Please stand for the flag salute. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call, please.
Michael Richmond, Rich Patterson >> here, >> John Pit >> here, >> Dan Adams >> here, >> Craig Palmisano, Rich Pollson >> here, >> Johanna Perski, Herb Zagno, >> Steven Jeki >> here,
>> Drew Campbell, Sam Freriedman, Patty Rosenberg >> here. This meeting is being held in accordance with 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, Palma, to sign a form outlining the process for obtaining any required building permits and/or mercantile 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. Also, the microphones aren't working
tonight, so if you're speaking, speak up. >> Like to hear a motion for the approval of minutes for the meeting of January 29th, 2026. >> Motion. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. against. Motion passes.
I'd like to hear a motion for the approval of resolutions and decisions. 06 2026 V2 Properties Entity 7 LLC 07 2026 Charles Charles Charles and Ireina
Erlick 8 2026 Samuel and Jamie Adler 9 2026 Scottstock 10 2026 Gem Hospitality Inc. and 11 2026
Down Beach Development LLC. >> I'll make that motion. Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed. Motion passes. We're now going to hear from Jim Rutella from Rutella Associates. >> And and Jim, just before you start, I
might as well make the announcements on the postponements in case anyone's here for those. And and also on the resolutions, just to to the board's aware, number 11, 2026, Down Beach Development Group, Down Beach Development LLC, that was a a sub a
minor subdivision. By law and by our ordinance, we have a minor subdivision committee that can approve those without a hearing and discussing it with Roger. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, you know, Roger and I felt that we should do a short resolution >> so the full board should at least aware
of it. So, that's what that one is. And then um on the agenda, we had four applications initially, but three of them are actually being postponed. So I don't want everyone to have to sit here for for nothing. So the following applications, which were scheduled for
tonight, will now be scheduled for our next meeting, which is March 26th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in this room. The applicants in those cases will not be required to republish in the newspaper or renotic to the property
owners within 200 feet. So if you're here for any of these applications, come back on March 26th. And they are John and Jamie Duke, which is 102 North Gladstone Avenue. Uh Jeffrey and Michelle Greenberg, which is 115 South
Lancaster Avenue, and Danielle and Sally Feldman, which is 4 South Arbal Avenue. So those three applications will not be heard tonight. March 26, 2026, 6:30 p.m. in this room and after Mr. Rattell is done, we'll get
to the Weissman application on 119 South Clarendon. That will be heard. >> So North Claron real uh briefly uh board members, I want to introduce Jim Mattala. He's a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. He's also a certified American Institute of
Certified Planners at United States of America. also has his MBA, has had multiple positions in the area, and currently is a president and CEO of his current company, Retal Associates. He's done many, many master plans, and not only that, he's done many master plans
in our area. So, he's very well in tune with the shore communities both in Margate and elsewhere. So, Jim, take it away. >> Thank you. Good evening, chairman, members of the planning board, uh, Jim Rella, the associates. Um we've been engaged with by city of Margate for
about 11 years uh doing both planning and uh grant work. Uh we've been involved in uh the dredging project that's ongoing many various roads projects, number of resiliency projects and uh and other projects throughout the
city. Um in addition uh as as uh Mr. Claron mentioned we just recently finished the Summers Point uh master plan re-examination. We're currently working on your neighbor, the veterary uh master plan rea examination. That
process is just starting. So um certainly we're we're familiar with your area and uh um and with the process. I passed out a uh a short um summary that talks about our experience. It talks
about the um your current master plan and what its recommendations are, some demographical changes that that have occurred over the last decade and uh some next steps just to give you just to kind of frame the uh process
regarding the process itself. If you look at page two, the process for a master plan re-exam is prescribed in state statutes. So there's there are certain elements that you must do in order to uh do a master plan
re-exam. Obviously your plan uh was adopted in uh 2017. Every 10 years plan needs to be re-examined. So that's part of why we're here. Uh you're ahead of the game, which is good. Uh but the steps in the master plan process is, you know, number one, uh looking at the
major issues and objectives in the in the current plan, the 2017 plan. uh the extent to which those issues and objectives have been addressed since the last uh master plan was adopted in 2017. The extent to which uh the uh there has
been significant changes in the assumptions, policies and objectives in the community and there's pro there's there's many uh recommended changes in the city's master plan, development regulations and zoning map. Updated redevelopment areas. Basically, we look
at any redevelopment areas that occurred and they have to be documented in the master plan re-exam and relationship to other plans, state plan, uh, county plan, and adjacent municipalities. Um, we did a real brief summary of, uh,
demographics in the city just to kind of give you a look at what's happened in the last decade. Sure, none of this is a surprise to you. Uh obviously the the first uh graphic talks about the population decline about 17% in the city since 2010
uh which is not unusual in the barrier island communities uh the summer population being more than double uh which is shown through uh data that's been select census and has been connected by the or collected by the
