bathroom. 5 ft's the requirement. It's at 2.6 ft. And then there's the sideyard set back to the porch on the left side, 3.8 ft, where 5T's the requirement. And then on the right side for the porch, 3 ft or
5T's the requirement. And then the combined sideyard set back to the porch is 6.8 ft or 10 ft is the requirement. And again, standard conditions, anything Mr. McLaren's report, unless addressed, otherwise otherwise addressed, any
representations made by the applicant subject any outside approvals that might be required for for this home. Just the standard ones we put in every resolution. So, we'll need a motion, a second, and a roll call. >> I'll make that motion.
>> Second Richmond. >> Yeah, I had a hard time finding this house, >> which isn't unusual, but uh yeah, this is so minor. I I mean,
it's so far back. You anything that I'm front will be an improvement, you know. Uh 5 foot high bathroom ceiling. Yeah. Anyway, I see no uh issues with it. I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson.
>> Well, you got a crummy looking little house that you're going to fix up the whole front of it. >> It Well, it's not going to be crummy looking when they're done with it. Um it sits so far back from the street, nobody can see it anyway. But you're
making nice improvement and it makes sense to do what you're doing to the bathroom. I approve. >> Greg Palm. >> Well, I've been here 12 or 13 years and I've never seen a 20ft lot in Margate. Uh it's going to look like some of the
new 25 foot lot houses that we're building now. So, it's a big improvement. Um there's only 1 foot nine on one side of the house which is pretty small but um it's going to it's a big big improvement for the property and I approve
>> Johanna Perski. >> Um so I drive by this house every day and I think it's adorable. Um I was very excited to see that someone bought it and was going to continue using it as a
single home. I appreciate the small improvements. I think this house is one of the few remaining unique homes in Margate that give it its character. I approve that. >> Heragno. >> Well, excuse me.
>> I agree with the other members. You know, great character, nice modest improvements, and uh it'll be uh it'll be improvement for the block if we can see it. Steve Joaki. >> I I got I like this house. This house
reminds me of old time Margate back in the 60s, doesn't it? >> Yeah. Really? I mean, a lot of houses just look like this. And I think this is such a substantial improvement. Like I can't not say no on this. This is uh it's it's a good improvement and it's
very substantial for Margie. So, I'll approve on that. hand. >> Sam Freriedman, >> I agree with the rest of the board and echo their uh their sentiments. I I approve. >> John Fitz. >> Uh yes, several members have said we've
got a few of these extremely narrow lots in Margate. Um the proposed modifications don't expand the existing nonconformities while improving the property. I approve. >> Motion carries. Eight in favor and zero.
>> All right. All right. Our last case of the night, Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg, 115 South Lancaster Avenue, Lock 12, lot 8, zone S30. C variance relief for deck elevation to
allow expansion of an approved pool deck. Current taxes would ensure proof of notice provided. Attorneys Christopher Bellson. >> Okay. >> I lead us off. Uh, >> thank Mr. Chairman, board members, the
report is based on the application of Jeff and Michelle Greenberg, 115 South Lancaster Avenue, block 12, lot 8, located S30 zoning district. This house came before us before uh believe in 2025
and it's also partially within the coastal way zone. So what they want to do is they have approval for the elevated pool deck on the beach and they just want to fill in a little side area. I think I color coded it. The
little red area is the varants. It's maybe 12 by six field of deck. So it's basically it's a variance of the expansion of the variance because you need that variance for additional height. The setback that's in the front
yard setback along Lancaster Avenue actually complies with the ordinance for the setbacks to the front yard porch. So the variants is a beachfront deck height. The maximum permitted deck height on the beach is BF
plus 20 in which is elevation 12.67. And they're seeking to expand that deck at elevation 17 as shown on the plans. And that's pretty much it. >> Thank you. This is um my name is Chris
from the Green Bird um 115 South Lancaster Avenue on the beachfront. This is a fill in of an area that should have been done when we came to ask for this deck initially. It's a small corner as Roger said it's small corner Lancaster Avenue side. It meets the front yard set
back on Lancaster. The sideyard variance that Roger points out is is the beachfront. Um the deck is there now at the beachfront. It's just a section that was an oversight not to do it then and they're asking to do it now. It's the same variance that was granted previously.
