The meeting’s primary focus was on an application related to a rooftop deck at 977B Pacific Avenue. The property owner, represented by attorney Christopher Balon, sought relief for constructing a third-floor deck, which had initially been started without the necessary permits. Balon argued that the deck would enhance the property aesthetically and would not negatively affect neighboring properties. He stated, “If the board tonight says no we don’t want it to be a deck, he removes the stairs, he removes the posts and we’re done.” This highlighted the conditional nature of their decision and the willingness of the applicant to comply with the board’s directives if necessary.

During the discussion, several board members expressed their thoughts on the design and its fit within the neighborhood. While some acknowledged the improvements made to the property, others were concerned about the legality and appropriateness of the deck’s construction. One board member emphasized that the application did not meet the C1 hardship criteria due to a lack of demonstrated hardship, pointing out that the aesthetics of the building were commendable, but the proposed rooftop deck raised safety concerns, particularly in a densely populated area.

The debate intensified as members discussed the nature of the deck, with some referencing standards for third-floor decks. A member remarked that the proposed deck appeared to exceed typical dimensions for such structures, raising concerns about setting a precedent for future applications. Although some members believed the deck would not negatively impact the neighborhood, arguing that each case should be assessed on its individual merits, others pointed out that granting a variance solely benefits the property owner without offering broader community advantages.

The discussion culminated in a vote where the application for the rooftop deck was denied, with four members in favor and five opposed.

Following the decision on the rooftop deck, the board transitioned to discussing a significant capital expenditure involving the city’s potential purchase of the former Sunny or Taylor gas station to transform it into a municipal parking lot. This proposal was framed within the context of ongoing parking issues frequently raised by local businesses, which have long complained about insufficient parking in the area. One member highlighted that this move was unprecedented.

The conversation included questions regarding the city’s responsibility for environmental remediation of the site, clarifying that the current owner, Exxon Mobil, would be accountable for any necessary cleanup. The board members also discussed potential grants related to the parking lot and electric vehicle charging stations. There was general consensus that purchasing the gas station lot would ultimately benefit the community by providing necessary parking and preventing the construction of additional residential units that could exacerbate parking challenges.

Several members shared their personal experiences regarding parking difficulties. The conversation concluded with an agreement to draft a resolution supporting the governing body’s decision regarding the parking lot purchase. The resolution would be prepared for a vote in the following month’s meeting.

Another topic discussed was the case of Robert andula Magoli on North Granville Avenue, who sought C variance relief for several zoning requirements to construct a new single-family home. The proposed design was intended to deviate from typical “cookie cutter” homes in Margate. The proposed structure was a two-story home with a height of approximately 18 feet above the base flood elevation, which was less than the maximum allowed.

William C. McLaren, an architect involved in the project, provided insights into the design specifics. He noted that the applicants wanted to maintain a connection to the ground plane and have a porch that is closer to the street, creating a more inviting atmosphere. The proposed accessory structure, intended to function as a garage or shed, exceeded the permitted size for a shed but was designed to be smaller than a detached garage. The structure was intended to provide storage for items like a golf cart.

The board members engaged in a discussion about the implications of the proposed setbacks and the overall design, with some expressing concerns about the potential for future developments in the area to follow this model. Public comments raised concerns about the placement of mechanical equipment associated with the new construction, with an inquiry on whether the condenser unit could be relocated to avoid requiring a variance.