stat strategic planning organization uh school age population has declined but is starting to stabilize. A little summary there. Uh median income has significantly increased over the last decade. Give you a little comparison of Margate versus
other communities. Margate is the leader in that category. Um, second home ownership housing has continued to increase while total number of housing units has declined based on the census data and census data came out
uh just a couple weeks ago. So, it's pretty relative pretty accurate and updated and market median home price has increased over 100% since which is not unusual. you know, all the downtown
seen a significant increase over 100% since co. So, um, it just gives you a little little taste of some of the demographics. Obviously, if you're selected to do your national plan, this analysis will be much more in depth and there'll be I'm sure we'll uncover some
other trends and that will be uh that you want to consider. The next several pages talk about the recommendations for the last master plan. I won't read through those, but you can take a look at them in your at your leisure. Uh you're probably familiar with those those
recommendations. Some have been addressed, some have not been addressed. Master plan exam will we'll go over those issues and and then we'll we'll take a look at current issues. Um, you know, one issue that affects all the
down beach communities, all the uh coastal communities is the new coastal regulations. We have some good news on that. Uh, yesterday the Senate President uh introduced legislation that would uh
that challenged those regulations. Um and uh basically the resolution that he introduced would require that the D revise the regulations within 30 days where the regulations become null and void. Uh the assembly has passed a
similar resolution. Uh our our senator Don Guardian is a sponsor on that legislation. Um this is significant because the Senate President is a Democrat. um he's the leader of the legislature. So, you know, our uh
feeling is that he's we knew that he was opposed to this. He's a North Jersey legislator. Um so, it's it's really showing bipartisan opposition to these regulations and um it's also showing that the leadership is opposed to these
regulations. So, very significant and we'll continue to track this going forward. These both of these bills um will have to go through the typical legislative process uh through committees and then through uh adoption by the Senate and by the Assembly. They
do not have to be signed by the governor. Once they're passed by both houses, then the resolutions is in effect and D must act within 30 days. So pretty significant. And I think all of you know um you know we've been
working with the mayor and and all in all the communities because these these regulations they're much more than just elevating homes. The regulations are,200 pages and affects everything from storm water management to wetlands to the amount of coverage you can have
on a lot. uh just a number of significant issues that would affect all the communities and and quite frankly increase the cost of housing uh throughout the area and make it much more complicated for folks to uh to develop or to improve their properties.
So that's been a that's a a quick update on where we stand on that issue. Um other issues that uh second issue was the issue of affordable housing uh meeting that requirement that was recommended in your past master plan. um
the desire to protect commercial development uh from being replaced by residential development. That was also something that was addressed in the last master plan and desire to prevent overdevelopment of small lots. Um you know, there are just a few things that
uh I gleaned from reviewing your plan and listening to your uh discussions over the years. I'm sure there's very several other issues that are important to the city that if we're selected to do the master plan re-exam'll examine with
you and and uh certainly uh come up with solutions or recommendations to address those issues. So with that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. So Jim, what do you think the timeline would be if this if the assembly and
senate is successful getting the that bill through >> because uh the rules go into effect July 20th if nothing happens. Um and uh you know it's really hard to predict,
but the Senate President sets the agenda for the Senate, so I would think we move pretty quickly. Um, assembly bill has probably seven or eight sponsors. I know that other assembly folks are are thinking of joining in sponsorship. Uh,
also has bipartisan support. So, it really depends on >> Well, that's important. >> Yeah. Really depends on their process. >> Jim, has anybody else signed on in the Senate who says >> No, it was just Senate President. >> I haven't strong enough in itself, of course, but I didn't know.
>> I know uh I spoke today to Senator Paul's office. they plan to uh ask to be a co-sponsor. Good. So, I think we're going to see others join that process. >> So, another question I have for you, Jim, is Governor Cheryl when she took office, she signed off on a 90-day
moratorum of all that. Was that included? >> It was not. It was It was strange. The governor signed off on the bill in his last day in office and the and that uh allowed them to escape that 90-day
clause. So, they're not affected by the 90-day close. >> How can we? >> Yeah. >> How do you anticipate the process will work, Jim? I mean, getting a little bit in in the weeds. There'll be some meetings with us, meetings from folks in town, businesses in town. How does that work?
>> It's a good question. Uh, we usually work with a committee of the of the uh plane board. Plane board is the ultimate uh adoption adopter of the of the master plan exam. Um, you know, we provide updates for the full full planning board
as they move forward. They're all open to the public. So, they're all public meetings. >> Uh, certainly we can meet with the the local business organization and other organizations that are impacted by the master plan >> and uh, you know, just try to get as much input as possible.