It's really it's for the elevation of the deck. The height of the deck is for for whatever reason the ordinance says you're allowed to go 18 in above base flood which would be uh down close to the ground and you fall behind the bulkhead if you did that. But John
Barnhart's here so John can talk too. >> What I say is not evidence. What I say is just taking up your time. >> John, just uh your name and business address please. John Barnhard, office address 400 North Dover Avenue, Atlantic City. >> And please raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you'll give
this evening will be the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Thank you. And the variance what's what's happening with respect to >> addition. >> Sure. Um so um quite simply the the exhibit that Roger has in his report
really kind of tells the story. Um but the as as of the single family home that was um that was elevated to have it flow out from the home. That was that was um that was approved a
number of months ago. And the proposal this evening is to take that deck area and extend it toward Lancaster Avenue. um still still beyond the front yard setback requirement, but the the and the the uh hatched area that you see before the little orange uh space that I have
shaded is actually permitted and and is allowed to be there. U but when you keep extending that expanded area and get beyond the setback line um because of its height p the decks in the in the going up to the bulkhead need to be lower. So therefore that little area
actually creates a variance. I mean, you could look at it as sideways expansion of the front porch, but because it's beachfront at the at an elevation, it's considered the pool deck or the the deck pool deck. >> That's correct. Yeah. And, you know, it's a case of, you know, it's extending
decks toward Lancaster Avenue. I mean, the key issue is, you know, obviously blockage of air light and open space, but you actually have front porches. Everything is up at that elevation that, you know, portions of that front porch are yet out even further than this proposed expanded area. So, as you're looking down Lancaster Avenue, if you were a person walking down the sidewalk,
you're not even going to see this expansion until you get right up. >> It's actually behind >> it's behind it's behind the front the line of the front porch. This even though this is expanding out, the front porch comes out even further and then this even the expanded deck actually jumps back a >> testing for the variance as a result of the elevation of even off the ground.
>> That's correct. >> And that's where the rest of the first floor and the deck are of the house. That is correct. >> Firstly, you built. >> Yes. And back at that time when we were talking about elevations and floors having to go up and we it was a lot of speculation as to whether or not the rules were going to be in place. Well, the DP rules are in place >> and building coverage still meets the
requirement. Landscape meets the requirement and there's nothing else that's that deviates from the ordinance as resulting this. >> Yeah, we believe that's the that's the only deviation and as Chris mentioned um had the designer realized this at the time uh it probably would have been part of the original application. >> The fact it's behind the which is any detriment to it to the public or to the
zoning ordinance or zone plan? No, I do not believe there's a block of parlay in open space. Um I I believe that um you know, it's just another aesthetic improvement to the site. Obviously, it's for the benefit of our of our client, but um it'll continue to beautify this magnificent property with no negative impacts.
>> Thank you. >> Good. Anyone from the board? >> Uh just a quick question. Point of reference doesn't apply to the variance request for sign. Is there a new bulkhead going in there? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
All righty. Um, anybody else? Anyone from the public? >> Yeah. Public portion is closed. Uh, similarly to the original approval, this is in the coastal way zone. So, it can't be attached to the house. It has
to be separate. >> Say it again. Right. >> The This is in the coastal way zone. You see that line? It's going through that in the shaded area on the left. So the female requirements are everything
in in a coastal way goes to the bottom of that uh height requirement. So that higher the deck it gets it out of harm's way and I think that was part of their testimony earlier. So this is just an expansion of what that prior testimony was.
>> But the deck's not attached to the house. >> Well, the whole house has to be have breakaway walls. >> Yeah. John tell John tells me that the the elevation now is consistent as we ask for is consistent with the new >> Roger I have a question. Um when when
you when we first approved that deck to be higher that was and I think you said that to avoid stepping down when you left the house so you're at even levels. Right. >> Right. >> That was part of it. Yes. >> It's also the bulkhead height.
