The meeting’s most significant decision centered around a historic brick house, dating back to the 1920s or 1930s, located on a double lot in Margate. Represented by Eric Goldstein, the property owners sought to preserve the existing structure while adding a second story. Engineer Schaefer presented the plans, emphasizing that the addition would not expand beyond the existing footprint’s non-conformities and would maintain the character of the neighborhood. The proposal included moving the structure five feet closer to the front, resulting in a 30-foot distance from the property line. Schaefer argued that the age and construction of the house created a hardship, qualifying the application for a C1 variance—a necessity given the lot’s size, which exceeds the standard requirements. The board considered the potential benefits and detriments, ultimately agreeing that preserving the historic structure outweighed the minimal impact of the proposed changes.

The application also required a C2 variance, with discussions focusing on whether the second-story addition conformed to setback regulations. Despite the first floor retaining its existing non-conformities, Schaefer assured that the second story would not exacerbate these issues. Landscaping plans, including additional shrubbery, were presented to enhance the property’s visual appeal from the street.

Following the decision on the historic house, the board turned its attention to Betty’s Barbecue LLC and its application for a minor site plan approval to maintain a permanent ice cream and dessert service shed adjacent to the existing barbecue restaurant on Amherst Avenue. The property, which had previously received approval for a temporary structure in 2015, sought a variance to allow the shed to remain year-round. Due to the property’s unique layout, the board acknowledged the lack of a traditional backyard for placing such structures, leading to the necessity of placing the shed in the front yard.

The board discussed the accessory nature of the ice cream stand, emphasizing that it must remain linked to the restaurant’s operation and not be repurposed for storage or other unrelated uses. Conditions were proposed to ensure the stand’s seasonal operation aligns with the restaurant’s business model, despite its year-round presence. The approval of the stand was contingent on maintaining its status as an accessory to the principal use of the restaurant, with the understanding that if the business ceased operations, the variance would be revoked.

The owners, represented by James P. Swift, requested variance relief to comply with FEMA regulations, proposing to elevate their home and create three parking spaces. Architect Chris Holidayiday confirmed the need for raising the house to ensure proper drainage and compliance, noting the preservation of the original architectural character. The board engaged in discussions about side yard setbacks and potential adjustments to improve usability without encroaching further into existing setbacks. The board members appeared cautiously supportive, focusing on addressing safety and neighborly concerns.

Additionally, a proposal for two third-floor decks on North Templar Drive, presented by Richard and Joan Rosenlat, was debated. The decks aimed to take advantage of unexpected bay views revealed during construction. Despite the design’s compliance with most zoning regulations, the request for two decks instead of one required a variance. The board expressed concerns about privacy and the decks’ encroachment on neighboring properties. The proposal faced opposition, with the motion for the decks failing to secure approval.

The board also addressed a fence variance application, involving a proposed fence height and location adjustment. The discussion included potential complications for future property owners and maintaining the neighborhood’s aesthetic standards. The board ultimately emphasized the need for community alignment while considering individual property improvements.