>> If I remember the last one from researching it, there's multiple committees that actually participate, right? >> Yeah. that that master plan was you did all the elements of master plan. There are nine elements of master plan. So it was much more involved than what we're doing here. This is more of a review of
what was done >> uh 10 years ago. >> And I also believe there is grant money involved in last master plan where we had to >> have x amount of public meetings. We had to have these other subcommittee meetings in order to fill the requirements of that grant.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Was actually two parts. So was a pre-sandy grant then or is it or then the master plan? >> Right. So you were fortunate you got a lot done then and we'll we'll use that information. It's all good information. >> Um you know big part of the master
planning process is to build consensus and you're basically making recommendations for the governing body to make things happen ordinances to change zoning um do certain capital improvements. So, you know, building a consensus between the planning board and
community and the governing officials is very important. >> If not, we have a plan that >> won't get which is not not our goal. >> Yeah. >> Uh sort of timeline. I I mean once we kick this off and uh choose who we're
going to have to reexamine the master plan, is that a year process? >> Usually it takes about a year. out of here, >> you know, to provide adequate time to hear from everyone and uh and get feedback in the whole planning board.
>> You know, it's uh it takes time. >> Mhm. >> Is this like a two-step process where like you have the re-examination and then you'll have the actual plan that you start working on? >> No, it's just a re-exam. The re-exam is six points that I just mentioned is the
re-exam. And uh so re-examination is really a one-step process. Um and uh you know we'll evaluate the existing plan and provide updates and and new recommendations for the next decade. Uh so it's really one one document one
plan. Now beyond that, you know, if you if you decide or the governing body decides that they want to implement portions of the plan and we go move forward and do zoning changes and ordinances and things of that nature to to do implementation. >> Nothing else.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your time and uh if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Jim. Can you get this as like a PDF or anything? >> Sure. I'll send you.
>> Okay. Our first case is Steven and Elise Weissman, 119 North Clarendon Avenue, block 303.02, lot 10, zone S25. C variance relief for building coverage and front yard setback to allow construction of a new single family
dwelling. Applicant is current on taxes, water, and sewer. Proof of notice provided. >> The microphone Mr. McLaren >> be sworn in. Be sworn in. >> Mr. Please raise your right hand testimony
throughout this evening and be the truth. >> I do. >> I'll be brief on my pres uh presentation of the report which is based on the application of Stephen and Elise Weissman 119 North Clarendon Avenue block 303.02
lot 10 located in the S25 zoning district. also in in a flood zone zone X which defaults by ordinance to the next adjacent highest most conservative uh FEMA zone which is elevation 8. So they're allowed to go to still 9 ft
above grade for the first floor whereas a minimum uh elevation 12 for the first floor and also added in the what Jim was talking about the packed NJ rules and you can see the difference in elevation for a minimum goes from 12 to 14 as I
see it. The background is as follows. The applicant is seeking relief from the ordinances of city Margate in order to construct a new single family dwelling within the S25 zoning district. The lot is a prototypical S25 size and shape. Again, that means when the S25 zoning
district was developed. It was based on a 40 foot lot wide by 2 and 1/2 ft deep uh lot. If you turn to page two on the zoning schedule, you can see that the lot area meets the requirements. Lot width meets the requirements. Lot depth
is not required, but you can see the 62.5 um that's what generates 2500 ft. They are here to seek two variances. is one is the front yard set back to the building. Uh 12.8 ft is the uh prevailing front yard setback for
principal structures. 18 ft exists on the old structure and they're proposing 12T for most of the structure and 6.67 ft. So it's a variance either way. It's just a magnitude of a variance based on that bump out. And the other varants are seeking is building coverage whereas 40%
which is on the high end of the sliding scale which were 1,000 ft. They're asking for an additional 5%. So they're seeking 45% building coverage or 1,127 ft. And also all the other requirements
if this came from the zoning office other than the two variances I would be able to sign off on this. the plans reviewed on the bottom of page three and the documents reviewed on section two on page four. And again, I reiterate
the front yard setback for the building and building coverages of the two bearances. No waiverss have been requested. And again, I I kind of went over the the flood stuff, but I'm not going to go over that right now, so we don't have to get in the weeds on that. So, I turn it over to Mr. Goldstein at
this point in time. >> Thank you, Mr. McLaren. Um, Eric Olsson on behalf of the applicant Steven and Elise Weissman. Uh, with me on my left is Mr. Weissman and Mr. Lley prepare for plans. And Leo, I'd ask that they could be sworn in because they're both going to testify a little bit this evening.
>> Sure. Uh, Mr. Weissman and Mr. Lolio, why don't you just state your name and address or business address, Mr. Lolio's case for the record, please? >> It's Robert Lolio, 219 Belleview Avenue, Hamilton, New Jersey. Steven.