>> Yeah. And the first floor height of the house. Yeah, >> Steve. Steve, you had to step down. You stepped down like four or five steps to conform to the >> Yeah. Yeah. The the genesis of the original ordinance allowing 20 in above
BF was so they would have a 4 in step down from your first floor since the houses are up higher now, >> right? >> They they want that same luxury. I don't understand why it couldn't have been higher before >> because I think it only makes sense that it should be level with the house
>> when we first came in >> but before it would have had to have been stepped down so we had to have a variance to raise it. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> When we first came in Steve we asked for extra extra >> Yeah, I got that. I I just but I just couldn't understand why
>> the law or the ordinance is >> you could correct me if I'm wrong, but like Roger was saying a while ago the the be we weren't making houses go as high. So a lot of these houses being built on the beach, you could do what we
just talked about, step down maybe one step or maybe, you know, come out the door. But now at the houses, we we kept that ordinance, which you know, that's something there's a couple things that happened tonight that maybe when we talk about the master plan, we're going to talk about revisiting. And I think this would
definitely be one of them because, you know, we don't want the house is like being high and looking down the beach, but now every house is high. >> So it's >> we kind of outgrew that that philosophy, right? >> What I envision happening and here we are. We're getting a discussion. we
should be voting first. But however, >> um we're looking at maybe this type of deck would be allowed to be at this elevation of the whatever that first floor elevation is, >> right? >> Within limits. We don't want big giant aircraft, you know, helicopter landing
spots and all that. >> That's going to be just for each part. >> No, it's let's get on those roads. >> Yeah, we have to >> Yeah, we'll talk about that later. All right. Um All right, we're good. Yeah, it's just the it's the one variance for
that to fill in that deck height on the >> it's allowed to be elevation 12.67 67 and they're at elevation 17 and just the uh typical standard conditions of the >> sideard. Right? >> The technical sideyard bulkhead, >> right? >> The be the beach side
>> by definition that's the sideyard. >> It's the sideyard, but it's not a sideyard setback bearings. Right. >> It's not a setback bearings. >> It's allowed to be out of the bulkhead. >> It's allowed to be out to the bulkhead if it's a lower back. Right. Correct. Okay. >> Take it back. >> Yes. That's just for that elevation to
the bulkhead. So that's it in standard conditions. Just a motion, a second, and a roll call vote. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> Mike Richmond. >> Yeah, it makes total sense. It's very
dimminimous. And um I'm going to approve it. >> Rich Patterson. >> Those were my words exactly. It makes sense to bring it up to the level of the whole deck. I approve. >> Right. Paul Misano. >> I agree. I have no problem with it. I
approve. >> Johanna Perski, uh, I agree and don't have any other comments. >> Approve. >> Her Pagna, >> I approve. >> Steve Joki, >> I approve.
>> Sam Freriedman, >> I approve. >> John Pittz. >> Uh, as the debt plate variance was approved previously, I approve. >> Motion carries. Eight in favor. >> Thank you. I love it.
>> We have any other business? >> We got uh You're >> welcome. >> We have a little >> some other business. The master plan subcommittee reviewed the proposal for the master plan for
consultants. It was what 20 275 or something like that. and uh >> we're conducting business. >> The uh >> subcommittee recommends to the planning board that we hire Mr. Retala to start
on the master plan. I we can then therefore recommended a governing body to enter into a contract with Mr. Retala and we get started. We need to vote on it or >> I would we just re >> All in favor?
>> Anybody opposed? >> All right. >> My recommendation that we go that route and get it done. >> So we recommended the governing body to that that we retain or hire Jim for >> Dallas. I reached out to the mayor. He's fine with it. Is that the whole cost of
the master plan? It's it's just a reexam. Yeah. Well, I was surprised. I thought it'd be a lot more. >> So did I. I think it's right. Again, the the prior master plan >> was through state grants and FEMA grants after Sandy
and they make you do a lot of things to spend a lot of money because they're giving you a lot of money to do it and that's why it took a lot longer and there's more to it and and I think we're going to see some pretty important things in this master plan that uh it's
going to be really good stuff. Again, the master plan is your game plan for what you want to do on the football game. The ordinances is the actual playbook. >> So, we need this to get the playbook. >> Yeah, I think just for the record, can
someone just make a motion to recommend to the governing body >> that we hire Jella for the master plan and then someone a second and then an all in favor would be fine. >> I'll make that motion we hire Jella. All in favor? I
>> Anyone opposed? >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That's it. >> That's That's all I have. >> By the way, we uh had six beanies in under two hours or was it No, wait. Wait, an hour and a half. >> Hour and a half. >> Cases.
>> Sorry. >> Six cases. >> So, >> you want the case back? >> Motion to close. >> I'll make a motion. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. All >> in favor? All right.
You want the