The most significant event was the board’s unanimous decision to deny a variance for a shed that had been built encroaching on a neighboring property. The neighbor, identified as M. Perry, raised the issue of the shed overhanging onto their land. The board discussed at length the variances needed for the shed, including its height, area, and setbacks. The concerns raised included the precedent that approving such a variance could set and the mistakes made in the building process. The board voted against the application with a clear stance of zero in favor and six opposed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to zoning regulations and respecting property boundaries.

In another case, the board scrutinized an application for a modular home that required a variance for a minor deviation from the required dimensions. The members debated the need for a 4/10 of a foot variance and deliberated over the proposed home’s number of stories, bedrooms, and exterior siding. A rendering of the proposed modular home was reviewed, and its impact on the neighborhood was considered. Public comments on this matter were generally supportive, with residents expressing anticipation for the new addition and noting the proposed home’s consistency with existing neighborhood structures. The board evaluated the criteria for granting the variance, including the potential hardship to the homeowner and the benefits the proposed home might bring to the neighborhood. Opinions among board members varied on whether the proposal met all the necessary criteria.

The meeting also featured a discussion regarding an application by Keith Feain and Maria Lenti Fein for a variance to construct a new single-family home. The variance was needed due to issues with the front yard setback to the building and porch. Kevin J. Dixon, representing the applicants, provided an overview but was met with concerns from the board due to the absence of detailed drawings for the house. The board expressed reluctance to approve the land variance without more concrete information on the structure to be built. Michael Bustler, a member of the public, inquired about the variance request, adding to the debate over the need for more specific details on the proposed house.

Another application reviewed by the board involved Mark Rusk, who sought a variance for his shed’s size and the accessory structures on his lot. Rusk’s argument was that his property was non-conforming due to a previous subdivision and that his shed was consistent with others in Margate. The board’s main concerns centered on the shed’s dimensions, setbacks, and construction, particularly the lack of an updated survey and involvement of a licensed builder. Rusk showed a willingness to comply with the board’s requirements, including moving the shed if necessary. The board reiterated the importance of obtaining a proper permit and ensuring the shed was correctly anchored.

This included discussions on enforcement and the need for strict adherence to these legal requirements. Concerns about maintaining the character of the neighborhood while also accommodating growth and development were evident in the discussions.