>> Okay. And if you can each please raise your right hand each way where swear affirm the testimony you'll give this evening will be the truth. >> I do. Thank you. And Mr. Lolia licensed architect will accept his >> Yeah, we'll accept his credentials. >> Thank you, Mr. Okay. So, this is I'm glad the other cases kind of uh went off tonight
because this is very specific and personal uh to Mr. Mrs. Weissman. And Mr. Weissman is going to testify first and just describe his concept for the use of this house. This is actually a four bedroomedroom house with an office and Steve is going to explain uh at
least initially why the variance is being requested and what his goal is. Uh Steve come up. You've been sworn and uh meeting is being recorded. I know you're going to give some personal information, but hopefully this is a controversial people listen
here in general. Just speak loudly enough so there's a clear record and uh then Bob and I will go through the technical aspects of the case. Why don't you explain what we're trying to accomplish tonight? >> Uh good evening, chairman, members of the board. My name is Steve Weissman. My
wife Lisa and I have owned our property for over 11 years. This community means a great deal to us and our goals to build what we hope will be our forever home, place where we can live year round and continue to be part of this neighborhood. The additional space we requesting comes
from enclosing a small portion of the existing third level porch. We originally hoped to keep that area as an open outdoor space off the bedroom, but in order to make the home functionally prop properly for our needs, we made the difficult decision to enclose it. We are
not increasing the height or the width of the home. We are simply enclosing space that is already part of the structure. That enclosed area totals 133 square ft. At the same time, we are reducing the first level living space
142 square ft. Meaning the overall living space is actually being reduced 9 square ft from what otherwise would be permitted. We have tried to be very mindful of both the neighborhood and the intent of the zoning requirements.
Our goal has been to build responsibly in a way that is flood compliant, environmentally conscious, and consistent with the character of the street. The home we contain the home will contain four bedrooms and a home office.
For us, this space is not about luxury. A few years ago, my wife was diagnosed with cancer. and recently went to major life surgery. Since then, ongoing medical needs have become part of daily life.
There are supplies, equipment, and that most people never see, but are very real for us. Enclosing this porch would allow for a private changing space, enclosed toilet, and a dedicated closet for medical
supplies. So, these necessities are organized and discreet rather than integrated into primary living areas. On paper, 133 square ft may seem modest, but in daily life, it can make a
meaningful difference in my wife's comfort and dignity. Before coming before you, it was very important for us to speak personally with our neighbors. I spoke with Michael and Jane Ferano at 121 North Clarin, Steven Band at 117 North Clarin, Fred
Freddman at 115 North Clarin, Lenny Baglia at 113 Clarin, Bruce and Frank Cats at 122 North Clarity. They are aware of this request, having expressed their support, which means a great deal to us.
We care deeply about this community. We support local businesses, participate in local events, and support fundraisers. We're committed not to just building a house here, but to continue to be active, responsible members of this
neighborhood. We understand that you must evaluate this application under planning standards and we respect that. We believe this request is modest and that advances the purpose of good planning.
It does not increase height, density, or intensity of use. It includes flood compliance, provides additional off- streetet parking, which helps relieve congestion on our narrow street and remains consistent with the character of the surrounding homes.
We simply want to build a home that works for this property and works for our life and allows us to move here full-time. We sincerely appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> We recognize, of course, under the New
Jersey Municipal Land Use Act that a person's individual hardship isn't a land use hardship. We're not asking for a hardship barrier. What Mr. Weiss, Mr. Mrs. lightsman are asking for is the ability to use the house slightly
differently than most people use their home. He's going to have an office. They're moving into the house full-time. So, it'll be an office, not a bedroom, so it's four four bedrooms, but the additional space is really to accommodate uh Mrs. Weissman's needs for
her medical care. Uh, and as Steve said, sure, there's room in the house that you could put medical supplies, but the goal is to have medical supplies available easily. It's a very personal thing for her to have some dignity, to be able to just
use her bedroom the way she wants. I think Steve said it, but I'll repeat it. He would much rather use the outdoor space for outdoor space. The unfortunate necessity of his wife's condition requires him to use it as indoor space. Having said that, I still think we
should discuss it in depth by the design of the house and how he still believes that based upon closing that area that he can meet the requirements of Margate zone code along with the requirements of the municipal land use act and how in
his opinion this design modest as it is and also based upon Roger's report that this particular street if everybody took a look has a fair number of um homes that kind of I would call them outliers, but a fair number of homes that skew the
front set back already. So, this is kind of the lightning in a bottle project where it doesn't have an adverse impact on the neighbors. I believe there's only one set that are here tonight who are going to speak in favor of the application. Everybody on notice, of course. if you don't mind coming up here. Um,
and you've been sworn to walk the board through the design of the house. And are we good on the setback? Are we sure that the number is um as it is in Roger's report or are we >> I was coming up with an average of 11.8 instead of 12.8.
>> I went off your chart. >> Did you maybe make the mistake? >> 200 seconds. It's probably a typo. I have 11.8. >> Double check on that because that's important for the the distance. So that's let me look at the Do you have
the 200 step back? >> I'm at 11.26. If you don't count the subject and 11.8 count, May I give this to you? You have a copy? >> I think I do in my file. I don't have my file.
>> May I bring this up to Paul handover chief? So make sure we got the number right because that foot might make a bit of a difference not on the coverage barriers but on the setback variance because we'd be asking for basically foot less.
>> So Bob just to be clear. >> Yes. >> Just to be I'm sorry >> Bob you were sworn in, right? >> Yes. >> Just to be 100% clear. So it wasn't the mistake on Roger's report. It would have been a mistake on your plan that Roger then looked at and made a report of. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So, we were wrong, but I think we're a foot off on the set. >> On my on the site plan, I I put the average at 12, >> so I round it up. Um, >> my chart real quick, the one that was in the application from Ponzia's office is
dated September 30th, 2025, and it has 12. The one you just gave me is from 2017. >> Okay. But does it have 12.8 or 12? >> 12. >> Okay, that's what I have on my site plan. 12, >> right? >> So >> there must have been two
>> that 8 ft mean that, you know, 10 in. >> It's still a front yard variance because >> still variance, but we just want to make sure it doesn't look as significant. Um, it's 12 ft, not 12.8. You know, we always talk about the we fight sometimes over inches, but we just want to make that clear that it's not as much as is
in the um zoning report. The one you have in your hand didn't count. Um the subject project wasn't included. So we got it done after that because I think it was Colins's didn't have the um number for the actual
property. >> But it is 9 years old. >> Yeah. >> So I came up with 12 on my site plan. >> Okay. But we're still asking for a front yard variance because the second floor extends out to 6.6,
>> right? >> So, obviously, we've been working on this for a while for Lisa and Steve, trying to take their uh personal problems um into account so we can give them the best possible house. So, walk through, if you if you would please, all the details of the plan, including this
area that needs the variance. But I think we should also go through the fact as Roger said, all of the other issues regarding this house are compliant. No waiverss, no requests for any other u we've got a a governor's trip, we've got a street
tree, we're doing everything, but we need to be married. So, walk the board through, please. Uh so it's your typical 2 and 1/2 home, four bedrooms with an office, uh 4 and 1 half baths, and the total square footage is uh 2,260
ft. Um two and a half stories. So we have uh two and a half stories over parking level. So we have uh one car in the garage and then we have a ground floor entry and an open veranda in the back. >> So I'll stop for a quick second here. Super important here. No pool.
>> No pool. No living space on the first level. Not habitable at all. Garage storage. That's it. Correct. Okay. And then I have uh two two parking spaces in the driveway, one in the garage. So we have a total of three parking spaces. Um if it's a fourbedroom house, only two
spaces are required. So we're >> exceeding the minimum. If you want to count the office as a bedroom, we still have the extra third parking space. Um so five bedrooms would require uh three spaces. So regardless of how the board views the office, we're saying it's an
office, but if they said, "Well, it could just be a bedroom." We're still correctly parked. >> Correct. >> We either have one additional spot or just enough, >> right? >> We're not need of any parking garage. >> No. >> Um and then you go to
the the main the first floor is your main kitchen, dining, living level with a large porch. Um, important thing to note that the living level could have extended further into the front yard, but we have a very deep
front porch. So, that space we're losing on this level, we're trying to um gain on the bedroom level for the needs of the family. Um, brings us to the second floor. And then the second floor, it's just uh
two bedrooms and then the primary up front with a you know a decent size bathroom and medical changing area. Um so that there's about 5'4 in that's extending beyond the principal allowed
setback and that's to create a nicer bedroom and that medical changing area. Um otherwise it would have been a second floor porch. So, we're really just trying to encode that little bit of space. And then the third floor, just a bedroom, a bathroom, and an office.
The fact that the house is closer to the property line in front, not only creates the variance for the setback, but it also creates a coverage variance because we've got an area that's not porched, that's forward of the house itself. Correct. Correct.
So those two variances are basically interdependent on on one another. If the house wasn't coming out as far as it was, we wouldn't need a coverage variance. But let's also talk about I think it's important for the board what's there now. So the house that's there now not flood compliant. Correct.
>> Correct. >> And it has a planter that's not pvious. That's all the way out of the property. Correct. Yes. So, what's the setback of the um >> the current what I don't really want to call this a plant or whatever you want to call >> that's right on the property line.
>> So, that's going to be gone. Anything that's close to the property line is going to be gone and everything will be at grade um pushed back non-habitable. The first um living space on the first level meets the setback. Correct.
>> Correct. So the >> it's actually Yeah. >> Yeah. So the front yard to the um garage is over your 18t requirement. Um we're at 18.33 ft. The property line to the main first floor is also 18.33 ft. It's
when you get up to the second floor bedroom, the building to the property line is 6.67 ft. And then when you step back on the third floor, um third floor is at uh 12 ft. So, it needs this front yard setback. So, it's really just that
second floor building that's projecting out. All the other levels need the front yard setback. Um, and like I said, the second floor encroaches 5'4 in beyond that 12t minimum required setback. And that's a
difference of only 133 square ft. Um, so that's all we're asking for. And as Steve said, although we're getting a little bit more on that level, we've given up, Steve and Elise have given up a substantial amount on the first level.
So they can have some open space. They would prefer to have more porch, but they need this area for themselves. Uh the medical changing area, which is basically the variance. If it wasn't for the medical changing area, we don't have the space on the second floor, which is
uh closed in. And if that's not closed in, then it's porch and it's not housed. and it's back far enough. >> Correct. It's important that the the allowed habitable area of the house based on the size of the lot is 2500 square ft. We're only asking for 2260
ft. So, our habitable living space is less than what's allowed. Um, mainly because we're taking a lot from the first floor and putting it onto the second floor. Um and then the or same thing with the
building coverage. The ground floor area, first floor area is only 829 square ft. It's that little pro that 5'4 in projection on the porch that's creating us to go over the building coverage. So even though it's not at ground level building coverage, it's
overhanging. So that counts towards your building coverage requirement. >> Bob, you spent a lot of time designing this house. we've gone through with Stephen Elise uh and extensive design and redesign what you've put
together now and submitted to the board is complete. Would you testify as an experienced architect of the state of New Jersey that this house uh takes into consideration the city of Margate zoning code and the state of New Jersey municipal land use act so much so that
the benefits of the variance we're seeking specific to the whitesman but also based upon your design outweigh any negatives that could be associated with the process? I >> see that. Yes. >> And to the extent someone could somehow say that this is a negative based upon
if this area were opened up would the benefits greatly out greatly exceed any possible negatives um taking this case as a whole. So your testimony that the benefits outweigh the negatives. The board has
the view of the house. What we have is one level of fourth not two. And is there a third floor deck? >> There's no third floor deck. So, that's another big thing we didn't discuss. No deck up top, no deck in the middle. There's a deck down low, and the rest of
it is habitable space um above the flood plane. I have a question on the second floor. So, you want to extend the second floor so it's a little bit larger. How does that affect the far for the um
third floor? If we were to meet the if we didn't include that second floor that 5 foot4 portion of the addition would still be in >> we would still be 50% on >> that's important. It seems kind of important. >> Yes.
>> What's the square footage of the third floor? >> Third floor is 425 ft. >> What's the square footage of the second floor with the um >> just about 1,000 square ft. >> Okay. So we're under what it could be.
We're not maxing out. I see what D saying. We're not getting a bigger third floor by you giving us a bigger second floor. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, Bob, what is the setback to that first floor? 18. Is that in line with the 18 ground? >> Yeah, it's 18.33 ft.
>> So, 5 years from now, what's to stop you from coming in and closing that first floor porch six more feet and you still comply with the front yard setback on the average? Well, we would agree in a D in a um you could file the resolution if that would
help. >> Condition of approval will be no expansion of the living area. >> You could add six like almost six a little over six feet. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. We're not Look, and this is one where you're going to find a very agreeable applicant. This isn't we're
going to get this and then come back later with an aha, we got you. This is we need this for Mrs. Weman and we can record the um as a condition of the um approval if the board sees fit, record the resolution with the county clerk so it's on record. No one else in the future could do it either, >> right? >> It's not just us.
>> Okay. I just don't want to see another >> somebody comes in and closes a porch and then they want a porch again >> to the board and later coming back and saying, "You gave me this, I want more." You know that that happens occasionally. That ain't going to happen. >> Good with that.
and all the other bulk requirements are being met. Um, so it's really just the two bearings front yard setback to the second floor building and the building coverage. Even though the ground floor meets the coverage, it's the overhang of that second floor
that put this over. >> I do like the small area of the ground floor. I think that's >> I got it. >> There's no converting that to Williams, but >> that's that's what I want to hear. >> And we filed a non-con conversion anyway. Look, I know people This is not This isn't that house. This is the house
that Mr. Weissman is going to say, "Come by and check it out anytime. We're not trying to get away with it. He just needs it for his wife's medical care. That's that's the only reason we're here. It's a smaller house." He said the third floor doesn't max out the second. There's nothing else to this house.
Just a question of curiosity. You talked about the third floor versus the second floor. The ground floor versus the second floor. What What's the percentage there? We're we're under discussion about trying to have more open space on the ground floor. I'm just trying to
have just ballpark against spitball. It doesn't need to be accurate. >> The ground floor living space. >> The no ground open space. >> Open space. >> Oh, open space. like the Miranda space. >> Well, you got the Miranda and then you've also got actually the area in front of the garage if you want to think
about it. >> So, the area in front of the garage is 118 by 25. >> Yeah. And then the back is like >> 7 ft or something. >> Back is uh 9 by 25. >> Then it jogs in a little bit. So, it's probably like 11.
>> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. A lot of people enclose apparend. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But that's not something we're planning on doing either. >> So that would also be a condition. >> We're your mercy. This is something they need for medical purposes. The board
wants to put conditions on. We're okay. So I just want to be clear. So we're looking at the second floor where that medical changing area is. We're looking at that would have been open space for the second floor, but now we're enclosing that. And what was that square
footage total? The extra 133 ft. >> Okay. It's basically from this wall of the medical changing area. >> I got you. >> It's actually a little less than that because >> So the the total square footage of the
entire property >> is 2260 and we're out 2500. Yeah, still modest. I mean, we're not looking at anything. >> It's a smaller house. Again, we to be clear, >> Mr. Mrs. Weissman started discussing this project. I said, don't come in with
a maxed out house and then ask for more. Come in for less. This is one specific thing we're looking for only, and that's the plan you have in front of you. It could be much bigger. It's not. >> So, I just want to clarify one other thing. The the total height from ground
is what? It's It's less than 30 ft from the first floor. >> From the first floor up. >> Yes. Okay. That means the >> And I was just curious. So approximately how many feet is it from the ground floor? >> You're about 39 ft. >> Okay. >> That's that's the maximum period.
>> So we would rest, you know, certainly answer any more questions the board had. Um >> just one housekeeping one, sir. I truly uh respect the fact that you're being completely truthful of us up here, but you said it is about a year round
res but on the application unless he's addressed >> we're trying to build a house to be able to move. >> He wants to move here to move here. Fair enough forever. I think I think you said you're forever forever. >> Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you for the
clarification. If you've been by the house now, it's, you know, certainly nice. No offense to Stephen Elise. It's it's not much. It's going to be the house that they can live in year round for that. >> Anything else in the board? You done, Eric?
>> Uh, I am the subject of just Mr. Chairman being able to answer some more questions. We're done. >> Anyone from the public want to comment? Please come up and state your name and get sworn in. Give us your name and address 122 North Cl.
Mr. Cats, do you swear affirm the testimony will be the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> So, um, I live across the street from the subject property. I'm here today to express my support for the approval of this variance application. As a neighbor, I believe the proposed
changes will be a positive addition to our street. Although parking is not the subject of this variance, our street is quite narrow and the additional off- streetet parking can only help the overall safety and accessibility for residents. Over the past years, several neighbors, including myself, this past
summer, have experienced vehicle damage from trucks and landscapers navigating through the tight roadway. In my case, a repair call cost exceed $5,000 after my car was my car was sideswiped. Any improvement that would help reduce congestion is beneficial to
the neighborhood as a whole. I would also like to share some personal context regarding the homeowner Elise Cardonic Wisman. Elise is currently facing a serious and ongoing medical condition. The variance being requested is modest in nature. Yet, it would be meaningful meaningfully improve her daily comfort
and help accommodate her medical needs within her own home. For more than 30 years, Alisa has dedicated her professional life to caring and researching treatments for pregnant women with cancer. Even now, she continues to work and volunteer her time supporting that cause. Those of us
who know her and understand how much she has given to others over the years, which makes her current circumstances circumstances especially more meaningful. This request is simply about making her home more functional for her day-to-day life. Importantly,
the proposal does not encroach into side or rear setbacks and does not negatively impact neighboring properties. My understanding is the overall first floor footprint is actually being reduced to offset the modest enclosure being requested here. Having lived in Margate for 7 years,
I've seen this board thoughtfully approve variances which when they are fair, appropriate, and beneficial, I respectfully believe this application represents that kind of situation. Alis and Steven are wonderful neighbors and committed members of the community. Several other neighbors who were unable
to attend today have also expressed their full support. Practically speaking, this request is modest, reasonable, and consistent with the character of our neighborhood. On a personal level, I believe that when a small accommodation can be meaningfully improved someone's quality of life without harming anyone else,
it's something worth supporting. I respectfully ask the board to approve this application. Thank you for your time and your service. Thank you. >> I have a clarification question. Um, so in the table it says that there are four parking spaces.
There's only three. >> Okay. Yeah. >> That's all that's required for five. Correct. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I just >> we still as he's moving here to have an office. It was legitimately an in office. So four
would be two, five would be three, but we still have three. So we have enough parking requirements. >> So even if it got converted to a bedroom, you're still good. >> Okay. Correct. But it won't. >> So Mr. Chairman, I don't have anything else. I I would like >> public is closed. >> I'm sorry. >> That's all right.
>> I just want to go ahead briefly sum up. Um >> there's really not much to this. It's a variance of course, but Mr. Lolio stated the positives outweigh the negatives. This is one that the property owners are giving up a lot on one level to get more out of the second level, but it's not
really that much more. In fact, the house is uh based on the net square footage, much less than can be built. Um we'll answer any questions the board may have. We can put conditions on that guarantees the house as it's built will remain as it's built without any
changes. But um this is one where the design was just really put together to accommodate a medical need and not for any other purpose. And I know that this board hears a lot of stories about how someone has a special need or they have a cousin who comes visit. Everyone has a story to get more space. They're
actually using their store to get less space in the overall house. They just want it in a certain area which makes it the merit. We think it does satisfy the C2 criteria and we'd ask the board to uh pass it as real quick. Bob, what is the elevation
of your first floor? >> Didn't see that listed on the plan. right here. I haven't set the grade yet the building will probably be 10. So it'll be like elevation 19. It's there's high grade here. >> Yeah, you >> anything else from the board? Yeah, I
got Steve question. >> Um, you know, on my inspection of the house, the house seems higher than um it seems to be sitting higher. Uh, in your print, it looks like it's the garage is going to be like even with the sidewalk and
street. I mean, it's it'll be pitched up ahead. What I'm getting at is around the corner is a house and the driveway is at a steep angle and nobody's going to park in there. >> That's not the case here. >> That's what that's what my question is
about. >> We know the house you're talking about. It's got a very short steep angle. >> Yeah, I think that's >> a cl Yeah, >> I try to do a 10% slope in the driveway which >> Yeah, that's like a 30% slope that comes down. The car can't park cuz it can't hit the ground.
>> It's that angle. I can't bother that. >> So, no, that's not the case. They must have had >> I didn't think it would be, you know, but I just have to ask. >> That was built on a dune. >> Yeah, cuz we're not allowed to add more than like a foot of fill, right?
>> As long as you get positive drainage, that's all we want. >> No, that's not going to happen here. >> Okay, you want Sure. Just real quick, Archer, I understand that the the point about that first living floor because if technically by right come out, we'll put
a restriction dealing with that the applicant agreed to. But I know uh John, what about that space underneath? >> No, he was just trying to get some figures together. >> No, it was justformational. >> Okay. So, >> but there's also the condition that that not being closed.
>> There was two places being closed. was the veranda and >> the second floor >> and the second floor or first not the first floor >> the first floor first living >> in the future and then the f >> the first living space and then the ground floor to get those confirm will remain open as shown correct
>> all right so it's a C variance application it's two variances there's a front setback requirement I think we settled on is 12 ft and at that second living level it bumps out to 6 six seven
ft. So that's a variance. And then building coverage 40% and they're at 45%. The conditions will note that that first living level um will remain as shown on the plans
at I think it was an 18.33 front yard setback or whatever shown on Bob's plans. and we'll work to get some language that that can be recorded whether it's in this resolution or some some other document if you want to just record this resolution >> and you can put proof in put language in
there that proof of recording because I'll get it done we'll work with that and that that would apply to this house obviously if someone demolishes the home they're going to start from scratch or something like I'm talking down the road >> um because I just don't want something out there you know but we we'll get that
worked out and then that veranda at the ground floor will remain open as shown on Bob's plans and then the other one would just be the standard conditions. So be put in every resolution subject to any outside approvals. >> Uh any representations made by the applicant they'll comply with those and
anything else to Mr. McClar's report unless otherwise addressed on the record. >> All agreed. >> Great. So we'll need a motion, a second, and then a roll call vote. >> I'll make that motion. >> Second. Rich Patterson
>> on this house on this particular house in this particular neighborhood. I I don't see a problem. I I think the applicant has given enough back to offset what he's asking for in his
situation uh that I don't see a negative. So, I vote to approve the application. >> Dan Adams. Um, I'm I'm in agreement as well. I I think, you know, looking at the other homes in the neighborhood, I think you you put together a beautiful design. In
fact, I kind of like the design of this home better. And I really feel, you know, you hit home with your your plate and your situation. And um it's important to have the quality of life that everybody should have. And by providing this area and providing this
for your wife and your family, I think it's important. And I just want you to know if you ever need anything, feel free to call on us. We'll be there for anything that we can do to help you. And I think it is a positive addition to the neighborhood. And I vote yes. >> That's the fire department, not the planning board.
>> It's the fire department. Yes. >> Rich Tolson. >> Yeah. I'm going to let you know just jump out in front and be in favor of this one. I do have one question, Leo. any restrictions we put on this property, do they apply to the current
owner or to the property, >> they would run with the land. So, if they sold the same house, they would that would be subject to the same same restrictions. >> Just needed a clarification. Thank you. But based on the pictures that we've shared with one another of existing newer homes in that neighborhood, this
is a much more pleasing architecture and aesthetically um and for all the obvious reasons I thank you >> Steve Joeki. >> Yeah. Um you guys made a lot of you
really you really worked hard to get this um approved. Um, and then in the light of the circumstances, I I'll just approve of it. >> Patty Rosenberg. >> Um, I think that the house is
a charming looking home. I think it looks very functional. I'm glad to hear that you want to become a full-time resident of Margate to build this house and not just have it as a summer home. So, I approve. John Pittz.
>> Uh, yep. I approve. Um, I think the ground floor design of this house would serve as a model for going forward in Margate for what we're looking to do in Margate. Um, on a sort of personal level, welcome to Margate. You will love living in
Margate. The services here superior to anywhere else you'll find. So, you're making a good choice coming. Thank you all. >> Thank you all. >> Motion passes with six in favor and zero
opposed. >> Hey, pick two. Roger. >> Did we adjourn? >> We have any other business? >> Good reason. I appreciate it. >> I hear a motion to adjurnn. move. >> Thought I had him in the